|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't even bother reading your posts anymore Gorb, so save yourself some time and stop stalking me.Not only you do read them, but you also respond! So there's still some hope for joyful reconciliation left. I'm all full of promise here.
Having an arch nemesis is a status symbol.
|
|
If a GM is banning something because it doesnt fit their game concept I'll work with them.
This is kind of how it works.
If I decide I want to run a Dwarf campaign, I announce this clearly and outline expectations, you have two options as a player. Make a dwarf or say "I'll pass"
If I pick a general campaign and decide to exclude specific things, and I announce this clearly...yeah, same thing.
Our group always has GM approval of concept for several reasons. One, to make sure you can fit it into the group and the setting. Another is so that the story can include your story. You an orphan, tell me about how it happened and maybe we explore what REALLY happened to your parents somewhere down the line. Have an elaborate backstory? Awesome, that gives me some depth to add to the setting.
But just because you want to play it doesn't mean you get to play it in this game that this GM is running.
The only way you can get 100% control of what you run is as a GM.
The only way you can get 100% control of what you run is as a GM.
and that is if a player isn't hosting said game, DMs/GMs most dreaded thing...
DM/GM: "You can't do X."
Player: "Then go find somewhere else to play."
DM/GM: "Fine, you can do it."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only way you can get 100% control of what you run is as a GM.and that is if a player isn't hosting said game, DMs/GMs most dreaded thing...
DM/GM: "You can't do X."
Player: "Then go find somewhere else to play."
DM/GM: "Fine, you can do it."
...and never accept an invite to play at that person's place again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a GM is banning something because it doesnt fit their game concept I'll work with them.This is kind of how it works.
If I decide I want to run a Dwarf campaign, I announce this clearly and outline expectations, you have two options as a player. Make a dwarf or say "I'll pass"
If I pick a general campaign and decide to exclude specific things, and I announce this clearly...yeah, same thing.
Our group always has GM approval of concept for several reasons. One, to make sure you can fit it into the group and the setting. Another is so that the story can include your story. You an orphan, tell me about how it happened and maybe we explore what REALLY happened to your parents somewhere down the line. Have an elaborate backstory? Awesome, that gives me some depth to add to the setting.
But just because you want to play it doesn't mean you get to play it in this game that this GM is running.
The only way you can get 100% control of what you run is as a GM.
Ok, this is how I run a campaign. I'm a dreaded rulers GM. I clearly state, before anyone has made a character, what is accepted and what is excluded from a campaign. Pleasing everybody all the time isn't possible. Most people are ok with playing with in a set of guidelines. I seldom run an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink type campaign, so my regulars know I'm going to make it a GM approval thing with keeping the campaign flavour in mind. I encourage good backstories, but we are a role-play heavy group anyway. We are less interested in playing a set of optimized statistics and more interested in making a colourful and interesting story. But each GM is different and each gaming group is different, so I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer.
.
Next are the infamous Asian classes and the gunslinger, because I like my Golarion without them. I'm fine and dandy with those classes in Tian-Xia and Alkenstar, but they don't fit well with my vision of Inner Sea.
So what about the ranger(pseudo ninja) or rogue(pseudo ninja) when it is obvious to everyone at the table what the player is actually doing, even if he never says the word "ninja". The ranger or fighter could also be a Samurai.
Do Tian-Xia and Alkenstar not exist in your Golarion? If so what is stopping those classes from making it to the inner sea?<--serious question.
My party wouldn't have two rangers, for the same reason.If a party has both an inquisitor and a ranger, both of them have track, are specialized monster hunters, etc. So, Inquisitors and Maguses are out.What do you do if your party has two rangers?
What about a fighter or barbarian made for outdoors type things, which is possible, that uses the same fighting style as the ranger?
In short you can play the same class without stepping on toes, but the same concept is what might cause an issue. A trapfinding ranger might also step on the rogue's toes, or even the archaeologist bard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play a ninja that is not Asian in any way.
She is a 'shadow adept'. I told the players I was using the ninja class to represent a non-ninja concept, but it doesn't stick. They keep referring to her as a ninja regardless how hard I try to persuade them otherwise.
That is why it is fun sometimes to not let people know what class you are playing. :)
I had a barbarian/rogue when I first started 3.5.
Player-->"He just used sneak attack, but he is raging. What book is that in....."?
Me--><silence> :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. Banning things in the game is kinda silly and ultimately worthless. Any class you ban because of "concept" can still be done with other classes and multi-classing.
Ban Ninja. I'll just play a Monk, or Rogue/Monk.
Ban Samurai. I'll just play anything martial.
The only class i can understand banning in a game is Gunslinger and only if there are no guns in the game world and your unwilling to modify the class to allow crossbows.
Otherwise banning is basically in my opinion either ignorance of how the rules/class actually work. (See My Summoner, My X, My Z etc. is broken threads when they first came out.) or having an arrogant assumption of what "fantasy" is to you and force it on the group.(Exceptions arise as always. Not everyone is an arrogant ignorant fool.)
We don't have pj wearing Rangers,.....If a few more DM's had the balls to say No occasionally, they would suffer the fate of the many, many DM's that post here complaining about their players.
Most of the complaints are due to lack of rules knowledge and lack of GM experience not being timid.
So if your idea is to ban the fluff, why not just say no "ninjas", but still allow the mechanics. I will put it another way. What if the "ninja class" was officially called a "royal assassin(use other name as needed)", and the shurikens were throwing knives? Would you still have banned it?
Do Tian-Xia and Alkenstar not exist in your Golarion? If so what is stopping those classes from making it to the inner sea?<--serious question.
I might be setting the campaign in a particularly provincial area of some nation not particularly well known for being cosmopolitan or open. Nidal comes to mind. And I don't want to have significant cultural influences from the outside.
The only classes I've ever banned were Gunslinger, Alchemist, and Artificer in my current Kingmaker game, because I am playing at a point in my homebrew's timeline where those technologies have not yet been discovered.
Otherwise I don't ban things.
I don't know, to me the OP is kinda mixing in a couple of different concepts that make this idea seem stranger than it is. If somebody bans the flavour concept of a ninja then I expect the concept of a ninja to be banned. Not only that concept as envisioned through the ninja class itself.
If my GM told me that he didn't want ninjas in the game because he didn't like the flavour of a ninja then I wouldn't play one. I also wouldn't play a rogue or a ranger who had the exact same flavour as a ninja. If the objection was purely to the flavour I would however expect the GM to at least consider letting me play a re-flavoured ninja class.
On the other hand if my GM told me he didn't want ninjas in the game because he didn't like the mechanics then I would figure that I could maybe play a ranger or rogue using the ninja flavour that I want. I don't think that either of these concepts seems very unusual, though personally very little (if anything) ends up banned in most games I play.
But a poster(GM) above already admitted to allowing a ranger as a ninja, but not the ninja class which means he is basically banning the class by the name alone, and many people do this. I am trying to find out why. Stuart seems to be ban the concept also, which makes more sense*
*Not saying that I agree, but that is consistent.
So if your idea is to ban the fluff, why not just say no "ninjas", but still allow the mechanics. I will put it another way. What if the "ninja class" was officially called a "royal assassin(use other name as needed)", and the shurikens were throwing knives? Would you still have banned it?
After I think switched his base weapon skills for an appropriate list, removed his ki power, and rejiggered his ninja tricks list to remove the elements of eastern mysticism/ninja legends... I might as well have kitted him up as a rogue, perhaps with the assassin prestige class. Which is what I would have done in the first place if I intended to ban the ninja and its flavor.
After I think switched his base weapon skills for an appropriate list, removed his ki power, and rejiggered his ninja tricks list to remove the elements of eastern mysticism/ninja legends... I might as well have kitted him up as a rogue, perhaps with the assassin prestige class. Which is what I would have done in the first place if I intended to ban the ninja and its flavor.
So if your idea is to ban the fluff, why not just say no "ninjas", but still allow the mechanics. I will put it another way. What if the "ninja class" was officially called a "royal assassin(use other name as needed)", and the shurikens were throwing knives? Would you still have banned it?
Those can just be refluffed instead of changed mechanically. Maybe the guy can just tap into the universe. Just to be clear those "throwing knives" are shurikens mechanically. I only changed the names. I never suggested any mechanical changes. :)
Changing the base weapons might make it fit better though. I know what its weapons are though.
With that said I do have to go now, but I do look forward to any more posts on the issue.
I'm not a fan of gish core classes. If someone wants to play a casty fighter (or a fighty spellcaster), instead of Magus, play an Eldritch Knight. Same goes with Inquisitors. I don't like classes that are stepping on toes of other similar classes. If a party has both an inquisitor and a ranger, both of them have track, are specialized monster hunters, etc. So, Inquisitors and Maguses are out. And Paladins, too. But, since Paladins have been part of the game for a long time, I'd be willing to allow them if games suitable for them (like the Worldwound AP), if they take an archetype that nerfs Smite.
Next are the infamous Asian classes and the gunslinger, because I like my Golarion without them. I'm fine and dandy with those classes in Tian-Xia and Alkenstar, but they don't fit well with my vision of Inner Sea.
I don't like the mechanics of the Summoner and generally don't have good experience with playtesting new base classes (except for Oracle), so I'd rather not see one in my games.
That leaves almost all core classes + Alchemist and Oracle. I like the Alchemist because most of his abilities can't be replicated with other classes and I think that Oracle Reveleations are what Cleric Domains should have been.
Selection for PCs isn't that narrow. That's 12 classes with god only knows how many archetypes and prestige classes available to them.
To me, as a player, the biggest turn off is the list of core classes the GM bans. And with the rise of online gaming theres just no reason for me, personally, to accept it.
"Oh you ban Inquisitors and Magus and Samurai and Ninja and Gunslingers... okay well good luck with your game I am going to take my sorcerer and find another one."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand banning lots of magic classes if you're running a world where magic works in a specific way not compatible with the Pathfinder classes. This is often the case when trying to model a non-game piece of fiction such as a novel or movie, where magic is shown to work in a very particular way.
For example, if you wanted to run a Mistborn game, you'd have to ban all magic classes and replace them with 'misting (one for each of the sixteen metals, although you'd probably not want to bother writing them for the gnats or the god metals)', 'mistborn (as a generalist to the misting's specialist for balance, even if canonically they're ridiculously more powerful)', 'hemalurgist (spreading such things as steel inquisitors over a level progression)', 'feruchemist' and 'kandra (race and class as one)'. All of these have very specific ways that they work that might be modelled by a set of spell-likes or supernatural abilities as a quick patch, but could not be represented by standard casters at all.
Now I want to do this. D:
Now see Umbral that I can understand. If you have a very very specific view of a game setting for good story reasons.
I can also see having 'no guns' to a degree as the invention of the firearm can drastically alter the geopolitical power of a setting. Or if its a very specific campaign setting. I wouldn't expect to play a wizard, or a gunslinger in a setting based on Westeros. buuuut I think in most cases a good role player with a backstory that involves coming from a strange new land or wielding strange new weapons that ha e just begun to appear can work. Even in custom worlds. If your campaign setting can't find room for 4 firearms or what have you then its probably just more you don't like them.
But my earlier complaint about a list of banned classes can be lessened a lot of the GM explains they have a very specific vision and I find it intriguing enough.
eh, I'm ready to get flamed :P
I'd ban the gunslinger to boycott it being put into the books- just on general principle. Guns have no place, regardless of some dev penciling them in. If someone was just totally hell bent on playing one, I'd not be adverse to replacing "gun" with "crossbow" but that'd also require me to become familiar with the mechanics to make sure its being played correctly.
Ninja I'd ban because it makes the rogue obsolete. Not terribly comfortable with a splat core class invalidating a core class.
No big deal refluffing the samurai into something else, if the campaign had no use for the asian themed ones. (or refluffing the others if you were going to do an asian themed campaign).
Tempted to say I'd ben the summoner not out of hate (love the class, myself) but just to avoid so many headaches. I understand why they did what they did.. but it certainly does make it painful for all involved.
I'm generally a fan of refluffing.. Classes, races, weapons- whatever.
Heck refluffing a race into another is far easier than creating one from scratch and has the benefit of it being as balanced (or not) as the core race you took the crayon to.
-S
Banning gunslingers is easy.
"Gunpowder weapons haven't been invented yet."
I have a couple of settings of my own design. In one, gunpowder weapons have not been invented. No gunslingers. In the other, gunpowder weapons have been invented. On the other hand, magic works wildly differently (the line between arcane and divine is blurred and it's actually impossible to be nonmagical; magic is required to live and everyone is born with one ongoing spell called 'being alive in a universe that no longer supports conventional life') and the only remaining humans are undead; everyone plays an outsider race, most of them custom rather than from the book. The material plane has been irrevocably annihilated and any creatures originating from it quickly go insane and turn to dust if not preserved (stasis, undead, etc). That makes a pretty big banned list.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my upcoming game that I'm about to GM, I've banned the Paladin. This isn't because of fluff or mechanics, but because of players. I've never banned it before this game. Each time it's played (with one and only one exception), it ends up being the Lawful-Stupid type of character that justifies ridiculousness with his own righteousness. I'll be willing to open it up to any player that can convince me he'll play it in a more interesting way.
Also, other than humans, I'm only allowing the races from Dragon Empires because I'm running an Asian-themed setting. It's modeled after the era where guns began to emerge after the influence of another culture being introduced to them.
There are other things I've excluded as well, such as plate armour. But, the players wished to play an Asian-themed setting, and they seem to love the changes.
|
|
Guns have no place, regardless of some dev penciling them in.
I'm curious to know what you mean by this.
Ninja I'd ban because it makes the rogue obsolete. Not terribly comfortable with a splat core class invalidating a core class.
-S
Just wanted to point out that Ninja is an archetype of the Rogue, in case you didn't realize.
Banning gunslingers is easy.
"Gunpowder weapons haven't been invented yet."
I have a couple of settings of my own design. In one, gunpowder weapons have not been invented. No gunslingers. In the other, gunpowder weapons have been invented. On the other hand, magic works wildly differently (the line between arcane and divine is blurred and it's actually impossible to be nonmagical; magic is required to live and everyone is born with one ongoing spell called 'being alive in a universe that no longer supports conventional life') and the only remaining humans are undead; everyone plays an outsider race, most of them custom rather than from the book. The material plane has been irrevocably annihilated and any creatures originating from it quickly go insane and turn to dust if not preserved (stasis, undead, etc). That makes a pretty big banned list.
Interesting... I'd like to know more about this setting.
Banning gunslingers is easy.
"Gunpowder weapons haven't been invented yet."
I have a couple of settings of my own design. In one, gunpowder weapons have not been invented. No gunslingers. In the other, gunpowder weapons have been invented. On the other hand, magic works wildly differently (the line between arcane and divine is blurred and it's actually impossible to be nonmagical; magic is required to live and everyone is born with one ongoing spell called 'being alive in a universe that no longer supports conventional life') and the only remaining humans are undead; everyone plays an outsider race, most of them custom rather than from the book. The material plane has been irrevocably annihilated and any creatures originating from it quickly go insane and turn to dust if not preserved (stasis, undead, etc). That makes a pretty big banned list.
Well that's a bit different than. "Okay lets do Rise of the Runelords... zomg no guns/ninja/samurai/etc because *insert rant about fantasy tropes you like and don't like here*" at least to me!
Well that's a bit different than. "Okay lets do Rise of the Runelords... zomg no guns/ninja/samurai/etc because *insert rant about fantasy tropes you like and don't like here*" at least to me!
It is often about tone and vision. Some fantasy tropes may be contrary to the vision of the campaign the DM wants to run and the players agree to run. I may want to run RotRL with an all local cast of PCs because I want to start them off as a more close knit community rather than a bunch of really disparate character ideas brought together. So I may restrict countries/cultures of origin to Varisia and one cultural radius and not allow Azlanti, Keleshites, Vudrani, Taldans, Mwangi, or Tian characters. That excludes some fantasy RPG tropes like the super-multicultural party but it's done to encourage a different sort of relationship between PCs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting... I'd like to know more about this setting.
The premise:
In a historic era, the old gods (Order, Chaos and Change) set out to destroy existence. They had created the universe, it had run its course, and it was their right to undo it all.
Had they agreed on how to do this, humanity wouldn't have stood a chance. Instead, Order wanted to end the universe in a 'big crunch', compressing everything down into a single point of uniformity. Chaos wanted to end it in the absolute dissolution of 'heat death', separating every atom from all others. Change wanted it to end either way and worked to ensure that Order and Chaos would not sit in a stalemate.
This conflict enabled the heroes of old to raise armies and gather power to slay the old gods to save existence. The battles and conquests in their pursuit of this goal ravaged the world. The forces of the old gods eventually fell, and the last surviving heroes faced the gods themselves.
They killed the old gods, but they did not save the world.
The universe sundered, splitting into incoherent nothingness. The fifteen remaining heroes each took a fragment of the old gods, splitting each of them into five parts. With these fragments they forged new worlds and transformed their followers to live in them.
The material plane is gone, and in its place is a bleak echo of the final battle. Warriors rise from dust, fight battles over and over, returning to the dust again but never for long. This is the only place where humans are found. They are not true beings, but mystic echoes of the war that shattered existence. If removed from that unending battle, they quickly go insane and soon after turn to dust.
The fifteen planes are wildly different, each styled after their creator. In the centuries since the defeat of the old gods, the sundering and the creation of the planes, conflict has arisen between the new gods. They suspect the essence of the old gods still lingers, cursing their worlds to destruction, yet each of them has an equal part of that ancient power. They rely on it to exist, but those fragments of divinity whisper to them. They all hear the voices and feel the urges, so the new gods often suspect each other of having been tainted or subverted by the vestiges of the old powers. A few of the new gods have even been killed by the others, their fragments of divinity left unclaimed or contested by others.
Meanwhile, the people of the planes are more varied than the worlds and some of them travel throughout the multiverse, exploring the forgotten recesses of the young worlds. These planes were forged from the shattered remnants of the old world, so many lost and hidden things may lie beneath the earth, unchanged by time and space or some twisted by the forces of creation. The new gods are not experts at world building, and even they are unable to keep the gnawing madness at the periphery of their worlds at bay completely. Each world has a unique threat at its furthest edges, none of them without danger.
And I really should work on this more. It's not finished. I may end up writing my own system for it rather than using Pathfinder. Under PF, the gods would probably be level 20 with a special template that gives them planar management powers and a few perks but they are far from omnipotent.
Another reason to ban certain classes if of course if the GM doesn't have the books they appear in. I have only an finite amount of resources (i.e. cash and time), and would rather not allow something in until I have had a chance to digest it. Of course if a player wants to buy me UM or UC, I won't object :P
All the classes are available online, from at least two sources.
|
Interesting... I'd like to know more about this setting.The premise:
In a historic era, the old gods (Order, Chaos and Change) set out to destroy existence. They had created the universe, it had run its course, and it was their right to undo it all.
Had they agreed on how to do this, humanity wouldn't have stood a chance. Instead, Order wanted to end the universe in a 'big crunch', compressing everything down into a single point of uniformity. Chaos wanted to end it in the absolute dissolution of 'heat death', separating every atom from all others. Change wanted it to end either way and worked to ensure that Order and Chaos would not sit in a stalemate.
This conflict enabled the heroes of old to raise armies and gather power to slay the old gods to save existence. The battles and conquests in their pursuit of this goal ravaged the world. The forces of the old gods eventually fell, and the last surviving heroes faced the gods themselves.
They killed the old gods, but they did not save the world.
The universe sundered, splitting into incoherent nothingness. The fifteen remaining heroes each took a fragment of the old gods, splitting each of them into five parts. With these fragments they forged new worlds and transformed their followers to live in them.
The material plane is gone, and in its place is a bleak echo of the final battle. Warriors rise from dust, fight battles over and over, returning to the dust again but never for long. This is the only place where humans are found. They are not true beings, but mystic echoes of the war that shattered existence. If removed from that unending battle, they quickly go insane and soon after turn to dust.
The fifteen planes are wildly different, each styled after their creator. In the centuries since the defeat of the old gods, the sundering and the creation of the planes, conflict has arisen between the new gods. They suspect the essence of the old gods still lingers, cursing their worlds to destruction, yet each of them...
Sounds like a fun "world/s"
The reason I can't use standard casting classes is that I intend to build a separate spell system that works something like this:
You have a number of slots for spells. You load them up as usual. While readied, each spell grants a buff or minor ability usable at will.
For example, you prepare fireball. This grants you the ability to make a minor ranged attack that does fire damage.
Perhaps having wall of fire prepared gives passive fire resistance.
When you cast it, you lose the passive or minor ability.
However, I'm writing my own list of spells to make the dual-effect of prepared ability/cast ability interesting and balanced.
If I did it in d20, such a caster would have far fewer spells per day and would be largely reliant on the prepared abilities and be reluctant to cast them. Giving up a passive to cast a spell should be a desperation move, not a routine thing.
All the classes are available online, from at least two sources.And some people don't like reading it off a screen when they are evaluating something.
That seems very nitpicky.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but banning a class because you prefer a different display medium for its rules beats most of them out by far in my eyes.
What classes could your campaign do without?
The above mentioned thread has GM's saying they do or would ban a class due to the flavor that Paizo gave it. I am not understanding this. A class's mechanics is just a means to an end. (...) In short banning class X does not really stop the concept from being played so why ban the class?
In essence, I agree with you. But on the other hand, I have found myself in situations where a class grant abilities that would not match the themes of a particular campaign for purely fluff reasons.
Lets take the (infamous) case of monks and ninjas. These classes grant abilities to become ethereal/invisible/teleport over short distances. This may not fit the campaign for purely aesthetic reasons. The paladin can fall into similar situations where undead/evil outsiders rule as kings and the campaign's themes are incompatible with the paladin's smite evil and detect evil at-will abilities. In a world where gunpowder has not been invented/discovered, its easier to ban the Gunslinger than to jump through hoops to adapt the class to archery... Archetypes can go a long way to fix that, but not every players/DMs/groups are willing to bring this level of complexity into their game.
Also, offering a narrower selection of classes can help to orient the game in a certain direction or along certain themes, even if the concept of monks/ninjas/paladins do exist elsewhere in the world.
Pathfinder has a vast array of options, but not all options need to to be available to offer a complete game. It's totally legit to play a campaign where outsiders, aberrations and elementals do not exist. Many people use Pathfinder as a platform to play in a no-magic (or low-magic) setting, using only a portion of the Pathfinder's full range of options.
Heck, I even heard that you can play a Pathfinder game where players only make it to level 6th and forgo level 7th through 20th altogether!
I see this no differently with classes. The game offers material to play pretty much everything, but you don't have to use the full range of options to have a complete game; in only makes some game more complex than others.
That being said, re-skinning a class (or creature, or spell etc.) is simple, efficient and very much fun! But again, I don't see re-skinning as the only valid option.
'findel
There are a few problems with refluffing, generally related to specific quirks of spellcasting rules.
If you refluff an enchantment wizard as a psychic mindbender, what happens when that character wants to copy spells from someone else's spellbook? Are you not allowed to, as you're no longer a 'wizard'? Or are you just a wizard by another name, easily recognised by other wizards in the setting as 'that wizard that calls himself psychic'?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but banning a class because you prefer a different display medium for its rules beats most of them out by far in my eyes.
I pretty much work all day at a computer, so it's nice to be able to, especially if it's a thick hardcover, not to have to sit all evening going through the PRD.
There is also something to be said about knowing the rules before you use them. I only discovered Pathfinder last fall after a long DnD hiatus, and am still "learning the ropes" as it were of the core rules, in regard to DMing. I'd rather have those core rules down before I start expanding them, and even then I have allowed a few random feats from other books, as long as they provide a link to the PRD. So far no one has complained, and I do intend to pick up those other books, just not for this campaign.
eh, I'm ready to get flamed :P
I'd ban the gunslinger to boycott it being put into the books- just on general principle. Guns have no place, regardless of some dev penciling them in. If someone was just totally hell bent on playing one, I'd not be adverse to replacing "gun" with "crossbow" but that'd also require me to become familiar with the mechanics to make sure its being played correctly.
Ninja I'd ban because it makes the rogue obsolete. Not terribly comfortable with a splat core class invalidating a core class.
No big deal refluffing the samurai into something else, if the campaign had no use for the asian themed ones. (or refluffing the others if you were going to do an asian themed campaign).
Tempted to say I'd ben the summoner not out of hate (love the class, myself) but just to avoid so many headaches. I understand why they did what they did.. but it certainly does make it painful for all involved.
1) they are there because a boatload of people asked for it and it fitted the developers vision of their setting.
2) Ninja is an alternate Rogue and Samurai is an alternate Cavalier.
3) Most of the rules are optional; don't like them, don't use them.
4) If you are gonna bash on an entire game system and its whole development team for something like that... maybe you should find another hobby.
I pretty much work all day at a computer, so it's nice to be able to, especially if it's a thick hardcover, not to have to sit all evening going through the PRD.
There is also something to be said about knowing the rules before you use them. I only discovered Pathfinder last fall after a long DnD hiatus, and am still "learning the ropes" as it were of the core rules, in regard to DMing. I'd rather have those core rules down before I start expanding them, and even then I have allowed a few random feats from other books, as long as they provide a link to the PRD. So far no one has complained, and I do intend to pick up those other books, just not for this campaign.
So if you were starting a campaign, and a player was like "I want to play a ninja!" you wouldn't take the time to familiarize yourself with the ninja class and how it works? You'd just say no?
That'd be a pretty big indicator of a lack of GM investment in a campaign.
For me I only ban things when they don't fit the fantasy world I am trying to simulate. I do my best to work things in, as it can be fun to try to fit an outlier concept into a campaign world, but sometimes a class or race just doesn't fit. If I am using an established campaign setting I usually allow whatever that setting does, like in Golarion I tend to let everything be available as long as the player can have it make sense.
While players get enjoyment out of seeing their character grow and come to life, I as a GM gain that enjoyment from seeing my setting or campaign come to life. Since I am doing all the work of creating an entire campaign world and possibly a story it's pretty easy to see that if push comes to shove the enjoyment you will get from playing a character that doesn't fit is crushed by my enjoyment of seeing the setting I have created realized.
If you want that character type to exist in a setting then run your own game and create your own setting. I as the GM am under no obligation to sacrifice my enjoyment so you can have yours. I do try to fit in as many classes as I can, like Assassin instead of Ninja, but if you are trying to bring a laser gun toting Gunslinger into my campaign setting where it doesn't fit I won't lose sleep over saying no either.
Players that don't understand and respect that can go find another game, it's not like there is a shortage of players, and any player with that kind of self entitled mentality is one I will not waste my time on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another reason to ban certain classes if of course if the GM doesn't have the books they appear in. I have only an finite amount of resources (i.e. cash and time), and would rather not allow something in until I have had a chance to digest it. Of course if a player wants to buy me UM or UC, I won't object :P
Of all the reasons I've heard for banning a class this is the only one that makes sense. Alot of people forget that some of us don't have access to internet when they play (I do now, but at one time I didn't) So the books and pdfs are our only options. So if you happen to live in a dead zone and can't pull up an SRD, and don't own the APG, I could understand sticking with Core.
For my part, I don't ban alot, I prefer not to, I've even been sweet talked into letting 3rd party stuff in. (so long as I can check it myself)
All the classes fit into Golarion. Even Gunslingers. (remember gunslingers came from the mana wastes, and Alkenstar, where no magic works. So gun creation kinda became a neccessity for survival. The region is basically the same as Fallout. Engineering books trump spellbooks here. If the place wasn't dead magically, guns and higher tech might not of came along at all. You also have Numeria which has access to high end tech, reverse engineering certains things is not outside the realm of possiblity.
Another reason to ban certain classes if of course if the GM doesn't have the books they appear in. I have only an finite amount of resources (i.e. cash and time), and would rather not allow something in until I have had a chance to digest it. Of course if a player wants to buy me UM or UC, I won't object :POf all the reasons I've heard for banning a class this is the only one that makes sense. Alot of people forget that some of us don't have access to internet when they play (I do now, but at one time I didn't) So the books and pdfs are our only options. So if you happen to live in a dead zone and can't pull up an SRD, and don't own the APG, I could understand sticking with Core.
For my part, I don't ban alot, I prefer not to, I've even been sweet talked into letting 3rd party stuff in. (so long as I can check it myself)
All the classes fit into Golarion. Even Gunslingers. (remember gunslingers came from the mana wastes, and Alkenstar, where no magic works. So gun creation kinda became a neccessity for survival. The region is basically the same as Fallout. Engineering books trump spellbooks here. If the place wasn't dead magically, guns and higher tech might not of came along at all. You also have Numeria which has access to high end tech, reverse engineering certains things is not outside the realm of possiblity.
Yeah, I think a lot of people here don't know the differences between Face-to-face TableTob, Virtual TableTop and Play-by-Posts.
In this mystical land of internet free face to face tabletop printers don't exist?
Listen I am all for saying "If You can't provide the information on X you can't play X" but realistically it is incredibly easy to provide the details on any of the Paizo classes assuming no one has the proper book in the first place.
In this mystical land of internet free face to face tabletop printers don't exist?
Listen I am all for saying "If You can't provide the information on X you can't play X" but realistically it is incredibly easy to provide the details on any of the Paizo classes assuming no one has the proper book in the first place.
Printer is broken? No ink? Not enough money to buy a printer?
So what about the ranger(pseudo ninja) or rogue(pseudo ninja) when it is obvious to everyone at the table what the player is actually doing, even if he never says the word "ninja". The ranger or fighter could also be a Samurai..
Next are the infamous Asian classes and the gunslinger, because I like my Golarion without them. I'm fine and dandy with those classes in Tian-Xia and Alkenstar, but they don't fit well with my vision of Inner Sea.
My players understand that reason I'm banning those classes is because I don't want Tian-Xia in my campaign. Of course they wouldn't make a Ranger wearing ninja outfit, just to spite me.
Do Tian-Xia and Alkenstar not exist in your Golarion? If so what is stopping those classes from making it to the inner sea?<--serious question.
I tend to run very localized campaigns. When I ran Carrion Crown, all of the PCs were from Ustalav. I'm about to run Curse of the Crimson Throne, and all of the players will be from Korvosa (or its surroundings). I'm sure most of my players could think up a reason why would there be a Aleknstar Gunslinger in Ustalav, I just don't want them playing them. I want to see natives to the region, not outsiders, because they're better suited to the setting. It's a wasted opportunity NOT to play a dhampir in Ustalav, or a Shoanti in Varisia, or a Suli/Genasi in Katapesh, so I tend to encourage my players to play those races/classes. If I run an Alkenstar campaign at some point in the future, then I'd ban dhampirs from Ustalav and encourage them to play Gunslinger(s).
There's a time and place (or AP) for each and every race/class. That's why they usually have 3-4 character concepts ready and if one of them doesn't fit, it's not a problem, there's always more.