[and back on topic]
What Kevin and Matt seem to be pointing out with their example is that the final decision about PCs needs to rest with the Game Master, who's trying to build a viable campaign based on information that the players may not have.
That is a valid reason, but it is certainly not what they have been putting out. I listed storyline reasons as acceptable a long time ago.
Maybe when they said because I said so that is what they meant but the two are not exclusive.
Edit: They may not have said "because I said so", but that is they vibe I got.
Well, as VV said earlier, trust is supposed to go both ways. The players could trust that the DM has something really cool in store, which is why certain classes are redlined or reserved for NPCs only.
But I am glad that I put out a cool enough idea that everyone is jumping on the bandwagon of why not everything is possible in a given fantasy setting, but it can still be fun.
This said, the Arcane/Divine dichotomy is part of both the game's mechanics as well as the game's backstory. The spell effects may be the same, but the power source is different, the origin is different, and in many cases the spell components are different. DMs can adjust this as they wish, but they also need to be aware that there are piles of feats and prestige classes that hinge on there being such a distinction, and changing it will make some of them useless and some of them overpowered.
Except game fluff is not a rule. Game fluff is an example of what is possible. The power source is also fluff, and is thus also not a rule. "Arcane" or "divine" is a mechanical classification descriptor that basically says whether or not you have to worry about ASF. That's it. There are no rules saying you can't get your arcane spells from your god, and there are rules that say you can get Cleric abilities without so much as looking at a god, simply by believing you're that badass.
There is no rule stating that a Sorcerer cannot get her spells from Mystra, and as such, the DM ought not say no without good reason. That the Sorcerer's spells bear the "Arcane" tag is not any reason at all, as that pertains strictly to mechanical function, not to source or fluff. If the priestess of Mystra is a Sorcerer, she still casts arcane spells, they're just granted by her goddess.
And the piles of feats and prestige classes absolutely, positively do not hinge on there being a difference in the game world. Only within the mechanics.
It's up to the DM to say what the god says and it's likewise up to the DM what the church hierarchy says. You can have a Bard who's the high priestess of Illyra because the goddess says she is, but by the same token, the goddess can say that her high priestess is a Commoner, or an Awakened cabbage for that matter. Meanwhile, you can have the church hierarchy not accept the Bard, or Commoner, or Awakened cabbage, and as a heresy declare an Aristocrat to be the goddess's high priest, and while the Aristocrat may have no ability to cast spells whatsoever, he's still the head of the church and can order heretics (who are actually the faithful) to be burned, their lands seized, and a whole bunch of other secular stuff churches can do, all the while claiming that this is the goddess's will (even though it's the exact opposite).
I think that's the third different name you've given Lliira.
Anywho, here's the thing. The DM makes/runs the church, the DM makes/runs the gods. They're her NPCs. What the gods and churches say is simply what words the DM puts in their mouths. If the DM blames the churches and gods themselves for her own decisions, that's flat deceptive- after all, she decides what those gods and churches say- and if she decides that the gods won't allow a priestess who happens to take the Bard class, that is again subject to the requirement that the DM needs a good reason to shoot the player down, and that every constraint the DM puts in place must contribute to the game.
And getting into the actual politics? That's in-character stuff that shouldn't hinge on metagame nonsense. Everything both gods and churches do should be grounded in the reality of the game world.
It's up to the DM to figure out the truth of all these things and approve or disapprove all the backstory and the mechanics that portrays it.
And every disapproval needs a good reason, available upon request.
The trouble is, the core assumption is that all divine magic comes from a divine source and is subject to divine approval and auditing. Joe the Wizard may find some arcane spell and go off and run with it gleefully, and if the DM decides that he doesn't like it, he's either going to have to talk to the player out of character about how it's breaking the game or else provide some Deus Ex Machina to come and physically rip the spell out of the wizard's spellbook. Contrawise, if Bob the Cleric gets granted some spell which the DM finds utterly game-breaking, the DM can simply have the god not grant that spell again, no matter how much the player's Cleric prays for it, and even Andy the Archivist may find his favorite prayer from his prayerbook turned off if some divine audit takes place and the god starts regulating the granting of that spell rather than having imps and/or cherubs rubber stamp every prayer that comes in on the proper form.
...
You're complaining about basic freedoms giving the DM less ground to be a prick and throw the rules out the window and cheat the players.
If you can have arcane magic that is provided by gods, then you might also have divine magic that comes from secular sources, and if you go with this interpretation, it basically means you have magic type A and magic type B. The wisdom-based caster who gets his spells from his god is on even footing with the wisdom-based caster who gets his spells from his personal delusions, or the DM may declare that there are no gods and the source of all wisdom-based magic is personal delusions, and gods, if they appear, are the manifestation of shared delusions.
Except, by default, you can get divine magic from secular sources. Delusions of grandeur are an acceptable power source for Clerics by default rules. Spirit Shamans and Druids don't need a god by default; in fact, Spirit Shamans and Wu Jen pretty much get their powers the exact same way, despite being arcane and divine. And really, how different is drawing magic from the Weave compared to drawing it from generic nature energy?
I'm offended by the term "fluff" and consider it offensive, dismissive and disrespectful to the storyteller's art, yet you keep using it.
The word "fluff" is standard jargon within the hobby, as much as "skill check" and "saving throw." It has its own definition independent of common usage. That you happen to apply a dismissive connotation to it and then choose to be offended by the connotation you brought is irrelevant.
In short, the reason why character stories are not accepted is because the DM finds them unacceptable, and likewise character mechanics are not accepted because the DM finds them unacceptable as well. And it is the DM who is the final arbiter for all of this, not the player.
"Because I find them unacceptable" is not an answer unto itself.
If the DM does say no, the DM must provide a valid reason if asked. That's the beginning, middle, and end of the matter. "Because your character's story is a smoldering pile of rubbish," is a reason to shoot down the character independent of any and all mechanics, whether you like those mechanics or not; the mechanics don't even come up, because the story is a smoldering pile of rubbish to begin with.
Set up that world, you can't be a dragonrider. Maybe a griffinrider, using the dragonrider prestige class with a griffin in place, but I'd ban psionics because it would detract from the power struggle between the sorcerers and the wizards if there were suddenly this non-draconic magic that everyone could use freely and happily, tra-la, and it wasn't a great tragedy that the dragons died out because the dragonslayers were actually successful.
And why does banning psionics require that you bar sorcerers from representing themselves via the Expanded Psionic Handbook? Who says Psion can't be a magic-user deriving power from draconic lineage? Why would it be problematic to allow a Psion to be a sorcerer?
The Goddess of Nature has one word for those trying to resurrect any of the dead dragons: Extinction.
Yes, that's always a great answer when the players set themselves on an epic quest to change the fate of the world. Have an omnipotent being come down and tell them no until they play your way.
As a constant of magic, when the last member of any species dies, then it goes Extinct, which means that no magics, not True Resurrection, not Wish, not even Miracle, can bring it back. Though the necromancers have been pretty clever to try with Clone, though all they end up getting is some lifeless vat-grown dragonflesh since the goddess is holding all the dragon souls in her realm. That also includes all the dragon gods, which the dragonslayers were clever enough to kill too.
Which means the souls exist, and all it takes is one good ruse to rob a god. Use Stone to Flesh to turn two dragon statues into dragon corpses, keep 'em fresh with Gentle Repose, retrieve two dragon souls, bring back the dragons, and have 'em breed, breed, breed.
Great campaign.
Though actually, without fudging the rules to make for the epic campaign, the real way that'd pan out is that extremely fresh bodies preserved via Gentle Repose retain full bodily functions when brought back as zombies (according to the leading authority on such matters, BoEF), allowing you to animate the dragons without bothering to retrieve the souls and have them make little dragon babies that presumably get new souls of their own, ending the extinction. And it's a lot easier than a raid on the heavens.
What Kevin and Matt seem to be pointing out with their example is that the final decision about PCs needs to rest with the Game Master, who's trying to build a viable campaign based on information that the players may not have.
And the point I'm making time and time again is that if the DM exercises that authority to shoot someone down, or places constraint after constraint on the players, she must be willing to present her reasons for each and every one if asked, which must be valid reasons, and each and every time the DM invokes her authority to overrule or restrict the players, it must contribute to the game in a meaningful way.
V perfectly valid reason to shoot an ideal down are always
It does not fit the setting
I think x is a bad mechanic and wonky
I find it overpowered and will not allow it
I think x will unbalance play and ruin other players fun
I can guess you never played Darksun. Even ravenloft is restrictive. Not all worlds are kitchen sink settings
V perfectly valid reason to shoot an ideal down are always
It does not fit the setting
I think x is a bad mechanic and wonky
I find it overpowered and will not allow it
I think x will unbalance play and ruin other players fun
Iff any of that is actually true, and is the actual reason. Due diligence and a good check to make sure you're not just being obstinate are required on the first three.
And "I think it would ruin the fun for the other players" is never a valid reason since you could always just ask the other players.
V perfectly valid reason to shoot an ideal down are always
It does not fit the setting
I think x is a bad mechanic and wonky
I find it overpowered and will not allow it
I think x will unbalance play and ruin other players funIff any of that is actually true, and is the actual reason. Due diligence and a good check to make sure you're not just being obstinate are required on the first three.
And "I think it would ruin the fun for the other players" is never a valid reason since you could always just ask the other players.
After a while you do not need to ask. Once captain amazing is the show stopper all adventurer and everyone but him looks board or pissed you know.
Stopping my creativity is often code for I want to play a "monk bear" or the like. A restrictive setting often forces you to be creative and imaginative and really get into the setting and the storyline more then I want feat x from book y and be class w and a talking bear
The players are always part of the story, but they must craft a pc that is a part of that world. I look at my pc's then and only then do I craft my story around them. Making sure to have goals and areas they want to look into and explore,
I do ask players to build a pc apporat for the game. Someone I can indeed work into the setting and bring the world more alive with them. If your game is set in ancient greece then you would have pc build it based on that yes? You would not allow a viking from another time into such a game would you?
That's all I do is have them build pc with in setting guild lines. Nothing more
After a while you do not need to ask. Once captain amazing is the show stopper all adventurer and everyone but him looks board or pissed you know.
Or the character will be a spectacular and contributing member of the team who does cool things while everyone else does the same and contribute to the overall fun of the group.
When you start taking it upon yourself to decide what the other players think about a subject, you're lost.
Stopping my creativity is often code for I want to play a "monk bear" or the like. A restrictive setting often forces you to be creative and imaginative and really get into the setting and the storyline more then I want feat x from book y and be class w and a talking bear
Or it could be code for, "Bard actually does what I see my character doing, and Cleric does not."
And if you consider base consideration of the rules such a bane foe of roleplaying, why are you using such a rules-heavy system as D&D in the first place? Not that they detract from each other in the slightest. Appreciation of the roleplay and appreciation of the game aren't mutually exclusive, opposed to each other, or on a sliding scale, after all. You can be just as committed to the story while still playing the game.
In fact, the game can and should enrich the roleplay. If you have a player contemplating their character's build, what they do, how they operate, how they can affect the world, what they're good at, these can all provide significant insights into the character and thus contribute to the depth of roleplay. If, instead, they have major constraints and their very class shoved on them for deigning to have the metagame tag of "priest," all of that thought is completely shut off, the player is denied access to those channels of developing and representing their characters, and they could well have to compromise, cheapen, and generally muddle their characters because of it.
Rules ain't the enemy, chief. Folks're here to play a game as well.
Oooo, I've got it. Son of a retired Spartan soldier who settled down in Athans working as body guard for a wealthy merchant marine. Grew up on the seas, learning to use a ship, kill things, and gaining a rather odd worldview compared to the average greek.
That is indeed a good and fitting concept. That could be a very interesting pc
Or it could be code for, "Bard actually does what I see my character doing, and Cleric does not."
Then you would have to decide if you would like to play as a skald or a witch and go from there
And if you consider base consideration of the rules such a bane foe of roleplaying,What makes you think I have any issue with the core rules?
If, instead, they have major constraints and their very class shoved on them for deigning to have the metagame tag of "priest," all of that thought is completely shut off, the player is denied access to those channels of developing and representing their characters, and they could well have to compromise, cheapen, and generally muddle their characters because of it.
Rules ain't the enemy, chief....
Again there are in game setting restraints, which is not a bad thing. That is working with the rules not against it {even if I do often make the rules fit, I am of a school you don't make the world fit the rules you make the rules work for your world]
All games have some restaints, most setting have them built in, in Golaroin all drow are evil, and hated by every freaking one, killed on sight is that bad? Is that even an issue...no it's a setting thing.
Except game fluff is not a rule. Game fluff is an example of what is possible. The power source is also fluff, and is thus also not a rule. "Arcane" or "divine" is a mechanical classification descriptor that basically says whether or not you have to worry about ASF. That's it. There are no rules saying you can't get your arcane spells from your god, and there are rules that say you can get Cleric abilities without so much as looking at a god, simply by believing you're that badass.
There is no rule stating that a Sorcerer cannot get her spells from Mystra, and as such, the DM ought not say no without good reason. That the Sorcerer's spells bear the "Arcane" tag is not any reason at all, as that pertains strictly to mechanical function, not to source or fluff. If the priestess of Mystra is a Sorcerer, she still casts arcane spells, they're just granted by her goddess.
There is a rule that the DM gets to say what the source of magic is, whether that's the Weave, the elemental planes, the Dark Powers, or Muffy the Celestial Wonderkitten who Kneads the Fabric of Space. The player does not get to invent an alternate powersource and insist that the DM shoehorn it into his/her cosmology.
If I say there's a difference between "Arcane" and "Divine," then there is.
And the piles of feats and prestige classes absolutely, positively do not hinge on there being a difference in the game world. Only within the mechanics.
If I've redefined my cosmology so that there's no difference between "Arcane" and "Divine," then mechanics that hinge on that dichotomy fall apart.
I think that's the third different name you've given Lliira.
Eh, her names are manifold like most goddesses. ;)
Anywho, here's the thing. The DM makes/runs the church, the DM makes/runs the gods. They're her NPCs. What the gods and churches say is simply what words the DM puts in their mouths. If the DM blames the churches and gods themselves for her own decisions, that's flat deceptive- after all, she decides what those gods and churches say- and if she decides that the gods won't allow a priestess who happens to take the Bard class, that is again subject to the requirement that the DM needs a good reason to shoot the player down, and that every constraint the DM puts in place must contribute to the game.
And to quote the old intro of the Raimi brothers Hercules: "And the ancient gods were petty and cruel and plagued mankind with suffering."
If some god somewhere decides that Paladins are his favored class, I don't see him making a Rogue his high priest anytime soon. Unless his Paladins are like that awful.
And getting into the actual politics? That's in-character stuff that shouldn't hinge on metagame nonsense. Everything both gods and churches do should be grounded in the reality of the game world.
And sometimes the nature of classes affect that reality.
And every disapproval needs a good reason, available upon request.
Usually given, unless explaining spoils crucial plot points, which it can.
You're complaining about basic freedoms giving the DM less ground to be a prick and throw the rules out the window and cheat the players.
Basic freedoms? Cheat? Gaming is an autocracy. The only freedoms players have are the freedom to mock absurd challenges until the DM is shamed into realizing they're ridiculous or vote with their feet and go find a game they like better.
The only "cheat" a DM can do is run an unenjoyable game.
Except, by default, you can get divine magic from secular sources. Delusions of grandeur are an acceptable power source for Clerics by default rules. Spirit Shamans and Druids don't need a god by default; in fact, Spirit Shamans and Wu Jen pretty much get their powers the exact same way, despite being arcane and divine. And really, how different is drawing magic from the Weave compared to drawing it from generic nature energy?
The difference is what the DM says it is. I might use the Weave in one world, generic natural energy in another, and self-empowering delusions in a third. The default is whatever the DM says it is.
My current game, I bussed all the core races save Humans and Halflings to Fairyland. Elves, Gnomes, Dwarves, Orcs and Gnolls? All fairy creatures and NPCs.
And in my current game, humans and halflings aren't a separate race but one race with a genetic quirk that sometimes produces big people and sometimes little ones.
The word "fluff" is standard jargon within the hobby, as much as "skill check" and "saving throw." It has its own definition independent of common usage. That you happen to apply a dismissive connotation to it and then choose to be offended by the connotation you brought is irrelevant.
I've been writing professionally in the field for over twenty years and I've only heard this "fluff/crunch" twaddle since the advent of 4e, and only in discussions on gaming boards.
"Saving throws" OTOH go back to 1st ed and "Skill Check" goes to 2nd.
"Because I find them unacceptable" is not an answer unto itself.
Read that as "Because it doesn't fit my conception of the world, and my conception is what's running most of the game here."
If the DM does say no, the DM must provide a valid reason if asked. That's the beginning, middle, and end of the matter. "Because your character's story is a smoldering pile of rubbish," is a reason to shoot down the character independent of any and all mechanics, whether you like those mechanics or not; the mechanics don't even come up, because the story is a smoldering pile of rubbish to begin with.
That sort of goes without saying. If a player came up with a character and matching backstory that was so utterly enchanting that I simply must make room for it in my world, even if it would require substantial revision, a major retcon, and a sudden lobotomy for a couple major gods, well then, yeah, sure, it goes in.
The character backgrounds that are merely insipid, mediocre or simply inappropriate? Those I blackball because they're not worth the effort.
And why does banning psionics require that you bar sorcerers from representing themselves via the Expanded Psionic Handbook? Who says Psion can't be a magic-user deriving power from draconic lineage? Why would it be problematic to allow a Psion to be a sorcerer?
If I'm running that dragons are the source of magic, and wizards are stealing their power from sorcerers via murdering them for their blood, then it makes thematic sense that they're also using the same spells and you can torture a sorcerer until he writes down all his scrolls for your evil cabal of wizards to write down into their bloody spellbooks which they then bind with the sorcerer's flayed skin. (They used to use dragonhide, but now you use what you have on hand.
Psionics as dragon magic and substitutes for sorcerers are a less good fit as a substitute for standard sorcerers and redundant if used alongside them.
Yes, that's always a great answer when the players set themselves on an epic quest to change the fate of the world. Have an omnipotent being come down and tell them no until they play your way.
Actually, the Omnipotent Being said it to enough high level characters over the years that all the low level ones will know Her opinions via a very easy Knowledge Nature, Knowledge Religion or Knowledge Arcana check.
The epic quest it to get her to change her mind. Think of Demeter going on strike because of the abduction of Persephone.
Nature goddesses do this sort of thing all the time. And so do Death gods. What do you mean the dragons can't be resurrected because they ate some pomegranates in the Underworld? They ate virgins. Okay, virgins who'd eaten pomegranates, but still, what's with the pomegranates anyway?
Which means the souls exist, and all it takes is one good ruse to rob a god. Use Stone to Flesh to turn two dragon statues into dragon corpses, keep 'em fresh with Gentle Repose, retrieve two dragon souls, bring back the dragons, and have 'em breed, breed, breed.
Great campaign.
Certainly a reasonable plan.
Though actually, without fudging the rules to make for the epic campaign, the real way that'd pan out is that extremely fresh bodies preserved via Gentle Repose retain full bodily functions when brought back as zombies (according to the leading authority on most matters, BoEF), allowing you to animate the dragons without bothering to retrieve the souls and have them make little dragon babies that presumably get new souls of their own, ending the extinction. And it's a lot easier than a raid on the heavens.
Assuming that the Goddess of Nature isn't also the Goddess of Fertility and denies Her favor to your soulless zombie dragons.
And the point I'm making time and time again is that if the DM exercises that authority to shoot someone down, or places constraint after constraint on the players, she must be willing to present her reasons for each and every one if asked, which must be valid reasons, and each and every time the DM invokes her authority to overrule or restrict the players, it must contribute to the game in a meaningful way.
This sort of goes without saying. The only reason you put constraints on a game or remove others is to shape it in a meaningful way.
And is, for most purposes, a 'viking' :DThat is indeed a good and fitting concept. That could be a very interesting pc
Oooo, I've got it. Son of a retired Spartan soldier who settled down in Athans working as body guard for a wealthy merchant marine. Grew up on the seas, learning to use a ship, kill things, and gaining a rather odd worldview compared to the average greek.
Not really, weapons, tech, looks , way of life and speech is way diff. As are the gods you fallow it is only viking in that he is a seafarer that knows how to fight, a common mythic theme in Greek myth
He is no more viking then a french sailor from the 15th century is. What you did do was took your concept and made it work with the setting in place of forcing it into somewhere it did not fit
There is a rule that the DM gets to say what the source of magic is, whether that's the Weave, the elemental planes, the Dark Powers, or Muffy the Celestial Wonderkitten who Kneads the Fabric of Space. The player does not get to invent an alternate powersource and insist that the DM shoehorn it into his/her cosmology.
If I say there's a difference between "Arcane" and "Divine," then there is.
Except no sources are being invented. The gods are a valid source of magic. The priestess of Mystra is gaining her magic from her goddess, same as any other priestess. That magic is just being represented by the Sorcerer class and is subject to the mechanical constraints of arcane casters. No shoehorning required. Sorcerer is the most logical and appropriate class for representing the character's abilities. In fact, to force the Cleric class on her would be shoehorning.
To say that spellcasting that happens to have the "Arcane" tag cannot be of divine origin and spellcasting that happens to have the "Divine" tag cannot be of arcane origin, it's just as petty and baseless as saying, "You cannot be a cleric if you're not a Cleric, and you cannot be a Cleric if you're not a cleric." It's an unnecessary constraint that contributes nothing to the game.
If I've redefined my cosmology so that there's no difference between "Arcane" and "Divine," then mechanics that hinge on that dichotomy fall apart.
Except they don't. If there is no difference within the cosmology, the rules still stand independently. Further, if you acknowledge the fact that "Arcane" and "Divine" within the context of the rules are merely tags, identifiers for mechanical purpose, what their source is in-world is irrelevant. A priestess of Mystra who gains magic that is represented via the Sorcerer class, she is mechanically an arcane caster, though in the world her powers are of divine origin. The divide remains.
And to quote the old intro of the Raimi brothers Hercules: "And the ancient gods were petty and cruel and plagued mankind with suffering."
Ain't an excuse to treat your players like dirt.
If some god somewhere decides that Paladins are his favored class, I don't see him making a Rogue his high priest anytime soon. Unless his Paladins are like that awful.
Except the god cannot decide to play favorites to something he doesn't even know exists.
The difference is what the DM says it is. I might use the Weave in one world, generic natural energy in another, and self-empowering delusions in a third. The default is whatever the DM says it is.
Yet there is no reason why the same class can't draw from two different sources for two different characters, so long as the class is the best and most accurate representation of those characters available.
Except no sources are being invented. The gods are a valid source of magic. The priestess of Mystra is gaining her magic from her goddess, same as any other priestess. That magic is just being represented by the Sorcerer class and is subject to the mechanical constraints of arcane casters. No shoehorning required. Sorcerer is the most logical and appropriate class for representing the character's abilities. In fact, to force the Cleric class on her would be shoehorning.
The gods are only a valid source of magic if I say they're a valid source of magic. To cite a published source so the response isn't just "in your homebrew world," all clerical magic in Ravenloft is granted not by gods but by "The Dark Powers" which are usually assumed to be evil but have been known to grant good magics as well.
I agree that "Arcane" and "Divine" are tags for types of magic, but they are called that because they're usually tied to Arcane or Divine power sources. If the gods are a "Divine" power source, then the magic they grant is "Divine" even if they grant it to a sorcerer who is in all mechanical ways still a sorcerer though now with spells tagged "Divine" instead of "Arcane."
To say that spellcasting that happens to have the "Arcane" tag cannot be of divine origin and spellcasting that happens to have the "Divine" tag cannot be of arcane origin, it's just as petty and baseless as saying, "You cannot be a cleric if you're not a Cleric, and you cannot be a Cleric if you're not a cleric." It's an unnecessary constraint that contributes nothing to the game.
Very often it contributes clarity and simplicity. It's often useful for things to be what they say on the box. If you find a scroll marked "Divine Blessing of Illyria" it sort of helps if it actually is empowered by the Divine Blessing of Illyria.
Except they don't. If there is no difference within the cosmology, the rules still stand independently. Further, if you acknowledge the fact that "Arcane" and "Divine" within the context of the rules are merely tags, identifiers for mechanical purpose, what their source is in-world is irrelevant. A priestess of Mystra who gains magic that is represented via the Sorcerer class, she is mechanically an arcane caster, though in the world her powers are of divine origin. The divide remains.
Or I can follow the cosmology of "What it says on the box" and match the Arcane mechanics to the Arcane cosmology, the Divine to the Divine, and if I choose to use them, the Psionics to the Psionic.
Except the god cannot decide to play favorites to something he doesn't even know exists.
If by the mechanics of my world Paladins gain their powers via divine grace of their patron god and fall via failing their vows and can only regain that divine grace via an Atonement spell notifying their god that they're really, truly sorry and repentant? Yeah, I think the God of Paladins knows who the Paladins are and can pick them out from the Rogues.
Yet there is no reason why the same class can't draw from two different sources for two different characters, so long as the class is the best and most accurate representation of those characters available.
I'm the DM. I decide how many sources there are and what they're good for empowering, and by the same token, what they're not good for empowering. I can take the standard Divine power tag and split it into Good and Evil or do it three ways as Good, Evil and Neutral, then let it empower various different spells better or worse, or simply stamp them with a brand marking such that an otherwise ordinary spell will radiate Divine Good, Infernal Evil or Supreme Indifference. I can declare the source of all Arcane magic to be Draconic and if I want, I can say that Psionics are Draconic too. I can declare coffee to be a magical bean and make Warlocks empowered by espresso. I can make Bards empowered by every power source I've listed so far and a few more I make up and give them all different hairstyles and outfits have them all claim to be different classes, even though they're all mechanically Bards and the only difference between them is the power source and the hairstyle.
Or I can not do these things. I can declare Arcane magic suitable for empowering Wizards and Sorcerers, Divine for empowering Clerics and Druids, and that's the way it is. No alternate sources.
Though I still might declare that Bards are empowered by alcohol, since it explains why they're always found in bars.
The gods are only a valid source of magic if I say they're a valid source of magic. To cite a published source so the response isn't just "in your homebrew world," all clerical magic in Ravenloft is granted not by gods but by "The Dark Powers" which are usually assumed to be evil but have been known to grant good magics as well.
You're picking at rubbish at the expense of the point. The source doesn't matter Even if the only sources of magic are magicite ore, glowing nematodes, and sterling silver dinette sets from the fairy queen, the class being used is equally as meaningless.
I agree that "Arcane" and "Divine" are tags for types of magic, but they are called that because they're usually tied to Arcane or Divine power sources. If the gods are a "Divine" power source, then the magic they grant is "Divine" even if they grant it to a sorcerer who is in all mechanical ways still a sorcerer though now with spells tagged "Divine" instead of "Arcane."
"Usually" does not mean "always." Rules of thumb are not binding. What's more, a Sorcerer who draws her spells from a deity is still an arcane caster mechanically in every way, and there is no change. Her spells still have the "Arcane" mechanical tag, even if they carry a "divine" tag in the fluff. The rules do not change.
Or I can follow the cosmology of "What it says on the box" and match the Arcane mechanics to the Arcane cosmology, the Divine to the Divine, and if I choose to use them, the Psionics to the Psionic.
And what do those constraints contribute to the game other than arbitrary shackles?
If by the mechanics of my world Paladins gain their powers via divine grace of their patron god and fall via failing their vows and can only regain that divine grace via an Atonement spell notifying their god that they're really, truly sorry and repentant? Yeah, I think the God of Paladins knows who the Paladins are and can pick them out from the Rogues.
That ain't mechanics, chief. You're conflating here. You can apply the same baggage to a Rogue in a heartbeat, and the notion of class still doesn't exist in-world.
I'm the DM. I decide how many sources there are and what they're good for empowering, and by the same token, what they're not good for empowering. I can take the standard Divine power tag and split it into Good and Evil or do it three ways as Good, Evil and Neutral, then let it empower various different spells better or worse, or simply stamp them with a brand marking such that an otherwise ordinary spell will radiate Divine Good, Infernal Evil or Supreme Indifference. I can declare the source of all Arcane magic to be Draconic and if I want, I can say that Psionics are Draconic too. I can declare coffee to be a magical bean and make Warlocks empowered by espresso. I can make Bards empowered by every power source I've listed so far and a few more I make up and give them all different hairstyles and outfits have them all claim to be different classes, even though they're all mechanically Bards and the only difference between them is the power source and the hairstyle.
Or I can not do these things. I can declare Arcane magic suitable for empowering Wizards and Sorcerers, Divine for empowering Clerics and Druids, and that's the way it is. No alternate sources.
"I am DM almighty! My vision reigns supreme. My interpretation stands alone above all others. All who deign to have their own vision, their own interpretation, who defy my decree are filthy heretics, fell sinners who desecrate mine almighty rule."
A well-made cosmology or organization or world can stand independently from the mechanics. When it comes time to play, the mechanics are then applied to that independent world as a tool for interpretation. There is more than one way to interpret anything, even if you're the one who originally created it. The world, when brought to the table, has absolutely nothing to do with the mechanics. When the player comes up with an unusual interpretation, the answer shouldn't be, "I have already interpreted that aspect of the world differently, begone," but rather an appraisal of whether the character as presented is coherent with a world that exists unto itself, not within a set of rules.
Then you would have to decide if you would like to play as a skald or a witch and go from there
Which is precisely the problem, precisely the insult. I come up with a character. That character is neither skald nor witch. I choose the most appropriate class for representing that character and her abilities; Bard. That should be it, yet now, due to arbitrary rules, the mechanics and the roleplay have become enemies. I'm forced to either throw the character under the bus to play a Bard, or throw the build under the bus to play my character with mechanics that utterly fail to represent her.
"I am DM almighty! My vision reigns supreme. My interpretation stands alone above all others. All who deign to have their own vision, their own interpretation, who defy my decree are filthy heretics, fell sinners who desecrate mine almighty rule."
A well-made cosmology or organization or world can stand independently from the mechanics. When it comes time to play, the mechanics are then applied to that independent world as a tool for interpretation. There is more than one way to interpret anything, even if you're the one who originally created it. The world, when brought to the table, has absolutely nothing to do with the mechanics. When the player comes up with an unusual interpretation, the answer shouldn't be, "I have already interpreted that aspect of the world differently, begone," but rather an appraisal of whether the character as presented is coherent with a world that exists unto itself, not within a set of rules.
I'm not disagreeing that a well-made cosmology can't stand independent of the mechanics, or that different mechanics can't be used to run the same world. This has never been in dispute.
What I am arguing is that the GM is both the final arbiter of the cosmology of his own world--or the interpreter of the cosmology of any published world he is choosing to use--as well as the final arbiter of all the mechanics of the game, not just how they work but who can use what.
A player can request a certain feat, a certain race, a certain class, a certain prestige class, a certain subset of rules or even an entirely new game system. The DM says "Yes" or "No" or often "Not right now" if someone wants to rules lawyer and argue game theory in the middle of play time while all the other players are wanting to get on with the adventure.
I get that you're upset that some DM somewhere told you that you couldn't play a Bard as a priestess. Whatever. Not my game, not my call. About the only thing I can say is that it was the DM's right to make that call, and whether I or any other DM would have made the same call is immaterial.
I will also say that some players like to rules lawyer, often at particularly inappropriate times. I remember one who said "Well, I'm doing it this way because it's in the rules" to which I said "Show me the paragraph" followed by "You're misinterpreting that. This paragraph means X--." Then he said "But who knows what the game designer intended when he wrote that?" to which I said "Well, since I happened to write that particular paragraph, I do. And I meant X--" to which he doggedly replied "But couldn't it be interpreted as Y?" and I answered "If you went with a really warped interpretation. But no Storyteller in their right mind would let you get away with that, and I won't either."
Whenever I start a game, I tell the players which portion of the core rules is being used, what supplementary rules from other books are added in, what house rules are in place both for this particular world and for my games in general. Inquiries of "Don't you find the Bladeblah System more elegant?" are usually answered with "Not particularly. I tend to find these rules work better for my games." Complaints of "But this goes counter to what's in the RAW!" are countered with "The RAW is often contradictory, and in this case is completely whacked, so we're going with this house rule instead."
For example, the Pathfinder weights and capacities for backpacks defy real world physics. For example, by the RAW on p. 159 a halfling's backpack weighs 1/4 and holds 1/4. The square/cube law about surfaces and volumes, however, would make an item weigh 1/4 (assuming same thickness of leather) but hold 1/8th. Since I don't want all halflings getting free handy haversacks, I'll go with physics over the RAW because it hurts my brain less. And the idea of little people wandering around with double-size backpacks also hurts my sense of aesthetics.
Other DMs are free to go with other interpretations, as are other players. But when a game is being run, it's the DM's interpretation that matters.
Then he said "But who knows what the game designer intended when he wrote that?" to which I said "Well, since I happened to write that particular paragraph, I do. And I meant X--"Now, tell the truth, Kevin. You waited years to be able to use that on a player, didn't you?
Actually, it was in the first couple months after Mage 2nd had come out and players were familiarizing themselves with the new system.
Though I will admit it's a favorite anecdote, and one I like to pull out when people start to argue the ineffability of game designers.
The short answers are usually: "That's what I wrote" "This is what I meant" or "Oops, that was a mistake."
Which is precisely the problem, precisely the insult. I come up with a character. That character is neither skald nor witch. I choose the most appropriate class for representing that character and her abilities; Bard. That should be it, yet now, due to arbitrary rules, the mechanics and the roleplay have become enemies. I'm forced to either throw the character under the bus to play a Bard, or throw the build under the bus to play my character with mechanics that utterly fail to represent her.
Ok I'll bite, whats this concept that just 100% has to be a bard class that will not fit within the skald or witch traditions? Keep in mind you know nada of the world other then you have been told bard are skalds and witches>...now whose being uncooperative?
Ok a bit of an over view
The game takes place among the Anzari plains. The plains stretch for 20 days ride south and west. To the north lays the breaken wood, to the east a massive river and across it lawless lands of the cursed plains, filled with cannibalistic barbarian tribes.
The one and only human culture at the start would be the Anzari people, a farming/hunter gather type of thing. They ride axbeaks and raise animals , live in stone and sod round homes. They have three gods , both the skald and the witches hail from the anzari people. Wizardry and sorcery hail from a long line of traditions passed down since the age of death.
The only other races are the druidic animal lord worshiping elves and the nomadic beast riding drawves of the southwesten steeps
The only other known human culture are the demon worshiping barbarian of the cursed plains
Now where's this bard?
There's no music in your world, seeker? Skalds weren't musicians, they were poets and storytellers. The obvious hole for a bard is the default one: a character who creates magic through music. It's a very universal archetype, appearing in nearly every culture in the world.
There's no music in your world, seeker? Skalds weren't musicians, they were poets and storytellers. The obvious hole for a bard is the default one: a character who creates magic through music. It's a very universal archetype, appearing in nearly every culture in the world.
If I can step in for seeker, it may be in his world that the skalds have talking drums that they occasionally thump to punctuate their odes, rather like beat poets rapping on bongos. And the witches may sing to charm spirits into giving them their powers as part of their daily obeisances to the spirit world.
What he's saying is that a character with the Bard mechanic may not exist in this given setting and the world is no poorer for it, the same as games are no poorer for not having Psions or Warblades anywhere in their cosmology or world design.
Skalds of this world do indeed tell story's and poems, they also know history, Keep records, carry deeds and tells of heros and the Orel history of the Anzari people. The skald chroniclers history, and makes it, they are warriors and poets and learn the arcane art, they use weapons and are very much a warrior cast. They without fail learn perform Oratory , they also like drums
Witches however are far more varied in style and art-form, they sing, they dance they enchant with interments, female witches tend toward song and dace , while male witches tend interments and song. Still witches more often then not use song, almost every time
Song is common, song making that does magic, and casting spells is not.
Edit, ninjaed by kevin.You are more or less correct, however both a Skald and a witch are of the bard class, the bard would have to choose the Skald or witch traditions
Actually, it was in the first couple months after Mage 2nd had come out and players were familiarizing themselves with the new system.
Though I will admit it's a favorite anecdote, and one I like to pull out when people start to argue the ineffability of game designers.
The short answers are usually: "That's what I wrote" "This is what I meant" or "Oops, that was a mistake."
/turns Strahd into a lawn chair
However, classes do not exist in the game world. They are a mechanical construct. It is impossible for a class to be inappropriate to a world. Only a character can be inappropriate. Or appropriate, as the case may be. The default fluff for Moogryvator may not be appropriate, but the default fluff counts for precisely jack. The character could well be perfectly appropriate, and use preexisting fluff that fits the world seamlessly.
I have to disagree with this. While not all examples of a given class would fit into those classes, there are certainly Clerics, Druids, and Paladins, just as examples. I've never played in a campaign where the word "Cleric" didn't conjure some very specific images based on the local pantheon. And druids protect nature. You could certainly have a campaign where these things were not true, or a character in a campaign who was not easily defined socially by the class he has. In a default world, however, walking up to a citizen and saying "I'm a Druid" generally means something.
Now, say for example you ran your campaign set in a metal spaceship with no natural creatures or trees. You'd have to re-tool Druid quite a bit to make the concept even fit in. Or say you ran a completely historical campaign, with no magical abilities of any sort. Pretty much any character with a mystical ability wouldn't fit the campaign. I know these are extreme examples and not likely to occur, but they ARE possible.
Perhaps the problem is people using Druid with a capital "D" and druid as being the same. One (capital "D") is the class the other the concept.
|
I think the basic arguement from me and VV and our side is, you can play any concept with any class. Denying that out of hand is the issue we take offense to.
I could play a druid using the Fighter class.
I could play a cleric using the Wizard class.
I could play a paladin using the Monk class.
All we want is the freedom to play our characters the way we want.
That's the point, there are no classes in game, only character concepts. A DRUID, a MONK, a RANGER, a SCOUT, or a host of other classes could be used to represent a "druid" ya get what I'm saying?
Get what you're saying, but don't so much agree with it. A fighter who believes in a deity could call himself a cleric, but he wouldn't have too may followers when they realized he couldn't cast spells and all the other clerics in town could. Are there areas that COULD cross over? Sure. But Classes are archetypes that define the genre. Due to the amount of control each ability has over the character's role in the campaign, I don't see it as being completely flexible.
I've played D20 Modern extensively, and those classes are truly independent of position in society. You could easily be a Strong Hero who's a lawyer, a Smart Hero who's a boxer, etc. But in D&D (and Pathfinder by inheritance) the classes OFTEN, not always, define not only the character's abilities, but social position/profession as well.
I could play a cleric using the Wizard class.
How could you do this when the Wizards' spells are defined as Arcane and the Clerics' as divine? Your cleric realistically could look through magic books until the end of his life and never gain a cleric spell until he had faith in/devotion to a deity. Could you ask your DM to trade spell lists so all divine spells are arcane and you are a 'wizard'? Sure. But you have to modify a game mechanic to do it, and that's not the purview of the player.
At TOZ ,All in the setting. Some setting have hard wired classes in. The fact is your wanting classeless character in a very class based system. Some setting will allow you that freedom, some will not.
In most setting saying your a druid has expectations with it. Same as saying your a cleric. And yes the people of that world who understand how it normally works would know your nor what you claim to be. For instance druids and wildshape..if all druids of your would cast spells and wild shape..and your fighter can not, nor can he speak the drudic tongue then to everyone who knows such thing he is no druid, he's a lier and a fraud
Again, all character need to fit with in the frame work of the game world.
And in some settings I would allow the wizard thats a cleric..I will be changing out spell lists however
I think the basic arguement from me and VV and our side is, you can play any concept with any class. Denying that out of hand is the issue we take offense to.
I could play a druid using the Fighter class.
I could play a cleric using the Wizard class.
I could play a paladin using the Monk class.
All we want is the freedom to play our characters the way we want.
I will agree to that but I don't agree you could play a Cleric (with a capital "C") with a Wizard class.
I will agree to that but I don't agree you could play a Cleric (with a capital "C") with a Wizard class.
Some setting do in fact allow clergy of other classes into the faith, You could be called a priest however and not a cleric
Some setting do in fact allow clergy of other classes into the faith, You could be called a priest however and not a cleric
I will agree to that but I don't agree you could play a Cleric (with a capital "C") with a Wizard class.
Yeah, I can certainly see exceptions to the rule, and have seen them to a greater or lesser extent in many games. But I can't see, for the purposes of most campaigns, anyway, abolishing the definitions entirely.
Some setting do in fact allow clergy of other classes into the faith, You could be called a priest however and not a cleric
I will agree to that but I don't agree you could play a Cleric (with a capital "C") with a Wizard class.
Yes like Azuth in FR(?).
I see priests as a concept in that anyone can be a priest as long as they fulfill the qualifiers for that particular church and Clerics as a class in a FRPG.
I think the basic arguement from me and VV and our side is, you can play any concept with any class. Denying that out of hand is the issue we take offense to.
I could play a druid using the Fighter class.
I could play a cleric using the Wizard class.
I could play a paladin using the Monk class.
All we want is the freedom to play our characters the way we want.
The freedom to play your character however you want ends when you expect the universe to bend around you to accommodate that character concept.
If one of the base premises of the universe is that X power source only empowers Y class in Z way, you don't get to invent new power sources, new classes or new ways. Likewise, if the premise of the universe is that wizardry is taught in ancient universities by white bearded masters with musty books, then inventing some different order of wizards with different schools, different hairstyles and alternate writing forms and insisting that the DM incorporate this in his world is plain annoying.
Certainly not all aristocrats need to be statted up with the Aristocrat class, but the ones that aren't are generally the black sheep and odd ducks: Here's the son who went into the church, here's the daughter who dabbles in sorcery, here's the ne'er-do-well uncle who realized that learning the assassin's trade was cheaper than hiring them.
But if one of the premises of the world is that Paladins (with a capital P) are only empowered by one of three divinities, you don't get to create a Paladin empowered by some other divinity, or their own delusions, or the Fairie Queen's misplaced tea things. You can call this conflationist if you like--I personally don't care--but it helps to keep a world comprehensible, especially in the case of supernatural powers. If my cosmology says that Warlocks get their powerz from Hell and only from Hell, then Hell can turn off that power any time it suits Hell's purpose, unless it's a matter of some ancient bargain where the PCs great grandpa sold his soul to pay for the Hellish power, but even then, Hell's not without resources: It can always offer to let great-grandpa out of his bargain if the great grandson is being too much of a pain in the nether regions.
Other DMs are free to allow the kitchen sink approach and let players redefine the world willy-nilly, and if they enjoy those games, fine. But they're not the way that every DM runs the game or has to run the game.
|
I've been really busy lately, but there have been some VERY GOOD ideas on all sides recently (and also some bad ones).
Just thought you all should know I was still reading...
Just to chime in in regards to the "player changes 'fluff' to suit the DM using rules they do not want" discussion.
If a player has a great idea for a character, but needs to use certain rules to represent that character, then the 'fluff' is irrelevant to their argument as well. They are admitting that their is a mechanical reasoning to their character, and thus if a DM says no based on the mechanics they are SOL.
However, if they are as reasonable as they claim, they should have no problems representing this great character with ANY mechanics.
For example:
Player: I have a really great idea for a 'Highlander-style' swordsman.
DM: Sounds neat, what've you got?
Player: But I need to use the psionics mechanics to play it.
DM: Why?
Player: It would play better.
DM: Well, if the concept is that important, why not just play a multiclass sorcerer/fighter. We can come up with a rule to ignore armor or something to make it do what you want.
Player: Okay, let's look at what that could be.
This is a healthy co-operation.
I've been really busy lately, but there have been some VERY GOOD ideas on all sides recently (and also some bad ones).
Just thought you all should know I was still reading...
Just to chime in in regards to the "player changes 'fluff' to suit the DM using rules they do not want" discussion.
If a player has a great idea for a character, but needs to use certain rules to represent that character, then the 'fluff' is irrelevant to their argument as well. They are admitting that their is a mechanical reasoning to their character, and thus if a DM says no based on the mechanics they are SOL.
However, if they are as reasonable as they claim, they should have no problems representing this great character with ANY mechanics.
For example:
Player: I have a really great idea for a 'Highlander-style' swordsman.
DM: Sounds neat, what've you got?
Player: But I need to use the psionics mechanics to play it.
DM: Why?
Player: It would play better.
DM: Well, if the concept is that important, why not just play a multiclass sorcerer/fighter. We can come up with a rule to ignore armor or something to make it do what you want.
Player: Okay, let's look at what that could be.This is a healthy co-operation.
This is a very reasonable, clear argument. I can't imagine how anyone could disagree with this. (I hope I'm not about to find out....)
Nobody is saying the DM has to do anything. I will repeat that every time I see someone claims VV or Ryder said the DM has to do what a player says. I belief if I put it on every page it will eventually be read and understood
The question still stands that if a player can think of a good reason( since fluff is now a bad word)to do X, and X can be done without breaking the game, why not allow it.
Edit: SeaByrn that was for an earlier post, not yours.
This is a very reasonable, clear argument. I can't imagine how anyone could disagree with this. (I hope I'm not about to find out....)I've been really busy lately, but there have been some VERY GOOD ideas on all sides recently (and also some bad ones).
Just thought you all should know I was still reading...
Just to chime in in regards to the "player changes 'fluff' to suit the DM using rules they do not want" discussion.
If a player has a great idea for a character, but needs to use certain rules to represent that character, then the 'fluff' is irrelevant to their argument as well. They are admitting that their is a mechanical reasoning to their character, and thus if a DM says no based on the mechanics they are SOL.
However, if they are as reasonable as they claim, they should have no problems representing this great character with ANY mechanics.
For example:
Player: I have a really great idea for a 'Highlander-style' swordsman.
DM: Sounds neat, what've you got?
Player: But I need to use the psionics mechanics to play it.
DM: Why?
Player: It would play better.
DM: Well, if the concept is that important, why not just play a multiclass sorcerer/fighter. We can come up with a rule to ignore armor or something to make it do what you want.
Player: Okay, let's look at what that could be.This is a healthy co-operation.
If the DM's idea does not fit what the player wants they should continue to go over it until an agreement is made. Most people usually have a week between sessions so even if a face to face is not possible, email and chatting works well. If the DM and the player can not come to an agreement the DM should say X is why. It would be better to get a detailed answer, but if that is not possible, due to spoiler reasons for example, the DM should be able to say story reasons or something equally vague. Hopefully the player trust the DM enough to trust that story reasons are good enough, but if the player does not they may have a bigger issue than a simple character concept.
If the DM's idea does not fit what the player wants they should continue to go over it until an agreement is made. Most people usually have a week between sessions so even if a face to face is not possible, email and chatting works well. If the DM and the player can not come to an agreement the DM should say X is why. It would be better to get a detailed answer, but if that is not possible, due to spoiler reasons for example, the DM should be able to say story reasons or something equally vague. Hopefully the player trust the DM enough to trust that story reasons are good enough, but if the player does not they may have a bigger issue than a simple character concept.This is a very reasonable, clear argument. I can't imagine how anyone could disagree with this. (I hope I'm not about to find out....)I've been really busy lately, but there have been some VERY GOOD ideas on all sides recently (and also some bad ones).
Just thought you all should know I was still reading...
Just to chime in in regards to the "player changes 'fluff' to suit the DM using rules they do not want" discussion.
If a player has a great idea for a character, but needs to use certain rules to represent that character, then the 'fluff' is irrelevant to their argument as well. They are admitting that their is a mechanical reasoning to their character, and thus if a DM says no based on the mechanics they are SOL.
However, if they are as reasonable as they claim, they should have no problems representing this great character with ANY mechanics.
For example:
Player: I have a really great idea for a 'Highlander-style' swordsman.
DM: Sounds neat, what've you got?
Player: But I need to use the psionics mechanics to play it.
DM: Why?
Player: It would play better.
DM: Well, if the concept is that important, why not just play a multiclass sorcerer/fighter. We can come up with a rule to ignore armor or something to make it do what you want.
Player: Okay, let's look at what that could be.This is a healthy co-operation.
No worries about the above post - and this is also eminently reasonable, in my view.
The "hope I'm not about to find out" was a bit snarky - this thread seems to have gotten bogged down a fair number of times, I would hate to see that happen again in the face of what appear to me to be very reasonable statements (Jal Dorak's and yours, and lots of others at times) - which I don't take to be incompatible in intent.