|
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."
Never a problem for me because everyone I game with has a table and dice.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like a lot of things have to line up for "I ban it if I don't have the book myself" to make sense.DMs don't have to make sense. It's personal preference.
Someone is going to have to explain to me how not banning the gunslinger leads to starving kids.DM only makes enough money to cover rent and food. DM plays PF because it is cheap entertainment. Buying a rulebook means no money for food. Was that so hard?
I really don't see what all the hubbub is about, there are plenty of settings where certain classes just won't fit. For example, Dark Sun, no deities, no divine magic, no clerics or paladins.
If you can't make a character that fits in that setting, then maybe you shouldn't play. There has to be a lot of people who only have one concept or character.
If the GM says no ninja in their campaign and you decide you're going to play a ninja anyway it's either out of spite or you have no other concepts.
|
|
Sometimes a DM wants to ban a class. As long as he is diplomatic and not a jerk when refusing a class it's never been a problem in our gaming circle. And yes being a DM requires a certain level of diplomacy when doing so. When the DM goes off on a rant against psionics. Hates the concept feels it does not belong in fantasy etc... Then shows up to another game as a player wanting to play a Psion well it makes me wonder if the player as a person is righ in the head. As I said I'm fine with banning classes. Just don't show up to one of my games with a class you banned from one of your games as a DM. I sure as hell am going to ask the player why are you playing the class if you hate it so much. I let them play the class anyway on the condtion that in their next game they run as a DM I am allowed to play one also if I choose to pick it. If the player refuses he does not get to play the class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have never allowed Monks in my D&D nor have I allowed Paladins in my Bushido (Yes, I still play Bushido with a real Japanese GM!)
I'm rebooting my world to PF, and cheerfully stripping out the lame, un-workable, etc. from the rules. This includes Gunslingers, Half-Orcs, and Psionics (I do play in a Psionics as magic game based on Katherine Kurtz' Deryni books, but our GM dumped ALL 'magic using' classes.). I see no reason I should tweak a 45 yo written/37 yo gaming world to suit an editor who included a contrary class/rule/whatever for space filler in a 'CORE' rulebook. I use a spell point system, multiple flavors/levels of magical background and dozens of other radical shifts acquired over the decades over player interaction that exhaust me when trying to formalize them as rules. Why should I dump things I know for some marketing fool's desire to sell more lead by introducing some new lame space/fantasy race that has never been in the game before? Oops, Sorry, the stock rant on Games Workshop's corporate model just slipped in.
Now, on the subject of players who must play an X: I have found that most such can be dropped into the Power Gamer, the Fetish and the 'utterly devoid of imagination' categories. The Power Gamer is the biggest, consisting of everything from 'gimmick-cut-and-paste characters to show how clever I am' through actual players that try to control the group by sucking up valuable gaming time with things that should have been dealt with between game, running off on their own, stealing from the group 'cuz that's what MY CHARACTER would do', telling the rest of the players the game time has been changed to ruin a rare night's gaming,...I best stop, I'm wandering into MY grievance file! The there are the Fetish folk, the ones that MUST play an X! There is no other race/class/whatever than X! I must be allowed to play X even though it doesn't work in this Genre! I used to lump these into the Control Freaks, till I realized they're more like Gollum, perfectly happy to sit in the dark with their...'presciousss' and leave the rest of us alone. Now I just pity them and do the best I can to avoid the negative karma they exude. As for 'utterly devoid of imagination', most of them are fairly new players that have only played a 'safe' class suggested by friends. My job is to bring them into the fullness of the game as a roleplayer. If they just want to sit and click 'punch', I suggest atarii, xbox, etc. "No, I want to do my gaming with REAL people!"?. Perhaps a nice game of 'Flash Card D&D', like 4th Edition?
I know some people want some form of twisted 'purity' in their gaming, religion, or some other part of their life, but all these other people just keep getting in the way. Religious fanatics like Puritans, Islamic Fundamentalists, Global Climate Change wackos and Evolutionists all need to take a chill pill and grow up. The World is not 'as we know it', much less 'as we'd like it to be'. Sorry, in My little world, I'm GM, I'm here for the players to ENTERTAIN. I'm here to provide your interaction with my world. Pity the poor rules lawyer at my table, as I usually work them to death running the game. Strange how they never have problems with the House Rules, though...
I really don't see what all the hubbub is about, there are plenty of settings where certain classes just won't fit. For example, Dark Sun, no deities, no divine magic, no clerics or paladins.
If you can't make a character that fits in that setting, then maybe you shouldn't play. There has to be a lot of people who only have one concept or character.
If the GM says no ninja in their campaign and you decide you're going to play a ninja anyway it's either out of spite or you have no other concepts.
A paladin's power (as well as a cleric's if you pick an ideal rather than a deity) come from themselves rather than any outside source. They might mention having a deity a few times, but you don't need one to be a representative of justice.
A paladin's power (as well as a cleric's if you pick an ideal rather than a deity) come from themselves rather than any outside source. They might mention having a deity a few times, but you don't need one to be a representative of justice.I really don't see what all the hubbub is about, there are plenty of settings where certain classes just won't fit. For example, Dark Sun, no deities, no divine magic, no clerics or paladins.
If you can't make a character that fits in that setting, then maybe you shouldn't play. There has to be a lot of people who only have one concept or character.
If the GM says no ninja in their campaign and you decide you're going to play a ninja anyway it's either out of spite or you have no other concepts.
Yeah technically you can Templar or an Elemental Cleric, so Dark Sun was a horrible example, but the point is that if you can't choose a different concept than drawing power from higher beings and you absolutely must play your character concept who doesn't make sense without channeling or smites, you are really limiting yourself.
For example, I've played in a game with a GM who doesn't allow sorcerers or any other spontaneous caster (except for bard which was made into a prepared caster). I've had a couple of concepts that just can't work as a wizard, bard, or even cleric. So I had to find a concept that does work, which sometimes means playing a different character.
In my Dragonlance campaign I have some classes that are banned because I do not think that they really fit the flavor of Ansalon. Among them are witches, oracles and gunslingers. I am still debating about the magus.
I really don't see what all the hubbub is about, there are plenty of settings where certain classes just won't fit. For example, Dark Sun, no deities, no divine magic, no clerics or paladins.
If you can't make a character that fits in that setting, then maybe you shouldn't play. There has to be a lot of people who only have one concept or character.
If the GM says no ninja in their campaign and you decide you're going to play a ninja anyway it's either out of spite or you have no other concepts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have never allowed Monks in my D&D nor have I allowed Paladins in my Bushido (Yes, I still play Bushido with a real Japanese GM!)
I'm rebooting my world to PF, and cheerfully stripping out the lame, un-workable, etc. from the rules. This includes Gunslingers, Half-Orcs, and Psionics (I do play in a Psionics as magic game based on Katherine Kurtz' Deryni books, but our GM dumped ALL 'magic using' classes.). I see no reason I should tweak a 45 yo written/37 yo gaming world to suit an editor who included a contrary class/rule/whatever for space filler in a 'CORE' rulebook. I use a spell point system, multiple flavors/levels of magical background and dozens of other radical shifts acquired over the decades over player interaction that exhaust me when trying to formalize them as rules. Why should I dump things I know for some marketing fool's desire to sell more lead by introducing some new lame space/fantasy race that has never been in the game before? Oops, Sorry, the stock rant on Games Workshop's corporate model just slipped in.
Now, on the subject of players who must play an X: I have found that most such can be dropped into the Power Gamer, the Fetish and the 'utterly devoid of imagination' categories. The Power Gamer is the biggest, consisting of everything from 'gimmick-cut-and-paste characters to show how clever I am' through actual players that try to control the group by sucking up valuable gaming time with things that should have been dealt with between game, running off on their own, stealing from the group 'cuz that's what MY CHARACTER would do', telling the rest of the players the game time has been changed to ruin a rare night's gaming,...I best stop, I'm wandering into MY grievance file! The there are the Fetish folk, the ones that MUST play an X! There is no other race/class/whatever than X! I must be allowed to play X even though it doesn't work in this Genre! I used to lump these into the Control Freaks, till I realized they're more like Gollum, perfectly happy to sit in the dark with...
Can you tell me what the purpose of that was? I am going to assumed you did not pay attenion to the opening post, skipped a lot of threads, and assumed this was a player entitlement issue, and subsequently went on a useless off-topic rant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes I don't want to eat avocados.
In my Dragonlance campaign I have some classes that are banned because I do not think that they really fit the flavor of Ansalon. Among them are witches, oracles and gunslingers. I am still debating about the magus.
That really depends on which era you play in.
Magus = Fighter/Mage. Especially liked among elves. I agree somewhat that the higher spell levels could lead to the Magus having to take the Test. During the time in which High Sorcery didn't work, there weren't any Magi (unless you allow the spontaneous variant by SGG).
Witches: As far as I know, druids continued to exist during the absence of the gods, so "nature magic" existed, too. Witches would be classified as renegades, of course.
Oracles: That's easy. They follow mysticism, the equivalent of primal sorcery.
I would allow Gunslingers, but only if they are gnomes. Which could lead to hilarious devastating results.
I would not allow Gunslingers in Eberron. Eberron is about magical technology, not about the opposite. There's no reason to come up with gunpowder weapons in that setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes I don't want to eat avocados.Or drink cool-aid?
OH YEAH.
I would not allow Gunslingers in Eberron. Eberron is about magical technology, not about the opposite. There's no reason to come up with gunpowder weapons in that setting.
I could see House Cannith being interested in it. Magic or not, it's still an interesting toy with a high potential for destruction. I'd restrict it to very early firearms, but still, there would be a place for it as long as the player was willing to be part of that group.
Some abilities just don't reskin easily.
Let's take "turn ninja ki into a utility belt", well that changes a lot of things mechanically. If it's a utility belt, does it ever need to be restocked? Can it be disarmed? Since it's not really magic anymore, doesn't that mean it's not affected by anti-magic field? Can it still be used if for any reason the character's hands are bound?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I have never allowed Monks in my D&D nor have I allowed Paladins in my Bushido (Yes, I still play Bushido with a real Japanese GM!)
I'm rebooting my world to PF, and cheerfully stripping out the lame, un-workable, etc. from the rules. This includes Gunslingers, Half-Orcs, and Psionics (I do play in a Psionics as magic game based on Katherine Kurtz' Deryni books, but our GM dumped ALL 'magic using' classes.). I see no reason I should tweak a 45 yo written/37 yo gaming world to suit an editor who included a contrary class/rule/whatever for space filler in a 'CORE' rulebook. I use a spell point system, multiple flavors/levels of magical background and dozens of other radical shifts acquired over the decades over player interaction that exhaust me when trying to formalize them as rules. Why should I dump things I know for some marketing fool's desire to sell more lead by introducing some new lame space/fantasy race that has never been in the game before? Oops, Sorry, the stock rant on Games Workshop's corporate model just slipped in.
Now, on the subject of players who must play an X: I have found that most such can be dropped into the Power Gamer, the Fetish and the 'utterly devoid of imagination' categories. The Power Gamer is the biggest, consisting of everything from 'gimmick-cut-and-paste characters to show how clever I am' through actual players that try to control the group by sucking up valuable gaming time with things that should have been dealt with between game, running off on their own, stealing from the group 'cuz that's what MY CHARACTER would do', telling the rest of the players the game time has been changed to ruin a rare night's gaming,...I best stop, I'm wandering into MY grievance file! The there are the Fetish folk, the ones that MUST play an X! There is no other race/class/whatever than X! I must be allowed to play X even though it doesn't work in this Genre! I used to lump these into the Control Freaks, till I realized they're more like Gollum, perfectly happy to sit in
To be fair, I've read most of the responses and I get that "player entitlement" vibe from some people.
The ninja ki ability can be reskinned. I would never turn a class ability into an item though. That is just not a good idea. It should stay in the same category aka "class abilities".
|
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"?You know that's funny. Reading this thread I was going to go and do just that, but then I reread the archetypes description and still feel it has an "evil" vibe based on the whole. I am looking through it again now and I think I can allow it if the player justifies it well. It could be an "anatomist", "geneticist", or whatever they could come up with. It is moot right now because no one in my game is playing one, and no one in my "circle" likes alchemists anyway. Right now, it is just a line on my character creation wiki.
I guess when it comes down to it, I didn't have a good reason to ban that archetype based on flavor.
The evil vibe is 90% fluff and 10% "they can get crippling/bleeding backstab as a rouge". You can get rid of most of the "evil" by renaming abilities:
Torturer's Eye -> Monitor Patient or Monitor Subject
Cruel Anatomist -> Chirurgeon's Knowledge
Torturous Transformation -> Strange Transformation or Advanced Surgery
May be a moot point in your game at the moment, but just an example of how superficial some of this is and how easy it is to adapt the concept behind mechanics. (And I've had a friend play a vivisectionist and complain that the fluff made him sound evil when he just wanted to be a friendly doctor with a Mr. Hyde attached.)
EDIT: I can see ki being presented as "shadow magic" pretty easily. If the character didn't choose any obviously magical abilities (like the mirror image shadow duplicates) they could even present the extra attacks and acrobatics bonuses as "willpower" or "scoundrel's luck" or "spectacular effort."
...we lose more walls that way...Sometimes I don't want to eat avocados.Or drink cool-aid?OH YEAH.
Keeping construction workers employed man, gotta stimulate that economy!
Now excuse me, I have more walls to shatter with my torso.
OH YEAH.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: I can see ki being presented as "shadow magic" pretty easily. If the character didn't choose any obviously magical abilities (like the mirror image shadow duplicates) they could even present the extra attacks and acrobatics bonuses as "willpower" or "scoundrel's luck" or "spectacular effort."
I kinda get a "I hate Manga/Anime/Video Games/etc!" vibe from some of the repplies, that might be their main/only reason not to do it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: I can see ki being presented as "shadow magic" pretty easily. If the character didn't choose any obviously magical abilities (like the mirror image shadow duplicates) they could even present the extra attacks and acrobatics bonuses as "willpower" or "scoundrel's luck" or "spectacular effort."I kinda get a "I hate Manga/Anime/Video Games/etc!" vibe from some of the repplies, that might be their main/only reason not to do it.
I think that may be it.
Have not had time to read the thread. Apologies therefore for redundancy or whatnot. As a DM: Some classes are easier than others to retool to a particular flavor than others. Reasons why I would ban a class because of flavor would primarily center around the respective workload. DMing is ALREADY a lot of a work...and there's ALWAYS more than can be done.
I'll politely disagree. It's really not that hard once you've gotten the gist of it down.
Have not had time to read the thread. Apologies therefore for redundancy or whatnot. As a DM: Some classes are easier than others to retool to a particular flavor than others. Reasons why I would ban a class because of flavor would primarily center around the respective workload. DMing is ALREADY a lot of a work...and there's ALWAYS more than can be done.
Let the player do the reflavoring.
edit:Just to be clear I am not saying you have to reflavor the class, and every player has to use that flavor. I am saying that if a player comes up with a concept, and uses class X to fit that concept then why tell the player no.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll politely disagree. It's really not that hard once you've gotten the gist of it down.
Agreed. Maybe I just don't have as much work as other DMs because I use a lot of published material, but I don't find it any harder than being a good player. And I don't find 'I do all the work myself' to be deserving of more respect, because I believe in 'work smarter, not harder'.
|
|
Awwww don't cry because you don't agree.
It's not a lie, most classes outside of core have fluff for a reason and if someone wants to ban that class because they don't like the fluff then that's perfectly fine.
Ki Pool (Su): At 2nd level, a ninja gains a pool of ki
points, supernatural energy she can use to accomplish
amazing feats. The number of points in the ninja’s ki pool
is equal to 1/2 her ninja level + her Charisma modifier. As
long as she has at least 1 point in her ki pool, she treats
any Acrobatics skill check made to jump as if she had a
running start. At 10th level, she also reduces the DC of
Acrobatics skill checks made to jump by 1/2 (although she
still cannot move farther than her speed allows).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.
trust me im not crying over a flawed opinion. here let me help you see your flaw:
Ki Pool (Ex)Benefit: A rogue with this talent gains a small ki pool. This ki pool is similar to a ninja’s ki pool, but the rogue’s ki pool does not grant any extra attacks. The rogue gains a number of ki points equal to her Wisdom modifier (minimum 1). These ki points replenish at the start of each day. If she already has a ki pool, or gains a ki pool later, she gains half her Wisdom bonus (minimum 1) as bonus ki points to her ki pool. She can spend a ki point to gain a +10-foot bonus to movement until the end of her turn.
so you mean i DONT HAVE TO BE HONG-KONG PHOOY TO HAVE A KI POOL!??!?!!?
so you are wrong, and as the thread op stated all you would need do is REFLAVOR the SU ki pool to be an EX ki pool. not hard at all to do.
If anyone's ever read the Night Cloak from CD for 3.5, It has evil written all into its fluff, but in reality it was the perfect prestige class for anyone worshiping a god of shadows/darkness regardless of alignment. Some material has it pretty set to display shadows as the source of all evil. I'm so evil, I can see in the dark and whisper to people and control monsters.
|
|
No wonder I was having trouble tracking it down...
Actually, it IS from the Complete Divine. Web enhancement, that is.
It is from Faiths and Pantheons, IIRC.
If anyone's ever read the Night Cloak from CD for 3.5, It has evil written all into its fluff, but in reality it was the perfect prestige class for anyone worshiping a god of shadows/darkness regardless of alignment. Some material has it pretty set to display shadows as the source of all evil. I'm so evil, I can see in the dark and whisper to people and control monsters.
Just "Book of Vile Darkness" tell you about the Dark = Evil mentality.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually have never banned a class based on flavor, and in fact do all I can to try and expand player options as far as I can so as to cover as many concepts as I can.
In my opinion, if a player likes anime/manga/video games, and wants to try and recreate a character concept seen in such materials, through the rules for Gunslingers or Ninja's, then who am I as a DM to declare they are having wrongbadfun? More importantly how does me allowing such an idea somehow make me less of a DM as a result?
Personally, I always was taught by my DMs that the DM's job was to facilitate the fun of the players, and if the players are having fun and enjoying the game, then I as the the DM should be happy as a result.
Why is that mindset such a scandal?
Edit for wording
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually checked a full list of Cleric Domains from the times of 3.0e/3.5e, and noticed that only evil deities grant the Darkness domain, and all but one deity that grants you the Shadow domain is evil (the one deity that isn't evil is True Neutral) which I recall was stupid in my opinion. It's one reason why I like some of the Pathfinder deities a lot more than those from other settings. We actually have a canon Lawful Good deity who has both the Madness and Darkness domains, and a Chaotic Neutral deity who gives the same domains, so they're not exclusive to evil alignments. And there is actually an evil deity with the Sun domain, which was unheard of in D&D, just like good deities having the Darkness or Shadow domains.
Nergal, the demon lord in Pathfinder, has the Sun domain if I recall correctly.
Which Lawful Good deity has Madness/Darkness in Golarion?
Tsukiyo, one of the Tian Xia deities.
Is Nergal the demon lord of skin cancer?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nergal, written Nurgal in Pathfinder, is the demon lord of the deserts and apparently represents the burning and blinding aspects of the sun, the fact that it can really bring destruction to the world as much as it can sustain it. He is also a war deity of some kind, and was actually once worshipped by the Azlanti for some reason. In modern Golarion, he's only really worshipped in numbers by dragons, crazed mercenaries and some violent tribal bands in the deserts of Garund. I wouldn't be surprised if some Orc clans, Drow families and Gnoll tribes chose to worship him as well.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems things are worse than I imagined.
Not only there are lots of "I don't like it, so you can't play it", but something even more common is "I don't like its name, so you can't play it".
Refluff the character. You don't like how people are still referring to the clas by its given name? Well, I don't see why, but okay, try not telling them what class you belong to. When creating a character next time, just say "I'm an skill/infiltration type" and play a bard or ninja... Or "I'll be focusing on ranged combat", then make a Zen Archer that acts like a ranger...
I don't see the point in renaming the class. It's just a freaking name to identify which rules/mechanics you're using.
If Clerics were named "Shinto Priests" instead, would they be any different? Would you ban the class? What if Druids were "Hippies" or "Tree-huggers"? Does that mean they are a whole different class? Can I call an Wizard a Mahou? or does it mean it's suddenly incompatible with your world, therefore, no more wizards?
The name of the class is just that, a name. Fluff is what you make of your character, not what the book says.
That's the reason I thnk most fluff-based prerequisites are pointless.
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.
As I said in my earlier post, I don't allow Summoners. Not because of mechanics.
But because there is no satisfying way to separate the fluff from the mechanics. It's too ingrained in the Eidolon and the Summoner's own abilities. Period.
I'll politely disagree. It's really not that hard once you've gotten the gist of it down.It is somewhat more difficult to reflavor and integrate the Gunslinger class, for example, if firearms do not exist in a given game world or the Paladin class in a world where alignment does not exist and morality has no supernatural significance.
I do think some classes are more difficult to reflavor than others, but for the most part it can be done rather easily. The Gunslinger can be said to be using a bow or repeating crossbow with specialized bolts. The paladin, as stated up thread, is not so easy to reflavor.
I'm curious. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Why do you have to have a specific class, mechanic (etc.) to represent your concept? The old saying is "there are only so many ways to skin a cat". Not that I want to skin a cat, but why can't your concept use some other class that is already accepted in a campaign? There are any number of classes that do similar things. Example, why a Ninja, when a Rogue will do? Why should everyone else (GM and other players) have to dance to the tune of one player wanting his specific favorite and no other?
I've read many, but not all, of the posts in this thread (as well as all the posts in the other thread the OP referenced), so I apologize if this has already been brought up. Humor me.
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.
As I said in my earlier post, I don't allow Summoners. Not because of mechanics.
But because there is no satisfying way to separate the fluff from the mechanics. It's too ingrained in the Eidolon and the Summoner's own abilities. Period.
There are definitely some classes that are easier to rework than others. Summoners, paladins, and gunslingers all present significant challenges. Clerics can in the right settings. Classes like ninja, that's easy.
I'm curious. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Why do you have to have a specific class, mechanic (etc.) to represent your concept? The old saying is "there are only so many ways to skin a cat". Not that I want to skin a cat, but why can't your concept use some other class that is already accepted in a campaign? There are any number of classes that do similar things. Example, why a Ninja, when a Rogue will do? Why should everyone else (GM and other players) have to dance to the tune of one player wanting his specific favorite and no other?
I've read many, but not all, of the posts in this thread (as well as all the posts in the other thread the OP referenced), so I apologize if this has already been brought up. Humor me.
What if the GM's bans every class(bag of mechanics) you want to use simply because he does not like Paizo's fluff, which is basically what this thread is about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Why do you have to have a specific class, mechanic (etc.) to represent your concept? The old saying is "there are only so many ways to skin a cat". Not that I want to skin a cat, but why can't your concept use some other class that is already accepted in a campaign? There are any number of classes that do similar things. Example, why a Ninja, when a Rogue will do? Why should everyone else (GM and other players) have to dance to the tune of one player wanting his specific favorite and no other?
I've read many, but not all, of the posts in this thread (as well as all the posts in the other thread the OP referenced), so I apologize if this has already been brought up. Humor me.
In my experience it is because the concept itself is banned and not a specific class. The DM simply doesn't want Asian themes, or Clint Eastwood types in his game. Whether they go by Ninja, or a Rogue named Ninja, or a Gunslinger, even one who uses a cross-bow instead of guns, is irrelevant to the discussion. The answer is still no.