|
One insane group I was part of were using very powerful magic weapons. +6 to +10 weapons, at level 20 or so. The campaign was extremely combat heavy. I entered as a sorcerer, with the GM boon of my character knowing, get this, ALL SPELLS IN THE 3.5 PHB. However, since the rest of the party could drop monsters in 1 round, I still felt kinda out of place since I couldn't Meteor Swarm a 10,000HP monster? But since the stacking/rules/campaign was all screwed up, the fighter COULD do 10,000 damage. The only fight I was useful in was against a powerful NPC boss type with +20 equipment for everything. And he was kicking the party's ass. I cast Disjunction on him, that got rid of all his fancy equipment, and the party dropped him in that round.
I asked for a golem armor, basically Iron Man armor, that allows me to cast without penalty, and something like a 100,000K gold item that shoots spikes for 3d6 damage. That was shot down because it was "too powerful".
I stopped playing in the campaign in 2 sessions.
I've said no to those too. Anything that's pretty much designed to explode all over the rest of the party in normal use is not an acceptable party member. It's one thing to kill another PC through a misunderstanding or by mistake. It's quite another to set up a ticking time bomb.
Frenzied Berserker. Again, in PF Core rules game. No, not even in 3.5, not again.
Unfortunate to hear others have had such problems- I've taken aspects of that PrC for my homebrew barbarian base class and have had more successes there than failures.
One insane group I was part of were using very powerful magic weapons. +6 to +10 weapons, at level 20 or so. The campaign was extremely combat heavy. I entered as a sorcerer, with the GM boon of my character knowing, get this, ALL SPELLS IN THE 3.5 PHB. However, since the rest of the party could drop monsters in 1 round, I still felt kinda out of place since I couldn't Meteor Swarm a 10,000HP monster? But since the stacking/rules/campaign was all screwed up, the fighter COULD do 10,000 damage. The only fight I was useful in was against a powerful NPC boss type with +20 equipment for everything. And he was kicking the party's ass. I cast Disjunction on him, that got rid of all his fancy equipment, and the party dropped him in that round.
I asked for a golem armor, basically Iron Man armor, that allows me to cast without penalty, and something like a 100,000K gold item that shoots spikes for 3d6 damage. That was shot down because it was "too powerful".
I stopped playing in the campaign in 2 sessions.
...Why...were you trying to do damage as an arcanist, especially at level 20 <_<
Cause he forgot to ask for all the spells from Spell Compendium and Frostburn.
Avasculate! Quickened Maximized Icy Touch!
The were-chicken.You've got to be kidding?!
Frenzied Berserker. Again, in PF Core rules game. No, not even in 3.5, not again.
Interesting about the hate going on for the frenzied berserker. In 2E, one of my group's most beloved characters was a dwarven battlerager, despite his need to hack on the party from time to time. I'm currently playing a Frenzied Berskerker (I normally DM). They can add a little spice to the group, provided they're not played by someone that wants to be disruptive. It's a penalty that provides a benefit, a concept that doesn't happen very often anymore.
Granted, mine is well-stocked in the will save department, and she feels remorseful when she harms party members, but the group has contingency plans in place, including some impressive grappling capability and/or feat combos that negate her most dangerous aspects. Worked pretty well so far and deals hellacious damage (which is her purpose). I did, however, clear it with the rest of the party before playing the character.
I could see the capacity for abuse, but the same could be said for a wizard that didn't care about where other party members were in relation to their spell effects.
I'm sure there were plenty of concepts I've said no to over the years, but I'm usually fairly flexible. I did manage to dodge the worst of the 3.5 monster players, though...
Interesting about the hate going on for the frenzied berserker. In 2E, one of my group's most beloved characters was a dwarven battlerager, despite his need to hack on the party from time to time. I'm currently playing a Frenzied Berskerker (I normally DM). They can add a little spice to the group, provided they're not played by someone that wants to be disruptive.
I'd say that latter caveat is the main problem with the class.
Interesting about the hate going on for the frenzied berserker. In 2E, one of my group's most beloved characters was a dwarven battlerager, despite his need to hack on the party from time to time. I'm currently playing a Frenzied Berskerker (I normally DM). They can add a little spice to the group, provided they're not played by someone that wants to be disruptive.I'd say that latter caveat is the main problem with the class.
Thankfully, I've been lucky in that most of the groups that I've played with have been blessed with good folks, but there have been a few people that I've looked sideways at a lot. So, like most things, it would depend on the group (and the player).
I built my FB to be able to MAKE will saves, rather than not. I think a FB that was purely destructive would be a mighty fine target for that wizard that plays fast and loose with area effects.
But again, ANY character can be disruptive...
The idea of building to fit the party reminds me indirectly of an old group I played with. I was coming into a long-running campaign, and the group had a crazy amount of enemies. Most character concepts I came up with weren't stupid enough to want to associate with them, so I came up with two that were: 1) that was ordered to join them by his employer (who he was extremely loyal to), and when that character died, 2) A literally suicidal character...interestingly, he actually found reasons to keep living and eventually got married and had a kid (that I played in a later game!).
The problem with Frenzied Barbarians is that they break the most sacred rule that I think all games have: Do Not Disrupt The Party With Petty Garbage.
Nobody wants to be in a group with one character that might kill you all.
The problem with Frenzied Barbarians is that they break the most sacred rule that I think all games have: Do Not Disrupt The Party With Petty Garbage.
Nobody wants to be in a group with one character that might kill you all.
But I like playing a wizard! Oh wait... you weren't talking to me... nevermind carry on.
...Why...were you trying to do damage as an arcanist, especially at level 20 <_<
Because some people don't enjoy the "God Mage" style of play.
Me being one of them. If I'm playing a caster, I want to blow $#!% up.
Planescape Magical Girls.Kill it. Kill it with FIRE.
It's incredibly fun. We've done I think two modules so far - I know we did a heavily "adapted" Modron March, since it's being played in BESM - with a lot of silliness along the way. Each character is a magical girl for a different faction. I'm Godsmen-tan!
It's incredibly fun. We've done I think two modules so far - I know we did a heavily "adapted" Modron March, since it's being played in BESM - with a lot of silliness along the way. Each character is a magical girl for a different faction. I'm Godsmen-tan!Planescape Magical Girls.Kill it. Kill it with FIRE.
ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!It's incredibly fun. We've done I think two modules so far - I know we did a heavily "adapted" Modron March, since it's being played in BESM - with a lot of silliness along the way. Each character is a magical girl for a different faction. I'm Godsmen-tan!Planescape Magical Girls.Kill it. Kill it with FIRE.
I had to look up "magical girls" on wikipedia....
but I'm inspired.
So.........legs up to their neck, reeeeel big eyes and heads that don't move when they talk(?)
ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!It's incredibly fun. We've done I think two modules so far - I know we did a heavily "adapted" Modron March, since it's being played in BESM - with a lot of silliness along the way. Each character is a magical girl for a different faction. I'm Godsmen-tan!Planescape Magical Girls.Kill it. Kill it with FIRE.I had to look up "magical girls" on wikipedia....
but I'm inspired.
So.........legs up to their neck, reeeeel big eyes and heads that don't move when they talk(?)
I'll explain more later when I'm not at work. But I'm hoping there's artwork that goes with this game. A lot of artwork.
And it's less based on artistic styles of magical girl, more on plot style and characterization. We all attend Sigil High School and meet up at Fell's Ice Cream Parlor after class.
And it's less based on artistic styles of magical girl, more on plot style and characterization. We all attend Sigil High School and meet up at Fell's Ice Cream Parlor after class.
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Also, to explain now that I am not at work, Heath, the various OS-tans(Operating System-tan) have usually been drawn as anywhere from incredibly busty beautiful women to...well..I really don't get very far past the incredibly busty part. It makes some zany sense that there would be someone who attempted a Faction-tan movement, and I'm glad to see that someone did.
Of course, they could be drawn a lot more...well, MORE, but I think I'm just happy with the fact that there are Faction-tans.
To get back on topic...
I had to veto one of my players when he designed a sorcerer with MPD. Worse, each personality had its own spells and feats. Worse than that, he said the personalities switched at random each morning when he woke up, so he would roll a die to see which one was in controll.
Oh, and he had 6 personalities!
|
To get back on topic...
I had to veto one of my players when he designed a sorcerer with MPD. Worse, each personality had its own spells and feats. Worse than that, he said the personalities switched at random each morning when he woke up, so he would roll a die to see which one was in controll.
Oh, and he had 6 personalities!
I played a minicampaign where the DM made the charecters and that was the charecter he gave me, Only I had to roll a D20 each morning. The group were all escapees from an asylum.
Edit to correct reply
|
|
The only character of mine that was actually statted up and rejected that I can recall was a wood element goblin ("I'm a real boy!")
I'm usually pretty permitting but I've rejected vampires (would add needless environmental complications), Awakened dinosaurs (thematic concerns), and characters named Bob.
Except for that last one, I'm pretty sure I would allow even these ideas on a case-by-case basis.
I've never had D&D character shot down, and I was always careful to only build truly broken Champions characters as thought experiments, never exposing them to the harsh reality of a sane GM who would have vetoed them with a big stick.
I'm usually pretty permitting but I've rejected vampires (would add needless environmental complications), Awakened dinosaurs (thematic concerns), and characters named Bob.
Except for that last one, I'm pretty sure I would allow even these ideas on a case-by-case basis.
On that note, after the GM seemed distressed that our GURPS Sci-Fi characters had names that were too 'normal', I built my new guy with the name John (glottal stop) Smith...and now I remember my only rejected character, again in GURPS. SF Military game, I built my experimental Cyborg...which would have been OK, but I added in the Cortex Bomb disadvantage, with the intent of giving the remote to his commanding officer (another player who I know would have *wanted* to use it, but who was to responsible to do so unless I got out of line).
|
My first campaign, one of my players grew overly attached to the Half-Giant race and its Powerful Build feature. I don't know now many different incarnations of that character I rejected before he finally locked it as a Marshal 1/Barbarian 1. His other character almost had more trouble. Started as an Aasimar, then through a few other things to become a Fire Elf. In hindsight, I'm wishing I had rejected it. It's so far proving impossible to hit with appropriate enemies.
On the other hand, I've had a Silverbrow Human Beguiler and a Kobold Sorcerer rejected from the same campaign. The latter because he didn't like Kobolds, the former because he didn't want anything exotic. Ended up with a CN Half-Elf Beguiler out to kill her father. She's proving interesting so far.
Anything with a CE or, worse, CN alignment. Don't need to halt entire game sessions to discuss why alignment can't be used to justify kender-like behavior or PvP....
This can easily be solved with a situation that simply forces the characters to work together by making all alternatives much undesirable. Unless the player simply wants disrupt the game (in which case the problem is not with the alignment), even chaotic evil characters will 'behave' if the expected rewards are right, and if non-cooperation will get them killed or leave them much worse off.
The only character of mine that was actually statted up and rejected that I can recall was a wood element goblin ("I'm a real boy!")
I'm usually pretty permitting but I've rejected vampires (would add needless environmental complications), Awakened dinosaurs (thematic concerns), and characters named Bob.
Except for that last one, I'm pretty sure I would allow even these ideas on a case-by-case basis.
Heh. I can't remember if it was actually used (most likely in a one-shot), or if it was a joke that just stuck in my head, but (a long time ago) in a Dark Sun campaign we had a Bob the thri-kreen ranger.
He may have been a fill character or something. Normally we don't stay that silly.
Anything with a CE or, worse, CN alignment. Don't need to halt entire game sessions to discuss why alignment can't be used to justify kender-like behavior or PvP....
Ill up you one. Anything CN, NE, CE or N.
Monstrous characters and also most extra content books have been disabled (whether they are considered official or unoffical material).
Learning to say no was hard. It was/is not my natural tendency but most people do not grasp the simple concept of:
"Make what you want but make sure it doesn't wreck the campaign's theme and that it has a reason to play well with the party."
I actually played in an entire campaign where the party was involved in what basically amounts to a "Gnome Holocaust"Hmmmm, there are quite a few I suppose.
Turned down a group I didn't want to play with composed of evil cleric, frenzied berserker and rainbow servant beguiler. No thank you.
One person wanted to make nothing but psychotic characters. The Hitler to Gnomes being the big one. That guy was a freak.
One guy had a baby with an RPGA membership, that was eventually shut down thankfully.
Oddly my 4th edition Kobold rogue was shot down back when we were playing that.
Make it a Kender Holocaust and I'll be there with magical fire and a keg.
Things I will say no to:
-Male Drow Rangers
-Soulknives designed specifically to be like Psylocke from the X-men
-Monster PCs in a game where most everyone is human. (This is more for the Player's benefit)
That's all I can think of now
|
After Dm'ing for 20 years, I'd have to say the #1 thing I say no to is evil aligned characters. Been there, tried it, and nine times out of ten it seems the party is infighting and killing each other by the 3rd session. I've seen good aligned groups with a neutral evil rogue work, but in general I steer clear of allowing Evil Pc's
Chaotic neutral is another one i'm leery about. Some people handle that alignment well (the elven druid in my current RotRL game plays it exceptionally well), others are just looking for an excuse to make a raging psychopath with no moral or social limits. Those characters are more disruptive to a campaign than evil ones IMO.
Weird Monsters are also heavily scrutinized. If someone wants to play a goblin, orc, or anime-esque anthropomorphic animal and has a good backstory/concept I'm all for it. When they come to me talking about the Fiendish Half-dragon/Half-elemental Pyromancer or some other over the top concept, I always read between the lines and find myself Veto'ing the character more often than not.
Sigh..powergamer's give Duane headaches
It is somewhat amusing on reading through this to see how many things people have veto'd that I have or would allow.
It is somewhat amusing on reading through this to see how many things people have veto'd that I have or would allow.
In the right campaign I would allow anything. Some concepts just need the right campaign though. I wont let my players play a werewolf in Kingmaker, for instance, because DR10/silver would drasticly alter things. If it were a homebrew though, I could work his existence into the game and start his allies at appropriate levels that the DR is still useful but not an issue.
As for alignment or personality restrictions, I really see no reason to have them. If you can't trust your players to play CE, making them NG wont change anything. They will still [censored] as I have found out.
|
|
As for alignment or personality restrictions, I really see no reason to have them. If you can't trust your players to play CE, making them NG wont change anything. They will still [censored] as I have found out.
That's the problem, I CAN trust my players to play Chaotic Evil, and play it well. The problem comes in when five of the players want to play generally good Hero type characters, and one guy wants to be Chaotic Evil. It inevitably creates strife between players, which ends up interfering with everyones gaming experience. Yes, some groups are mature enough to make it work, but my experience has generally been one where one bad apple ruins the whole barrel.
Hence I find alignment issues to be the most commonly encountered character restriction at my gaming tables (and most other peoples as well)
Solution: Don't play with jerks.
This solves so many problems ;p
|
|
So he would have an enormous, "chicken-man" form, immune to normal weapons. And he wanted to buy trained chickens. Chickens cost 3 cp apiece. Trained animals cost twice the price of untrained ones.
So, for 6 gp, he had 200 trained chickens.
No.
[Brian Blessed]"Onward, my brave hawkmen!..<cough>...err chickenmen...err, chickens...Ah, well. Who wants to live forever?"[/Brian Blessed]
|
|
Solution: Don't play with jerks.
This solves so many problems ;p
I will definitely agree with you there.
Not always possible though, sometimes you have to choose between dealing with one bad apple in a bunch, or having no bunch at all. I'm sure we all know someone who is personally a really great friend, likes to game, but always turns out to be a pain in the A$$ at the gaming table.
Without people like that, this thread probably wouldn't exist :)
|
The only character I actually said no to was when the player came to me and said: "I have this other character I really like, so I would like to do him all over..."
I can't let someone be uncreative and rehash the same character he already did. The fact that he wouldn't have lived the same life AT ALL would have pretty much excluded the possibility that he would have ended the same anyway.
|
wow...a lot of really awesome ideas keep cropping up here.
not for long-term, serious games, but one-shots are where we go a little nuts, anyways.
heck, we once had an awakened ninja squirrel cohort show up.
the best part about that PC was that in the previous campaign, that ninja was Baleful Polymorphed by the party's druid for assassinating some NPC. The player brought the character over into the next game as a cohort, after a little magical shenanigans.
gotta love continuity "errors" like that.