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.
Yeah I didn't see that for some reason. Carry on.
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.
The first question then is whether or not the GM has a problem with the mechanics / abilities. They may or may not pass it on this. For example, I don't have anything in my game with Ki mechanics. And I have no desire to have them. The Eidolon is another thing I'm not too fond of. It doesn't fit in with everything else I have about outsiders. Other stuff might work.
Secondly there is a simple question as to whether it fits the world. Is the PC the only one of his kind in existence? Can any NPCs duplicate what he can do? Is there any reason for this to be in the setting? I've used the same setting since I started playing (1974) and it's pretty well developed. Dropping something new into the pond sends out ripples and things have to be changed.
You can retcon stuff in, but I like to look new material over and see what fits well with what I have. I specifically have no gunpowder weapons for example. We started playing miniatures in the late 60s and early 70s before D&D and I had a bunch of players who would have loved "inventing" it. I ruled it out. No blowing up dragons, thank you. Real world science doesn't work in my game setting. So, no Gunslingers and no gunpowder weapons. I passed on the Alchemist because I already have a system of alchemy. It works fine, I don't need a different type of it.
If I was building a new setting there are a lot of things that would be fun to use and I would probably have different options than what I have presently. But between the established setting (which is deep and rich) and my own homebrew stuff there is a lot that just doesn't fit for reasons of fluff and / or crunch. Having said that, there are numerous classes, archtypes, prestige classes, feats, etc. that are available for players (not to speak of multiclassing). It's pretty easy to get into the same general space as a given concept even if it does not have the exact mechanics. I haven't had any complaints about it. yet :)
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.
A "medieval" campaign also wouldn't have magic in it, because that's not historical, either. If the Eastern classes don't fit the feel you're going for, fine, but don't pretend that it's inherently more logical that a fantasy world should draw from certain parts of world culture and not others. You already have mish-mash of Greek, Roman, Celtic, Germanic, middle Eastern and Judeo-Christian beliefs even without the ninja, samurai or monk. You won't accurately recreate the tactics of any given era even without gunslingers and alchemists.
Again, do what you want. I banned summoners in my game, because they are frustrating and worked poorly with some of my house rules. My players didn't really question it because they still had options. I can tolerate DM fiat as long as it's laid out, but I'm suggesting to you guys as fellow DMs to take a moment and reconsider why you think something doesn't "make sense".
|
Ugh. Realism of history? Really?
Ninjas never accomplished much of anything in the real world. They're almost entirely a fantasy thing that people romanticized to hell and back.
'Monks' if you want to get technical, have been around for a long gosh darn time. They did a lot more book writing than crane kicks though. People seem to forget that these things are fantasy constructs, not any attempt at realism.
As of this morning I will not be playing magus until 2.0 as I don't like that they can make multiple melees and cast in the same round at 2 ND level.
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.A "medieval" campaign also wouldn't have magic in it, because that's not historical, either. (snip)
For future reference, unless I say low magic or no magic, magic is assumed. I don't run or play in realistic campaigns. I hate reality. Pathfinder is built for magical age of exploration. There are a few who claim to run medieval or no magic campaigns. At least one who runs a combination of the 2. That's not me. Just try to keep it straight next time and I'll pretend that post never happened.
|
|
That doesn't negate the fact that neither ninjas nor monks -really- have a dang thing to do with asia. The best, sneaky, politically effective assassins? Middle east, where the word came from. Make your ninjas Arabian and you'd be more accurate and fit in more campaigns with zero adjustments to the class.
For future reference, unless I say low magic or no magic, magic is assumed. I don't run or play in realistic campaigns. I hate reality. Pathfinder is built for magical age of exploration. There are a few who claim to run medieval or no magic campaigns. At least one who runs a combination of the 2. That's not me. Just try to keep it straight next time and I'll pretend that post never happened.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.A "medieval" campaign also wouldn't have magic in it, because that's not historical, either. (snip)
You're missing the entire point of my post. If you're playing in a campaign with magic, there is no reason why excluding monks and ninja is any more realistic than including them, because you're not playing a historical campaign. There is no Asia. There is no Europe. There's an entirely different world that operates based on entirely different rules.
I personalty don't get the ninja hate thing. Class names or only a metagame thing. Does your world have magic and people killing people? Yes? Then why wouldn't there be assassins with magic-ish abilities? You don't have to freaking call them ninjas. Just like a rogue does not have to call himself a rogue nor does he have to sneak about and steal all the time.
Ninjas by default aren't even any more assassin-ish than regular rogues, except I guess for being able to use poison. Some of the available ninja tricks are geared for assassinations, like the one that grants a death attack, but most fit with any character who cares about stealth.
I've read Tolken's early works. Pre ring. You replace dinos with dragons and other hominids with elves and such. You still have humans start as savage tribes, then nomads, then finally settling down, building castles and walled cities. Glorion is similar to Europe just starting to trade with other continents. There are about 3 major cities, capitals of 3 countries, and none of them have the social system that gave rise to monks, Ninjas, and Samurai. None of them have a fireworks tradition that gave rise to gunpowder. All of these are external suggesting trade routes and ocean shipping. If your game world has a Valley of Peace guarded by Monks right in the mountain range overlooking the Elf dominated forest, then that's different. You called me an idiot because I couldn't read your !@#$$%%%^ mind so I'm going to hide this topic and leave you to your hate filled flame wars.
Myself, I'd allow anything cept the gunslinger.
If i was doing a european medifantasy type then I'd just ask any samurai or ninja to re-fluff themselves appropriately.
If i was doing a an oriental type campaign then the non-ninja and non-samurai folks would do the refluffing.
If i was doing a gun type campaign, I wouldn't be using the D&D rule set.
The gunslinger bugs me for how they implemented it though. It shouldn't ever have been "gunslinger". It should have been (insert snazzy name for Crossbow wielder here) with a sidebar on how to use guns with it.
As it is- if you don't like guns then the class is basically a waste of ink.
-S