"I wish for the power to reshape my mind and body into a more suitable form."
I like that. That may actually work, and it's perfectly clear what I want without being too wordy.
Thanks!
Search Posts
I'm at a pretty high level, and got the wish spell. I want to use wish to redo my initial point buy and my DM said I can if I can phrase it in a way that makes sense in character. I'm having trouble finding an in character way to phrase that. Any ideas?
Except that is also a change to the mechanics of the game. Why would a Alchemist can't drink a potion of throw a bomb in a silence field? ZOMG! You actually have to put effort into describing why the mechanics continue to work the same?! I never thought of that! /sarcasm There are a multitude of fluff reasons you can go with. It shorts out his tech, It's draining on his mind and makes mixing potions too hard, he usually doesn;t look when he's brewing potions so doing it while silenced forces him to look at what he's doing an makes it take too long. If you want to put the effort in, I'm sure you can come up with more. Sure I guess if you were committed to that concept you can just use Silent Spell but you will also be behind any other wizard...for no clear advantage. Other than the advantage anyone with silent spell has you mean. Why would Alchemist have to make weird hand gestures to drink a potion or throw a bomb? Though I guess you could 'refluff' this to be the act of mixing a potion. Or the act of drawing and drinking the potion. Ok the concept is a bomb thrower? Name a 1st level Blast spell in Core? Burning hands, magic missle, all the elvel zero damage spells.... So you are saying I have to actualy wait till 3rd level to actualy throw a bomb...when no other class as to wait for that long to realize their concept. No, but you will only have limited bombs until you get to higher levels. Excuse me for thinking that a level 1 character shouldn't be able to fully realize their concept. A level 1 "alchemist" of this sort is an inexperienced character who's still learning, not a master of their craft. That's why he's level 1 and not level 10.
I gave the guy the feat because there was already an equivalent feat for spellcasters to make their spells deal only fire damage within the ruleset we were using (because we were using most of the APG and elemental spell exists). He wanted something that was in line with an existing feat so I let him have it. You're arguing for a "refluff" that actually changes the mechanics, and you're also continuing to completely miss the point. The point itsn't that mechanics like these can't be "nice to have," it's that you don;t need them to be able to roleplay a concept. Except in the game world there is no difference between a player's character with levels in wizard throwing a fireball "bomb" and the alchemist class feature. I have said it before (in this post even) and will say it again. Character class and class mechanics are metagame concepts that don't exist in the game itself, except in how the fluff describes them.
Considering that at the same level (5) someone a could easily have an unassisted 13 in acrobatics and thereby be able to do a 33 foot longjump (if you interpret long jump dcs as 1 per foot, 30 if its 5 for each 5 feet. Some poeple read it differently. Real world record is 29 and a half feet), I'm not seeing being able to throw far as a suspension of disbelief breaker. SR yes...why would a creature resistant to magic be at all protected from a explosion? This goes back to ZOMG! I have to explain stuff! "Because that's how the mechanics work" has always been a valid answer to things that don't make real world sense to me (You know, like a low level rogue being able to beat the world record holder in longjump, and not even be near the best jumper in the world), but if you really want an in game explanation, the same ability that protects the creature from spells protects it from the advanced tech and unique potions the "alchemist" creates and uses.
... then they are just bad at it. It doesn't mean they aren't one. (One doesn't even need to be a sailor to be a pirate and one doesn't need to be the best at something to do it, but that's neither here or there.) Now this is how I enjoy playing the game. This is how the people I enjoy playing the game. Are you telling us we are doing it wrong? The all caps...and this "Which seems to be a common problem on these boards" seems to me you are saying we are having badwrongfun. Except it was you who's asking people to justify their gameplay choices, not me. It's you who's saying in order to be an "alchemist" you should have to have levels in the alchemist class, thereby telling anybody who's ever refluffed a wizard or sorcerer to be one that they were playing wrong. I never said playing with the alchemist class is badwrongfun. In fact, if you look up and read my posts, you'll see I said that I allow them in my games. What I said was that it isn't necessary to play out the concept, and that I know that from personal experience. You seem to be taking a little too personaly. I'm not. When I write I like to use DIFFERENT TYPEFACES to try to get the impression of inflection and thereby attempt to have less ambiguities in my typing. (Imagine me speaking like in that last sentance. That would be funny.)
We're talking about how things work in a core only game. I thought about pointing out how rude it is to join a game you know is core only then QQ about not being able to play the alchemist class, but I thought posing a hypothetical question would make my point just as well. That'll learn me to use rhetorical devices.
Ok. Here's the thing you keep not getting. NO one said it did. Go back and find the post where I said that a wizard will be mechanically the same as an alchemist.... I'm waiting..... can't find it? That's because I never did. What we actually were saying is that all the concepts the apg classes represent can be played using only core classes with refluffing. So the APG classes are not necessary for roleplaying concepts(Whether one like x apg classes mechanics more is irrelevant to that discussion). That's something you've agreed with. So we're arguing for no reason. Way to skip over the rest of that complete thought and jump straight to the end of the train. That's because the rest of it wasn't in any way relevant. But if you want me to respond to it, so be it.
Yes, mechanics are more important when describing rules. That's irrelevant to what I'm talking about. What I was talking about was a character as seen in the world. You don't see someones class features sheet and what not in world. The fluff is all that other characters see of him, therefore in terms of describing how people in the world perceive the character, fluff is more important. But if your Sailor has ranks in Profession: Pie Eating Contestant, that's not going to let him pass his Profession: Sailor check. You get where I'm coming from with this? I get that you sleepy cause I just saw your edit ;) but you're mixing analogies. Again, all my arguments have been that you can play x concept without necessarily being x class. In other words it has been "I can change the fluff without changing the mechanics if I want to." Which is something you've said you not only agree with, but also like. Using profession: pie eating contestant in place of a profession sailor check isn;t that. That's more like playing a wizard who actually has the alchemist class's mechanical abilities.
And if the core books where all that existed? What would you do then? Just throw a fit because the class you want to play doesn't exist? I think you'd just roll with the wizard. It's not any different in a core only game. Also, if I may interject, no one is forcing YOU to play core only, so if you are really so insistent on getting the alchemist class's mechanics just play in a game that allows them. I can play a Wizard who is an alchemist (note the lower case), who brews potions, has Craft: Alchemy out the wazoo and refluffs his stuff to be more alchemical rather than magical in nature. I like that this is possible. Good. Me too. What are we arguing about then? What I DON'T like is when someone says "Well you can just refluff X to Play Y!" when Y WORKS COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY FROM X. The crunch is not mutable like fluff is. Then play in a game that allows Y! But if you are playing in a game that doesn;t allow Y, then guess what? You can refluff X to play the same character concept that Y represents. Which is why I'm utterly baffled by the "fluff is more important" argument. Because what the character can do in game terms isn't what defines who and what a character is. It's the fluff that does that. For example, the profession (sailor) skill maxed just means my character is good at sailing. That's the crunch, but it doesn't say anything about him as a character. He could be a pirate, a noble who sails for sport, someone who was trapped on a desert island and learned to sail to rescue himself, the possibilities are endless. Any of these say more about the character than the skill points in a profession does.
Except Fireball and Bombs (especially with Discoveries) DO NOT WORK THE SAME. THEY DON"T HAVE TO FOR YOU TO PLAY THE CONCEPT! You're confusing character concept with game mechanics. Which seems to be a common problem on these boards.
Which is the entire point! Character class and class mechanics are metagame concepts that don't exist in the game itself, except in how the fluff describes them.
If your concept involves throwing bombs and you want to make it with a wizard, then guess what? That's what the blast spells are. You know how I know? I've played with a guy who played a wizard who used blast spells to throw "bombs" and buff spells as "potions." So the concept is completely playable just with the core classes. The fact that you lack the imagination to go beyond the written fluff doesn't change that. Just because a game mechanic is called something doesn't mean that's what it is in the game world. Classes are not jobs. Character class is a game mechanic that doesn't even exist in the game world for the most part. If you are playing a level 5 fighter, do you really go around in character telling people you're a level 5 fighter? If you do, doesn't that seem odd to you?
Except in the game world there is no difference between a player's character with levels in wizard throwing a fireball "bomb" and the alchemist class feature. I have said it before (in this post even) and will say it again. Character class and class mechanics are metagame concepts that don't exist in the game itself, except in how the fluff describes them. Your argument is completely based around the assumption that a class can only be what the book's fluff says it is . And yet I'm the one who's been accused of stifling people's creativity. Sheesh.
Fine. That's why we have core and advanced rules in the first place. Is that better?
This is why DnD originally came in basic and advanced flavors in the first place. Yes. Let's play a game of "pick this guy's semantics apart" instead of actually coming up with a meaningful reply. That so moves a conversation forward.
Talking about dismissive. Pot meet kettle.
Except the mechanics are just that, mechanics. The fluff matters a lot more for determining what your character actually is. I'll throw out the example I talked about in my pm with you. A character with levels in the wizard wizard class who takes only buffs and blasts and flavors the effects as being form a mixture of advanced tech and potiosn is every bit as much an alchemist in the game world as someone in the alcemist class. And the mechanics support that just fine. I'm not saying the APG classes are power creep myself, I allow them. But they aren't really necessary for playing out a concept either.
why indeed. DND 1e only originally had the fighting-man, magic-user and thief. All current classes are variations on one of them.
I'm gonna change then order of some things to properly respond to them: I am curious how high levels do your games normaly go? Maybe that is a reason to our different perspective on this. General rule fo thumb, I start at 10 and go to 20. So what makes the Core so as some people take it Holy? I'm not core only, but some people like to play the game as it originally came out of the box, and don't like the extra complication that using optional rules entails. This is why DnD originally came in basic and advanced flavors in the first place. QQing about core only groups using monster manuals:
What were you reading?
It specifically says you can if you want to.
"Designing spells" is in Ultimate magic. not the gamemastery guide. Ultimate magic and the advanced race guide are not core. We weren't talking about item creation at any point. Gishes:
No, they wouldn't. A gish is supposed to give up higher level casting in exchange for more physical might. Allowing someone who multiclassed to get around the limitations of multiclassing "just 'cause" is a huge game balance problem. The person who chose to be a gish chose the consequences of such, and this should include loss in caster levels. Besides, anyone who's playing a gish properly shouldn't be casting spells on enemies anyway. A properly built gish uses magic to buff their physical power.
A properly build gish is playable at high levels. You just can't play it like a straight wizard. And you shouldn't be able to.
The only reason it seems to "suck" is because classes like the AC were later released that does what it does, only better. Which is power creep.
No. Just no. fighter/wizard is the iconic crossclass for a reason. It's an incredibly potent choice even into high level play. But again, you have to play it properly. If you've had fighter/wizards who didn't seem powerful it's because they were fighting like a wizard or not buffing themselves properly. But this goes to something else:
But when I get called a power gamer...or "Everything not Core is broken" or I am not a RPer because I like mechanics to support my concept I just want to scream. This goes back to you saying you might need AC to make a certain character concept. "Wizard who gets to spend a whole quarter of his level progression with fighter bab and hp progression" isn't a character concept. "Wizard who buffs himself and fights in melee" is a character concept, and it's one that was possible to play in ways that were not broken before. There are literally dozens of builds you can make that do it, and of of them do it well in their own way if you play them right. If you do get called a power gamer, it's probably because you seem to think that the terms character build and character concept are interchangeable. They aren't. I am not saying wizards are overpowered neccesarily...but we are talking about high level characters. Wizards a very powerful at this level...the stuff they get for Abjurant Champion is very minor at this level. It doesn't matter how minor you think it is. They are getting fighter hd and bab progression with none of the drawbacks that normally come with doing so. Would you be fine with giving a fighter 5 effective wizard casting levels without making them give anything up for it? If you answered "yes" then I think you need to reexamine what game balance means. Actualy since most of it is defensive it freed me up to do things to counter him that would kill the wizard without it. There's the difference between us. I expect players to have to make hard, meaningful choices when they level, and I never pull punches for them after the first dungeon. Option that every one takes as a no brainer...do you know a druid who does not take Natural Spell(which is core in 3.5 and PF)? Yeah actually. The druid can do a lot of things. If the druid is built to play mage, he won't be wild shaping a lot and won't need it. If he's just going for physical strength, he's gonna buff himself before hand and then go into wildshape. You only need it if you plan on casting spells while in wild shape, and not everyone cares about it. Better Options...Ok which is better Shocking Grasp or Magic Missile? Depends on the situation. Soemone far away you need to hit for sure? Magic missile. Someone in your face and you know you can make a melee touch? Shocking grasp. Goign by damage it depends on character level and what feats you have. What is better Toughness or Dodge? Again depends on your build and a bunch of other factors. Mostly I say take both if you can. But the thing you're missing is that it's not "better options" that causes power creep. It's options that do what the things in core do, and do them better. Bad Design...sorry just don't think of that as power creep. I've never said bad design in itself is power creep, or that it doesn't exist in core. Something that interacts with something that exists in core in a way that makes it unbalanced and that never gets errata is power creep though. Overpowered or underpowered: This is entirely subjective the power level of the game you run. So if this Power Creep...than it has to be subjective as oppose to being a fact. No. What is overpowered in each specific case can be argued and is subjective. But the fact that games increase in power level over time is an objective fact. Again, yu-gi-oh says high. There will always be argument about exactly when the power level of the game got crazy, but it happens. If you wanted to do a pirate-paladin who grew up in a dungeon you could probably figure that out from the Core book. This is the exact line of thought I hate. Classes are NOT jobs dammit!
Also if a wizard has five levels at of this class or not does not matter a hill of beans when he Time Stops and drops 5 or Delayed spells on a target. Trust me when talking about high level games what the Abjurant Champion gives to a straight caster is barely even a blip on the radar for the GM. So again, your argument is just "the wizard is already broken so it doesn't matter if you break it more." That is a seriously weak argument. Just because something is broken doesn't mean making it more broken is ok. As for gish builds...you said it is for free which kinda of ignores that all multiclasss build pay just the price of being multiclass. This kinda gives those builds higher staying power at higher levels. They are supposed to give that stuff up that's what's supposed to make gishes balanced. A mage10/fighter5/chamipion5 gets to act as a level 15 wizard for the purpses of spells/day, while having an effective caster level of 20. IOW, he gets the benefits of 15 full wizard levels combined with most of the benefits of 10 full fighter levels. Compare that to a fighter10/wizard10 which has an ECL of 10 and casts as a level 10 wizard. And this build literally gets this all for free because the fighter levels give the proficiency and any gish worth his salt should have combat casting anyway. And there is absolutely no reason not to take it This is an overly powerful class that makes any arcane caster who takes it more powerful without any cost[i] and without [i]any drawback. Again, if that's not power creep, what is?
Monster unique abilities are part of the guidelines. They are not new rules.
None of those things have guidelines for their creation in the core rules. Not a one. The closest thing in the core rules is this:
A wizard can also research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one. The cost to research a new spell, and the time required, are left up to GM discretion, but it should probably take at least 1 week and cost at least 1,000 gp per level of the spell to be researched. This should also require a number of Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) checks. It doesn't say anything or have any guidelines on how one actually goes about creating an entirely new spell. So no, these things do not have guidelines in core.
The core rules have set guidelines by which new monsters should be made and the new books usually stick to them. The new bestiaries give you more options that you could have made yourself using the core monster creation rules without you having to. They may have a lot of monsters people won't use, but usually have few or any more actual rules. So that's really not an argument at all.
Assigning a dc to a monster's abilities is laid out in the guidelines. And the DM can give a specially created any special ability he can imagine using the guideleines. They don't actually have any more *rules* at all.
No they don't. Your world only has the ones in it you want. And Golarion as a setting may not even contain all the ones in the book. Pathfinder isn't all about the Golarion setting, you know.
And this is true of everything. That's why the DM just shouldn't use the ones he thinks are badly designed. No one is forcing you to use a monster just cause it's in a bestiary. Besides, if he didn;t have the bestiary that had x monster in it and wanted soemthing like it he'd judt use the guidelines to make the monster anyway. That's why these guidelines are in the core book to begin with.
I like to mix it up. Usually I'll just use guys straight out of the book as mooks and make a few special versions with class levels or different feat choices or variant dr or stuff as lieutenants and bosses.
I wouldn't be bringing it up as an argument because it wouldn't be broken. Either way you've just admitted it is broken so thank you for agreeing with us finally. There is no reason a wizard wouldn't want to pick it up. That's power creep at it's worst. Except a Wizard needs to be 11th level before gaining the class...I can think of a whole bunch better option for a wizard to take at this point. True if a player has no better option than maybe.. Um no. This prestige class gives a whole bunch of benefits, has no drawback, and doesn't preclude you from taking other options (including other prestige classes). There may be other good options, but nothing is stopping you from taking those with this and getting the benefits of both. Again, entry into this class costs next to nothing and gives you a bunch of free stuff.. You started out the post agreeing that it was broken as written. Why backpeddle just to argue?
There already were a bunch of ways to play out this concept (melee mage) that weren't nearly as broken. The Duskblade, the eldritch knight, a plain old fighter mage, a bard focusing on buffs (I'm sure there are dozens, but I don't want this to become a giant list.)This class is better than any of them, and can be combined with them to make them even more powerful. And again this costs nothing! Seriously, I don't think there's anything that could ever be released that you would think is broken or is power creep if this doesn't fit the bill.
I still think it's power creepy, but we don't have to agree. That's fine. Either way the specifics of this one spell aren't important. The only reason I objected to what you said was because you said
Which I took to mean that you thought letting classes do things they weren't originally supposed to be able to wasn't power creep, but since you said:
We actually agree on this issue. The thing about power creep is that it happens gradually. Very rarely is there one single spell that breaks the game. It happens over time. You make a spell that lets a caster do a combat maneuver better than a fighter who specialized in it here, an other spell that allows a sorcerer to get around their class's main balancing mechanism (low spells known) for the cost of a level 3 spell there, a feat that lets certain dex based meleer's get around the generally low damage said build dishes out without having to find an expensive item like they did before over there and the creep is already starting. Do any of these things seem horrible? Not really. Do any of them break the game? No. (Actually that paragon surge thing is pretty broken. Even if you actually are supposed to be able to do that I'm not ever allowing it in any game I run). But that's the thing about power creep. It's rarely the fault of any one individual thing. It usually has more to do with not thinking about how new stuff interacts with old stuff. Over time these little things that don't really matter in a vacuum snowball and eventually the core stuff is not worth taking if everything's open. You don't notice it before one day you look a the core options (or the original starter pack yu-gi-oh cards) and there are options in the splats to do pretty much everything that's in core better than core does. I don't think pathfinder is anywhere near this yet, but it will happen. *creepy voice and blank stare* It always happens, given enough time.
More options is more power. High level wizards aren't considered more powerful than fighters because they deal more damage. They are more powerful because they have more options to deal with situations. Any time you add to any class's role options, you increase their power, and the overall power level of the game. That spell allows the druid to do something it couldn't do before, thereby making the class more powerful.
For the cost of a martial weapon proficiency feat you get to go from a d4 to d10 hp for 5 levels, get to more than double the effect of your shield spell for free, cast that shield spell as a quickened spell for free, Andget another ability that gives you a boost to saves or AC (that stacks with most others since its an insight bonus)as a swift action. You get most of the benefits of taking 5 levels in fighter, more stuff on top of that, and give up nothing. There is no reason a wizard wouldn't want to pick it up. That's power creep at it's worst. If you truly think wizards are already too powerful like you seem to, I can't see why you don;t think giving them more stuff for free isn't bad.
Not really as I think power creep is a subjective and not fact. Power Creep is a fact. It happens. I'm not sure PF has reached the point where it's a problem yet, but any game that runs long enough will have this problem. For example (and I know it's from a different genre and all, but it's the best example from the top of my head) is Yu-gi-oh. Almost all of the cards from the original starter packs are useless in the game today, because more powerful cards got made to get people to buy them and it happened for so long that some cards that were super powerful secret rares in the first run of the game are outclassed by some commons now. A good DnD example (from a different edition) found with a quick google, is that in 3.0 the ability we now call "pounce" was an ability one could only get at epic levels. Until a splatbook came out that had it as an option for a level 1 barbarian. Yes I found this to be true. Though easily fixable with a simple houserule. Though personaly I think the Core game just have all casters have to learn spells. Than this would not be a problem at all. Not to argue, but "I can change it with a houserule" is not really a defense. Yes, you can change anything with a houserule. That doesn't really address the issue which was about power creep in the RAW itself. While I agree that it changes a possible role for druid...I would call this a good thing. Personaly I hate...class Roles. That explains why you are so gung ho about archetypes. One of the things I hate about them is that they allow classes to do things they couldn't before which steps on another class's toes. (Which is, in fact, an example of power creep.) I do not want to get into another argument about archetypes before anyone goes there.
Expanding an already top tier class's options for what roles they can play is generally the exact kind of thing people are complaining about when they complain about power creep. Every new feat, similarly, makes another possible focused buff, enhancing character focus and therefore power.Again not a neccessarily a bad thing. Not necessarily, no. But there comes a point where the creep gets to a point where there's little reason to use anything from the core books if everything is open. I think it's fair to call it a bad thing at that point. The sad thing is, the point where that happened is only really recognizable in hindsight. I took a while to type this so I've probably been ninja'd.
Well it's gonna be different for every group, but at least with the group I play with now, the DM will come up with a campaign idea, put out a forum post describing: - (possibly) the setting-what books are allowed -the point buy -any restrictions placed on character creation If enough people say they are interested, the game proceeds to character development based on the restrictions. However, my gorup also seems to have the good sense to know that the DM might have forgotten to mention something in the post and will always seek approval for anything before trying to add it into the game. Then again, my group is made of people who generally trust each other not to cheat or be jerks... Given that things work that way in my group, then speaking for my group and my group alone: 1) The player. if you didn't want to play what we were playing, why did you say you did? 2) It's not up to anyone. The player said he would play with the restrictions when he agreed to be in the game. I want to say if he writes something up that includes banned stuff he can not play or change it, but I haven't had a player be enough of a jerk to write something up with rules that were banned. Of course, special circumstances may change things. A bunch of people in our game that started "core only" 2 years ago have lots of stuff from splatbooks now (including my character changing her race and her class from bard to wilder... long story). But that's due to the game changing over time. If anyone came at the beginning of the game asking for the stuff we have now (after already agreeing not to), I know I would have been pissed if I were our DM.
This particular argument needs big wig intervention. No it doesn't. The rules say clearly that you can. Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
In response to the original post: Wow. Your players sure did some stupid crap. Even if you made a mistake or two along the way, I'm flabbergasted anyone is painting you as the bad guy.
Because your other party members can't take knowledges. The wizard alone is respnsible for identifying every monster
That's one.
Because no other class has appraise as a class skill, am I right?
I wasn't aware that most parties stealth everywhere. Must make over land travel a pain since you can only move 6 miles per day without stealth penalty. Eventually you might need Fly Every spell that lets you fly gives you a bonus to the skill. You don't need a single rank in the skill if you have good dex.
That's a maybe. There's a spell for that.
The only skill a wizard actually "needs" is spellcraft. Everything else is just "nice to have". Besides, as I pointed out, you don't need fly and every class except the Cavalier has at least one knowledge as a class skill. So unless you just want to be able to do everything by yourself without any help from your team 2+int per level is more than enough.
This doesn;t really have anything to do with anything... sooo... that's fun.
If you want to be a roguish character who wins people over through social skills like bluff instead of through trapfinding there's a core class for that. It's called the bard. Archetypes are an optional rule in an optional bookThat's not your justification, so don't pretend that it is. My justification is that I don't want to use them in my setting, and because they are an optional rule I don't bloody well have to use them. But apparently not using them means I'm lazy, or don't respect my players or some such nonsense.
So once again, if I don't want to use this optional rule, my reasoning is crap and I'm doing something wrong.
And again, that's fine and dandy for you. If someone else doesn't want to use them they should't have to just so you can feel better about yourself for teaching the guy who "doesn't know what he's doing" better. Honestly, you are fighting for the right of a non existent player in a game that hasn't started yet and that you are in no way involved in to play with something that the group has agreed not to because you think that anyone who plays without it is doing it wrong. That goes to both of you. If that doesn't make the case in itself for players feeling entitled, I don't know what does.
Well considering I've had one guy go on and on trying to convince me to use archetypes in a campaign where I'm not allowing them, and then had him say that the only reason not to is laziness, and then had you saying that (in what I made clear was hypothetical but people took literally) I should let a bladebound magus into a no archetype game because it "doesn't break the game" regardless of my own feelings about the archetypes rules, I think that's exactly what's been said. Archetypes are an optional rule in an optional book and you're treating me like I don't know what I'm doing because I don't want to use them. Apparently I'm a bad DM if I don't let a guy have an archetype in a no archetypes game. So apparently you at least think that if something was published in a Paizo official release book the players should be entitled to it automatically regardless of the concerns of the DM.
And the witch class in PF is not just something in a magazine...or even a 3rd part product. It is in the core rule line called the Advance Players Guide. The Advanced Player's Guide isn't core rules. Core rules are Player's guide, GameMastery Guide, Bestiary.
Why is it that a player saying "X is in the official rules, so I can play X" is considered "player entitlement", but the statement "You can't do/play Y because of Z" from the DM is not seen as "player entitlement"? In both cases it is one person at the table trying to dictate how the game will be played to all the other people at the table, so why does almost everyone on these boards perfectly fine with that happening if the person is a DM, but completely against it when it is anyone else? It's about why its ok for DMs to ban stuff. Fine the answer I seem to be getting from this thread in that context is "It is not ok for the DM to ban anything, and if a player wants to play something that doesn't fit in with the setting, or that the DM isn't comfortable running than the DM should let him or else he's a bad dm." At least that's what it seems like from the reaction I got to the very notion of a no archetypes game.
Well considering I've had one guy go on and on trying to convince me to use archetypes in a campaign where I'm not allowing them, and then had him say that the only reason not to is laziness, and then had you saying that (in what I made clear was hypothetical but people took literally) I should let a bladebound magus into a no archetype game because it "doesn't break the game" regardless of my own feelings about the archetypes rules, I think that's exactly what's been said. IIRC you were the one saying that me not allowing these optional rules was , and I quote, "laughable."
Everything is optional, but is there an equal amount of expectancy for a GM to allow CRB classes as there is for him to allow stuff from a magazine or website? No. I wouldn't have thought so before people jumped on me for running a game where I'm not allowing an optional rule from an optional book. But apparently, yes. If something was ever published anywhere all players have the right to play it, and the DM who doesn't allow it is just lazy.
It is like posters like you take everything as a personal attack on your style. Well when someone says my play style is "laughable" that damn well is a personal attack on my play style. And when you say a DM who wants to play a certain way is doing so because he's "lazy" that's damn well attack on his play style too. If you don't want people to think you're attacking their play style, then stop doing it.
And I said it before. You shouldn't be b!@@&ing about this on a thread. If playing the game by the game rules the DM set out before the game started is so painful don't play with them. Taking your personal crap to a forum smacks of entitlement.
Was that the difference? One player asked nicely and the other demanded? If so, this has less to do with players feeling like they should have a say, and more to do with one player being a belligerent jerk to his friends.Sigh. If you cant see the difference between asking for something nicely and demanding that something that's been banned be allowed I don't see the point in continuing to discuss this with you. Well bladebound magus was an example, no one is asking for it. The difference is one guy just wanted one thing that said archetype he brought up wouldn't even get him and was equivalent in power to a feat which if it existed would be similar to an existing allowed feat and the other guy wanted something that is outright banned. If you can't see the difference I think we're done.
Sigh. If you cant see the difference between asking for something nicely and demanding that something that's been banned be allowed I don't see the point in continuing to discuss this with you.
I responed to the original post in the thread: "Why is it that a player saying "X is in the official rules, so I can play X" is considered "player entitlement", but the statement "You can't do/play Y because of Z" from the DM is not seen as "player entitlement"? " The answer is because (and follow this): the DM has the right to ban things, and if the group didn't agree to those things being banned no one would want to play, therefore if someone is on the boards complaining that the DM didn't let them play something it's because the DM and the rest of the group agreed it was banned, so those players are looking for special treatment and are therefore full of player entitlement. The context was in regards to these boards, not in regards toprivate interaction and I answered as such. I don;t think I was very clear on that though, so my bad as well.
Umm no. I presented a player who wanted to play as an archetype in a game where they were banned as wanting special treatment. That's a world of difference.
Because the goblin is an allowed race and I did the same thing I would have if archetypes didn't exist and he asked me for a way to make bombs always do fire damage.
Fair enough.
I do, and I disagree that they are necessary. I don't want to derail the thread by arguing about it further.
You're lookign at the example instead of the message. Why did I bother capsing, bolding and italicizing it? grr. ;) Any player who wants special treatment the rest of the group isn't getting is being entitled. My whole message was common sense, but people have used the example I picked to go on diatribes about my example. /sigh
You are the one that put forth your campaign world without archetypes as a example. As an example of a house rule that someone who wanted special treatment would try to change even though everyone else was fine with it. Not a pinata for people to beat at because they don't like my house rule. What the actual house rule is is beside the point. You are the one saying you are 'sticking' to your guns on it to keep your campaign world 'pure' and to 'protect' the group from 'evil entitled players'. Um... No. I have never once said anything of the sort. I said I'm not allowing them because I think there's enough customization without them. The same reason someone who doesn't like psionics might disallow that. Maybe if you're gonna use 'apostrophes' to make it 'seem' like you're 'quoting' me you should use things I actually 'said.'
No. I didn't say it did. I said I didn't want to use them in this setting. Why are you so up on convincing me to use them? Why do you care? No one's forcing you not to use them. It doesn't affect you in any way. Also I do disagree with you on archetypes....atleast in regards to concepts. To me atleast it is not just what you gian with a archetype...of equal or sometimes of greater value is what you loose. And I disagree with you. But please, go on. Having you tell me I'm playing wrong is so fun. /sarcasm
stuff And the definiton af a priviladge is a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : prerogative; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office Entitlement is thinking you are entitled to a privilege, a privilege by definition is peculiar. pecular is defined as being characteristic of one person, or being unusual So to combine all that into a single string:
In other words someone who is entitled wants special treatment, and ipso facto wanting special treatment actually is the definition of entitled just like I said in the first place. But gee, it sure is fun to argue about semantics instead of about teh actual topic, isn't it?
Wow way to make a lot of insulting assumptions about me. Cool beans
Also the above is all about good GMs and bad players. Some of the players who come here to complain about a bad GM is not always a bad player complaining about a good GM...there are bad GMs out there...and I am afraid they are becoming quite common because of the general attitude here of to the players of "Just Shut Up and take it" If your GM is bad you should be discussing it with him, not whining about it on a forum. And I''ll say the same for a DM with a bad player. Help them get better. If you don;t see them ever getting better, you shouldn't play with them.
And what if they just want to change the campaign's restrictions?Stuff Then they are free to discuss it with their dm and the group, but they should be mature enough to know that just because they ask for something doesn't necessarily mean they're going to get it.
I'm not going to get into hypothetical with you. That's not even what this thread is about. I don't know why people are jumping down my throat about this. What if I was playing core only? A lot of people play core only, but I guess if I did so I would be "limiting" my players. I guess everyone who plays core only is doing it wrong too, cause they don't have archetypes. Gee, I'm being such a jerk limiting my players like that. I mean, I'm only allowing them the core classes, the advanced classes, the core races, all the featured races, and all the psionic classes and races sans archetypes. How will they ever customize their characters when they only have 29 classes to chose from? /sarcasm
Stuff You know what. My message was incredibly simple, and you just latched on to an example instead of reading it (and pretty mach acted like a jerk because you think my houserules are bad and I shouldn't be allowed to ban things as a DM). Here it is in bold italics for you:
Wow way to make a lot of insulting assumptions about me.
Umm no. The archetype does a lot of other things too, and it doesn't even make his bombs deal exclusively fire damage like he wanted. Just giving him the archetype wouldn't even give him what he wanted, so I took an existing feat as precedent (elemental spell) and made one for his bombs. He did not because than he proably forsees every player wanting a archetype all of sudden. Probably because he imagined alot of work for himself. So really his ban on all archetypes has nothing to do with the group but has to do with self-interst. A much more group friendly rule would have been all archetypes must be approved by the GM. I already explained why I banned them. It has nothing to do with making less work for myself, and everything to do with me not liking them for my new campaign setting I've allowed them in the past.
Casually imply that I might be a liar when you have no reason to do so. How nice.
Possibly. But I'm open if it bugged them they'd talk to me. They did about the stuff they didn't like in my last setting. 3) heck they may not even think that a GM's ruling can be questioned as they have seen other who do so treated like crap by Wombatkidd. Completely baseless and insulting to me for no reason. Thanks a bunch.
Wow way to miss the point. The point is that no matter what the houserule is if everyone agreed to it than the person asking for special treatment is being a jerk. It doesn't matter what the rule is or for what reason it was imposed. The DM is allowed to houserule, the players agreed to the houserule, so if one player is asking for special treatment than he is being entitled! Again for at least the 4th time, that is literally the definition of being entitled! Also, if you could stop being insulting to me because I am imposing a houserule you don't like in a game that you are no way involved in that would be great.
@Womatkidd: Your above post had those quote be mine....when they are all Scott Betts. My bad, I'll fix it
I'm not saying that either. All my responses have been in regards to players who ask for things that other players have agreed not to use. If a restriction or new rule has been added and everyone agreed to it, but one guy is asking to not be held to it, he is the one with the problem and should live with the stipulation or find a new group. Simple as that. To answer the treads original question more completely: the reason people don't call "DM entitlement" on the threads is because if the DM is really being such a jerk he won't have any players and "DM entitlement" won't be a problem.
Please point me to the point where I said archetypes are dumb. I didn't. Not really. I've used them. I just don;t want to use them in the setting I have comming up and everyone agreed to it. So who do you think you are to tell me I'm doing something wrong by banning them?
I'm not. You're the one saying DMs shouldn't be allowed to ban things.
I like exclamation marks! Sue me!
Ahh, there you go making baseless, insulting assumptions about me. I don't have any malice because of it. A lot of DMs don't like psionics at all and even the ones who do don't really like the soulknife. I get it and they have the right to ban it if they want to. I just rolled something else up or didn;t play their game. You know, like someone who's not an entitled brat does. Because, and this may be a shock to you, that's the way the game runs. The DM has final say on what rules are and aren't going to be used. It says so in the books themselves. Just because something was printed doesn't mean the players automatically get to use it. If everyone agrees with it except one guy, then it's that one guy who has the problem, not the DM.This attitude is why it's become pretty frustrating. DMs don't even realize that they're doing what they're doing. It's become a sad norm in some gaming circles. DMs know exactly what they're doing. Building a campaign world that may or may not involve banning some rules. Sure, so now he's not playing D&D. But you are, so hey, no problem, right? If he didn't want to play by the rules of the group, he wouldn't have had fun in the group anyway, and as I said before no gaming is better than unfun gaming.
Oh please. So I should just accept any idiotic or broken thing anyone wants to make just cause they ask for it? So I was wrong to not let that guy play a ghost sorcerer or an adamantine golem wizard in the campaign I'm ending now? I see now that it was so unfair of me to not let that guy make the character he wanted! I'm totally going to let the next guy who asks to make an adamantine golem wizard do so. How could I have imposed my arbitrary personal preference against player characters being adamantine golems get in his way. :'( I can justify my "imposition" because everyone else at the game agreed to it. I'll be damned if I'm going to give someone else special treatment because they don't have enough respect for me as a DM to make characters within the limits everyone else agreed to. Is that really why he's asking for it? Because he wants to be treated special? Or is it because he has a character concept that would be brought to life mechanically in a more complete sense if he were able to make use of an archetype? Well, let's see. Everyone agreed to a restriction. He's asking to not be heald to the restriction everyone else is held to. So he's asking for a special rule that only applies to him. Yep that's the literal definition of asking for special treatment.
Oh, so my ban of archetypes isn't badwrongfun, it's just laughable. Well that's a world of difference /sarcasm How about this. You stop commenting on how my houserules that all my players agreed to are laughable and I'll stop calling you out on being insulting because you don't like the way I've chosen to play. Sound fair. No one made you do anything. That includes you posting your justification for your own house rules. Rynjin asked me politely why I banned them, so I politely informed him why even though it doesn't have anything to do with the conversation, because he was curious. You're the one who got insulting about it. If you say insulting untrue crap about me you should expect a response.
I'm not saying you can't bend the rules. Or that doing so is worng. I'm saying that if you don't want to bend these rules for your campaign setting you shouldn't have to. There are a lot of classes to play other than the gunslinger and a lot of races to play other than halflings. If the player can;t accept that, then he should find a group that will allow it. And I don't know why saying that seems to be a bad thing. It's common sense. As an aside, if you are so willing to throw these rules away I wonder why you have them in the first place.
Because if I didn't fix that rule "in stone" there would be no point in having it in the first place? I banned archetypes for specific personal and flavor reasons. And yes "I don;t want to deal with it in my game" is a legitimate reason to ban something as long as you're upfront about it.
If he really respected me as a DM he wouldn't ask for special treatment in the first place, so this should be a non-issue.
So I should do whatever everyone's last DM did? Ok mindflayer cohorts all around! After all, if you say your last DM said it was ok, who am I to argue? EDIT: Also, thanks for implying that I don't let my players be creative. Being insulting really moves a conversation forward.
Expect the part where asking for special treatment is the definition of entitlement.... Also I am not against a GMs right to ban anything...I just don't get the inflexability GMs show when they do so...and alot... Because if your "flexible" on the ban, then you haven't really banned anything, maybe?
This is such a bunch of nonsensical bile that I have to split it up and respond to each nonsensical point separately. It doesn't need to be 100, that was simply an extreme for illustration. It's quite possible (and probably not uncommon) for a player to have a DM turn down his character concept - not because it's broken or stupid, but rather because of an arbitrary personal preference on the DM's part, such as, "Archetypes are dumb.. Please point me to the point where I said archetypes are dumb. I didn't. I said I didn't like them in my homebrew campaign setting. Nice to know that you think anyone who does anything you don't like is having wrongbadfun. because classes are everything you should ever need to express yourself mechanically, and players who want their character's mechanics to line up better with their character's flavor are entitled, And again misrepresenting what I said. I said anyone who wants special treatment after everyone else has already agreed to the restriction is entitled why? because that's the literal definition of entitlement!
Yes because I don't think you should need to have a whole new class for a singe tweek I'm totally having badwrongfun! No one ever houserules! - and that's probably pretty disheartening. If he really wants to give that concept a go, he'll have to find a new DM. And so he does, only to find out that that DM doesn't like the idea either (perhaps for different, but equally arbitrary personal reasons). And so he has to keep searching, until he eventually finds a DM whose set of arbitrary, non-negotiable restrictions don't prevent him from playing his character. Or until he runs out of DMs. Too bad, so sad. I've been trying to find a DM who will let me play a soulknife for 15 years. You don't see me whining about it on the internet or starting arguments with my DM's. This is the imbalance that we spent pages of this thread trying to get people to internalize. DMs don't see any problem with bringing arbitrary restrictions into the game, and then labeling them off-limits for discussion once the group has agreed (or most of the group has agreed). Because, and this may be a shock to you, that's the way the game runs. The DM has final say on what rules are and aren't going to be used. It says so in the books themselves. Just because something was printed doesn't mean the players automatically get to use it. If everyone agrees with it except one guy, then it's that one guy who has the problem, not the DM. Meanwhile, players are incentivized to agree to the DM's requests/whims/desires so as to avoid the label of "entitled problem player", even when those desires might conflict with their own. If you feel like your DM is that overbearing don;t play with them. Simple solution. No gaming is better than unfun gaming. On top of that, a DM with a player who doesn't want to compromise has a straightforward, easy solution: tell that player to find another game. On the other hand, a player with a DM who doesn't want to compromise has to find a new DM, something that is (for most of us) much more difficult. See again: Too bad, so sad. I've been trying to find a DM who will let me play a soulknife for 15 years. You don't see me whining about it on the internet or starting arguments with my DM's. That's how the real world works. If everyone is fine with something except one guy, and he's asking for special treatment than he is entitled, because that's the definition of entitlement. 3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges Being willing to work with someone doesn't mean giving them every thing they want, and being wiling to compromise means finding something both of you can agree on. You know, like adding the one thing he wanted the archetype for as a feat. The thing you were just saying was wrongbadfun. One last thing, way to respond to things that had nothing to do with the conversation thereby making me respond to your complete misreading of things that have nothing to do with anything.
Yes, because.....there are numerous possibilities, one of which is that the player is at fault, one of which is the DM is at fault. And random hypothetical statements cannot determine which it is. If you feel that way, you should refrain from asking random hypothetical questions. How many times must he be told no before he can be told yes? Ten? A hundred? Never?
|