i fully respect that a DM should enjoy a game just as much as any player but i find any time a DM "Outlaw" material from a game because he see's it as "Broken" i fell like he is imposing his enjoyment over mine.
Preach on, brother! Where does that tosser get off telling me I can't use the Munchkin's Guide to Powergaming? Maybe I enjoy the character concept of a 1st-level character with the Supergod feat that grants him +1000 on everything!
i fully respect that a DM should enjoy a game just as much as any player but i find any time a DM "Outlaw" material from a game because he see's it as "Broken" i fell like he is imposing his enjoyment over mine.Preach on, brother! Where does that tosser get off telling me I can't use the Munchkin's Guide to Powergaming? Maybe I enjoy the character concept of a 1st-level character with the Supergod feat that grants him +1000 on everything!
LOL
this will probably be the last thing i post on here since it seems no one agrees with me and is all (DM Pride), my reasons for feeling this way is completely based on a pet peeve and is therefor not necessarily rational.
i understand why you all feel the way you do i just had wished you all could have understood where i was coming from.
How did it become a pet peeve? Did I miss any examples of banned stuff that had an impact on your characters?
It's hard to understand where you're coming from without knowing how you came to those conclusions.
it became a pet peeve when i have gamed with other groups or even just listen to gamers talking about products and classes and feats or even just listening to people on the threads. it just gets on my nerves listening or reading about how x is overpowered or y is broken.
there are plenty of things i find over powered but i would never ban them because my friends use them and enjoy them and it never has a big effect on the game so it doesn't matter enough.
plus it shows a massive bias because you will never see a DM say "oh wow that has to be my new favorite class/feat/race but its over powered so i will ban it" and i think that is my biggest problem with calling something broken or banning it.
this will probably be the last thing i post on here since it seems no one agrees with me and is all (DM Pride), my reasons for feeling this way is completely based on a pet peeve and is therefor not necessarily rational.
i understand why you all feel the way you do i just had wished you all could have understood where i was coming from.
Hey, I get what you mean. You want to play a certain build, DM says no. The build is not illegal, so what's the problem? That can be frustrating, for sure.
I think your DM might be handling it wrong. I do my best to not have to tell my players "no". I do this with some foresight by stating up front before the game starts what house rules will be in effect. And very rarely is it "no x or y," it's usually more, "tinker with this rule and now x and y are allowed because they aren't a problem anymore."
|
...it shows a massive bias because you will never see a DM say "oh wow that has to be my new favorite class/feat/race but its over powered so i will ban it" and i think that is my biggest problem with calling something broken or banning it.
There's a reason you don't see it.
That's because if and when it happens, it usually happens out-of-session, when the GM is perusing his books. He'll pause, check some combo, chuckle, shake his head, and then write something else instead, that won't break his game.
These are two extreme angles of a gaming issue. I haven't really seen a class that I would call "broken" only broken players. There is also a fine line between "Clever" and "Cheesy."
3.5 really went too far with feats, spells, and prestige classes. Many players thought that if it was printed it was allowed. A good GM would explain why something isn't allowed and a good player will find a way to play something he likes. I'll give you some examples of things I don't allow, and my players have agreed.
- If it requires an Exotic Weapon Feat to use one handed, but can be used two handed as a Martial Weapon, you cannot wield one of these weapons in each hand (no dual wielding bastard swords).
- Hindrances are there for a reason. As a DM, I can deny a feat that I feel erases a necessary hindrance (Short Haft was a no no).
- You can't just 1 level in a class, you have to have a valid RP reason to do so. If you have an idea, let me know and I'll work with it. Typically you must have at least 5 levels in all classes the character has by level 20.
- When purchasing stats; your negative adjustments cannot equal more than -3 after racial adjustments, and no more than two stats can have a negative. I use the highest point buy and this seemed fair.
- Stick to the movement, terrain, and lighting rules. These are things that can make a battle a bit more challenging, and hopefully fun.
- If you have an issue with something I ruled on, it can be discussed after the battle or session. I will scour the forums for similar rulings and explain to my players why I chose to do something.
Somebody could easily say "I won't sit at that table." That's fine. As mentioned earlier, my group is made up of good friends and we play for fun and companionship. There are bigger things to worry about than my Irda Priestess of Isis (2nd Edition) getting banned.
I see where you are coming from. If you want to play a summoner and aren’t allowed because the GM thinks it’s “broken” that could be an issue. I would find out why he thinks that way and hope you could come to an agreement. If he just refuses and you really want to play, you either have to find another group or try one of the other many class options.
|
- You can't just 1 level in a class, you have to have a valid RP reason to do so. If you have an idea, let me know and I'll work with it. Typically you must have at least 5 levels in all classes the character has by level 20.
I take exception to this one. Character class is a meta concept. The game world cannot perceive it. Class abilities can be by their effects on the game world. No character will ever notice the difference between a Rogue's Uncanny Dodge and a Barbarian's Uncanny Dodge. Nor will they notice the difference between a Ranger casting Cure Light and a Cleric casting Cure Light. No character will say 'You can't be a member of our church because you have no Cleric levels.' I find multiclass restrictions and punishments abhorrent.
That was supposed to be "Add 1 level". This might have caused some confusion. This was to avoid "I want to sneak attack so I want a Rogue level" vs. "My fighter has lost everything and has resorted to stealing to stay alive. Can I take a rogue level?" Please note the "Valid RP reason" clause.
I would go as low as -2 for Short Haft. You only get one swift action per round, so you couldn't make an attack of opportunity with the Reach benefit until you changed it next round. Could make the short haft action -4 and a move action and have the feat make it -2 and a swift action.
|
|
That was supposed to be "Add 1 level". This might have caused some confusion. This was to avoid "I want to sneak attack so I want a Rogue level" vs. "My fighter has lost everything and has resorted to stealing to stay alive. Can I take a rogue level?" Please note the "Valid RP reason" clause.
That is more reasonable, but I think it punishes organic characters more than anything else. This seems to encourage players to plan out a 20 level progression before the game even starts.
That is more reasonable, but I think it punishes organic characters more than anything else. This seems to encourage players to plan out a 20 level progression before the game even starts.
The thing is, a lot of people plan a character like that already. "If I take a level in Barbarian and Rogue I could do all kinds of things with my wizard." I do make exceptions. The lack or loss of a healer might prompt some cleric levels, though I would still want it through role play. The five level rule is for those who plan their characters, the role play clause is for those who don't.
it became a pet peeve when i have gamed with other groups or even just listen to gamers talking about products and classes and feats or even just listening to people on the threads. it just gets on my nerves listening or reading about how x is overpowered or y is broken.
there are plenty of things i find over powered but i would never ban them because my friends use them and enjoy them and it never has a big effect on the game so it doesn't matter enough.
plus it shows a massive bias because you will never see a DM say "oh wow that has to be my new favorite class/feat/race but its over powered so i will ban it" and i think that is my biggest problem with calling something broken or banning it.
The issue is that your statement of allow everything is extreme. We have given you several reason why things should be banned and I have not seen you give a good counter. Actually I don't remember any counters at all, but I may have overlooked it since I have had internet issues lately and I was skim reading to catch up on several threads.
I take that back. Your counter assumed the designers playtest the material in every possible way, but that fact that many of us can make broken(can solo things well over the party's level) characters counters that. The dev's have no idea what books anyone has. They can only assume the group has the splat book in question and the core book. After that it falls to the DM to say yeah or nay. There is also the issue of most monsters only using core rules, while PC get access to more things. That means that with every new book the PC's get stronger, but the monsters don't.
it became a pet peeve when i have gamed with other groups or even just listen to gamers talking about products and classes and feats or even just listening to people on the threads. it just gets on my nerves listening or reading about how x is overpowered or y is broken.
there are plenty of things i find over powered but i would never ban them because my friends use them and enjoy them and it never has a big effect on the game so it doesn't matter enough.
plus it shows a massive bias because you will never see a DM say "oh wow that has to be my new favorite class/feat/race but its over powered so i will ban it" and i think that is my biggest problem with calling something broken or banning it.
I think you should be glad you have such a cohesive group, and maybe your complaints are directed at people who don't. It's not their fault, and they're dealing with their group as they feel necessary for the encouragement of group cohesion. We're all experienced players, here, so I can make no claim that my experience is better than anyone else's without sounding like I'm speaking out of turn. Which is sort of what this sounds like, and why so many people disagree with you. YMMV.
|
|
Well, there's been some unnecessary snark and hyperbole...
"I don't think the DM should ban stuff" --> "So you want to play Pun-pun!"
Not a terribly high level of conversation.
And I get it, I dislike knee-jerk bans too, or DMs claiming something is broken when it blatantly is not. I mean, things that have been called 'broken' in the overpowered sense: Warlocks, Warblades, Psions, Monks, Rogues getting sneak attack on every hit.....
*sigh*
It´s one thing to say something isn´t broken. It´s quite another to go, well I want to play a summoner, but the DM wants to ban it so NOTHING is broken and he DM should have no right whatsoever to ban anything ever. Nevermind that it leads to pun pun. if northbrb wants to talk about if the summoner is overpowered or not, fine...I´ll support him that it ain´t. It´s the whole jump to nothing is broken that causes issues. I can see a spell getting printed and getting utterly broken effects with selective spell for instance (well more so then a selective entangle, forcecage or BT or AMF...which really can get pretty dang broken already...if you base effects of AMF on 3,5 faq...since PF doesn´t have one yet). And I still haven´t really seen what that feat can do with APG spells.... That is approaching broken...if not already cross the line.
Or, my Fighter 4 elf. Wasn't a fighter at all, was an Arcane Archer, who just was a bit behind in magical training.
Something like that would most likely fall under role playing. I didn't want to jack this guy's thread. They were just some examples of things that I have done in the past and my group was pretty understanding thus far. The point was, that some GMs ban certain things for a variety of reasons. I don't think wielding two bastard swords or even taken a single level in a certain class is over powered, unbalanced, or "broken", it's just a GM preference.
I think most people missed what I was saying about the multi-class level restriction, so just let it go and I'm sorry for taking the post off topic.
this will probably be the last thing i post on here since it seems no one agrees with me and is all (DM Pride)
You do understand that every reaction has a reaction. And if you take an extreme stance, you will see people take the opposite extreme stance.
Saying a GM may never ban anything is pretty extreme. I will be the first to agree that shooting from the hip, banning stuff without thinking it through, is bad. I've seen this happen, people inventing house rules or banning stuff when they have no idea how the game works.
On the other hand, I've seen overpowered stuff abused to destroy campaigns. I've had players losing interest because they were but sidekicks to the munchkin's übercharakter.
So I reserve the right to ban stuff. I have a pretty good grasp of the game, having played 3e/PF for a decade now. Players are always free to disagree and convince me that it doesn't have to be banned, but in the end, if they can't, the stuff is banned.
That is more reasonable, but I think it punishes organic characters more than anything else. This seems to encourage players to plan out a 20 level progression before the game even starts.The thing is, a lot of people plan a character like that already. "If I take a level in Barbarian and Rogue I could do all kinds of things with my wizard." I do make exceptions. The lack or loss of a healer might prompt some cleric levels, though I would still want it through role play. The five level rule is for those who plan their characters, the role play clause is for those who don't.
Your example tells me that you have no idea what you're talking about, which is delicious because I think I covered that exact thing in this very thread.
So the fighter wants to be able to sneak attack. Who cares? He's a fighter, chalk it up as new weapons training. Or he's learning to be a little more precise with his weapons.
That you immidiately think rogues need to be skulking thieves speaks far more about your lack of imagination or ability to roleplay then anything else.
That is more reasonable, but I think it punishes organic characters more than anything else. This seems to encourage players to plan out a 20 level progression before the game even starts.The thing is, a lot of people plan a character like that already. "If I take a level in Barbarian and Rogue I could do all kinds of things with my wizard." I do make exceptions. The lack or loss of a healer might prompt some cleric levels, though I would still want it through role play. The five level rule is for those who plan their characters, the role play clause is for those who don't.Your example tells me that you have no idea what you're talking about, which is delicious because I think I covered that exact thing in this very thread.
So the fighter wants to be able to sneak attack. Who cares? He's a fighter, chalk it up as new weapons training. Or he's learning to be a little more precise with his weapons.
That you immidiately think rogues need to be skulking thieves speaks far more about your lack of imagination or ability to roleplay then anything else.
I can understand the reasoning behind the ruling, but the implementation is a bit bizarre. Not saying I agree with the ruling, but can't you just talk to your player (or players) who is causing a problem and ask them what their end goal is with their character, and if it's a lot more powerful than the other characters help them to still realize that goal in a way that will keep everyone happy? It's a bit extra to go through but I believe in the end it will be a lot more satisfying and build trust between you and your players.
In the case of the fighter rogue though, the fighter does get a lot of skill points. Maybe he's just learning to use a bit of brain instead of brawn? One thing I'm seeing is a lot of AD&D situations applied to this when they aren't the same systems. Sure, in AD&D if you were a fighter that was what you did, and if you were a thief you picked locks and back-stabbed liches, but the classes are a bit more complex now. I could understand wanting a fluff reason for taking something like paladin, because that can be a big change to the character, or wanting to work with him on his character developing a relationship with his new oneness with nature, but the rogue I don't see as requiring a lot of extraneous justification. I mean, if rogues are good at hitting people in vital areas and a variety of skills, I'M a rogue. I didn't have to steal for a living to get there either.
Though I do think you're being a bit hard on him, Prof. He was probably just giving an obvious example so we'd all get it. Not to say that the people around the forums can be a bit thick-headed, but, well... Let's just say when a problem is solved in a thread and the fight goes on, it doesn't show that everyone involved is the brightest crayon int he box.
That you immidiately think rogues need to be skulking thieves speaks far more about your lack of imagination or ability to roleplay then anything else.
I never said anything about rogues needing to be anything. It was just an example, and a rather narrow one, of a role play idea. This thread was about a player not liking GMs banning things because they were "broken". I was giving other reasons a GM might not allow something.
I was hoping to offer northbrb some insight, thinking that was the reason for the post. As a Player, I can sympathize with him wanting to play something and it getting banned but, as a GM I can understand why things get tossed out.
My group is set and has been for awhile. I look on the boards for rules questions and opinions. I wouldn't think a post like this would affect most people's game and it wont affect mine either. I hope posts like this can continue in a civil manner and people approach it in as rational adults. There is no need for narrow minded assumptions or name calling.
That is more reasonable, but I think it punishes organic characters more than anything else. This seems to encourage players to plan out a 20 level progression before the game even starts.The thing is, a lot of people plan a character like that already. "If I take a level in Barbarian and Rogue I could do all kinds of things with my wizard." I do make exceptions. The lack or loss of a healer might prompt some cleric levels, though I would still want it through role play. The five level rule is for those who plan their characters, the role play clause is for those who don't.Your example tells me that you have no idea what you're talking about, which is delicious because I think I covered that exact thing in this very thread.
So the fighter wants to be able to sneak attack. Who cares? He's a fighter, chalk it up as new weapons training. Or he's learning to be a little more precise with his weapons.
That you immediately think rogues need to be skulking thieves speaks far more about your lack of imagination or ability to roleplay then anything else.
The guy was posting off-hand examples. This is the second time in this thread that somebody has posted done that and you've chosen to nitpick while completely ignoring his or her point. The condescension is ironic.
I think what he was saying was that level dipping is usually stupid, and often (though not always) corresponds to "that class fits into my build" more than "X fits my character concept." Before you go all Stormwind Fallacy on me, note that I said this isn't always the case, but no number of counterexamples will make my previous experiences (or that of the community in general) any less true.
As for dual wielding bastard swords, I assume he was saying it's cheesy more than he was saying it's game-breaking. People can and do disallow things for being cheesy just as they do for being OP. I personally wouldn't allow a summer to make his summon look and act like a Pokemon. And, before any of the SCA nerds on the forum tell me that they totally duel wielded wooden katanas at their local YMCA with the grace and elegance of an Elven princess, A: No you didn't and B: neither would your character, who probably wants to survive more than he wants to impress goth chicks.
Well like I said, it started off as a level 7 psionics...then 5, then 3...then I know it reach level 1...but I stopped caring about the refining process after the level 3 psionics :P . I kinda assumed it stayed so...hence why I didn´t know about the paladin based one :P . I vaguely remember hearing about using arcane spells...But that was a LONG time ago so you´d have to do some searching for them I guess.
Oh, Pazuzu is officially listed as granting Paladins 2 wishes:
1st is free2nd turns you evil
Basically, he wants to corrupt Pallys (but the Wish itself isn't evil so you can accept it without falling. He doesn't even trick you: he uses greed to do it).
He has an epic Wish-like ability (no drawbacks) so you can get whatever you want. Wish to be counted as a scaled one then Wish Gate in a friendly sarrukh to transfer you the power.
Once he grants you Manipulate Form: you can now grant your self any ability. You can now have almost infinite hp/etc.
The Paladin is the best 1st level due to he grants every Pally 2 free wishes.
You can use one wish and stay good by wishing for an item of 1/day Wish or something, but it is simpler to just be turned evil and gain 2 wishes by saying Pazuzu's name.
You can always grant yourself the ability to Atone yourself for free (no XP cost) if you really wanted to stay a Paladin.
The guy was posting off-hand examples. This is the second time in this thread that somebody has posted done that and you've chosen to nitpick while completely ignoring his or her point. The condescension is ironic.
I think what he was saying was that level dipping is usually stupid, and often (though not always) corresponds to "that class fits into my build" more than "X fits my character concept." Before you go all Stormwind Fallacy on me, note that I said this isn't always the case, but no number of counterexamples will make my previous experiences (or that of the community in general) any less true.
As for dual wielding bastard swords, I assume he was saying it's cheesy more than he was saying it's game-breaking. People can and do disallow things for being cheesy just as they do for being OP.
Thank you. I thought I wasn't clear and may have worded my post poorly. If you agree or disagree isn't the point, but you have some idea of what I am talking about.
Yes, the bastard sword thing is just silly in my mind. I have never had a player so dead set on wielding two of these weapons to the point of not playing. I could even make an exception if he had a feat like Monkey Grip or was playing a character with Powerful Build. Most things are on a case by case basis.
My wife allowed a halforc fighter to dual-wield two bastard swords at no extra penalty due to his high strength. Of course, he never actually used them much because he grappled and ko'ed all his enemies with improved unarmed strike and improved grapple.
That's double-dipping! They already get the strength bonus to attack rolls, which they could use to off-set the penalty, but they get the penalty in addition.
Is this a general thing, or only for tuskers? Can really agile elves ignore max dex or arcane spell failure for armour? Can you remove more negative levels off a dwarf than the heal spell would indicate if he is tough enough? Can a really, really smart specialist wizard prepare his banned schools without using two spell slots?
|
|
Honestly, I see "broken" used far more often by players than GMs. For example, "UMD isn't based on Int so that my Wiz could more easily use it - that's broken".
GMs don't need to use the word "broken". They just have to say "I'm rule 0-ing that".
Except of course, what northbrb is demanding is rule zero no longer be allowed so he can play any combination of things in the rules he wants. May make DM cry broken more often then no?
|
|
That's double-dipping! They already get the strength bonus to attack rolls, which they could use to off-set the penalty, but they get the penalty in addition.
He had a 20+ Str and Dex. She let him use them that way because they were equivalent to short swords to him. Also, I should clarify that he still took TWF penalties, only -2 instead of -4.
one thing you need to remember is that the next time you remove something from your game you might be removing something some one really loves, imagine if one thing in the game you really like got banned, imagine if everyone at your table all of a sudden had the option to ban something, would you be scared that something you really like would be removed?
what if something you really like seems over powered to your gamers, how fair would it seem to them that you get to keep your powerful thing but you ban theirs?
And that person would ONLY really love ONE thing and be unable to enjoy the game. Otherwise? Really?
|
Whenever the gaming community says something is broken I take it with a galaxy sized grain of salt. 99% of the time whatever is said to be broken is not really broken. Rather than just look like the bad guy for banning something the term broken was created so they can imo rationlize not allowing something in the game. Another example it's not because plastic bags cost a nickle that a person complains it's about the principle. When in reality they are too cheap to spend a nickle to save the environment. Now I'm not saying that once in a blue moon something in a rpg is nopt broken. Sometimes I wonder what the developer was thinking of when the allowed something in a rpg. By and large though everytime I hear the word "broken" by a member of the gaming community it's anything but.
I've said it before(possibly in this thread a few years ago :p) and I'll say it again, nothing in pathfinder is broken.
Sure you can make really strong builds if you want, but that's just a good thing. I would HATE it if all possible options were of equal strenght.
99% of the "Broken" things are caused to not reading/misreading the rules...
one thing you need to remember is that the next time you remove something from your game you might be removing something some one really loves, imagine if one thing in the game you really like got banned, imagine if everyone at your table all of a sudden had the option to ban something, would you be scared that something you really like would be removed?
what if something you really like seems over powered to your gamers, how fair would it seem to them that you get to keep your powerful thing but you ban theirs?
And that person would ONLY really love ONE thing and be unable to enjoy the game. Otherwise? Really?
And obviously, this issue has stuck in your craw for the past two years while you were incarcerated, and you just COULD NOT WAIT to get out of jail so you could rush to the nearest library, fire up the community computer and FINALLY GET THE CHANCE TO BE SARCASTIC ABOUT IT.
Too bad the person whose response you so awfully needed to jab at probably won't notice your little boot to the face after all this time.
Thread necromancy is cause for removal from the park.
As to the topic itself, nothing in the game is broken. Or at least so broken it needs to ever be mentioned. My suggestion for avoiding such discussions is to simply play with adults who act like and think like adults. People who so study an RPB that they can detect the slightest hint of imbalance lack any real responsibility (and so cannot be trusted anyway) and people who get mad at the table and begin shouting "broken" because something did not go their way are likewise in need of responsibility and other adult pastimes (and similarly cannot be trusted).
Seriously. Play with grownups. The only thing needing "banning" are the immature brats who insist anything in the Paizo books is somehow "ruining" everything for them.
i have always enjoyed playing DnD and i love pathfinder but i have to admit one thing i cant stand is when anyone refers to something in the game as "broken". Sure many DM's chose to remove something from their game if they feel it doesn't work right but in my honest opinion how can you truly enjoy a game if you don't trust the game to work?
My group follows one major rule, If it is in one of the core books (meaning any book released by Paizo) then it is always allowed without question.
How can you comfortably play in a group if you cant assume what you look at in the books is an option for you to use?
How can you truly enjoy a character if it wasn't your first choice but that option isn't allowed in some ones games?
i just feel that the term "Broken" just ruins any real fun i might have in a group, something might seem powerful or wonky to you but others might feel it works just fine.
Well, to be honest, there are some classes that I feel are no fun for anyone, like the Summoner. Suddenly the party Cavalier, Fighter, Paladin etc is obsolete, AND this guy can cast spells at the same time! So, why would I want to allow a class that negates another PC's niche? That's a recipe for unhappiness.
Some other classes I ban simply because of thematic reasons, like all the European classes when I am running an Eastern themed game, or vice versa. Others are banned simply because they are exclusively for Evil characters, thus NPC's.
Now, I personally don't think poison use or controlling/creating zombies and skeletons to be evil (they are nothing more than robots) so unlike most DM's I am fine with them. Thus, if the guy playing the Rogue wants to find a way to get poison use, knock yourself out, have fun.
When left alone, skeletons and zombies just stand there. They have no Intelligence scores at all. Not even any instincts. They simply do whatever you tell them to. And even those monsters in the Bestiary which run around destroying willy nilly, those aren't labeled Evil by nature. So it has to be more than just attacking everyone.
If that's the case, how could they be Evil, or even "sufferings"? They behave identically to a computer; they do what they are told.
Now, most forms of INTELLIGENT undead are in fact, Evil, based on their descriptions. But the reverse, UNINTELLIGENT undead is not the case. Me, I would call them neutral, as in True Neutral.
Poison use isn't evil either, since lots of them are also medicines if used properly. They are merely substances which occasionally prove harmful if used that way. Now, using them to kill or harm somebody? Well, that COULD be Evil, in the way a sword could be evil if it was used to murder a small child or a helpless puppy.