I have a family game where my DM is trying to change some things to be more like earlier versions of D&D. It's started with some spells and house rules from the past. I would like to know how unbalancing some of these changes are and what ideas I might put forth to pre empt other changes that might come up.
My DM has taken spellcasting away from the Ranger but given him nothing to compensate. I've directed him to the Skirmisher archetype but mention of books outside the CRB brings a look of disdain. Is this an issue?
My DM allows Wizards to know every spell on the list, like a cleric, but still has to prepare as normal. Sorcerors aren't allowed.
My DM changed Hold Person to allow only 1 save or be held the entire duration. This seems much too powerful for a 2nd level spell, not to mention the mass version. I'm thinking of asking the spell to be bumped up in level.
Bard spellcasting has been taken away as well. Are these even worth playing without spells?
There are more weird rules like a simple regenration ring making you immortal, as long as it's put on a finger withi an hour of death. Invisibilty rings being constant effect and only blinking into view during an attack. Are there any other old stuff that might crop up I should be on the lookout for? My DM seems to really like all the insta-death stuff from the old games.
Those changes don't sound old school to me....
Rangers have always had spellcasting - in 1st ed ADnD they actually had access to a few magic user spells, as well as druidic magic. Taking away a Rangers spellcasting without something tangible in return definitely affects class balance.
That wizard change makes no sense - are wizards now spontaneous casters? Wizards have always had to add spells to their spellbook, from levelling, buying and finding/taking scrolls and spellbooks. I think 1st ed magic users had a limit on known spells equal to their intelligence? Once again, not old school at all, but strange and weird, certainly.
The change to hold person, I think, does harken back to the 1st edition version, where 1-3 humanoids could be held, starting at 5 rounds. I don't support that change, but it's hardly the most notable thing you've brought up here.
Bard spellcasting is integral to the class, once again, unless something tangible is given in return. Not worth playing at this point.
I'd be interested in hearing about other changes your DM has put in place. I've got to say, this game sounds like it's more his view of 3.5/3.75 balance issues, and less about being old school.
EDIT: The ring of regeneration does sound like 1st ed; it could bring you back from the dead, unless you were damaged by fire or acid. The invisibility ring, however, made you invisible at will and in all other ways acted as an invisibility spell; which is to say, the invisibility was dropped when any offensive action was taken.
+1
I'm not sure I agree categorically with getting out while you still can. I've seen some great games that went way off the reservation rules-wise, but the greatness of the game had little to do with the rule set. Your GM may have a really awesome game in store.
Then again, maybe he doesn't. Only one way to find out for sure. And you can always get out later, right? That is, unless he starts teaching you real spells. ;)
I have a family game where my DM is trying to change some things to be more like earlier versions of D&D. It's started with some spells and house rules from the past. I would like to know how unbalancing some of these changes are and what ideas I might put forth to pre empt other changes that might come up.
My DM has taken spellcasting away from the Ranger but given him nothing to compensate. I've directed him to the Skirmisher archetype but mention of books outside the CRB brings a look of disdain. Is this an issue?
Yes this is a problem. Dont play a ranger in this game. Spell free ranger variances from paizo and 3pp products give quite a bit for the exchange of those spells and for good reasons. And it also concerns me when a dm is willing to apply heavy house rules, but is completely opposed to any non-core material. Usually a serious warning sign in my book.
My DM allows Wizards to know every spell on the list, like a cleric, but still has to prepare as normal. Sorcerors aren't allowed.
What? Seriously? Christ, play a wizard and cackle evily at how awesome you are so long as you have at least some idea of what is coming up (hint you have spells to help with that in the divination school).
My DM changed Hold Person to allow only 1 save or be held the entire duration. This seems much too powerful for a 2nd level spell, not to mention the mass version. I'm thinking of asking the spell to be bumped up in level.
There is a reason why save or lose spells like this have been weakened, not really a good change, and a sign of a dm who houserules with no concern for actual game balance (see also the wizard change).
Bard spellcasting has been taken away as well. Are these even worth playing without spells?
So basically the bard becomes an almost worthless class, yea no its not worth playing any longer, unless you enjoy being almost pointless.
There are more weird rules like a simple regenration ring making you immortal, as long as it's put on a finger withi an hour of death. Invisibilty rings being constant effect and only blinking into view during an attack. Are there any other old stuff that might crop up I should be on the lookout for? My DM seems to really like all the insta-death stuff from the old games.
None of this is 'old school'. This is a dm in some kind of fit of madness. With the exception of the hold person spell change, none of these things makes the game 'more like it used to be'.
Like others I highly recommend getting out now. This isnt likely to be a fun or productive game unless you enjoy making new characters every session. Just walk away.
|
Yeah, that ain't the old school. Rangers always could cast, as could bards. Wizards never knew every spell.
In this campaign, I'd make an enchanter who specializes in Sleep and Hold Person. I'd make sure there was a cleric specializing in Turn Undead, and a paladin--who I'd argue for all the benefits from the 1e Unearthed Arcana.
He wants old school? Preach old school.
He wants old school? Preach old school.
Yes! Play an elf with no class. Literally, no class at all.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I have a TurboGrafx 16 and the AD&D game "Order of the Griffon" on it. This is my understanding of "old school", based on that game:
1) Wizards know two spells at level 1 and can only learn new spells via scrolls.
2) Hold Person targets up to 4 people, and anyone who fails their save stays put permanently.
3) Similarly, Charm Person makes you attack your allies if you fail your save. You only come back to your senses if you're the last one left alive from your party, or if the combat ends.
4) Ranger? Bard? What are those?
|
|
Other rules. Barbarians cannot control their rage. It does not end voluntarily, so high level barabrians just start attacking party members once enemies are dead. Needless to say, nobody has tried it.
Random will saves to avoid the DM taking control of your PC. I facepalmed when he made 2 of our group throw a save to avoid......sitting in a nice chair. Of course, they were trapped chairs and slid into an ogre den. Same scenario, 2 rounds before. House is burning, and the PC that started the fire has to save against....staring at expensive artwork for a round. Makes sense, right?
Okay, the moment random Will saves are thrown in (and not, say, Will saves that are codified), you're not playing the PC. Just hand him your character sheet, tell him to have fun, and go fire up the XBOX.
|
|
I won't leave the game as it is a lot of fun outside of the mechanics. The fun just gets dumped on when you find out you get to sit on the sidelines for an hour because you failed a save and everyone else is fighting.
Very well then. Bring a GameBoy to solve that problem. If he complains, tell him you're roleplaying the effect of your failed save. E.G. held and can't see what is going on, unconscious and don't know what is happening.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
How could I forget the one that drives me crazy the most.
We don't use components. A Wizard cannot have anything made of iron or steel on his person, period. Keeping a normal dagger on yourself negates all your casting. This is because magic and iron are naturally opposed. Apparently this opposition doesn't apply to magic items however.
.....Wow. Sounds less like he wants to play a game with friends and more like he wants to get off on a power trip.
I have way more houserules than this guy, and doubtless people think I'm equally batty -- but here's the difference: I'll always allow a vote among players as to which ones actually get used at the table.
Sounds more like he's just making decisions based on what he wants his world to be like. While I wouldn't call any of those changes Old School, if you're having a good time, who cares?
I have never given a damn about balance.
|
Ok, so the DM just wants to f*%! with three classes straight from the beginning, not even for a campaign setting reason. Bard/Barbarians/Rangers out stupidly, yay.
This is so crazy and wrong that I want to know more. From pure masochism.
Other rules of the like to contemplate with utter pity and facepalming ?
|
|
I have way more houserules than this guy, and doubtless people think I'm equally batty -- but here's the difference: I'll always allow a vote among players as to which ones actually get used at the table.
I'm also guessing yours are more written down and available to perusal before the campaign begins, so that players can understand what to expect and plan accordingly, right?
Maybe the OP's DM does too, and if so, great. But in that case, don't complain, just find the loopholes. When the rules start morphing mid-campaign to close loopholes, then you've got proof that the plan all along wasn't to be internally consistent.
From my own perspective, I'd rather have no game than play in this one. And I don't give a flying monkey about "game balance." If the GM couldn't give a decent explanation of the reasons for these rules (and "well, this is how I've always played" isn't a reason), I'd seriously reconsider your participation.
This doesn't sound old school to me. Not sure what old school game he pulling a lot of this stuff from but it isn't 1E, 2E or 3E D&D. Maybe basic D&D, the red box? Don't remember rangers in that set.
I'm probably calling them old school because they're rules my DM and his old group played with forever. I just assume they were actual rules because I didn't get to do much with the older editions.
Other rules. Barbarians cannot control their rage. It does not end voluntarily, so high level barabrians just start attacking party members once enemies are dead. Needless to say, nobody has tried it.
Random will saves to avoid the DM taking control of your PC. I facepalmed when he made 2 of our group throw a save to avoid......sitting in a nice chair. Of course, they were trapped chairs and slid into an ogre den. Same scenario, 2 rounds before. House is burning, and the PC that started the fire has to save against....staring at expensive artwork for a round. Makes sense, right?
Movement is constant throughout a round. You thought you caught that goblin as he tried to get away didn't you? Too bad he gets double the movement because he was moving in between his turn and yours, despite his action being completed.
Some are benefical to the party. Who needs a move action to load a crossbow at early levels when Rapid Shot let's you miraculously shoot twice. Purple Worm got you down? Toss an acid flask in his mouth to give him a tummy ache.
I won't leave the game as it is a lot of fun outside of the mechanics. The fun just gets dumped on when you find out you get to sit on the sidelines for an hour because you failed a save and everyone else is fighting.
This is just the GM making up stuff to be honest. Old school is nowhere in this picture.
House rules I'm sure are soon to come.
Dude, this is nothing but house rules so far.
Creature size (like large, huge) are done away with in favor of literal size (height, weight). I'm pretty sure this has already gone into effect as we tossed out several high rolls to grapple a medium creature that weighted 400 pounds. With 3 people attempting the grapple. This concerns me the most as my character is monk wrestler.
Dear god. Run, don't walk, away...
Seriously, how are you supposed to enjoy playing your character if you have to hear your GM describe how laughably ineffective your primary tactic is against his oddly obese lineup of NPCs during every game?
House rules I'm sure are soon to come.Dude, this is nothing but house rules so far.
Creature size (like large, huge) are done away with in favor of literal size (height, weight). I'm pretty sure this has already gone into effect as we tossed out several high rolls to grapple a medium creature that weighted 400 pounds. With 3 people attempting the grapple. This concerns me the most as my character is monk wrestler.Dear god. Run away; don't walk...
+1
lalallaalal we almost never agree this unanimously on the boards. That is normally a sign that something is pretty obvious. You can choose to stay in the group, and ask us more rules questions, but I doubt this guy is going to change his stance on his house rules, so even when you correct him expect to be ignored.
This is just the GM making up stuff to be honest. Old school is nowhere in this picture.
+500
I would be making up my own rules, and imposing them on the DM. "This is Tuesday, and I said LALALA so weapons can't hurt me".
lalallaalal we almost never agree this unanimously on the boards. That is normally a sign that something is pretty obvious. You can choose to stay in the group, and ask us more rules questions, but I doubt this guy is going to change his stance on his house rules, so even when you correct him expect to be ignored.
Seriously, [for everyone to agree like this] this dm is doing the dming equivalent of baby murdering, and not even orc or goblin babies, but like pretty elf babies.
To the OP, if you are having fun, the stick with it, but expect to simply follow the whims of a power crazed dm. There is literally nothing we can do to help you because he is just making stuff up as he goes along.
|
|
System Shock is used. I'm not sure how it worked in the past, but my DM makes the roll to banish your character from the group depending on what you did.
You lose experience for collateral damage. Set loose slaves and they get themselves killed? Lost experience. Walking along and commoner NPC is first target of ambush? Lost experience. Forced to choose between forcing a door open to rescue people or be burned alive? Lost experience for saving your Chaotic Neutral self.
PCs don't get infinite cantrips but NPCs have infinite whatever the DM wants.
Race restrictions on classes, and possibly level restrictions as well.
No more size categories for weapons. No greatswords for you halfling!
Creature size (like large, huge) are done away with in favor of literal size (height, weight). I'm pretty sure this has already gone into effect as we tossed out several high rolls to grapple a medium creature that weighted 400 pounds. With 3 people attempting the grapple. This concerns me the most as my character is monk wrestler.
1) Wait, wtf ? Roll to banish a character ?
2) I just puked blood. It was green, full of tears and didn't smell like blood at all. Removing f&+@ing experience because you made a f&#!ing mistake ? Aren't f~%~ing mistakes supposed to give you MORE experience thematically than having been fully successful since you learn more from mistakes and those are best for drama ?
3) Well, actually it's true for pretty much any game out there, any NPC could be a tarrasque if the DM decides so.
4) Same thing, in our game you must have a freakin' good background to play a barbarian elf (but urban would be easier I guess). "Level limitations" ?
5) ... does the DM know there are SMALL greatswords as well ?
6) It could be awesome, into good hands. Into GOOD hands. INTO GOOD HANDS.
I want moAR !
Our games are often like this (I dont think we've ever actually played by the rules of any system we've tried - just a kind of approximation to what we thought they meant, coupled with changes we wanted to try or thought might be fun).
I would disagree with the idea (if it's being expressed - I've zipped through the thread somewhat) that this isn't necessarily going to be fun. I'd just make sure you dont go along expecting to play Pathfinder. You're playing something else a little bit like pathfinder with quite unbalanced features. If you are determined to play 'proper' pathfinder, I think you should put more effort into finding a new group rather than reforming this one (especially if it's a long-time group who've been doing it their way for years. One of my semi-regular games has had a pretty stable group for over twenty years - if you play with us, you play with our mangled misunderstandings of the rules. There's no malice there, we're just middle aged, set in our ways and not really interested in reading through what the rules actually say).
If you decide it's fun and want to continue, I personally wouldnt put any effort into trying to choose the optimal character for the campaign from a mechanical perspective (since anything which begins to shine will presumably find the rules of reality shifting significantly). I'd play something really fun - in my experience, generalists are often enjoyable in these sorts of games.
.....Wow. Sounds less like he wants to play a game with friends and more like he wants to get off on a power trip.
To the OP, if you are having fun, the stick with it, but expect to simply follow the whims of a power crazed dm. There is literally nothing we can do to help you because he is just making stuff up as he goes along.
I agree with these guys. I've been in this situation before. House rules can be a good thing, but that's not what's going on here. What's going on here is that you have a GM with control issues.
Based on past experience, let me make a few educated guesses:
- This GM is never a player, always a GM.
- You, your brother, and most of the other players are significantly younger than the GM.
- There are powerful NPCs in charge of everything.
- Players sometimes feel like they have little control over their character's actions.
- If you do something the GM doesn't like, the the character gets punished for it. (eg if you attack someone you weren't "supposed to" that NPC turns out to be unreasonably powerful and slaps you around easily.)
My DM has taken spellcasting away from the Ranger but given him nothing to compensate. I've directed him to the Skirmisher archetype but mention of books outside the CRB brings a look of disdain. Is this an issue?
My DM allows Wizards to know every spell on the list, like a cleric, but still has to prepare as normal. Sorcerors aren't allowed.
Bard spellcasting has been taken away as well. Are these even worth playing without spells?
God, I've gutted classes and rebuilt them from the ground up, and outright banned others, which has caused some arguments(the hour and a half argument about why my cousin couldn't play a wizard springs to mind) but this just sounds cruel.
|
|
I have way more houserules than this guy, and doubtless people think I'm equally batty -- but here's the difference: I'll always allow a vote among players as to which ones actually get used at the table.I'm also guessing yours are more written down and available to perusal before the campaign begins, so that players can understand what to expect and plan accordingly, right?
You haven't heard the legend of Kirthfinder?
His tome of house rules dwarfs the Core Rulebook. He might as well play FATAL.
|
|
I would disagree with the idea (if it's being expressed - I've zipped through the thread somewhat) that this isn't necessarily going to be fun. I'd just make sure you dont go along expecting to play Pathfinder. You're playing something else a little bit like pathfinder with quite unbalanced features.
Well, my most distinguished fellow Steve, I agree with the first statement and disagree with the second.
I myself played in a similar, if not quite so out there, 3.5 game, in which the DM beat the PCs up and then declared them unconscious instead of dead so no one had to sit out. For months I enjoyed this game in a masochistic manner, but when I was forced away for a year, when I came back I saw no reason to rejoin it. Less than ideal games can be enjoyed, certainly.
However, the book states 'this is your game' and as such, this DM IS running Pathfinder, even with such notable changes. Disallowing classes, feats, magic items, etc. may not be playing Pathfinder as the developers envisioned, but it is still playing Pathfinder.
I would disagree with the idea (if it's being expressed - I've zipped through the thread somewhat) that this isn't necessarily going to be fun. I'd just make sure you dont go along expecting to play Pathfinder. You're playing something else a little bit like pathfinder with quite unbalanced features.Well, my most distinguished fellow Steve, I agree with the first statement and disagree with the second.
I myself played in a similar, if not quite so out there, 3.5 game, in which the DM beat the PCs up and then declared them unconscious instead of dead so no one had to sit out. For months I enjoyed this game in a masochistic manner, but when I was forced away for a year, when I came back I saw no reason to rejoin it. Less than ideal games can be enjoyed, certainly.
However, the book states 'this is your game' and as such, this DM IS running Pathfinder, even with such notable changes. Disallowing classes, feats, magic items, etc. may not be playing Pathfinder as the developers envisioned, but it is still playing Pathfinder.
Yeah that's a fair call. Now I read my post back, I'm with you. :)
It was a bit hypocritical of me, given my group's laissez faire approach to the rules.
|
|
The key issues here are fairness and allowing PC's to make decisions. Some of these ideas are fair enough (no magic item creation before 10th level springs to mind) but others...
A will save to not look at an expensive paintings whilst the building is burning down around you? Seriously? That defies all logic not to mention the fact that it removes actions from the PC's without any form of magical compulsion.
Also allowing NPC's to constantly do stuff that PC's can't without good reason is bad GMing. OK the occassional NPC may have some special power which is unique to them but in most cases NPC's should follow the rules that the PC's do. There shouldn't be one rule for a GM's precious NPC's and another for the players.
The question is do these houserules come as a surprise? Do you try stuff only to be told that you can't because of X or Y? If so this is a big warning sign. A GM has to be consistent and fair (or at least has to maintain that appearance) if he's not then the GM could be making this up as he goes along and that would encourage me to walk.
I just checked but the date is nowhere near the 1st of April, nor do I see a link to youtube. I must sadly conclude this is real, and I suggest a strong drink and a fall from 10 stories. It will be less painful than playing with this DM.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The OP has mentioned some of this before in other threads, such as the 'any metal on you interferes with all your magic', which is stupid and makes me sad.
I would slaughter the DM in mortal combat for the right to run the game and fashion his corpse into a DM screen as a warning to future DMs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would get a copy of an indie rpg game, something like universalis, where things are built collaboratively. Offer to run a demo some week.
It'll be tough, because he's used to having his way, and everyone else is used to sitting there and taking it. But enforcing the clear rules of the game will demonstrate a more collaborative style of game to your table
If no one likes it, your back to the options listed above.
|
|
For example, he is not a fan of battle clerics because they don't fit his view of what a cleric is supposed to be, which is a healbot.
...
I heard about how much he didn't like it for an hour afterwards.
Well, at least you are having fun it seems, so it could be worse I guess. But it could be way, way better.