That's how I feel about all those dinosauar AC druids (and their proto-human ape predecessors in 3.5). Yep, such unique concepts, all totally identical.Have you been dipping in the DPR Olympics thread? Because if not the halfling druids I've built with pteranodons would like a word.
No, I don't have backstories for them. Yes, I could make one and, also yes, they could just as easily be riding a Roc instead but pteranodons are cool.
Heh, that's actually pretty cool. Halflings riding pteranodons. I love it.
Would I ALLOW IT in my campaigns?
Probably not. But what an awesome concept.
Then again.... if the general rank and file of copycat metagamers don't catch on, I probably would be fine with it.
:)
@brassbaboon
I wasn't trying to accuse you of meta-gaming, just genuinely curious. I find your approach to the game interesting. Personally, I find role play to be in the eye of the beholder. Whether your role is as shallow as "I R Tank" or as deep as your druid, it's all role play to me.
Well, this is where you and I probably differ. If you aren't playing a ROLE then you aren't ROLE PLAYING. That's my take. If all you are doing is playing a mechanical toy, I don't consider it role playing.
Which is one of my main beefs with 4e. I feel like 4e actively discourages deep role playing.
I never once said I was a warm, compassionate human being. I can be a dick. I'm asking why you think every single person who plays with a dinosaur AC is a munchkin. Not everyone of them is. Why do you seem to think that anyone who wants to play this concept is a munchkin who juts wants to break the system and get into an arms race with the DM?
I have already addressed this Matt. You provided a fictional account of how you MIGHT HAVE gotten a dinosaur AC and I pretty much scoffed at it and then you said that wasn't how you actually did it. So I said "tell me the truth then, how DID you get your dinosaur AC?"
You haven't responded. So I said you MIGHT BE that rare unique player who is not a metagaming munchkin, but the odds of that being the case recede exponentially with every other dinosaur AC I see for every other druid out there.
What makes your case so special and unique that I would conclude that YOU are the true unique and defensible non metagaming munchkin?
In the lack of an explanation of why, I am forced to go with the most likely explanation of the situation, which statistically speaking is that you probably ARE just one of the copycat metagaming munchkins who took a dinosuar AC because it's the most common choice of copycat metagaming munchkins.
How did you get your dinosaur AC?
|
Oh, players can certainly complain. With enough complaining, the GM's time is numbered. I've "dethroned" GMs before, although never over something this minor. Being a GM is very similar to being an elected official in Galt (although I've never actually had to behead anyone).
Well, why did they choose him to be their GM in the first place then? Being a GM means that you have to work your ass of so that a bunch of other people can make make believe characters and play them in an imaginary world. And if you say that you specifically don't let some builds because you don't like them, then the players have two choices:
- Stay and play- Go away
I've banned a lot of stuff i don't like in my games and not a single player has walked away. That could be because:
- They like me
- They like my stories
- They are too lazy to make their own game
- Any other reason...
I don't care which it is. If they are going to play with me, they are going to have to conform to the limitations of stuff that i impose. Otherwise, they are not going to play with me.
I never once said I was a warm, compassionate human being. I can be a dick. I'm asking why you think every single person who plays with a dinosaur AC is a munchkin. Not everyone of them is. Why do you seem to think that anyone who wants to play this concept is a munchkin who juts wants to break the system and get into an arms race with the DM?
I have already addressed this Matt. You provided a fictional account of how you MIGHT HAVE gotten a dinosaur AC and I pretty much scoffed at it and then you said that wasn't how you actually did it. So I said "tell me the truth then, how DID you get your dinosaur AC?"
You haven't responded. So I said you MIGHT BE that rare unique player who is not a metagaming munchkin, but the odds of that being the case recede exponentially with every other dinosaur AC I see for every other druid out there.
What makes your case so special and unique that I would conclude that YOU are the true unique and defensible non metagaming munchkin?
In the lack of an explanation of why, I am forced to go with the most likely explanation of the situation, which statistically speaking is that you probably ARE just one of the copycat metagaming munchkins who took a dinosuar AC because it's the most common choice of copycat metagaming munchkins.
How did you get your dinosaur AC?
First off, I'm not playing a druid in any of my games right now, and that is the sole reason why I don't have a back story for a character who has one.
I play my characters the way I always have: good but fun. I had an alchemist who was probably what you would call a "cookie cutter" build because I built him to throw as many bombs in a round as he could, but he was an interesting character. He was kind of crazy, but he was crazy in a good way that caused many laughs at the table. I had a fighter in a 3.5 game who was from a desert area, used two scimitars, and used some ToB fire abilities because it fit thematically, not because of the ToB badassery. I had, i think, one level in warblade so I could get the few abilities I had. I play fun, well armed characters who are interesting.
I would take a deinonychus as a companion because to my knowledge, no one in any party I play in has ever taken one. One of them is an experienced druid player since 2e, and he abhors the dinosaurs simply because of personal preference, not game mechanics, not DPR, not munchkinism, just because he doesn't like the idea. I like dinosaurs in my fantasy not because they are the best choices, but because I like the imagery of the druid with a smallish T-Rex (they only get large sized) defending the forest/Savannah/wherever they live in. I don't care if it is optimal, if it fits the character concept, it just fits. If my druid is from the Mwangi Expanse, it is not a stretch of the imagination for him to have a dinosaur animal companion, is it? I don't think so, considering there are dinosaurs in the Expanse and the Darklands.
I try not to metagame my characters, but it happens. You cannot honestly say you have never ever metagamed your character. No one can. It happens. But the concepts I have for characters are not contrived or cookie cutter, but fun and interesting, personality-wise
First off, I'm not playing a druid in any of my games right now, and that is the sole reason why I don't have a back story for a character who has one.
I play my characters the way I always have: good but fun. I had an alchemist who was probably what you would call a "cookie cutter" build because I built him to throw as many bombs in a round as he could, but he was an interesting character. He was kind of crazy, but he was crazy in a good way that caused many laughs at the table. I had a fighter in a 3.5 game who was from a desert area, used two scimitars, and used some ToB fire abilities because it fit thematically, not because of the ToB badassery. I had, i think, one level in warblade so I could get the few abilities I had. I play fun, well armed characters who are interesting.I would take a deinonychus as a companion because to my knowledge, no one in any party I play in has ever taken one. One of them is an experienced druid player since 2e, and he abhors the dinosaurs simply because of personal preference, not game mechanics, not DPR, not munchkinism, just because he doesn't like the idea. I like dinosaurs in my fantasy not because they are the best choices, but because I like the imagery of the druid with a smallish T-Rex (they only get large sized) defending the forest/Savannah/wherever they live in. I don't care if it is optimal, if it fits the character concept, it just fits. If my druid is from the Mwangi Expanse, it is not a stretch of the imagination for him to have a dinosaur animal companion, is it? I don't think so, considering there are dinosaurs in the Expanse and the Darklands.
I try not to metagame my characters, but it happens. You cannot honestly say you have never ever metagamed your character. No one can. It happens. But the concepts I have for characters are not contrived or cookie cutter, but fun and interesting, personality-wise
Fair enough. Here's my take on what you did provide.
You sound to me like a player who metagames enough to have somewhat optimal characters, but doesn't go overboard with all the available tricks, but still goes far enough that I would smile inwardly at some of your characters. However you sound reasonable enough that if you proposed a dinosaur AC for a druid in one of my campaigns and I said "waitaminute, the nearest dinosaurs are 3,000 miles away on another continent, and there is no plausible way your newly born first level druid could have obtained one," you might grumble but would probably accept a more thematically appropriate choice.
Additionally you sound to me like someone who metagames quite a bit in character creation to produce what you probably see as a "viable build" but then approaches the actual play from a more traditional role playing perspective.
That's my impression. It's probably not 100% accurate, but I bet it's pretty close. Frankly if you and I happened to meet in real life in an actual game, I bet we'd get along pretty well as players. I don't voice these sorts of opinions randomly and my approach to gaming is to have as much fun as possible. I play with a lot of different people, including some classic copycat metagaming munchkins. I don't attack their character concepts and call out their role playing at the table, I just do what I can to have fun.
Now, have I ever metagamed my characters? Well, as you point out, it's hardly possible to avoid it, but my approach is to at least attempt to apply the role playing approach as much at character creation as I do at the actual game table, so I tend not to have optimized builds.
For example, here are some of my characters:
1. 8th level druid, specializes in archery. Feats include point blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot. Prefers to use a bow in combat but will fall back on spells if pressed. Since gaining wild shape has a tendency to get exhilarated in cat form and to want to melee, but has low hit points and high wisdom so tends to back away from the wild shape once serious combat is under way. She hasn't fully grasped the concepts of money or economies. Until recently she used to give her coins away at the drop of a hat, considering them useless trinkets. The party cleric finally took it upon himself to educate her on the use of coins and since then she's been a bit more interested in things like "shopping." Oh, she is also a unique custom race, a mix of elf and dryad. She loses constitution (and therefore hit points) when indoors or underground, and she is vulnerable to fire, taking additional damage from fire based spells. She has a few dryad based abilities like being able to move through forest canopies as if moving on flat ground, but since 90% of her adventuring has been indoors or underground, that hasn't helped her much.
2. 1st level witch, specializes in voodoo. Got really good rolls for him, and felt guilty about it, so put my second highest score in charisma to keep from being unbalanced compared to the rest of the party. As a result he is now the party face. I do what I can to have him follow the voodoo culture. He's a drug abuser and smokes pot and hashish. The party is currently mad at him because he failed his wisdom check the last time he was on watch and got wasted, allowing the camp to be surprise attacked by giant flies. He's a ton of fun to play, and the other players say they love him, but so far he's been pretty much the party slacker.
3. 16th level half-orc ranger, specializes in spiked chain. Spiked chain is doubly gimped in 4e, first because it's not an optimized weapon choice, being only 2d4 damage (compared to available weapons which do d12 brutal damage) PLUS it takes up your multi-class option, meaning he can't dip into any other class (like rogue) to get special additional abilities. In spite of this I optimized him for damage because the team complained that the player I was replacing had been miserable at damage and the party needed a striker who could lay down the kickass. So he lays down the kickass.
The metagaming I've done for these characters is pretty significant, in my honest opinion. The main metagaming I've done for each of them is to scour the rule books for things that fit with their concept that the GM and I have worked together to make the concept viable. That's some pretty serious metagaming when you are creating custom races, so I clearly metagame like mad when I have to, but I don't think I metagame much to optimize characters. In fact I've metagamed more to gimp characters that I think are overpowered if you follow the normal path of the class.
When I say that to me it's all about the story, I am not just making conversation. I mean it. I won't play this game if I don't have a compelling character that tells an interesting story that draws people into the campaign. Again, that's what I find so disturbing about 4e. I have tried very hard, mostly in vain, to build a really compelling character with a great backstory, wonderful quirks and humorous habits, but the game seems to devolve into a series of battle simulations no matter what I do. Maybe it's the group, I dunno. But it feels very frustrating, especially since I did optimize that ranger enough to be recognizably munchkined.
Oh well.... that's probably enough for me on this subject.
Fair enough. Here's my take on what you did provide.You sound to me like a player who metagames enough to have somewhat optimal characters, but doesn't go overboard with all the available tricks, but still goes far enough that I would smile inwardly at some of your characters. However you sound reasonable enough that if you proposed a dinosaur AC for a druid in one of my campaigns and I said "waitaminute, the nearest dinosaurs are 3,000 miles away on another continent, and there is no plausible way your newly born first level druid could have obtained one," you might grumble but would probably accept a more thematically appropriate choice.
I probably would. I always ask my GM about a concept before I build the character, so if the GM said no, I'd say, "Damn, well how about this?"
Additionally you sound to me like someone who metagames quite a bit in character creation to produce what you probably see as a "viable build" but then approaches the actual play from a more traditional role playing perspective.
That's my impression. It's probably not 100% accurate, but I bet it's pretty close. Frankly if you and I happened to meet in real life in an actual game, I bet we'd get along pretty well as players. I don't voice these sorts of opinions randomly and my approach to gaming is to have as much fun as possible. I play with a lot of different people, including some classic copycat metagaming munchkins. I don't attack their character concepts and call out their role playing at the table, I just do what I can to have fun.
I learned how to optimize because the first group I played in we had to optimize or we'd be left behind and useless. In other groups, I tend to make stronger characters, yes, but not necessarily optimized. I'd say you are correct about my approach to role playing itself, and I'd be glad to play with you at the same table, because a lot of the people I play with can't role play their way out of a paper bag. That's not to say they're bad players, but RPing isn't a strong suit for them.
I am surprise JJ has not posted here yet...usualy when he see dinosaurs he comes running.
@brassbaboon: While yes I can see your point with people taking dino AC where they either don't fit...or just for the 'power'...that does not neccessarliy mean everyone does it.
For instance while you painted your taking the Mountain lion as a AC to be in character and thematic...I could ignore that and say you did it to get a AC with pounce. Not saying you did that...with what I noticed from your posts I doubt that very much....but I could make that jump to judgement.
I perfer not to judge people based on a post or just their choice of a AC...lets see what they do in play.
Edited to add a point: This sort reminds of when I played a drow before a certain drow character was introduced...I did not hate Drizzt because of the fan boys...or the character itself...but from people assumption I was a Drizzt fan boy because I like playing drow. I really just don't like this prejudging in any form.
I am surprise JJ has not posted here yet...usualy when he see dinosaurs he comes running.
@brassbaboon: While yes I can see your point with people taking dino AC where they either don't fit...or just for the 'power'...that does not neccessarliy mean everyone does it.
For instance while you painted your taking the Mountain lion as a AC to be in character and thematic...I could ignore that and say you did it to get a AC with pounce. Not saying you did that...with what I noticed from your posts I doubt that very much....but I could make that jump to judgement.
I perfer not to judge people based on a post or just their choice of a AC...lets see what they do in play.
Edited to add a point: This sort reminds of when I played a drow before a certain drow character was introduced...I did not hate Drizzt because of the fan boys...or the character itself...but from people assumption I was a Drizzt fan boy because I like playing drow. I really just don't like this prejudging in any form.
Yeah, well my Meyers-Briggs score is a solid INTJ... and that "J" means "Judging".
When I see something that conforms to a statistically significant class of things, I don't immediately assume that it is the exception. Because statistically and logically speaking... it almost certainly ISN'T.
I'm funny that way I suppose.
Yeah, well my Meyers-Briggs score is a solid INTJ... and that "J" means "Judging".
When I see something that conforms to a statistically significant class of things, I don't immediately assume that it is the exception. Because statistically and logically speaking... it almost certainly ISN'T.
I'm funny that way I suppose.
As so you are a power gamer...as I know most people who take the Mountain lion AC are just twinks and power gamers...so statistically speaking you should embrace your power gaming urges.
Also note for statistics to be revelant there has to be you know statistics in the 1st place....so how can you say there is alot of people taking dinosaurs...I personaly have never met anybody who as a dino as a AC....so where are you getting those numbers?
Also I tend not to boil invidual people down to numbers...I am just funny that way I suppose.
It's nice to see that you treat people's ideas with more respect in real life and at the table. I guess it's a great example that the anonymity of messageboards can really turn up the jerk factor.
Notice though, that no matter how jerkly I may act, I never stoop to the actual level of calling anyone a "jerk."
As you do.
Yeah, well my Meyers-Briggs score is a solid INTJ... and that "J" means "Judging".
When I see something that conforms to a statistically significant class of things, I don't immediately assume that it is the exception. Because statistically and logically speaking... it almost certainly ISN'T.
I'm funny that way I suppose.
As so you are a power gamer...as I know most people who take the Mountain lion AC are just twinks and power gamers...so statistically speaking you should embrace your power gaming urges.
Also note for statistics to be revelant there has to be you know statistics in the 1st place....so how can you say there is alot of people taking dinosaurs...I personaly have never met anybody who as a dino as a AC....so where are you getting those numbers?
Also I tend not to boil invidual people down to numbers...I am just funny that way I suppose.
Go ahead and assume what you like. It's no skin off my nose. I'll play my character as I like.
Again, I did not volunteer this opinion out of the blue.
I was ASKED DIRECTLY why I had a problem with animal companions.
I answered the question truthfully and provided as much support for my opinion as I felt was necessary.
And as a result I get called a jerk now by two people on this thread who apparently consider their calling someone a jerk to be superior social behavior than someone answering a direct question truthfully.
As one of them says, "Haters gonna hate."
|
|
Being a GM in my eyes is like being an elected official. You have the power given to you by those at the table, and they can take that power away from you for what they perceive (and perception, rather than reality, is the key) is a misuse of that power. Why did they choose you? Who knows. The important thing is going to be "Why should they continue to chose you?"
Because i am the only one who can come up with an actually good story that they can enjoy, being a writer and all. Because i am the only one who wants to do the GM stuff, because most of them are lazy. Because they like the way i GM.
But he can't be a powergamer - he rationalized away with a contrived story for how his animal companion is totally appropriate. Oh, wait... right... nevermind. Dino haters gonna hate! RAWR!Yeah, well my Meyers-Briggs score is a solid INTJ... and that "J" means "Judging".
When I see something that conforms to a statistically significant class of things, I don't immediately assume that it is the exception. Because statistically and logically speaking... it almost certainly ISN'T.
I'm funny that way I suppose.
As so you are a power gamer...as I know most people who take the Mountain lion AC are just twinks and power gamers...so statistically speaking you should embrace your power gaming urges.
Also note for statistics to be revelant there has to be you know statistics in the 1st place....so how can you say there is alot of people taking dinosaurs...I personaly have never met anybody who as a dino as a AC....so where are you getting those numbers?
Also I tend not to boil invidual people down to numbers...I am just funny that way I suppose.
Just in case someone is reading the end of this thread and believes that you made a factual or relevant statement here, I'm going to once again explain how my character ended up with a mountain lion.
Her wolf was eaten by a crocodile in the middle of a desolate mountain range on a months-long quest. She was put in a position of saving the wolf, or saving the party sorcerer, and tearfully chose to save the sentient humanoid over her lifelong animal companion. It was a very hard choice for her to make.
She buried her wolf, grieved for a day and then performed the animal companion ritual as it is written in the rules. The GM provided a list of animals who could respond to the ritual. The list was "mountain lion, crocodile, bear and pig".
She chose mountain lion. At the time neither I nor the GM even realized that mountain lion was not an actual valid RAW choice. Since my druid considers herself to be more of a predator than a prey animal, she was not interested in a pig companion. Since a crocodile had just eaten her wolf, she was not interested in having a constant reminder of the violent death of her beloved companion as her new companion. That left mountain lion and bear. Of the two the mountain lion was closer both physically and thematically. So she chose mountain lion.
If you consider this "rationalization" to "power game" the choice, then I really have no reason to engage you in meaningful debate since you appear to lack any significant reasoning or comprehension skills, or else you are just blatantly calling me a liar, in which case I have even less desire to engage in any activity with you.
|
It's nice to see that you treat people's ideas with more respect in real life and at the table. I guess it's a great example that the anonymity of messageboards can really turn up the jerk factor.
Notice though, that no matter how jerkly I may act, I never stoop to the actual level of calling anyone a "jerk."
As you do.
Now, see, this looks to me like you're calling him a jerk...
Now, see, this looks to me like you're calling him a jerk...It's nice to see that you treat people's ideas with more respect in real life and at the table. I guess it's a great example that the anonymity of messageboards can really turn up the jerk factor.
Notice though, that no matter how jerkly I may act, I never stoop to the actual level of calling anyone a "jerk."
As you do.
Well, that means you are capable of interpreting linguistic cues in a somewhat sophisticated manner.
But in point of fact I did NOT actually call him a jerk. I just made a very direct and pointed reference to his own behavior that left it up to people like you to conclude what that revealed about him.
I don't HAVE to call someone a jerk to make it clear what they are.
If you consider this "rationalization" to "power game" the choice, then I really have no reason to engage you in meaningful debate since you appear to lack any significant reasoning or comprehension skills, or else you are just blatantly calling me a liar, in which case I have even less desire to engage in any activity with you.--Brassbaboon
See you say this, but John Kretzer used the exact same logic you do if I were to post my Bokrug worshipping druid with his dino-companion. You will write me off as a optimizer despite any story/ballad/epic I write that explains every detail on how I came to be with this dino-companion.
So why should we continue to show you that not everyone that takes a dino-companion is a min/maxing power gamer if you are going to just ignore it. Though your attitude is pretty clear that you really don't want to engage in any real debate on the matter. It honestly seems you just want to go into great detail that you think you are a superior role-player then anyone is thread.
See you say this, but John Kretzer used the exact same logic you do if I were to post my Bokrug worshipping druid with his dino-companion. You will write me off as a optimizer despite any story/ballad/epic I write that explains every detail on how I came to be with this dino-companion.
I will write you off as a a metagaming munchkin (not the same thing as an "optimizer" by the way) if you came to have a dino-companion because you, as a player, wanted a dino companion for your druid before you ever wrote up the backstory that provided the dino companion because you, as a player, decided that a dino companion was mechanically superior to other choices. (edit: AND your GM's campaign as it was presented did not obviously involve starting a character in the midst of a dinosaur infested environment).
In my druid's backstory she had a WOLF companion and was quite content and happy with the wolf until the GM put her in a position where a wolf could not be summoned.
I would be glad to evaluate your acquisition of a dinosaur companion to decide for myself whether you are a metagaming munchkin or not.
Care to provide details?
There is no acquisition yet this druid is hypothetical.
I can tell you that my choice for having a dino companion has nothing to do with mechanics it has everything to do with the fact I really like dinosaurs. If I could find a group for it I'd be playing the Broncosaurs Rex rpg and play a Raptor (you'd think Texas would have more people interested in it). My whole desire if I play a druid or ranger to get a dino companion to satisfy my actual desire to own a raptor or allosaur.
In the world I am building right now, there is an actual Raptor God. Those that worship him hold raptors in high regard and look to emulate them whenever possible and the player is encouraged to take a Raptor animal companion. Not for mechanics but because thematically it is the best choice.
My desire to have a dino-companion (which I will go out on a limb and say so are many, many other players) is just utter fascination and love for them. No different then a person that loves wolves taking a wolf, or a fan of the Jungle Book taking a bear and naming it Baloo.
I think you are just to quick to write it off and not give a true chance to some folks because they aren't equal in your eyes.
LizardMage:
I do not believe you are judging me fairly. Which could be taken as somewhat ironic I suppose since you feel I am judging others harshly.
Let me also say here that whether someone is a metagaming munchkin does not mean I consider them to be less of a role player less of a gamer or less of a human being. "Meta gaming munchkin" is merely a class of player that plays the game in a way that I personally find distasteful for a variety of reasons.
In the case of an animal companion, I consider it to be metagaming if you decide you want a dinosaur animal companion because it is mechanically superior to other choices and you create a tortuous and contrived backstory whose only real purpose is to rationalize your acquisition of a dinosaur animal companion.
I think if someone is honest with themselves, they can answer that question.
In your case, if you enjoy dinosaurs so much, it would seem that you would want to play in a campaign that was based in a dinosaur infested ecology, in which case it would make sense for you to have a dinosaur animal companion. If you want to have a dinosaur animal companion in a typical European medieval environment but claim to be some dinosaur worshiping dude, when dinosaurs are prevalent in another part of the world, that wouldn't make sense to me.
But the bottom line is all about the real reason for wanting a dinosaur animal companion. Perhaps you really are the rare player that it works thematically for. I'm good with that.
|
|
I will write you off as a a metagaming munchkin (not the same thing as an "optimizer" by the way) if you came to have a dino-companion because you, as a player, wanted a dino companion for your druid before you ever wrote up the backstory that provided the dino companion because you, as a player, decided that a dino companion was mechanically superior to other choices. (edit: AND your GM's campaign as it was presented did not obviously involve starting a character in the midst of a dinosaur infested environment).In my druid's backstory she had a WOLF companion and was quite content and happy with the wolf until the GM put her in a position where a wolf could not be summoned.
I would be glad to evaluate your acquisition of a dinosaur companion to decide for myself whether you are a metagaming munchkin or not.
Care to provide details?
Not trying to switch sides, but what if i picked a dino because they were awesome? I couldn't care less about stats...
|
See you say this, but John Kretzer used the exact same logic you do if I were to post my Bokrug worshipping druid with his dino-companion. You will write me off as a optimizer despite any story/ballad/epic I write that explains every detail on how I came to be with this dino-companion.I will write you off as a a metagaming munchkin (not the same thing as an "optimizer" by the way) if you came to have a dino-companion because you, as a player, wanted a dino companion for your druid before you ever wrote up the backstory that provided the dino companion because you, as a player, decided that a dino companion was mechanically superior to other choices. (edit: AND your GM's campaign as it was presented did not obviously involve starting a character in the midst of a dinosaur infested environment).
In my druid's backstory she had a WOLF companion and was quite content and happy with the wolf until the GM put her in a position where a wolf could not be summoned.
I would be glad to evaluate your acquisition of a dinosaur companion to decide for myself whether you are a metagaming munchkin or not.
Care to provide details?
<snark>Seriously? This entire thread makes me sad. You don't know the norms of any of these campaigns, or of any of the campaigns where dinosaur companions are in use. Not everyone plays your style, which frankly sounds needlessly convoluted, simulationist, and restrictive for reasons that all boil down to DM fiat and mood swings. Rather than justify why someone should be allowed to have a dinosaur companion, how about justifying why they cannot. And the reasons better be better than some weenie "sorry, in these mountains we only have pink bears, fluffy koalas, and mountain lions the size of house cats."</snark>
I have yet to see an adventure path without dinosaurs in a scripted encounter or on an encounter table in the bestiary section. Deinychous are EVERYWHERE and are one of the best animal predators to spring on a player. Druid companions are a major component of the class, and to gut their utility for reasons of versimilitude in a fantasy game of imagination seems to be selling imagination itself short. Let the druids have the companions they want and save the name calling (munchkins, power gamers, etc...) for, well, just save it please.
Not trying to switch sides, but what if i picked a dino because they were awesome? I couldn't care less about stats...
If you picked a dinosaur because they are "awesome" then I'd be interested in what you found so "awesome" about them apart from their superior mechanics.
If you just thought they were generally awesome and built a contrived backstory to gain one in an environment where it makes no thematic or logical sense that your druid would have one, I'd still consider it to be metagaming, but not necessarily munchkining. I might suspect that their superior mechanics had at least something to do with your evaluation of their "awesomeness" but I'd try to keep that to myself. But I'd probably offer you a less awesome dinosaur option than the clearly superior one to see how specific your "dinosaurs are awesome" opinion really was. If your response was "Oh, well, I don't think THAT dinosaur is all that awesome" I might have my suspicions of your motivations somewhat elevated.
In the end I'd probably suggest that if you really just wanted the flavor for the awesomeness, we could give it wolf stats and go on our merry way, both of us happy as clams.
<snark>Seriously? This entire thread makes me sad. You don't know the norms of any of these campaigns, or of any of the campaigns where dinosaur companions are in use. Not everyone plays your style, which frankly sounds needlessly convoluted, simulationist, and restrictive for reasons that all boil down to DM fiat and mood swings. Rather than justify why someone should be allowed to have a dinosaur companion, how about justifying why they cannot. And the reasons better be better than some weenie "sorry, in these mountains we only have pink bears, fluffy koalas, and mountain lions the size of house cats."</snark>I have yet to see an adventure path without dinosaurs in a scripted encounter or on an encounter table in the bestiary section. Deinychous are EVERYWHERE and are one of the best animal predators to spring on a...
Well, this is actually a reasonable rebuttal I have to admit. I have not played adventure paths, and I've only recently begun playing Pathfinder. Dinosaurs may be more common in PF campaigns than they were in 3.5 campaigns, but I haven't encountered any yet, but I've only played in home-brewed campaigns.
I have said all along that if dinosaurs are central to the theme of the campaign's environment then I am fine with dinosaur companions and that my beef is when dinosaurs are chosen by druids who have no reasonable or thematic reason to have one. I think I've been pretty clear about that.
If dinosaurs are roaming about all over your campaign and you have to fight off T-Rexes and Velociraptors on a daily basis, then by all means your druid should have a Deinychous animal companion. That makes total sense. But if dinosaurs are virtually unheard of in your campaign outside of the ones walking behind all the druids.... well... that's a different kettle of fish.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh.. make up whatever bizarre rationalization you like. We all know it's pure metagaming to get the AC you want, and has little or nothing to do with your druid's actual life history except as you've deliberately contorted it so you can get that snazzy, shiny T-Rex you want so badly.
The odds that YOU are the ONE PLAYER who actually has the reasonable, non-metagaming, plausible backstory that integrates in a believable fashion with the overall campaign world and ends up with a T-Rex animal companion recedes exponentially with every other player I encounter who also has the same T-Rex and a virtually identical implausible obviously metagamed "backstory" to support their desire to have the coolest, most mechanically advantageous animal companion in the game no matter how obviously unrealistic it is from an actual role playing sense.
So it's not that YOU have one and nobody else does, it's that EVERYBODY HAS ONE and uses the same lame excuse you did
See, to me role playing is all about the character and the story. It's not about having the shiniest toys in the playground, or doing the most awesome damage possible in the fight. No matter how much damage you do the GM is going to scale the encounters to compensate so the whole encounter damage arms race is completely and totally pointless in my opinion
LOL, I don't care one bit if I come off as "my role play is better than your role play." If I didn't think that, I wouldn't role play the way I do. I absolutely do, in fact, think that role playing the way I do is more rewarding than the "I want my cake and get to eat it too" attitude I've seen from many folks here on these forums. I'm not one of those "Oooh I better not tread on anyone's hyper-sensitive to being offended toes" people. Get offended if you like. I don't care. I find the profusion of nearly identical builds by players who all come up with rationalizations to have that nearly identical build to be quite amusing, no matter how you want to excuse it. That's just my point of view. I'm not going to sugar coat it because someone might get their feelings hurt by some random post on a public board by someone who has a different opinion than them.
Yes, I think people who play the game that way are missing out on the richness and depth of experience that role playing was originally meant to provide.
That's why I play that way.
What makes your case so special and unique that I would conclude that YOU are the true unique and defensible non metagaming munchkin?
In the lack of an explanation of why, I am forced to go with the most likely explanation of the situation, which statistically speaking is that you probably ARE just one of the copycat metagaming munchkins who took a dinosuar AC because it's the most common choice of copycat metagaming munchkins.
When I see something that conforms to a statistically significant class of things, I don't immediately assume that it is the exception. Because statistically and logically speaking... it almost certainly ISN'T.
I'm funny that way I suppose.
If you consider this "rationalization" to "power game" the choice, then I really have no reason to engage you in meaningful debate since you appear to lack any significant reasoning or comprehension skills, or else you are just blatantly calling me a liar, in which case I have even less desire to engage in any activity with you. --Brassbaboon
These are all your quotes Brass. Each time a person gave you a reasonable reason to have a dino you dismissed it. From the actual region, rescued from a zoo, worships a dinosaur. All of these are true valid reasons. If more then three of us came up with them that is referred to as parallel thinking. Given the VAST amount of fantasy stories/ideas it is laughable to think you really have a true original idea that someone else hasn't had. That idea might not be published, used or voice but someone has had it.
You feel I'm judging you unfairly? This is the first time I've encountered you that I can actually remember. Reading all your posts and how you have called every person who gave an idea as to have a dino compainon a "munchkin" leads me to believe you honestly don't want to listen.
I'll say that my idea of worshiping a giant lizard is hardly original, but it is reasonable. I didn't say I worshipped this lizard in the middle of the Russian style continent simply that I worship a lizard.
In the vain of showing you how you have come across in this thread I can honestly picture your current avatar as the internet meme "Hipster Cat".
If you aren't like this in real life, then I'm man enough to apologize for misjudging you, but running off this thread, the only context I've known you in, you come across as holier then thou to everyone that has a different opinion.
|
|
If you picked a dinosaur because they are "awesome" then I'd be interested in what you found so "awesome" about them apart from their superior mechanics.
Not trying to switch sides, but what if i picked a dino because they were awesome? I couldn't care less about stats...
"I've got a wolf!"
vs
"I've got a raptor!"
Let's face, dinos are cool because we don't see them walking around. Claws, spikes, serrated fangs that could rip through a rhino.. what isn't awesome about that?
These are all your quotes Brass. Each time a person gave you a reasonable reason to have a dino you dismissed it. From the actual region, rescued from a zoo, worships a dinosaur. All of these are true valid reasons. If more then three of us came up with them that is referred to as parallel thinking. Given the VAST amount of fantasy stories/ideas it is laughable to think you really have a true original idea that someone else hasn't had. That idea might not be published, used or voice but someone has had it.
Heh, some of those are taken out of context, but that's fine.
You really think "rescued from a zoo" or "worships a dinosaur" or "at level one traveled to a dinosaur infested region and came home with a T-Rex" are reasonable reasons to have a dinosaur?
Really?
Because when I read those my immediate reaction is: "<chuckle> how obviously contrived can you get?"
Seriously. Can't you see that?
Besides you forgot "found an egg in the rainforest".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I want my new character to be a wizard!"
"Oh come on, how did he manage to learn magical spells?"
"He was tutored by an old mage."
"You're just saying that because you want to play as a wizard!"
Sometimes you decide on a character's mechanical elements first and flesh them out after, and sometimes you start with a purely conceptual character and then assign statistics to them. You end up with the same thing either way, and how well they're actually roleplayed depends on the player.
Anyway, regarding the actual topic: I enjoy dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures in my fantasy settings, with a few exceptions. Sometimes you have to keep them hidden away on an exotic little island or plateau, but they aren't really out of place alongside magical hybrids, giants, and dire mammals. I like how 4E's default setting mentions drakes (basically small raptors) as common domestic animals used in much the same way as dogs. I also agree that they're better off without the Latin names, though it's not a very big problem.
I really find it amusing that the guy that's b@&$%ing about dinosaurs in habitats that don't support them includes a mountain-dwelling crocodile in his own rationalization for his choice of animal companion. Sounds like he's more than a little butthurt to me.
So I'm back to the whole unable or unwilling to reason or comprehend Happy.
See, I was the PLAYER in that campaign, not the GM. You do know, don't you, that GMs provide the monsters in a campaign, not the players? At least that's how we play it.
By the way, he was running a published Paizo module, just fyi.
If you picked a dinosaur because they are "awesome" then I'd be interested in what you found so "awesome" about them apart from their superior mechanics.
Not trying to switch sides, but what if i picked a dino because they were awesome? I couldn't care less about stats..."I've got a wolf!"
vs
"I've got a raptor!"
Let's face, dinos are cool because we don't see them walking around. Claws, spikes, serrated fangs that could rip through a rhino.. what isn't awesome about that?
So, you wouldn't care if the dinosaur had no mechanical differences from the wolf?
"I want my new character to be a wizard!"
"Oh come on, how did he manage to learn magical spells?"
"He was tutored by an old mage."
"You're just saying that because you want to play as a wizard!"Sometimes you decide on a character's mechanical elements first and flesh them out after, and sometimes you start with a purely conceptual character and then assign statistics to them. You end up with the same thing either way, and how well they're actually roleplayed depends on the player.
Anyway, regarding the actual topic: I enjoy dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures in my fantasy settings, with a few exceptions. Sometimes you have to keep them hidden away on an exotic little island or plateau, but they aren't really out of place alongside magical hybrids, giants, and dire mammals. I like how 4E's default setting mentions drakes (basically small raptors) as common domestic animals used in much the same way as dogs. I also agree that they're better off without the Latin names, though it's not a very big problem.
Heh, well some of this is written into the class descriptions or archetypes so you can't really call it metagaming when it's part of the actual character creation.
Do you really think there is no difference between:
"I want to play a wizard"
and
"I want my medieval located druid who grew up in a temperate deciduous oak forest to have a T-Rex animal companion."
Really? That's your rebuttal?
These are all your quotes Brass. Each time a person gave you a reasonable reason to have a dino you dismissed it. From the actual region, rescued from a zoo, worships a dinosaur. All of these are true valid reasons. If more then three of us came up with them that is referred to as parallel thinking. Given the VAST amount of fantasy stories/ideas it is laughable to think you really have a true original idea that someone else hasn't had. That idea might not be published, used or voice but someone has had it.Heh, some of those are taken out of context, but that's fine.
You really think "rescued from a zoo" or "worships a dinosaur" or "at level one traveled to a dinosaur infested region and came home with a T-Rex" are reasonable reasons to have a dinosaur?
Really?
Because when I read those my immediate reaction is: "<chuckle> how obviously contrived can you get?"
Seriously. Can't you see that?
Not really out of context, and yes I can see that as a viable reason because I'm not being arrogent about it. Just because it might overdone, contrived, and horribly unoriginal does not mean that my player did not try to come up with a good backstory. That might be the best they can come up with, but are fun at the table and I'm not going to laugh or mock them because that's the scope of their ability.
Not every person that plays this game is a theater major or up and coming novelist. Some can role-play amazing characters and breath life into them that would make Marlon Brando weep that he had that talent, but they might not be a creative enough thinker to write a backstory that's not "I was orphan rasied by the town woodsman and decided to see the world after I heard him tell me tales of his adventuring days."
There is no need to mock them if that's what they are capable of or call them out for not being "deep and original".
These are all your quotes Brass. Each time a person gave you a reasonable reason to have a dino you dismissed it. From the actual region, rescued from a zoo, worships a dinosaur. All of these are true valid reasons. If more then three of us came up with them that is referred to as parallel thinking. Given the VAST amount of fantasy stories/ideas it is laughable to think you really have a true original idea that someone else hasn't had. That idea might not be published, used or voice but someone has had it.Heh, some of those are taken out of context, but that's fine.
You really think "rescued from a zoo" or "worships a dinosaur" or "at level one traveled to a dinosaur infested region and came home with a T-Rex" are reasonable reasons to have a dinosaur?
Really?
Because when I read those my immediate reaction is: "<chuckle> how obviously contrived can you get?"
Seriously. Can't you see that?
Not really out of context, and yes I can see that as a viable reason because I'm not being arrogent about it. Just because it might overdone, contrived, and horribly unoriginal does not mean that my player did not try to come up with a good backstory. That might be the best they can come up with, but are fun at the table and I'm not going to laugh or mock them because that's the scope of their ability.
Not every person that plays this game is a theater major or up and coming novelist. Some can role-play amazing characters and breath life into them that would make Marlon Brando weep that he had that talent, but they might not be a creative enough thinker to write a backstory that's not "I was orphan rasied by the town woodsman and decided to see the world after I heard him tell me tales of his adventuring days."
There is no need to mock them if that's what they are capable of or call them out for not being "deep and original".
And after all, they really, really want to have a dinosaur AC no matter how silly it is thematically. Oh what the heck. Just let them have one. What's the harm?
Again, I was ASKED why I had a problem with dinosaur animal companions. I did not volunteer this "mockery" on my own. I answered that question TRUTHFULLY that I find the whole thing silly and predictable, just as I found it silly and predictable in 3.5 when every druid I encountered was wildshaped into proto-human ape form 24x7, and had a humanoid armored proto-human ape animal companion, usually one that could talk and dance.
I guess it's just an amazing coincidence that everyone who just happens to be playing these virtually identical builds just accidentally stumbled on the most recognized optimal choices for the class.
Just coincidence.
Yeah.
Sure.
done with this.
So, you wouldn't care if the dinosaur had no mechanical differences from the wolf?
That's how I did it in 4E. I figured, "Alright, they're both medium-sized pack animals that can run fast... Yeah, pretty much interchangeable."
Coming into this thread, I didn't know that Pathfinder's dino companions were exceptionally powerful.
Do you really think there is no difference between:
"I want to play a wizard"
and
"I want my medieval located druid who grew up in a temperate deciduous oak forest to have a T-Rex animal companion."
No, but there's not much between:
"I want to play a wizard"
and
"I wand to play a druid with an animal companion from the list in the book."
This whole debate has had a lot of twists and turns, so I'm not entirely sure what we're all supposed to be assuming for the sake of the argument, but I never said anything about the setting.
Anyway, it's my philosophy that PCs are exceptional by default. Why else would they be the only ones who can stop [INSERT THREAT HERE]?
I love dinosaurs.
Anywhere, anytime we can get one, I WANT one... I'm playing a rogue right now in one of our games out in the jungles... and HE wants a dinosaur. It will undoubtable eat him, but everything else in the jungle has tried. The ranger and him tried to catch a rhino too... but ehhh that didn't end well.. ;)
We've only had one druid so far in the group, and she got a wild boar... when that one left, she got a badger.
Anytime a setting makes DINOSAUR available, I would have leapt on that.
Because it's DIFFERENT. I've had characters with a wolf before... TWO that had monkeys (one that could fly ;) ) i've seen snakes, and bobcats, and boars and badgers... these are all common enough things... Movies are ripe with bear companions or jungle cats... but even TV doesn't show DINOSAURS as pets!!!
|
|
"I've got a wolf!"
vs
"I've got a raptor!"
Ironically, the last time I played a druid I started with a raptor until about 8th level when he rolled a 1 on a save vs cloudkill.
That companion (trogdor) was so loved, the party ponied up 1000gp from our at that time meager resources to reincarnate him.
He came back as a wolf.
"I've got a wolf!"
vs
"I've got a raptor!"
Ironically, the last time I played a druid I started with a raptor until about 8th level when he rolled a 1 on a save vs cloudkill.
That companion (trogdor) was so loved, the party ponied up 1000gp from our at that time meager resources to reincarnate him.
He came back as a wolf.
....So which ended up being cooler?:)
|
|
....So which ended up being cooler?:)
"I've got a wolf!"
vs
"I've got a raptor!"
Ironically, the last time I played a druid I started with a raptor until about 8th level when he rolled a 1 on a save vs cloudkill.
That companion (trogdor) was so loved, the party ponied up 1000gp from our at that time meager resources to reincarnate him.
He came back as a wolf.
.
Honestly, they were about the same. The raptor had so many dice to roll that the moment I dropped 5 d20s you never really knew what kind of carnage would ensue. Or not. He did miss quite a bit.
The wolf had the same feats and skills as the raptor (he was the same animal reincarnated after all) so was not optimized. However, he did trip a bunch and seemed to have a much better chance to hit.
I honestly think ACs are like a fighter's choice of weapons or armor. Its a stylistic choice that reflects the type of fantasy adventure that player wants to have in the game. They are all cool. And yes, I spent quite a bit of time looking at some of the oddballs (I'm looking at you, boar). Even the oddballs all bring something to the table.
EDIT: at this point Trogdor is like a full party member. I don't think I could ever retire him. We'd either raise him or reincarnate him again and see what new form he came back as next spin of the wheel.
Pathfinder gods forbid that you must, but if you do have to reincarnate him I'll laugh if he becomes an oddball boar:). Though hopefully he remembers his past life and goes back to dinosaur.
I was sort of thinking of a story I read in wayfinder 3 with breeding cats kept in captivity called the nature of the beast. I thought an exotic rare animal is likely to be kept in the a zoo equilvent I forget what they are called so taht is a way to get an animal companion that is not native in a beliveable way to be relased from captivity. I was using it as a general backstory to get an animal companion not native not as an excuse to powergame.
Out of curiosity how do you feel about dire wolves brassbaboon?
I was sort of thinking of a story I read in wayfinder 3 with breeding cats kept in captivity called the nature of the beast. I thought an exotic rare animal is likely to be kept in the a zoo equilvent I forget what they are called so taht is a way to get an animal companion that is not native in a beliveable way to be relased from captivity. I was using it as a general backstory to get an animal companion not native not as an excuse to powergame.
Out of curiosity how do you feel about dire wolves brassbaboon?
Can you get dire wolf companions?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When someone starts talking about "badwrongfun", it immediately makes me feel like they are close-minded (or at least less open-minded), and really dissuades me from listening to them.
People play roleplaying games to get something out of them. If it's to explore character and story development, or if it's to emulate what they feel is "awesome" on pen and paper, or even simply another avenue to socialize... you can't really call it wrong.
It's like saying "Vanilla is better than chocolate, it's more fulfilling. I feel sorry for people who eat chocolate ice cream".
Yeah, you can argue that a certain way of roleplaying is better for getting a specific result from your roleplaying. But to claim it's "better" starts to put values on the results of the roleplaying. It demean the choices other make in what result they want from their roleplaying.
It's also not necessarily the only way a person plays all the time either. I know personally a number of people that play in multiple simultaneous games, where one might be about kicking in the door, saturday morning cartoon style, while the other they spend 90% of their time having long conversations and arguments, in character, between the characters.
Two different goals, vanilla and chocolate. They are just getting something different from their roleplaying from one game to the next.
When someone starts talking about "badwrongfun", it immediately makes me feel like they are close-minded (or at least less open-minded), and really dissuades me from listening to them.
People play roleplaying games to get something out of them. If it's to explore character and story development, or if it's to emulate what they feel is "awesome" on pen and paper, or even simply another avenue to socialize... you can't really call it wrong.
It's like saying "Vanilla is better than chocolate, it's more fulfilling. I feel sorry for people who eat chocolate ice cream".
Yeah, you can argue that a certain way of roleplaying is better for getting a specific result from your roleplaying. But to claim it's "better" starts to put values on the results of the roleplaying. It demean the choices other make in what result they want from their roleplaying.
It's also not necessarily the only way a person plays all the time either. I know personally a number of people that play in multiple simultaneous games, where one might be about kicking in the door, saturday morning cartoon style, while the other they spend 90% of their time having long conversations and arguments, in character, between the characters.
Two different goals, vanilla and chocolate. They are just getting something different from their roleplaying from one game to the next.
+1 to Kaisoku
Do you really think there is no difference between:"I want to play a wizard"
and
"I want my medieval located druid who grew up in a temperate deciduous oak forest to have a T-Rex animal companion."Really? That's your rebuttal?
I think you are the only person who is labeling the druid as "grew up in a temperate deciduous oak forest".
When someone says they are from the Mwangi Expanse, they mean they are very likely a darker skinned, dark haired Mwangi (likely a Zenj), that (as a druid) is likely an aspiring shaman or something to that effect.
If you play in a region nearby, it's actually fitting (say, in Katapesh or something else close to the mwangi expanse).
The example isn't a standard medieval druid walking up with a setting-jarring dino (with suspension of disbelief breaking rationalizations).
It's of a character that fits everything about having the dino in the first place, being played in a game world that can easily accommodate it.
.
A somewhat related anecdote...
Playing in a published campaign setting that has a side-quest to recapture some "wolf-spiders". They are giant spiders with the cunning of a wold (Int 2), and the AP specifically says that you can capture one, and with specific feeding methods, tame it and train it as a mount and/or animal companion.
Now, one of the players saw this and jumped all over it. They picked one up as a mount. The ranger in the group decided to keep his wolf (for sentimental reasons), but if he had lost his pet, or if he was originally portrayed as a less "tree hugger" and more "use/abuse nature" style of character and decided to just abandon his pet for this one, he could have.
If it had been "baby dinosaurs" instead of "giant intelligent spiders", the situation would have been exactly the same. Perfectly good, in-game, published game, reasons for getting an "off-the-wall" exotic choice, right in the middle of a medieval setting campaign.
Pretty much your "zoo" example, right there.
If I were a DM, and a druid player just lost his pet in battle/whatever, and he told me "You know, I'd like to try out <creature>" as my pet", I'd try and make it happen.
If it's at a time that would fit a sidequest or a minor tweak to a current quest (written, or that I had planned), then why not make the player happy?
I'd probably make it an encounter where the druid had to make a hard choice (morality benders are the best... save the people or the animals, etc), or at least make it a memorable situation, so the player gets a cool story to add to his character's development, along with the cool new animal companion.
Then again, I might just say "Hey, we're playing Legacy of Fire next, maybe hold off on the dino-riding until then?".
It would really depend on the situation, but I refuse to generalize and give an automatic "No", just because it's exotic.