| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By default, my games allow the 11 core classes only. No summoners, no samurais, no inquisitors... and no, NEVER any gunslingers. Ever.
Of those core 11, I really don't see much stylistic or tone compatibility for the monk. He simply doesn't fit with the other medieval-fantasy types.
And much as I approve of the concept, I can never find much for a druid to actually DO. He's not wrong for the setting, he's just not very useful in anything but wilderness scenarios.
Druids are only useful in wilderness scenarios? Seriously? Druids are one of the most flexible and robust classes in the game...Sure they truly shine in the wilderness, but not being useful in an urban setting or dungeon? That simply doesnt make sense. They are excellent scouts (ever get suspicious of a sparrow sitting on your windowsill? Neither have I). They are great combatants with wildshape and their potent animal companions. And they have tons of universally useful spells. I mean just summon natures ally is useful in any combat (which druids can convert any of their nature based spells like entangle or charm animals to if prepared as such). Seriously who is playing your druids that they feel useless in non-wilderness settings?
Hopefully I'm mistaken, but some of these posts seem much like "I don't like it, so you can't play it".I feel like banning classes for this reason is somewhat akin to the owner of a PS3 saying "I don't like Blanka, Vega, Guile or Sagat, you can't pick them." when he and his friends decide to play Street Fighter.
Shouldn't the class be fun for whoever is playing it? Would it be so bad to have a Ninja/Cleric/Whatever on the party you GM to? Unless there is a mechanical reason (e.g.: "druids are too powerful, and the rest of the group is not optimized" or "we want to play evil characters, a Paladin wouldn't fit") or a very strong thematic reason ("we all agreed to play a gritty campaign, full casters do not go well with that"), I don't think it'd ruin anyone's fun.
Well, maybe I'm mistaken, maybe I'm just being pessimistic.
This is actually often what such statements feel like to me, and because of it, it's very hard for me to think otherwise than "of course I allow all classes", which I do in almost every game I run... except I don't always because...
I don't think it's about "like / dislike", I think it's about what fits the given game setting. Not everything will. Simple as that. I, for example, don't have Asian themed classes, because my game world doesn't. I played enough Bushido, Oriental Adventures (1E) and Legend of the Five Rings back in the day to know I like them. Just not in my western fantasy setting. Some people say you can "reskin" them to fit. Maybe, but with a ton of other options that fit, why bother? For example, why "reskin" the Paizo Samurai when you have the Cavalier? Why shoe horn in classes etc. that just don't seem to fit? Even if you don't have every class available there are plenty of classes, archtypes etc. to choose from. My 2 cp.
... this.
For one, I've built entire settings around the concept that Core classes just don't exist (I'm more easily swayed to put fighters and rogues back in... but at the current time I'm thinking not), just as an example. The reason? I'm curious what that world would look like.
The standard tropes simply don't exist there anymore.
Fighter too generic-like? He can't be anymore - it's limited to Cavaliers (and their archetypes) and Inquisitors (and their archetypes). There is no more "generic fighter".
Generic spellcasters? What's that? The alchemist, inquisitor, oracle, summoner, witch, and personal-take on artificer rebuild combined with the requirements of elemental-and-school-focused arcane magic and application of certain classes' traits to other classes means that arcane and divine magic looks and feels vastly different from each other and itself (the witch's access to certain spells not withstanding, but is more comprehensible within said context) and means that the world feels different from others.
In that world specifically (and a few others I've created) some classes... just don't work well... or don't even exist. You can't play them, not because I'm specifically "banning" that class, I'm saying that "Well of course you can play a cleric. Are you an inquisitor or oracle, or did you attain that title without using divine magic?" or "You want to play a wizard? Sure! What kind of wizard: alchemist, artificer, or summoner?"
I've done this with a few others as well (though often less restrictive), but I can definitely see why some would "ban" things for flavor.
In Core or Golarion-based games, though, and in most homebrew worlds, it's pretty much open season. Often with special (usually story-based) 'perks' for psionics, ninjas, and gunslingers. 'Cause I love psionics, ninjas, and gunslingers (even if they don't exist in my one homebrew world) - they're some of my favorite conceptual classes!
I disallow the Gunslinger (not suitable to my world), Ninja (play a rogue!) and Samurai (play a fighter!).
I'm not keen on the extra classes from the Ultimate books because I feel most can be done conceptually with the core classes in the rulebook. Plus I feel the Magus is just an excuse to let players have a fighter/wizard without dual-classing. But if a player can give me a good background for taking the extra base classes I will consider them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really depends on where in my world you are.
Northern Continent : Any non-eastern class (monk excepted) except gunslinger.
Southern Continent : Any non-eastern class (racial restrictions on Barbarian, monk excepted). Gunslinger allowed with primitive firearms options.
Eastern Continent : Any eastern class (Samurai, Ninja, Monk), Alchemists, Oracles, Rangers, Rogues, Fighters, Sorcerer, Wizard, Witch, Cavaliers. No gunslingers, no clerics, no druids, no paladins. My have missed a class in there.
Aerial Continent : No spellcaster of any type. Gunslinger allowed with advanced firearms. Limited racial selections. All DSP Psionics classes.
Really depends on where in my world you are.
Northern Continent : Any non-eastern class (monk excepted) except gunslinger.
Southern Continent : Any non-eastern class (racial restrictions on Barbarian, monk excepted). Gunslinger allowed with primitive firearms options.
Eastern Continent : Any eastern class (Samurai, Ninja, Monk), Alchemists, Oracles, Rangers, Rogues, Fighters, Sorcerer, Wizard, Witch, Cavaliers. No gunslingers, no clerics, no druids, no paladins. My have missed a class in there.
Aerial Continent : No spellcaster of any type. Gunslinger allowed with advanced firearms. Limited racial selections. All DSP Psionics classes.
Question: What stops you from saying "The Samurai is a variant cavalier, who on the Northern/Southern continent loses all asian weapon proficiencies"? Because the class is just an extended archetype for the western cavalier.
Also, I get that the Ninja rightly is perceived as being more powerful in combat than the Rogue and thusly some people hate it, but in the end it is just a reskinned Rogue with a more extravagant paint job.
Question: What stops you from saying "The Samurai is a variant cavalier, who on the Northern/Southern continent loses all asian weapon proficiencies"? Because the class is just an extended archetype for the western cavalier.
What's to stop you from playing a Cavalier that isn't the samurai archetype on the other continents? What is so absolutely special about the Samurai that your concept can't fit into the other 14 options? If it's about some powerful ability, then maybe I should look at the Samurai class and see if I need to nerf it if it's so powerful that none of the other 10 Cavalier archetypes will work?
I will note, Samurai is not really an archetype so much as a subclass (they're even called that) because they have their own BAB/power tables, so they are not a minor departure. The themes of the whole class fit better with an eastern mythos, and such they end up on my eastern continent.
Also, I get that the Ninja rightly is perceived as being more powerful in combat than the Rogue and thusly some people hate it, but in the end it is just a reskinned Rogue with a more extravagant paint job.
Like the samurai, they are subclasses (also like the anti-paladin). They're so different they are basically one step away from being a whole separate class (Gunslinger came down on the other side of occum's razor, in playtest it was a subclass as well). The flavor of it is very much eastern.
I'll again ask, what is so good about it, or so special, that you can't do your concept with one or two of the other 20 something archetypes for the rogue? Again, if it's so powerful you can't do it some other way, maybe I need to nerf it.
What's to stop you from playing a Cavalier that isn't the samurai archetype on the other continents? What is so absolutely special about the Samurai that your concept can't fit into the other 14 options? If it's about some powerful ability, then maybe I should look at the Samurai class and see if I need to nerf it if it's so powerful that none of the other 10 Cavalier archetypes will work?I'll again ask, what is so good about it, or so special, that you can't do your concept with one or two of the other 20 something archetypes for the rogue? Again, if it's so powerful you can't do it some other way, maybe I need to nerf it.
You seem to be very nerf-happy. Samurai has some more self-focused abilities which I prefer over the group-buff related abilities the Cavalier class has. Also it is less mount focused, which is a good thing in most games. None of those factors can be easily solved with the knightly orders.
And I think I can safely ascertain that the board is in general agreement that the Rogue is a sucky combat class and the Ninja buffs were a much-needed upgrade, which ( IMO now ) should be extended to the Rogue class ( although in a non-Ki related way ).
Anyway, I wasn't here to challenge your authoritah, so you can knock off the adversarial tone. I was just legitimately curious in general why there is a need to forbid certain classes if they can be easily reskinned to be more appropiate for another setting. Which is probably a question I should post for a more general audience on the General Discussion board.
Now, forbidding the Gunslinger and Summoner, which I do in my games, is another case, because those classes just are horrible mechanically on a general level. ^^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No Gunslingers.
No Monks.
No Gunslingers.
No Samurai, Ninja, or other "eastern" types.
No Gunslingers.
No Alchemists.
No Gunslingers.
No Magus.
Did I mention no Gunslingers?
No Paladins, but I have a substitute.
Oh, and no Gunslingers.
I'm on the fence right now about Summoners.
PS. No third party.
You seem to be very nerf-happy.
Not at all, I said I see it as a warning sign if someone says 'But but but my concept only works with X'. In my personal experience, that usually means there's a power issue going on.
Samurai has some more self-focused abilities which I prefer over the group-buff related abilities the Cavalier class has. Also it is less mount focused, which is a good thing in most games. None of those factors can be easily solved with the knightly orders.
May I suggest an inquisitor then? Inquisitors are spell casting and are very much self buffers, more than team buffers. They use spells, but are also 3/4 bab and can wear armor. This would seem to fit rather well with a concept that is someone who buffs themselves but not their friends. The fluff also fits with the rest of the world, without my having to sacrifice the concept of 'exotic people' when your characters eventually travel to the Eastern Continent or the meet the Lone Samurai here on a spirit quest.
The biggest problem I have with people wanting to completely reskin the fluff of a class or archetype to something that fits in somewhere else is that it robs the world of it's uniqueness. "Oh, so he's like a samurai but uses a sabre and a main gauche" just, to me, completely dismisses the entire concept of different parts of the world having unique and different styles.
Anyway, I wasn't here to challenge your authoritah, so you can knock off the adversarial tone.
It wasn't an adversarial tone, it was my pointing out that if you can't fit your concept into something that fits into the world without destroying some of it's uniqueness, maybe I need to look at the combo you want, because it's obvious there's something there other than the fluff, because you're throwing the fluff of the class away. If you're throwing the fluff away and reskinning it, then you're really wanting the crunch of the class, not the fluff. Usually wanting the crunch over the fluff means you're looking for something overpowered. Not always, but it does mean I need to look at whatever combination you've come up with to make sure it doesn't overbalance the game. You can of course, continue to insult me, since you don't like having it pointed out that insistence on the crunch over the fluff is the same as my forbidding the fluff over the crunch. Goose and Gander?
I was just legitimately curious in general why there is a need to forbid certain classes if they can be easily reskinned to be more appropiate for another setting. Which is probably a question I should post for a more general audience on the General Discussion board.
Why is it you feel a need to insist on the specific crunch over the crunch of something else that has the same flavor? Is it because you want what you want, but what I want is unimportant? I would posit that my wishes as the GM are at the very least as equal to yours as the player. Your tone and question make it apparent that you consider your own desires paramount. May I suggest you take a deep introspective look at why you insist on your method, rather than working with a GM to fit your concept within what he's comfortable with, rather than be antagonistic and insisting on your specific wants and desires?
Now, forbidding the Gunslinger and Summoner, which I do in my games, is another case, because those classes just are horrible mechanically on a general level. ^^
And yet, I do not forbid either. Instead, I work with them within my game and while I have houseruled the Summoner, I haven't banned them. You seem, to use your own words in paraphrase, rather ban happy. Please excuse me for not Respectin Your Auhtoritai!
:)
I disagree. I think Gunslingers should be banned forever, the records deleted and the earth where they grew salted so nothing can ever grow there, and you hardly mentioned them.No Gunslingers.
No Monks.
No Gunslingers.
No Samurai, Ninja, or other "eastern" types.
No Gunslingers.
No Alchemists.
No Gunslingers.
No Magus.
Did I mention no Gunslingers?
No Paladins, but I have a substitute.
Oh, and no Gunslingers.
I'm on the fence right now about Summoners.PS. No third party.
For typical games that I run, here's what I say:
Yes Monks.
Yes Gunslingers.
Yes Psionics.
Yes Samurai, Ninja, or other "eastern" types.
Yes Gunslingers.
Yes Psionics.
Yes Alchemists.
Yes Gunslingers.
Yes Psionics.
Yes Magus.
Did I mention yay Gunslingers (and psionics)?
Yes Paladins.
Oh, and yes Gunslingers and Psionics.
... oh, and yeah, sure, you can have that other stuff too, I guess.
Third party is allowed, pending a review of the material.
I'm actually a big fan of the look, feel, and even (to an extent, dependent on the class) the mechanics of many of the 'outlier' type classes and themes that seem very unpopular on these boards. I actually tend to prefer them to the more 'vanilla' classes. :)
To each their own, eh?
EDIT: I forgot to smile! Whoops! :D
No:
Gunslingers- If I wanted firearms, I would play a different game.
Alchemists- A non magic using class making "magical" potions? No thanks.
Summoners-You are not so much playing the character, but playing the horde of summons...*yawn*
Of the rest, there may be a few classes that I would never personally play, but the above 3 are the only ones that I do not think fit into the setting of the PF games I play.
The only class I've ever banned is Summoner. Getting a companion that you have no real reason to treat like anything but a meatshield is kind of annoying to me. Sure, Summoned Monsters can fill the same sort of role, but an Eidolon is supposed to be some sort of companion. Druids have to treat their animal companions well or risk losing most of their class features. It just doesn't track for me.
As it stands right now, I'm okay with Summoner with a few edits. I remove Life Link, Bond Senses, and the Eidolons ability to speak all of the Summoner's languages.
I've never had a problem with a Gunslinger in one of my games. Although I only allow early firearms, and a limited selection of those, so that may be some of the difference. I thought I would dislike Ninja and Samurai more than I do, but I really don't mind them. Golarion has a place they come from and I make my players learn the fluff behind those regions before actually playing it.
All in all, I think the base classes are okay for the most part. A thing here and there could use a change, but it's okay. I stay away from 3rd party stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It wasn't an adversarial tone
Yes, it was. And you are continueing to use it, so I'll refrain from continueing this discussion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread depresses me, especially the "I hate this class' fluff. Also, if you want the class' abilities but want to reskin it to fit within my fluff, obviously it is overpowered because of insane troll logic so I must ban it for being overpowered" train of thought.
I would posit that my wishes as the GM are at the very least as equal to yours as the player.
Not when it comes to making the Player's characters. Do you let the players make your NPCs?
|
I would posit that my wishes as the GM are at the very least as equal to yours as the player.Not when it comes to making the Player's characters. Do you let the players make your NPCs?
Actually it makes a lot of sense if the PCs are in fact empowered NPCs and the GM expects the players to dutifully follow the wonderful story he has created in all the details. Like actors playing to the tune of a play's author and director.
Free will is overrated anyway.
I would posit that my wishes as the GM are at the very least as equal to yours as the player.Not when it comes to making the Player's characters. Do you let the players make your NPCs?
Bogus question.
I let the players make their own characters. There are simply certain restrictions on what general types can be in what general areas.
Your argument boils down to 'If you put any limitations on me, it is the same as dictating every iota of my character'. Which is obviously horsefeathers.
I would posit that my wishes as the GM are at the very least as equal to yours as the player.Not when it comes to making the Player's characters. Do you let the players make your NPCs?
Actually it makes a lot of sense if the PCs are in fact empowered NPCs and the GM expects the players to dutifully follow the wonderful story he has created in all the details. Like actors playing to the tune of a play's author and director.
Free will is overrated anyway.
You are absolutely right, that is exactly what people have been saying all thread. That the GM should take free will away from everyone and play their characters for them, and make them, including all decisions, like where every single skill point is spent (I know I personally enforce the rule that everyone has to take Craft(Basket Weaving) at every level).
Reading comprehension, the ability to play nice with others, and general common sense is overrated anyway.
I would posit that my wishes as the GM are at the very least as equal to yours as the player.Not when it comes to making the Player's characters. Do you let the players make your NPCs?
Can I play in your next campaign, I have this great idea for a character. It's a 100 pt build, celestial half dragon-half storm giant were dire tiger gunslinger that carries a cannon for his gun?
I would posit that my wishes as the GM are at the very least as equal to yours as the player.Not when it comes to making the Player's characters. Do you let the players make your NPCs?
Actually it makes a lot of sense if the PCs are in fact empowered NPCs and the GM expects the players to dutifully follow the wonderful story he has created in all the details. Like actors playing to the tune of a play's author and director.
Free will is overrated anyway.
You are absolutely right, that is exactly what people have been saying all thread. That the GM should take free will away from everyone and play their characters for them, and make them, including all decisions, like where every single skill point is spent (I know I personally enforce the rule that everyone has to take Craft(Basket Weaving) at every level).
Reading comprehension, the ability to play nice with others, and general common sense is overrated anyway.
That's Craft(Underwater Left-handed Basket Weaving)!
I seriously hate monks. There, I said it. I have one player who always plays one, of course. I don't want monks mucking up the setting, I don't want their weapons in weapon shops, I don't want their teachers and chapels in my cities. A monk is someone fat and untrained who grows carrots and copies books about some god in a monastery, to me. If I play an asian campaign, though, I am fully prepared to go all-out with them and supply mysterious wise old men with funny hats throwing fireballs at one another and flying because it's cool.
One campaign seed I am working on is a psionics/incarnum campaign. This would mean Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Scout and possibly Monk of the old classes.
Can I play in your next campaign, I have this great idea for a character. It's a 100 pt build, celestial half dragon-half storm giant were dire tiger gunslinger that carries a cannon for his gun?I would posit that my wishes as the GM are at the very least as equal to yours as the player.Not when it comes to making the Player's characters. Do you let the players make your NPCs?
To be fair, he was arguing a player couldn't play a class from area A in area B unless he was trying to "powergame." Apparently travel is overpowered. (At least that was my impression, he was talking to someone else at the time.)
To be fair, he was arguing a player couldn't play a class from area A in area B unless he was trying to "powergame." Apparently travel is overpowered. (At least that was my impression, he was talking to someone else at the time.)Can I play in your next campaign, I have this great idea for a character. It's a 100 pt build, celestial half dragon-half storm giant were dire tiger gunslinger that carries a cannon for his gun?I would posit that my wishes as the GM are at the very least as equal to yours as the player.Not when it comes to making the Player's characters. Do you let the players make your NPCs?
You should probably actually read my posts before you snark and slam me then?
If you had, you'd have read where I said 'When starting a new campaign, these are the restrictions'. As in, at higher levels, when they're traveling to areas where there's lots of travel, things open up more.
For some odd reason, I find it stretches versimillitude for a 1st level human samurai to suddenly show up deep in the mountains of a continent where no humans exist.
What I actually said about powergaming was, and I'll reiterate it, so you can read it before commenting on it again :
If the only way to build your character concept (note that a character concept is not a rules driven thing, it's a concept of what your character is, not some rules build) is to have this one specific class and/or archetype, and you can't work with the other 10 or 12 base classes available to you and dozens of archetypes thereof, then that to me is a signal I need to look and see if it's overpowered, as in my experience anyone who is stubborn to the point of refusing to work with me is usually trying to power game the system.
I guess I could add to that that anyone who is so absolutely insistent on having their own way with no ability to bend is probably not someone worth gaming with either, but I was trying to avoid saying that because I'm sure someone will take it as a personal insult.
I should add that I don't find monks to be overpowered, far from it. To be honest, they are pretty weak. The damage they do is to my fluff.
I would probably ban classes only because they really don't fit the setting.
Example -- your setting has a Renaissance or early modern flavor. Firearms have become common, and heavy armor has all but disappeared. You inform the players that many of their enemies will have guns and that only light armor will be available to them. Once you have made those points clear, some character types will disappear, while archetypes that give up medium and/or heavy armor proficiency will become quite popular.
So long as players have a spectrum of classes to choose from, I seriously don't see the problem with banning certain classes. At all.
Angry Stuff
My bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Angry StuffMy bad.
No problem,
I'm just a bit sensitive on the topic. There's a sub-species of forum troll that will take any position that isn't aligned with 'Player gets whatever player wants no matter what' and portray that as 'GM is an unmitigated jerk and is having wrong/bad/fun and needs to be banned from being a GM unless they change their horrible/evil/disgusting ways'.I'm of the opinion that a game is just that, and part of the GMs job is to come up with a world that he can visualize in his head, whether that is based off a published world or a custom world, and to keep track of the npcs and cultures and etc. As part of that, the GM should have the right to say 'Hey, this gives me problems with versimillitude, so it makes it harder for me to do my job, so I really would like you to do something else'.
This statement unfortunately sets off the sub-species of troll who scream about player entitlement and GM abusiveness and almost always includes personal insults on the poster's intelligence and character, calling them things like powertrippers or tyrants or dicators.
I find it ironic that these same people don't recognize that their stance is 100% dicatotorial and tyrannical, with the insistence akin to a religious fanatic.
Wow... Most people ban religious and "eastern" style classes because.?.?.? They are afraid of cultural impengement? Have a strongly "European" style flavor that is anti religion? Idk, but it seems a little off to me. I strongly believe you should keep your personal politics, cultural, and religious preference out of someone else's fantasy game... But the whole point of this fantasy setting and the descriptions that go along with it is to highlight racial and religious differences, culture, and racism to a certain degree. Dwarves and elves don't get along, many races have "racial hatred" abilities built into the RACE not just the class.
With that said, I think those people's should ban races more than classes except maybe the ranger who is not just a racist, but a genocidal supremacist.
For me though, gunslingers and alchemists don't usually fit the level of technology/ science for my campaign. They are great classes, but kinda go together as being emerging enlightenment era classes.
My current campaign is set in Oerth (world of Greyhawk), so there are a few things I'd leave out.
No gunslinger. I like them conceptually and mechanically, but they don't fit the setting.
No ninja. Not only are they not setting appropriate, they are (IMO) thematically weak for party inclusion.
I'd also leave out samurai for setting reasons.
No summoner. Conceptually good, but the players who like them in this group are a little too weak on the mechanics, and I'm not inclined to hold hands.
No third-party classes. Nothing against some of them, but I'd rather have rigorous support for each class played (available for the players to consult).
Cavaliers fit the setting very nicely, with all of the knightly orders available. Fighters, paladins, rogues, rangers, wizards, and sorcerors are appropriate. There are examples of monastic power groups (like the Scarlet Brotherhood) and plenty of places to include witches or oracles. Alchemists are a little more sketchy in that sense, but a strong presence of humanoids (goblins included) inclines me to allow them.
Wow... Most people ban religious and "eastern" style classes because.?.?.? They are afraid of cultural impengement? Have a strongly "European" style flavor that is anti religion? Idk, but it seems a little off to me. I strongly believe you should keep your personal politics, cultural, and religious preference out of someone else's fantasy game... But the whole point of this fantasy setting and the descriptions that go along with it is to highlight racial and religious differences, culture, and racism to a certain degree. Dwarves and elves don't get along, many races have "racial hatred" abilities built into the RACE not just the class.
With that said, I think those people's should ban races more than classes except maybe the ranger who is not just a racist, but a genocidal supremacist.
For me though, gunslingers and alchemists don't usually fit the level of technology/ science for my campaign. They are great classes, but kinda go together as being emerging enlightenment era classes.
As the GM it technically is "my fantasy game," not someone else's game. I as a player would not tell a GM that he can't have monks in his campaign, because I don't want them in "Eurocentric" game, any more than I would tell a GM he has to let me play a monk in his "Eurocentric" game.
This thread depresses me, especially the "I hate this class' fluff. Also, if you want the class' abilities but want to reskin it to fit within my fluff, obviously it is overpowered because of insane troll logic so I must ban it for being overpowered" train of thought.The notion that things like tone, setting, and alignment are 'fluff' is what depresses me. They're the hardcore essence of the game.
1.) They are, by definition, "fluff". They are not crunch, therefore they are fluff (that stuff you use to flesh out the fabric that is the crunch).
2.) If I'm reskinning the class to fit within your fluff, how am I disturbing the "essence" of the game? It fits within your fluff using something else' crunch. If you've got, say, a hyper-technoadvanced world where only the completely mundane classes (Fighter, Rogue, etc.), Gunslinger and Alchemist are able to be played SOLELY because magic doesn't exist, does it ruin your game if I make another class fit into that? Say, the Monk uses advanced nanites and other tech to perform his Su abilities like Slow Fall and such?
As the GM it technically is "my fantasy game," not someone else's game. I as a player would not tell a GM that he can't have monks in his campaign, because I don't want them in "Eurocentric" game, any more than I would tell a GM he has to let me play a monk in his "Eurocentric" game.Wow... Most people ban religious and "eastern" style classes because.?.?.? They are afraid of cultural impengement? Have a strongly "European" style flavor that is anti religion? Idk, but it seems a little off to me. I strongly believe you should keep your personal politics, cultural, and religious preference out of someone else's fantasy game... But the whole point of this fantasy setting and the descriptions that go along with it is to highlight racial and religious differences, culture, and racism to a certain degree. Dwarves and elves don't get along, many races have "racial hatred" abilities built into the RACE not just the class.
With that said, I think those people's should ban races more than classes except maybe the ranger who is not just a racist, but a genocidal supremacist.
For me though, gunslingers and alchemists don't usually fit the level of technology/ science for my campaign. They are great classes, but kinda go together as being emerging enlightenment era classes.
I don't think I was disagreeing, just noting. Run your campaign as you see fit, I am not condemning anyone's choices or saying I wouldn't enjoy playing in those games... I just thought it was odd that culture and religion were on the chopping block almost as much as gunslingers and alchemists for technology/ science not befitting the setting, and summoners for not being mechanically on par with relative power lvls.
[1.) They are, by definition, "fluff". They are not crunch, therefore they are fluff (that stuff you use to flesh out the fabric that is the crunch).
Yes, and that definition is wrong. Style and tone are the essence of the game, the indispensable part. The rules and mechanics are merely structural underpinnings for the important stuff. It's called a 'roleplaying game' rather than a 'tactics game' for a reason.
Just as the important part of a pillow is the fluff.
If you'd actually read what I wrote, I am agreeing with you that it is important.
I do not agree that the fluff should be immutable, nor should it interfere with the crunch so long as that crunch should be made to fit the crunch.
And neither is more important than the other. You can import Pathfinder's fluff to another game and it would not be nearly the same due to the mechanics being different. They're both equally important to defining the game. Hell, the fact that homebrew worlds and campaigns exist at all is proof that fluff is mutable.
The notion that things like tone, setting, and alignment are 'fluff' is what depresses me. They're the hardcore essence of the game.
1.) They are, by definition, "fluff". They are not crunch, therefore they are fluff (that stuff you use to flesh out the fabric that is the crunch).
2.) If I'm reskinning the class to fit within your fluff, how am I disturbing the "essence" of the game? It fits within your fluff using something else' crunch. If you've got, say, a hyper-technoadvanced world where only the completely mundane classes (Fighter, Rogue, etc.), Gunslinger and Alchemist are able to be played SOLELY because magic doesn't exist, does it ruin your game if I make another class fit into that? Say, the Monk uses advanced nanites and other tech to perform his Su abilities like Slow Fall and such?
I'm all for reskinning. If the mechanics are not overpowered... then I see no reason not to allow something.
Gunslingers and summoners? Their mechanics are wonky enough that I see DM's not wanting them...
Ninjas? Samuraii??
Samuraii are not that different from cavalier. that's the biggest arguement I hear about them... Don't like Japan in your games? no Japan. but noble warrior on horse?? What's not to allow?
Ninjas?? Don't like japanese shadow warriors?? but allow other rogue assassins??? Reskin it. Ninja is just a name for 'rogue assassin'.
Mechanics are really the only GOOD reason to cut a class. If they cast divine magic, but you don't have divine magic?? yeah they're out.
Ninjas? Samuraii??Samuraii are not that different from cavalier. that's the biggest arguement I hear about them... Don't like Japan in your games? no Japan. but noble warrior on horse?? What's not to allow?
Ninjas?? Don't like japanese shadow warriors?? but allow other rogue assassins??? Reskin it. Ninja is just a name for 'rogue assassin'.
And if they are not that different why do you need, say, the Samurai vs. the Cavalier? Why not just use the Cavalier? The Cavalier is a noble warrior on horseback. The class (Cavalier) and alternate class (Samurai) are quite close. A bit more than an archtype. What is the point of "reskinning" the Samurai if it's not mechanics? Or is it that it has some ability you find lacking in the Cavalier? In which case it is the mechanics.
If you can't construct your concept without some specific little widget, it's not about the concept, it's about the mechanics.
I could say the same thing about Ninja vs. Rogue. Although, imo, the Ninja has it over the Rogue as a class. Still, to say it again, if they are so close that reskinning won't change anything essential, what's the point?
If it's a major ability, say casting arcane spells for example, that could crimp anyone's concept of a "mage" type character. You should be able to build a concept without being picky over the little stuff though.
Biggest reason for Samurai over Cavalier?
When you want some of the Cavalier's abilities but the campaign won't support a horse. Sword Saint all the way.
And it is about the mechanics, that's the point. Never was it said this was about anything else.
The GM is fine with the mechanics. He hates the fluff. I want the mechanics, can I change the fluff?
|
Biggest reason for Samurai over Cavalier?
When you want some of the Cavalier's abilities but the campaign won't support a horse. Sword Saint all the way.
And it is about the mechanics, that's the point. Never was it said this was about anything else.
The GM is fine with the mechanics. He hates the fluff. I want the mechanics, can I change the fluff?
If you want a horseless Cavalier, Musketeer also works.
I'm surprised Gunslinger is emerging as the "most-banned" class. Our group has way more problems with Alchemists and Paladins. The biggest problem we find with Gunslingers is that, if the AP or module we're using predates UC, there's no firearms in any of the loot. And firearms are expensive enough that you can't just say that the +1 longbow you found is a +1 blunderbuss instead, without disturbing WBL.
If you can't construct your concept without some specific little widget, it's not about the concept, it's about the mechanics.
That's not entirely right though, is it? If I want to play a magic user I need the mechanics of spell casting to fulfill my concept, don't I?
And if they are not that different why do you need, say, the Samurai vs. the Cavalier? Why not just use the Cavalier? The Cavalier is a noble warrior on horseback. The class (Cavalier) and alternate class (Samurai) are quite close. A bit more than an archtype. What is the point of "reskinning" the Samurai if it's not mechanics? Or is it that it has some ability you find lacking in the Cavalier? In which case it is the mechanics.If you can't construct your concept without some specific little widget, it's not about the concept, it's about the mechanics.
I could say the same thing about Ninja vs. Rogue. Although, imo, the Ninja has it over the Rogue as a class. Still, to say it again, if they are so close that reskinning won't change anything essential, what's the point?
If it's a major ability, say casting arcane spells for example, that could crimp anyone's concept of a "mage" type character. You should be able to build a concept without being picky over the little stuff though.
yeah, it's definitely the mechanics that I would advocate letting in. Sometimes the mechanics are integral to the character concept.
Personally, I love bladesingers. If I want a melee caster... Magus is really the best way to go. I COULD multiclass... but it's generally assumed that multiclassing ruins a lot of builds. Also there are threads that make it VERY hard to multiclass into caster if you don't start there...
And frankly being 3rd or 4th character level before I could attempt what I wanted at 1st... is 'unappealing'
So yes, Mechanics are very important when designing character concepts.
I've only glanced at samuraii and wasn't impressed. I honestly thought they COULD have made that an archtype of Cavalier... but as such, why ban it? If the mechanics are not overpowered... and you have noble warriors on horses with challenges and stuff... what difference does it make if the original version is called 'samuraii or Cavalier'?
Another good example is monks? A lot of people hate eastern influence... and ki... and everything else...
I'm a MASSIVE fan of Daredevil, Nightwing, Van Damme, Jackie Chan and a dozen other hand to hand, un armored characters. My 'Monk' wouldn't look anything at ALL like the bald, robed, sandled monks that people dislike. However, Flurry of Blows? Wisdom added to AC?? YES PLEASE!!!
These are things that unarmed Fighters class just can't compensate for.
That's not entirely right though, is it? If I want to play a magic user I need the mechanics of spell casting to fulfill my concept, don't I?
If you can't construct your concept without some specific little widget, it's not about the concept, it's about the mechanics.
To quote myself from the post above:
"If it's a major ability, say casting arcane spells for example, that could crimp anyone's concept of a "mage" type character. You should be able to build a concept without being picky over the little stuff though."
Some things you need. Others, not so much.
If the campaign is medieval, set before the age of exploration, there are no Monks or Ninjas outside of the orient. Someone could create a bare knuckles fighter or rogue wearing black pajamas, to try to simulate those classes, but that's their issue.