|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So far at least in my 3.5/PF almost never banned anything. Maybe the Summoner and Gunslinger yet not for flavor reasons just mechanical ones. I have a more anything goes type of mentality in my fantasy. If the majority of the fanbase don't blink an eye when you have dragons the size of jumbo jets being able to fly. Let alone finding enough food to feed themselves. A floating ball of laser beams (beholder). Grenades (fireballs) and so many other variation on modern items turned to fantasy versions. Well imo sort of strange to ban anything.
What bothers me about banning a class is when a DM bans it at his/her table. Followed by a huge explanation usual a rant about why it's banned. Then when the DM is a player shows up at the table wanting to play the same class. Kind of a double standard imo. And I usually ask the DM now turned player why he is playing a class he/she hates so much. It's as if they don't weant you benefiting and playing the class in their games yet want full access to any and everything as a players. I usually let them play it anyway. Yet imo if your the type of DM who bas certain things from your table than as a player you have no business asking for it at someone else table. Or be unhappy if another DM restricts your choices.
...Another question...Why the need to push players to what you want them to play? If those "home" race or class is not the first choice the playersSo 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.
ok. I misunderstood your other post. :)
Another poster upthead mentioned how a class's mechanics might not fit into the campaign fluffwise. I am not asking about that. I am saying that if a class presents no mechanical issues, but Paizo's flavor does not fit the current campaign, why not change the flavor, or let the player do it?That's often the problem though. Most of the classes people oppose are actually kind of flaky.
Alchemist uses a wonky half-way spellcasting mechanic.
Barbarian, Monk, and Ninja use internal supernatural powers that cannot be dispelled like conventional magic. This is what we call cheating. We let monsters do it because we're lazy or because they're outsiders, but there are defensible reasons to not allow any class to provide such abilities. They don't even have the decency to all use a unified game mechanic with the barbarian using rage rounds and the others using ki.
Summoners get their magic from something that doesn't really make sense. They're certainly not doing wizardly magic, nor are they related to sorcerers. It is fishy. Where does the magic come from? Not the Eidolon, surely. If a particularly stupid 1 HD outsider could give spells there would be no non-casting outsiders.
Bards, much as I like their mechanics, have the same problem as summoners.
Gunslingers have a narrativist luck mechanic in an otherwise gamist system. Unless you use hero points, in which case they have a redundant luck mechanic on top of another more general luck mechanic that works differently.
Barbarians are mostly EX, not SU. As for the summoner the eidolon he has is not granting the power. The summoner has managed to connect with some other worldly being, and he uses the connection to that being to form an aspect of said being. I don't see the other SU's as cheating either. They just found someway to harness the universe's power.
PS:I have not seen the barbarian be opposed, and while the others may have issue they are normally mechanical issues*, not flavor issues.
*varies by GM.
This is what we call cheating.Just to be clear I don't consider, Barbarians, Monks, Alchemists, Ninja and Bards as cheating.They are playing by a different ruleset than the other magical classes.
Core only barbarian is fine. I think they're pure (Ex) and I think the martial artist monk may be pure (Ex). Pure (Ex) is okay. Spellcasters that follow the spellcasting rules are okay. But (Su) marks an ability that breaks the rules both of magic and mundanity. They don't belong in a well ordered world. Golarion isn't a well ordered world, but you can't blame anyone for wanting to homebrew one or even houserule Golarion into one.
SU is also magic. It just is not spellcasting magic. I don't think not casting spells equals cheating.
If my turn to GM I ban anyone who can defeat me.
I troll! No one should beat a troll.
"Kevin, you not understand game as well as you think. Feat not work that way. You not respect my ruling. We need short talk in the alley outside."
|
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 understand this. You probably want to just tell that one player he can't play the class, but you don't want him to feel singled out.
Exactly. But, since nobody has expressed interest in the Paladin anyway for my game, it's not an issue really.
As a DM, I really haven't found much I would outright ban. There is plenty that, in my homebrew world, I would make quite clear will would have consequences ingame if the player chose them, as they would make the character stand out and earn them a considerable amount of extra attention, but I personally don't care for an outright ban. If I don't like an individual character, for whatever reason, that I will say no to, but I avoid broad bans in a ruleset like this. Generally the mechanics are flexible enough that I don't worry about whether they have a place in my world, even if I do expect the players to any refluffing themselves to come up with a reasonable ingame explanation.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What some people need to understand is the fact that certain classes carry heavier fluff than others. Fighters, rogues, wizards, sorcerers, clerics etc are pretty open, especially the fighter but classes like the paladin and ninja go deeper.
this is a god damn lie.
paladins yes, because they have a code of conduct and an alignment restriction, its harder to refluff this into a non paladin.
but a ninja is literally just a rogue with a different name, and a cha based ki pool. i want to trade trapfinding for a slightly better combat rogue, so how is that "deeper" then playing a rogue with the ki pool trick and a ninja trick invisibility? the short answer is IT'S NOT!!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder what would happen if Paizo released the following hypothetical class:
Numerian Space Marine
You have salvaged a suit of nonmagical yet powerful technological armour from one of the crashed starships in Numeria and learned how to bond it to yourself. As you learn more about its functions, you upgrade it with more fearsome weapons and abilities, from laser batteries to teleporters, force-fields and more.
I like the name. Are you weak to fire? Or do you feed on it?
You Mary Sue character. GM probably let you stop regeneration with mean glare.
(Not big stretch actually if you knew troll clan grade six teacher.)
I wonder what would happen if Paizo released the following hypothetical class:
Numerian Space Marine
You have salvaged a suit of nonmagical yet powerful technological armour from one of the crashed starships in Numeria and learned how to bond it to yourself. As you learn more about its functions, you upgrade it with more fearsome weapons and abilities, from laser batteries to teleporters, force-fields and more.
A riot.
A riot.I wonder what would happen if Paizo released the following hypothetical class:
Numerian Space Marine
You have salvaged a suit of nonmagical yet powerful technological armour from one of the crashed starships in Numeria and learned how to bond it to yourself. As you learn more about its functions, you upgrade it with more fearsome weapons and abilities, from laser batteries to teleporters, force-fields and more.
More like a massive "World Flame-War".
The funny thing is that I can imagine it reflecting a character suited up in power armour bristling with high tech guns, and at the same time being balanced with existing hybrid combat/magic classes such as magus and summoner (although whether they themselves are balanced is another debate).
Concept, however... :P
I'd allow such a class. Whether or not any player would dare play one after multiple encounters with NPCs who thought the character was more than a bit crazy and/or needed to be put down both for his own good and the good of those around him, and there would be many such NPCs, regardless of the supporting fluff, is another matter entirely. To be fair, I would give fair warning of the pain they were about to inflict on themselves; I'm not mean, I just like the NPCs to have realistic reactions.
I am now tempted to write it. :P
I wonder what would happen if Paizo released the following hypothetical class:
Numerian Space Marine
You have salvaged a suit of nonmagical yet powerful technological armour from one of the crashed starships in Numeria and learned how to bond it to yourself. As you learn more about its functions, you upgrade it with more fearsome weapons and abilities, from laser batteries to teleporters, force-fields and more.
It would not go well... :)
It just sounds a like techoadvanced eidolon to me though. :)
...and never accept an invite to play at that person's place again.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."
Dictator players can get pretty bad. I am special, its my house/my mothers, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am currently planning a psionics campaign. I would use the psion, psychic warrior, wilder, erudite, soulknife, ardent, lurk, divine mind and a reskinned spellthief for psionics, plus the barbarian, fighter, rogue and scout as base classes. This would of course go for the NPCs in the world as well. Items would be psionic items, so dorjes and such instead of wands etc. Races would be human, elan, and some exotics, but generally human. I suppose this is bad because someone who really wanted to play a paladin can't?
I wonder what would happen if Paizo released the following hypothetical class:
Numerian Space Marine
You have salvaged a suit of nonmagical yet powerful technological armour from one of the crashed starships in Numeria and learned how to bond it to yourself. As you learn more about its functions, you upgrade it with more fearsome weapons and abilities, from laser batteries to teleporters, force-fields and more.It would not go well... :)
It just sounds a like techoadvanced eidolon to me though. :)
That would be one heck of a flavor for a synthesist summoner.
Edit: Numarian Space Marine is a fantastic concept. I'd likely allow it in my games. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
.
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 favorite flavor for the Ninja class was as a Varisian Gypsy (not my character). Instead of shurikens, it was 1d2 throwing knives. She used a bladed scarf as her main weapon. All the ki powers were flavored as gypsy magic.
Yeah ki can be flavoured a few different ways.
Reminds me I have to make some otyugh ninjas using the hidden mysteries of the swamp! Paired up with otyugh clerics of the old ones. Mmmmmm mmm.
I was thinking of building it based on the synthesist, too. :D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ban and limit classes, races, classes for races, equipment and other things in my game world. That’s not to say that exceptions are not made for players who state great reasons why their idea works in the game world. The reason I ban and limit is that every game world I role played in that allowed all the crap in every book sucked to play. Sure you can put gun slingers and aliens and ninjas into an Arabian setting but then it feels about as Arabian as the bar in star wars. Or you can put clerics into a world with out deities but then it just feels like game mechanics instead of devout faith. It can be great to play a hack and slash game with everything including the kitchen sink golem but for me if the characters matter then the world has to matter and feel real. That does not mean earth history real but it does mean a world that follows its own reality with out jarring inconsistencies. The other reason to ban and limit is to make different races and classes different. I find that if every race and class is allowed then nothing feels very much different than anything else and it just gets like taking everything you are going to eat this week and blenderizing it together and eating that for the next week.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It just sounds a like techoadvanced eidolon to me though. :)
I had a synthesist summoner in my Carrion Crown campaign who was 'really' a gnome with a suit of Numerian powered armor.
I ban and limit classes, races, classes for races, equipment and other things in my game world. That’s not to say that exceptions are not made for players who state great reasons why their idea works in the game world. The reason I ban and limit is that every game world I role played in that allowed all the crap in every book sucked to play. Sure you can put gun slingers and aliens and ninjas into an Arabian setting but then it feels about as Arabian as the bar in star wars. Or you can put clerics into a world with out deities but then it just feels like game mechanics instead of devout faith. It can be great to play a hack and slash game with everything including the kitchen sink golem but for me if the characters matter then the world has to matter and feel real. That does not mean earth history real but it does mean a world that follows its own reality with out jarring inconsistencies. The other reason to ban and limit is to make different races and classes different. I find that if every race and class is allowed then nothing feels very much different than anything else and it just gets like taking everything you are going to eat this week and blenderizing it together and eating that for the next week.
How does giving less choices make thing feel different?
I ban and limit classes, races, classes for races, equipment and other things in my game world. That’s not to say that exceptions are not made for players who state great reasons why their idea works in the game world. The reason I ban and limit is that every game world I role played in that allowed all the crap in every book sucked to play. Sure you can put gun slingers and aliens and ninjas into an Arabian setting but then it feels about as Arabian as the bar in star wars. Or you can put clerics into a world with out deities but then it just feels like game mechanics instead of devout faith. It can be great to play a hack and slash game with everything including the kitchen sink golem but for me if the characters matter then the world has to matter and feel real. That does not mean earth history real but it does mean a world that follows its own reality with out jarring inconsistencies. The other reason to ban and limit is to make different races and classes different. I find that if every race and class is allowed then nothing feels very much different than anything else and it just gets like taking everything you are going to eat this week and blenderizing it together and eating that for the next week.
Valid points, but banning stuff isn't the only way to achieve your stated goals. I allow pretty much anything with a good enough story, but I also make perfectly clear the norms for the world as a whole, and individual regions, and that anything outside of the norms will be treated as such by the NPCs. From there, it's up to the player to decide how much that extra hassle is going to be worth to them. I tend to prefer this approach for a few reasons. One, it doesn't inhibit creativity on the player's part; it simply provides the player a framework of what the effects of their creativity will be. Two, it's still the player's decision for the most part; the only time I would flat out say no is if I thought it would disrupt the campaign.
I ban and limit classes, races, classes for races, equipment and other things in my game world. That’s not to say that exceptions are not made for players who state great reasons why their idea works in the game world. The reason I ban and limit is that every game world I role played in that allowed all the crap in every book sucked to play. Sure you can put gun slingers and aliens and ninjas into an Arabian setting but then it feels about as Arabian as the bar in star wars. Or you can put clerics into a world with out deities but then it just feels like game mechanics instead of devout faith. It can be great to play a hack and slash game with everything including the kitchen sink golem but for me if the characters matter then the world has to matter and feel real. That does not mean earth history real but it does mean a world that follows its own reality with out jarring inconsistencies. The other reason to ban and limit is to make different races and classes different. I find that if every race and class is allowed then nothing feels very much different than anything else and it just gets like taking everything you are going to eat this week and blenderizing it together and eating that for the next week.
This was entertaining to read, cheers.
I ban and limit classes, races, classes for races, equipment and other things in my game world. That’s not to say that exceptions are not made for players who state great reasons why their idea works in the game world. The reason I ban and limit is that every game world I role played in that allowed all the crap in every book sucked to play. Sure you can put gun slingers and aliens and ninjas into an Arabian setting but then it feels about as Arabian as the bar in star wars. Or you can put clerics into a world with out deities but then it just feels like game mechanics instead of devout faith. It can be great to play a hack and slash game with everything including the kitchen sink golem but for me if the characters matter then the world has to matter and feel real. That does not mean earth history real but it does mean a world that follows its own reality with out jarring inconsistencies. The other reason to ban and limit is to make different races and classes different. I find that if every race and class is allowed then nothing feels very much different than anything else and it just gets like taking everything you are going to eat this week and blenderizing it together and eating that for the next week.How does giving less choices make thing feel different?
Because what something is, is defined by what it isn't.
I'll give you an example from my new setting (with as little masturbation as possible). The setting is defined by a few recent sources, and heavily influenced by old dnd. So no magic marts, and some items are quite quirky and don't beef your stats, but are still useful. Not everything in fantasy/steampunk/ is in it, not everything is possible. It has only ten or so major factions that are of interest to players, and these do connect to alignments. There are about 20 states/territories, giving plenty of scope for adventure, but the character and politics/what classes are common there is all fleshed out.
It is a bit Ravenloft and Dark Souls themed, but the undead aren't all there is to it. It is a game set in a monster renaissance of sorts, some of the more powerful human states are losing the geo-political game at present. So monster aren't all dumb brutes, and this all happens and comes together in a world that is as non-Tolkien as I can make it. No orcs, no elves, no dwarves. It is a world of monsters, humans and the worrying hollowing of many humans--people are turning into crazed undead. There is even talk that the age itself is ending, that the time of dark and monster dominance is approaching.
Two final notes, there is no demon/devil blood war divide, and the planar situation is also simplified. It is a world that has plenty of space for the basic classes, but some of the new look at paizo's new shiny spellcasting classes and all they get, are not there.
By choosing what you take out, you actually reinforce what the world is and what it involves. So with elves out, they take up 0.00% of game time and focus, leaving space for more interesting demihumans.
I ban and limit classes, races, classes for races, equipment and other things in my game world. That’s not to say that exceptions are not made for players who state great reasons why their idea works in the game world. The reason I ban and limit is that every game world I role played in that allowed all the crap in every book sucked to play. Sure you can put gun slingers and aliens and ninjas into an Arabian setting but then it feels about as Arabian as the bar in star wars. Or you can put clerics into a world with out deities but then it just feels like game mechanics instead of devout faith. It can be great to play a hack and slash game with everything including the kitchen sink golem but for me if the characters matter then the world has to matter and feel real. That does not mean earth history real but it does mean a world that follows its own reality with out jarring inconsistencies. The other reason to ban and limit is to make different races and classes different. I find that if every race and class is allowed then nothing feels very much different than anything else and it just gets like taking everything you are going to eat this week and blenderizing it together and eating that for the next week.How does giving less choices make thing feel different?
Exactly what I wanted to ask.
I ban and limit classes, races, classes for races, equipment and other things in my game world. That’s not to say that exceptions are not made for players who state great reasons why their idea works in the game world. The reason I ban and limit is that every game world I role played in that allowed all the crap in every book sucked to play. Sure you can put gun slingers and aliens and ninjas into an Arabian setting but then it feels about as Arabian as the bar in star wars. Or you can put clerics into a world with out deities but then it just feels like game mechanics instead of devout faith. It can be great to play a hack and slash game with everything including the kitchen sink golem but for me if the characters matter then the world has to matter and feel real. That does not mean earth history real but it does mean a world that follows its own reality with out jarring inconsistencies. The other reason to ban and limit is to make different races and classes different. I find that if every race and class is allowed then nothing feels very much different than anything else and it just gets like taking everything you are going to eat this week and blenderizing it together and eating that for the next week.How does giving less choices make thing feel different?Because what something is, is defined by what it isn't.
I'll give you an example from my new setting (with as little masturbation as possible). The setting is defined by a few recent sources, and heavily influenced by old dnd. So no magic marts, and some items are quite quirky and don't beef your stats, but are still useful. Not everything in fantasy/steampunk/ is in it, not everything is possible. It has only ten or so major factions that are of interest to players, and these do connect to alignments. There are about 20 states/territories, giving plenty of scope for adventure, but the character and politics/what classes are common there is all fleshed out.
It is a bit...
So the idea is to funnel the player's focus into a smaller area by eliminating certain choices?
Answered, a dm makes a setting and a world to play in, but in creating this world, there is no requirement to include everything that is official.
Players may want this and players may want that, but the world-maker determines what is in and what isn't.
Wraith, eliminating certain choices isn't the big bad I sense you are trying to make it out to be.
It is easy to have too much choice. Try and read everything in a library, or more relevant, try to make a story that has everything from pathfinder fantasy inside it. It can become a bloated mess. The world/setting must be filled, but it can also be over-filled.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Answered, a dm makes a setting and a world to play in, but in creating this world, there is no requirement to include everything that is official.
Players may want this and players may want that, but the world-maker determines what is in and what isn't.
In the opening statment I was asking for the rationale behind banning a class based on flavor when the flavor can be changed.
I have heard "I am the GM, and nobody better question me" or a similar response. I have heard good reasons for banning certain mechanics. I have heard good reasons to ban certain concepts. I have not heard a decent reason to ban a class based on flavor if the player can think of new flavor for class X, other than what Paizo assigned to it. The paladin might be hard to justify since the flavor and mechanics are tied together pretty closely, but more classes can easily be refluffed.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wraith, eliminating certain choices isn't the big bad I sense you are trying to make it out to be.
It is easy to have too much choice. Try and read everything in a library, or more relevant, try to make a story that has everything from pathfinder fantasy inside it. It can become a bloated mess. The world/setting must be filled, but it can also be over-filled.
Kodiad's idea still would not make the world feel different to me. I am not really trying ot make it bad. I am just trying to gain perspective. This thread is not really about eliminating choices in general. That is a different discussion. I am focused on the small area of "Paizo assigned fluff ____ to a class so nobody can use it even though the mechanics are not an issue."
|
|
I've done refluff once or twice. In my current campaign, wanted to play a knight and rebuilt a Paladin into an Inquisitor because I thought the party needed more casting and broader skills. The refluff stuck. Everyone calls him a knight, and he even in all seriousness assured another character that he "wasn't an inquisitor."
I can definitely see a DM wanting to restrict character options for flavour reasons for a particular campaign, but think refluff could in many cases be an option. Elves could easily represent a quick, clever race of humans with their own magical culture. Using a few of the alternate racial traits could make it feel different enough from a classic elf that the refluff would stick, while still keeping much of the mechanics.
The only thing that I have banned for flavor reasons is the vivisectionist archetype for the alchemist. Ninjas, samurai, witches, nearly everything else can be reskinned but I have a visceral reaction the word vivisection.
Would you be OK with calling them "Anatomists"?
Actually I am in a game where I am playing a ranger and a friend is playing an inquisitor and it has worked out very well. We never get lost, lose a trail, and always find food.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?
This really doesn't need to be a problem if people are coordinated. Skill overlap means redundancy in case someone botches, and if you don't overlap perfectly you've still got your own area of speciality. I've even seen one session with two Fighters, a Paladin, and an Oracle of Battle. They had a blast.
I've got one, you could take out halflings and a few spellcasting classes, and emphasise fey, plant monsters and the power of old druidism.
So with elves out, they take up 0.00% of game time and focus, leaving space for more interesting demihumans.
But I think the question is, not why you want to remove the elf flavor/fluff, but why remove the mechanics. That is, why couldn't someone play a human who has +2 Dex and Int and a -2 to Con?
Why not just play a human (or monster) with high dex and low con? Stat bonuses aren't fluff, but of course I get why people want them.
|
|
Golarion is not medieval Europe. Do you ban all magic as well?
Would the Ninja class (not the concept) fit your world if it wasn't called Ninja, but something less "asian"?
It exist and it is called Rogue.
The ninja has specific mechanics and flavour to make him a Asian rogue, like the Samurai is a Cavalier with specific mechanics to make him a oriental version.Some of the abilities are portable from a version to the other, but if you wan to play a Western Ninja that don't use the Ninja flavour why you aren't using a Rogue?
Class and their flavour are appropriate for the setting you are using. Brevoy, for me, is very similar to a Renaissance Ukraine, so I want classes and archetypes that mix well with that vision plus magic as Golarion is a world of magic. For me it is more palatable to add near Asia flavoured characters like the Dervish archetype than far eastern characters.
If we were to pay in Absalom or along the Eye of Abdengo the presence of oriental classes and archetypes wouldn't be a problem as that, in my eyes, is an area where people from Tian come reasonably often.
Why not just play a human (or monster) with high dex and low con? Stat bonuses aren't fluff, but of course I get why people want them.
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your answer. Are you saying in your elf-less campaign that it would be fine for a player to use the elf mechanics as long as they called themselves something else?
Why not just play a human (or monster) with high dex and low con? Stat bonuses aren't fluff, but of course I get why people want them.I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your answer. Are you saying in your elf-less campaign that it would be fine for a player to use the elf mechanics as long as they called themselves something else?
I'm pretty sure that's what he meant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some of the abilities are portable from a version to the other, but if you wan to play a Western Ninja that don't use the Ninja flavour why you aren't using a Rogue?
For many people it is because rogues may not give them what they are looking for mechanically. A great example is their advanced talent assassinate which for there is no non-evil equivalent for otherwise (via the Assassin prestige class) even though it is little more than a natural evolution of sneak attack. Or it could be that they want a more acrobatic combat rogue. It could even be that Ninja is just outright mechanically superior to the Rogue class which countless people find flawed, and the Ninja as a class is a good patch-fix.
Class and their flavour are appropriate for the setting you are using. Brevoy, for me, is very similar to a Renaissance Ukraine, so I want classes and archetypes that mix well with that vision plus magic as Golarion is a world of magic. For me it is more palatable to add near Asia flavoured characters like the Dervish archetype than far eastern characters.
A class is only as tied to flavor as its mechanics. It is difficult to fluff a Paladin as anything less than a goodly warrior. It is trivial to refluff a Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Ninja, Samurai, and so forth. A Barbarian can be a Samurai, a Ranger can be an Inquisitor. An Inquisitor can be a Paladin. An Inquisitor could be an Assassin. An Assassin could be a Cultist. A Cleric could be a Paladin, or a Death Knight. Sorcerer could be virtually any magical thingy you wanted, though Wizard is tied to fluff pretty heavily (its books or nothing baby).
Personally, I don't really even care for the Ultimate Combat classes. I don't feel they add much to the game, though I do see the Ninja as a possible Rogue replacement (rather than the 3/4 non-casting shame that is the core Rogue), but I pretty much stick to the core classes when it comes to my games as both a GM and PC. That said, if a Barbarian can be a Samurai, and a Bard William Wallance, I see no reason why a Ninja cannot be a stealthy Spy, or a Samurai a Tribal Warlord.
Rogue talents: Minor Magic, Major Magic.
Last time I checked, the rogue class wasn't supernatural. What makes the Ninja a Ninja is the fact that it has a dash of the supernatural to it and it's oriental flare.
Agreed with Gorbacz. Rogue is not lacking supernatural abilities. Supernatural does not a cultural archtype make.
|
Rogue talents: Minor Magic, Major Magic.
Last time I checked, the rogue class wasn't supernatural. What makes the Ninja a Ninja is the fact that it has a dash of the supernatural to it and it's oriental flare.
I thought it was just gaining the ability to cast spells like a Wizard/Sorcerer through learning.