So my DM and myself got into an argument about allowing another player to play the race aasimar. I feel that it's not overpowered and it would be an interesting race considering we also have a tiefling in the party with 5 cha. He said that the race is overpowered because it has two bonuses to stats, resistances to three energy types, and the ability to cast light. I argued that having a penalty in a certain stat usually means that you're not even going to use it so it doesn't matter whether or not aasimar have no penalties. I also stated that light isn't that useful, and that the resistances given are mediocre at best. He allowed tieflings but not aasimars and I don't know why. I would also like to point out that they're other races that have a lot more going for them then aasimars considering races such as gnome and halfling. So after him just saying you need a level 1 adjustment to use the race(which is pointless considering that the only class that would be an aasimar is probably a cleric.) I suggested that he could adjust the race. He said what's the point if he could just play a human. Am I in the wrong?
According to RAW, Aasimar have no level adjustment. As such, I would say that your GM is wrong by the RAW, especially if he is allowing Tieflings. If a Tiefling is not overpowered, an Aasimar isn't. Neither race is better or worse than the Core Rulebook races.
That said, he is the GM, and what the GM says, goes. He may be being stupid, but it is his campaign, and he's allowed to be stupid. The again, you are the player, and can choose which GM's game to play. Remember that.
I don't think you're wrong, but I also think you should just agree to disagree with your GM. He has the final say, after all.
One question, though. How does the player who wanted to be an aasimar feel about this? If they aren't upset about it, then it's a moot point in conjunction with your GM not allowing it. If the player is upset, then it might be worth talking about further with the GM.
If he thinks the aasimar is too powerful (which I think it's not), then he can "de-power" it. I know you said he thinks this is pointless and the player should just be human, but it's all about flavor in this case. You can't flavor a human to come off as an aasimar. You can, however, change the racial abilities of the aasimar to be more on point with the core races. I think it might be worth talking about it again for the player's sake.
According to RAW, Aasimar have no level adjustment. As such, I would say that your GM is wrong by the RAW, especially if he is allowing Tieflings. If a Tiefling is not overpowered, an Aasimar isn't. Neither race is better or worse than the Core Rulebook races.
That said, he is the GM, and what the GM says, goes. He may be being stupid, but it is his campaign, and he's allowed to be stupid. The again, you are the player, and can choose which GM's game to play. Remember that.
He knows that there is no level adjustment, he pointed on the pfsrd that the monstrous races section said that they varied in power. Therefore he feels justified to nerf them.
He knows that there is no level adjustment, he pointed on the pfsrd that the monstrous races section said that they varied in power. Therefore he feels justified to nerf them.According to RAW, Aasimar have no level adjustment. As such, I would say that your GM is wrong by the RAW, especially if he is allowing Tieflings. If a Tiefling is not overpowered, an Aasimar isn't. Neither race is better or worse than the Core Rulebook races.
That said, he is the GM, and what the GM says, goes. He may be being stupid, but it is his campaign, and he's allowed to be stupid. The again, you are the player, and can choose which GM's game to play. Remember that.
Point out that the Pathfinder core races are just as powerful, then.
I don't think you're wrong, but I also think you should just agree to disagree with your GM. He has the final say, after all.
One question, though. How does the player who wanted to be an aasimar feel about this? If they aren't upset about it, then it's a moot point in conjunction with your GM not allowing it. If the player is upset, then it might be worth talking about further with the GM.
If he thinks the aasimar is too powerful (which I think it's not), then he can "de-power" it. I know you said he thinks this is pointless and the player should just be human, but it's all about flavor in this case. You can't flavor a human to come off as an aasimar. You can, however, change the racial abilities of the aasimar to be more on point with the core races. I think it might be worth talking about it again for the player's sake.
The player sort of wanted to play the race once he heard of it's ancestral lineage but he backed off once my DM and I started arguing. I guessed I'm pushing for him to allow aasimars is because our roleplaying has been so dry. I don't just think that it's some of the players fault. I think it also lies on the DM. He doesn't address specific people, He doesn't incorporate half of the characters into the story line. He alters the rules and tells me they come into play once the common sense rule has been activated. At the same time he follows certain rules that don't make much sense, such as melee touch attacks use strength.
Point out that the Pathfinder core races are just as powerful, then.He knows that there is no level adjustment, he pointed on the pfsrd that the monstrous races section said that they varied in power. Therefore he feels justified to nerf them.According to RAW, Aasimar have no level adjustment. As such, I would say that your GM is wrong by the RAW, especially if he is allowing Tieflings. If a Tiefling is not overpowered, an Aasimar isn't. Neither race is better or worse than the Core Rulebook races.
That said, he is the GM, and what the GM says, goes. He may be being stupid, but it is his campaign, and he's allowed to be stupid. The again, you are the player, and can choose which GM's game to play. Remember that.
I'm going to once we talk again on monday.
Aasimar are fine, it's just 3.5GM's stuck in the dark ages that have a problem with them.
And by RAW the GM is just plain wrong.
They need to get with the times.
The player sort of wanted to play the race once he heard of it's ancestral lineage but he backed off once my DM and I started arguing. I guessed I'm pushing for him to allow aasimars is because our roleplaying has been so dry. I don't just think that it's some of the players fault. I think it also lies on the DM. He doesn't address specific people, He doesn't incorporate half of the characters into the story line. He alters the rules and tells me they come into play once the common sense rule has been activated. At the same time he follows certain rules that don't make much sense, such as melee touch attacks use strength.I don't think you're wrong, but I also think you should just agree to disagree with your GM. He has the final say, after all.
One question, though. How does the player who wanted to be an aasimar feel about this? If they aren't upset about it, then it's a moot point in conjunction with your GM not allowing it. If the player is upset, then it might be worth talking about further with the GM.
If he thinks the aasimar is too powerful (which I think it's not), then he can "de-power" it. I know you said he thinks this is pointless and the player should just be human, but it's all about flavor in this case. You can't flavor a human to come off as an aasimar. You can, however, change the racial abilities of the aasimar to be more on point with the core races. I think it might be worth talking about it again for the player's sake.
If that's how the GM wants to play the game, you should think long and hard about whether this someone you want to continue playing with. If his behavior is sucking all the fun out of the game, it may not be worth continuing with him as GM.
Aasimar are fine, it's just 3.5GM's stuck in the dark ages that have a problem with them.
And by RAW the GM is just plain wrong.
They need to get with the times.
No he just thinks they're overpowered that's all.
Well he can think that, but it doesn't really stand up to reasoned argument, and nor does it stand up to RAW.
A GM can think we are all purple and come from Pluto if they like, and rule accordingly, however in a wider debate they might find they don't go so well.
Emo Bard makes a fine point. I don't think I'd want to play with a GM like that... even if that were my only option. Finding a good GM is like dating. You shouldn't have to settle.
The spell like ability is completely twee anyhow.
He can make it light? seriously? a dude that can happily see in the dark when others can't is going to give up that advantage to provide a handy light source? really?
|
The spell like ability is completely twee anyhow.
He can make it light? seriously? a dude that can happily see in the dark when others can't is going to give up that advantage to provide a handy light source? really?
Agreed. The spell-like is amongst the most useless thing they could have picked from the list for the race that gets it. The only use it has for the aasimar is to dispel deeper darkness. That's it.
If they could shoot lightning once per day, that'd be different.
Elven and half-orc bullies beat up the aasimar every morning before school. *rolls eyes*
If the GM disallowed both tieflings AND aasimar, then his actions would make sense. As it stands however, he is being weird--and wrong.
Using the race building kit they rank at 13 points. However that is counting the wonky prices
4 points for skills ( to high)
3 points for light ( SLA is way wonky priced)
Dwaves however come in at 1o but again wonky
slow and steady -1 rp..yep they take a hit for getting slow and steady
Hardy...1 point...yeah...
over all the dwarf is a more advanced race. aasimar are not over powered. they get engry resistance ( which the GM can ..not use) and light ..yay light..cave men can make fire and have light.
No all it has going is the net +2, not a huge deal.
Assimars and tieflings might be a bit overpowered but it's not the abilities, nor the energy resistances and nor the spell like abilities, it's their type that native outsider can really screw a DM over at first levels because things like charm person, hold person, dominate person and abilities and spells that must have humanoid as targets.
That is the power of the asimars and the tiefliengs and for that power they pay by not getting a bonus feat (if you look closely all races get an extra feat one way or the other).
So my advice to your DM is to read those two races better and after understanding what their real strenghts are then to decide whether to allow them or not and not be blinded by abilitie scores.
They also pay by not having the benefit of racial alternate class abilities, and lack the flexibility the core races have of alternate racial abilities.
So they just aren't as flexible.
No racial weapon also hurts a little.
Well he can think that, but it doesn't really stand up to reasoned argument, and nor does it stand up to RAW.
A GM can think we are all purple and come from Pluto if they like, and rule accordingly, however in a wider debate they might find they don't go so well.
I agree.
If he has a problem with their power, point him to the ARG playtest and say "If we drop the spell-like ability, they're a 10 point race just like all the others."
He would probably just say that the playtest is in beta and isn't a proper evaluation of power.(Which I agree with somewhat)
I know it's one of the most useless spell like abilities on a race.The spell like ability is completely twee anyhow.
He can make it light? seriously? a dude that can happily see in the dark when others can't is going to give up that advantage to provide a handy light source? really?
I don't know if anyone has done the math using the play test rules for race creation, though I know for a fact that using the old player create guide, they are more powerful.
btw, that's what my gut feeling says.
However, the power is partially theoretical. A cleric is the only race that really benefits from both the wis and cha boost. Most other characters either dump cha or nearly dump wis (just enough to not get a negative modifier on their will save).
The energy resistance is strong at lower levels though as it doesn't scale it will be less relevant. Adult dragons do something like 14D6 damage. 5 resistance won't matter.ihmo, outright saying it's overpowered is a bit harsh though I agree that it *could* pose a problem under certain restrictions.
If the resistances were his problem he wouldn't of allow tieflings.
Elven and half-orc bullies beat up the aasimar every morning before school. *rolls eyes*
If the GM disallowed both tieflings AND aasimar, then his actions would make sense. As it stands however, he is being weird--and wrong.
It would make sense if he said no to both because of resistances but then again they're not great. The reason why I think this is because of how often those damage types occur in our games.
Assimars and tieflings might be a bit overpowered but it's not the abilities, nor the energy resistances and nor the spell like abilities, it's their type that native outsider can really screw a DM over at first levels because things like charm person, hold person, dominate person and abilities and spells that must have humanoid as targets.
He never uses them.
They also pay by not having the benefit of racial alternate class abilities, and lack the flexibility the core races have of alternate racial abilities.
So they just aren't as flexible.
No racial weapon also hurts a little.
I thought of that too.
-Also the reason why I stick with him is because he's my friend and so are others in my group. He's also a good roleplayer, he just doesn't invite many other people to do so.
|
|
Sometimes GM's make calls. It is sort of in their job description. Only taking into account the core races and core classes there is a HUGE number of roleplaying options open to people. What exactly does say Assimar have that no other race can give you roleplaying-wise? I think that somewhere along the way it has been forgotten that the GM's job is hard. I would suggest that your sticking with him is a good way to go, and good on you. Shows respect. Perhaps later he may introduce the race, but if it's rule based or not, it's his ruling.
As GM/DM in D&D/PF I always ONLY allow core rules. Sets the boundaries up front - yes that means no 'advenced' books at my table. Althought I'm thankful to have players with a tonne of imagination that don't required 'canned' classes for every concept to make that concept a PC. We had an inquisitor LONG before it became a 'class', he was a Paladin.
S.
I think where the wheels fall off the cart a bit is that whilst you are certainly right about the GM's job, the PLAYER also has the job of attempting to bring something equally unique and interesting to the table. The player is also there to have fun, and to explore concepts he/she might be interested in putting together.
So that brings us to the notion of the core races having something for everyone, well sure I'd agree there is a wealth of interesting stuff in there, however some days I just want a particular theme... I want my Paladins not just to be a mere mortal imbued with the power of the divine, I want to go the whole hog and have him as a PART of the heavens.
Under the old build rules I understand that Aasimar Paladins USED to be great as Wis AND Cha came into the build equation, less so now apparently in pathfinder (I never played 3.5 so I could be off). This may have caused a bit of a skew in some GM's minds.
The Aasimar is not particularly powerfull, and I think we could pretty much agree that their cost is a bit overinflated, but even if it wasn't it still falls into line with the Core races more or less. Let us not forget that the core races have been beefed up since the old days too, a fact often not accounted for from those dwelling in 3.5 speak. Oranges with oranges guys.
I'd also note that the Aasimar produces no real trouble for a GM, they don't bring a sense of Uber to the table, they are generally good guys, and they actually fit in to normal society. Would you prefer a Half Orc Barbarian with the Toothy trait walking down the street looking like a baby-eating monster, or an Aasimar cleric?
Which would be more disruptive and less conducive to building the story? The circus freak or the noble heavens-sent do gooder?
Frankly I think a lot of GM's need to really think about what makes a game, and the ability to handwave circus freak characters whilst at the same time crying about Aasimar is just breathtaking.
Set boundaries, by all means, just try ensure those boundaries make sense.
I'll play devils advocate, and say boooo to aasimars as PC's. Seriously, compare them to any of the core races, and they are just better.
First of all, they don't get Light, they get Daylight 1/day - a third level spell. Also, +2 to Wis and Cha is perfect for clerics, paladins, sorcerers, bards, and many other classes. A little too perfect. No other race gets a bonus to two mental ability scores, with no penalties... whatsoever. Perhaps that is what is wrong with aasimars, they get many benefits (darkvision, skill bonuses, resistances, etc.) but absolutely no downsides.
But really the bottom line is that the GM doesn't want it. Maybe he knows something about the campaign you don't, maybe he took a chance allowing the tiefling, and got repaid with a PC who realistically would NEVER be wanted (or perhaps noticed) as part of a group I mean really, you complain about a lack of role playing and make characters with 5 cha?. Whatever the reason, GM's must often make calls that seem overly restrictive because it is much easier to just say no up front then to take something away that the player loves, but is unbalancing to the campaign.
Edit:
Shifty - "I'd also note that the Aasimar produces no real trouble for a GM, they don't bring a sense of Uber to the table, they are generally good guys, and they actually fit in to normal society. Would you prefer a Half Orc Barbarian with the Toothy trait walking down the street looking like a baby-eating monster, or an Aasimar cleric?"
I think this is the best argument in favor of allowing it, but at the same time, a player could make the Anti-Palidin or evil cleric from hell... In fact. I think I may throw one at my group going through Carrion Crown right now.
The same can be said for any race, each has an 'optimal' class that suits their abilities. Halfling Sorceror > Aasimar Sorc.
Paladins can dumpstat Wis, and indeed jujst about every Paladin build on these boards goes that path.
Daylight? Really? Hand over your important tactical advantage of being able to see in the dark and light up the battlefield for your enemies to see and kill you? Fine, take it away. Swap it for a 1x Light cantrip.
The downsides are that they lack flexibility - stat array features the most common dumpstat followed by the second most common, they lack racial variants that others enjoy, they dont fave the favoured class options and flexibility others enjoy.
They can see in the dark, which is common to most races who aren't human, and those resistances are to some of the least common damage types used... compare that to a heft modifier on a saving throw that works against ALL magic types and you start to see its true overestimated value.
For the GM to include a tiefling that from the outset not only looked like the sort of thing the party (and most broader society) would hunt for fun and profit, but with a personality to match, then I have to really question what the GM was thinking.
I'm pretty relaxed and tolerant as a GM, and allow most things, however when something is taboo I point it out early and point out why.
At what point did the GM sit down with the player and ask what the player was trying to achieve (obviously didn't with the tiefling) and at what point did the GM provide a written overview of their campaign and a primer to let players know what the thrust of the campaign was going to be (and thus why certain things are off the table).
Knee-jerky GM's annoy me, especially when they are still trapped in the wrong edition of the game. Failure to determine the proper 'power' of an ability also annoys me, almost as much as inconsistency.
|
|
The player is also there to have fun, and to explore concepts he/she might be interested in putting together.
Set boundaries, by all means, just try ensure those boundaries make sense.
A skill rather than class based system is the only real way to have true freedom to explore every concept. By playing D&D or PF you are giving up that freedom in exchange for pre-made choices by game designers - i.e. classes.
I agree completely, boundries making sense. But this does NOT have to be RAW sense. It can be campaign specific sense. What if the gates of the upper planes have been barred for thousands of years? No assimars possible but tieflings would be fine. Perhaps the party can then quest to open these gates and after that assimars might be fine? What I meant by may statement was that I do get annoyed by the attitude "it's in the book therefore Paizo said I can have it!" for players. This is usually without any regard for the type of game the GM is trying to project.
Moderation on both sides makes for a better game,
S.
The main reason I would have to back the GM here is if they play in a campaign world he himself created. In that case, if he says tieflings exist but not aasimar for whatever the reason, that's great. Also, the regrets about the 5 Cha tiefling character might explain part of his choice. :P
But this does NOT have to be RAW sense. It can be campaign specific sense. What if the gates of the upper planes have been barred for thousands of years? No assimars possible but tieflings would be fine.
Absolutely, we had this come up recently in a campaign I was playing in - there was a planar disconnect so there was quite a few problems playing things touched with the divine. So Aasimar were out (as were a few other things - including Tieflings) and it made sense.
If this was stated up front then I'm sure people could roll with it.
Unfortunately the actual response was that the race was too OP.
What makes me laugh (and almost spew) is that GM's will knock back a race they feel is marginally good, and then allow the biggest cheezemunchkin to slip by with the most outlandish broken mechanic rules abuse toon to be played at the same table.
Tosh. Absolute tosh.
The main reason I would have to back the GM here is if they play in a campaign world he himself created. In that case, if he says tieflings exist but not aasimar for whatever the reason, that's great. Also, the regrets about the 5 Cha tiefling character might explain part of his choice. :P
And where was all the detail provided up front though? How did the players find themselves in the position of not knowing the rationale as to why they don't exist?
Thats not storyline and campaign crafting, its simple Fiat.
I similarly detest being 'punished' because some other player had a character that was a baboon.
|
|
If he has a problem with their power, point him to the ARG playtest and say "If we drop the spell-like ability, they're a 10 point race just like all the others."He would probably just say that the playtest is in beta and isn't a proper evaluation of power.(Which I agree with somewhat)
Between this and the other things that have been said, I'm going to leave this evaluation:
Your DM is looking for excuses, not answers. Just give up now.
Your DM is looking for excuses, not answers. Just give up now.
What he said.
I'd prefer the GM just man up and deal with the actual problem than to leave the original problem in place and then go take it out on the rest of the party.
I'll play devils advocate, and say boooo to aasimars as PC's. Seriously, compare them to any of the core races, and they are just better.
First of all, they don't get Light, they get Daylight 1/day - a third level spell. Also, +2 to Wis and Cha is perfect for clerics, paladins, sorcerers, bards, and many other classes. A little too perfect. No other race gets a bonus to two mental ability scores, with no penalties... whatsoever. Perhaps that is what is wrong with aasimars, they get many benefits (darkvision, skill bonuses, resistances, etc.) but absolutely no downsides.
But really the bottom line is that the GM doesn't want it. Maybe he knows something about the campaign you don't, maybe he took a chance allowing the tiefling, and got repaid with a PC who realistically would NEVER be wanted (or perhaps noticed) as part of a group I mean really, you complain about a lack of role playing and make characters with 5 cha?. Whatever the reason, GM's must often make calls that seem overly restrictive because it is much easier to just say no up front then to take something away that the player loves, but is unbalancing to the campaign.
Edit:
Shifty - "I'd also note that the Aasimar produces no real trouble for a GM, they don't bring a sense of Uber to the table, they are generally good guys, and they actually fit in to normal society. Would you prefer a Half Orc Barbarian with the Toothy trait walking down the street looking like a baby-eating monster, or an Aasimar cleric?"
I think this is the best argument in favor of allowing it, but at the same time, a player could make the Anti-Palidin or evil cleric from hell... In fact. I think I may throw one at my group going through Carrion Crown right now.
First off he has never restricted something based off of roleplaying aspects. We made a 5 cha tiefling because we thought it would be fun for the player to play a socially offensive character. It doesn't matter that it's a third level spell it's still bad a torch accomplishes the same thing. He allowed a lawful good paladin of justice and sunlight but he doesn't want to allow an aasimar? Have you recently looked at how some of the races synergize with classes?
aasimars are weak choices for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. Primary stat for paladins is strength or dex, while wisdom is rarely ever invested in. Sorcerers have far better options such as gnomes,halflings, and humans. Considering that both dex and con are better a sorcerer anyway. Bards rarely use wisdom as well and are better off going gnome, halfling, or human. For bonus skills points, or bonuses to knowledge checks via a feat. Our DM rarely even uses energy type attacks and when he does he usually uses them against people that don't have resistances to them. Even if they were noticeably more powerful he could of just slapped on a penalty or removed something from the race.
My bet is that, for whatever reason, he's now regretting allowing the tiefling in the game in the first place. So he's going to block any other non-core race, and deny that player the tiefling option if/when that character dies.
Tiefling hasn't even played yet. He's a socially offensive tiefling magus. I helped the player make him because magi are harder to kill and he thought it would be fun to play.
I helped the player make him because magi are harder to kill and he thought it would be fun to play.Can you help him make a non-tiefling magus? Is tiefling a design concept, or just mechanically 'quite good'?
He played one in the past and wanted to play one in this game. They're also mechanically good as well.
|
|
He played one in the past and wanted to play one in this game. They're also mechanically good as well.I helped the player make him because magi are harder to kill and he thought it would be fun to play.Can you help him make a non-tiefling magus? Is tiefling a design concept, or just mechanically 'quite good'?
If we ignore the mechanic reasons - technically they could use any race and just add in about some 'heavenly' pact they have. This will give something the GM may include in the story (or not). Roleplaying a concept I think has become far to tied with 'getting a mechanical bonus' - this is an effect for the PF rules being so codified I guess. I mean why bother if there's not a +1 in it right? Seriously the assimar concept can be added, non-mechanically, on to any race.
S.
I am siding with the "They're Fine" Group.
Sure they get +2 to Wis and Cha, Darkvision, a spell they will use once, and some energy resitance. But if you compare it to a regular human, who gets an extra feat, skill points and hit points, I think it balances out close enough.
But more imprtantly, its for FUN. Unless it throws the game off so drastically that it will stop being fun, then let it. I have a guy who plays a werewolf. Is it more powerful than anyone else, of course, does anyone care? NOPE. He is having a ball, and no one else complains. I find too many DMs think of the game as them vs the players, rather than the players and a narrator weaving an epic tale.
The only race that I had some issues with was a Drow Noble, that was rolled. So the worst stat they had was a 16. That was a bit much, but frankly, I allowed it, and the player soon lost interest as he could sleep walk his way through any adventure. (Until he tried to walk into a city and parlay).
Didn't one of the books give a list of "powerful" races that count as being one level higher than the core races? The PRD repeats the general text but omits the list. However, I am pretty sure that races such as drow and svirfnebline (LA +2 and LA +3 in 3.5) were in that list but that the hobgoblin, aasimar, and tiefling (all LA +1 in 3.5) were not on that list and thus could presumably be considered equal to the core races. Since drow nobles are clearly superior to standard drow, they would have to count as "beyond powerful" and thus not suitable as a player character race without further tinkering.
They cast daylight. Not the same as light. Aasimar is not a base or core race. It is in the beastiary and there for up to DM discretion. If you dont want to hear no , play a core race.
Its like a player getting upset because they cant play a bugbear.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They cast daylight. Not the same as light. Aasimar is not a base or core race. It is in the beastiary and there for up to DM discretion. If you dont want to hear no , play a core race.
Its like a player getting upset because they cant play a bugbear.
So I guess my half-dragon/half-titan concept is dead in the water... :(
They cast daylight. Not the same as light. Aasimar is not a base or core race. It is in the beastiary and there for up to DM discretion. If you dont want to hear no , play a core race.
Its like a player getting upset because they cant play a bugbear.
While I agree with this, this was not the issue the OP had. Nor was the OP the one wanting the play this race. The issue was the GM finds tiflings ok and not over powered yet finds Assimar totally over powered for a single net of +2 on its stats.
So it wasn't that the GM said no, it was that he said no to one thing, yet allowed another just as powerful as "ok"
|
|
So it wasn't that the GM said no, it was that he said no to one thing, yet allowed another just as powerful as "ok"They cast daylight. Not the same as light. Aasimar is not a base or core race. It is in the beastiary and there for up to DM discretion. If you dont want to hear no , play a core race.
Its like a player getting upset because they cant play a bugbear.
Given that the race is not core and GM's choice I really don't see the issue. Allowing one race from the Bestiary doesn't imply that all PC able races are automatically allowed I would think. The exact reasons don't matter as much as the GM was unhappy with this race as a PC race. Fair enough I say. Not like he was banning the playing of Gnomes - which perhaps isn't something people would complain about even if it were to happen...
The player just seems annoyed because they didn't get their way on a call that was firmly in the GM court. When pressed the GM gave a reason to justify something that didn't really need justification.
S.
I have no issue with the GM's ruling. I was just saying that was why the thread came about. Not because he said no, but why he said no.
To me its the Gm's game and his call.
Well that line of reasoning fell off the cart with the inclusion of a Tiefling.
Anyhow, with Advanced Races hitting the table the Aasimar will also be more mainstream and not a 'bestiary race'.
Although how one compares the game disruption of a Bugbear with the game disruption of an Aasimar seems a bit light on merit.
They cast daylight. Not the same as light. Aasimar is not a base or core race. It is in the beastiary and there for up to DM discretion. If you dont want to hear no , play a core race.
Its like a player getting upset because they cant play a bugbear.
Daylight is useless. Everything is up to the DM, doesn't make his decisions right though. I'm not the one playing the race, read the discussion before posting.