|
I'm not sure where Elamdri is getting his hostility towards GM's, but I hope he's getting it out of his system. It sounds like he's played in some awful games.
I'll only stymie a player if they're about to do something weird or unreasonable that doesn't fit my world. "Familiarity" for the purposes of Wild Shape means that said druid really understands that animal, has seen it in The Wild, and understands the primal magic that makes that creature part of Nature. A Knowledge check doesn't include this, and Summoning a creature doesn't include it either. You need to experience the real creature in its natural habitat.
Want to turn into a T-Rex? Time for you and your group to make a quest to the Mwangi. Let the druid tap-into THAT primal nature magic.
Might be mild paranoia, but I'll work out my own demons with fear and trembling.
My problem stems from desiring equality of the rules, and the problem is that things like familiarity lead to inequality. The fighter doesn't need to see another character use Power Attack, The wizard doesn't need to see another spellcaster use Haste to add it to his spellbook as a free spell when he levels.
Meanwhile, depending on your GM, as you stated the druid might have to make a quest to the Mwangi expanse and then find a T-Rex, and then take the T-Rex to a nice restaurant for dinner, and then date the T-Rex for a year, and then meet the T-Rex's parents and listen to awkward dinner conversations with the T-Rex's parents where the druid learns all the weird things the T-Rex did as a child before the GM will allow the druid to be "Familiar" with the T-Rex.
In my games, a druid can take a 10 on a knowledge nature and if they meet the appropriate CR, they know about that creature and thus are familiar with it and can transform into it. How they have that familiarity is up to them. It's easy, it's elegant, it doesn't muck things up, and it doesn't give me the opportunity to screw a player over after 4 levels of leveling by saying something like "Oh, dinosaurs are extinct, it's impossible for you to know about them, so you can't wild shape into them."
|
|
You keep referencing the rules. I'm asking for the in-game process of how you're familiarizing with this animal. And why that same process can't be used on a creature that doesn't exist (yet)?I've explained this like 4 times now.
I make a knowledge check. If I succeed, I know about the creature and thus am familiar with it.
The in-game process is reading books, dicking around in the wilderness, having explored the world beforehand, whatever you want to explain your knowledge.
The reason that it doesn't work for creatures that don't exist is because the rules don't work that way. You can only wildshape into real creatures. I don't understand why this is so difficult.
You do realize that your backstory has nothing to do with your Knowledge checks. You can't write in your backstory that you know about certain creatures so this allows you to bypass certain Knowledge checks, unless the DM says you can.
While your DM can allow you to do this, I seriously doubt this is RAI.
|
|
I'm not sure where Elamdri is getting his hostility towards GM's, but I hope he's getting it out of his system. It sounds like he's played in some awful games.
I'll only stymie a player if they're about to do something weird or unreasonable that doesn't fit my world. "Familiarity" for the purposes of Wild Shape means that said druid really understands that animal, has seen it in The Wild, and understands the primal magic that makes that creature part of Nature. A Knowledge check doesn't include this, and Summoning a creature doesn't include it either. You need to experience the real creature in its natural habitat.
Want to turn into a T-Rex? Time for you and your group to make a quest to the Mwangi. Let the druid tap-into THAT primal nature magic.
Might be mild paranoia, but I'll work out my own demons with fear and trembling.
My problem stems from desiring equality of the rules, and the problem is that things like familiarity lead to inequality. The fighter doesn't need to see another character use Power Attack, The wizard doesn't need to see another spellcaster use Haste to add it to his spellbook as a free spell when he levels.
Meanwhile, depending on your GM, as you stated the druid might have to make a quest to the Mwangi expanse and then find a T-Rex, and then take the T-Rex to a nice restaurant for dinner, and then date the T-Rex for a year, and then meet the T-Rex's parents and listen to awkward dinner conversations with the T-Rex's parents where the druid learns all the weird things the T-Rex did as a child before the GM will allow the druid to be "Familiar" with the T-Rex.
In my games, a druid can take a 10 on a knowledge nature and if they meet the appropriate CR, they know about that creature and thus are familiar with it and can transform into it. How they have that familiarity is up to them. It's easy, it's elegant, it doesn't muck things up, and it doesn't give me the opportunity to screw a player over after 4 levels of leveling by saying something...
You are house ruling. The rules actually took the time to mention that the druid must be familiar with the animal to change into it. It's a fallacy to compare this to a fighter and feats or a Wizard and his two spells per day.
I can bet you any amount of money in the world that the little stipulation there is so the DM can keep an eye on what the Druid is changing into so he can keep it under control.
|
|
You keep referencing the rules. I'm asking for the in-game process of how you're familiarizing with this animal. And why that same process can't be used on a creature that doesn't exist (yet)?I've explained this like 4 times now.
I make a knowledge check. If I succeed, I know about the creature and thus am familiar with it.
The in-game process is reading books, dicking around in the wilderness, having explored the world beforehand, whatever you want to explain your knowledge.
The reason that it doesn't work for creatures that don't exist is because the rules don't work that way. You can only wildshape into real creatures. I don't understand why this is so difficult.
You do realize that your backstory has nothing to do with your Knowledge checks. You can't write in your backstory that you know about certain creatures so this allows you to bypass certain Knowledge checks, unless the DM says you can.
While your DM can allow you to do this, I seriously doubt this is RAI.
I never said that you can write a backstory to BYPASS a knowledge check. I said that you can write a backstory to EXPLAIN a knowledge check.
There is a difference between: "I spend my life traveling the world, so I automatically know what this creature is" and "I spent my life traveling the world, so I can roll knowledge nature to see if I know what this creature is."
|
|
...I'm not sure where Elamdri is getting his hostility towards GM's, but I hope he's getting it out of his system. It sounds like he's played in some awful games.
I'll only stymie a player if they're about to do something weird or unreasonable that doesn't fit my world. "Familiarity" for the purposes of Wild Shape means that said druid really understands that animal, has seen it in The Wild, and understands the primal magic that makes that creature part of Nature. A Knowledge check doesn't include this, and Summoning a creature doesn't include it either. You need to experience the real creature in its natural habitat.
Want to turn into a T-Rex? Time for you and your group to make a quest to the Mwangi. Let the druid tap-into THAT primal nature magic.
Might be mild paranoia, but I'll work out my own demons with fear and trembling.
My problem stems from desiring equality of the rules, and the problem is that things like familiarity lead to inequality. The fighter doesn't need to see another character use Power Attack, The wizard doesn't need to see another spellcaster use Haste to add it to his spellbook as a free spell when he levels.
Meanwhile, depending on your GM, as you stated the druid might have to make a quest to the Mwangi expanse and then find a T-Rex, and then take the T-Rex to a nice restaurant for dinner, and then date the T-Rex for a year, and then meet the T-Rex's parents and listen to awkward dinner conversations with the T-Rex's parents where the druid learns all the weird things the T-Rex did as a child before the GM will allow the druid to be "Familiar" with the T-Rex.
In my games, a druid can take a 10 on a knowledge nature and if they meet the appropriate CR, they know about that creature and thus are familiar with it and can transform into it. How they have that familiarity is up to them. It's easy, it's elegant, it doesn't muck things up, and it doesn't give me the opportunity to screw a player over after 4 levels of leveling by
The familiarity rule is by definition a house rule because there is no official metric for determining familiarity. I simply stated that my preference is to let a player make a knowledge check to see if they are familiar and everyone started jumping down my throat about it.
The comparison between fighter/mages and druids was to illustrate that it's somewhat funny that a mage can suddenly wake up one morning and know a new spell or a fighter a new feat, but a druid has to jump through however many hoops the GM determines are necessary to use a class ability.
For example:
Roy: *Yawns* Man that was a good night sleep. Hey, Balthazar! Check this out! *Does cool stuff with his sword*
Balthazar: Wow, you really dazzled me with that display. Where did you learn that?
Roy: I dunno...
Balthazar: Oh well. Check THIS out! *Summons Huge Black Tentacles from the earth*
Roy: HOLY CRAP. Where did you learn to do that?
Balthazar: I dunno...
*Meanwhile, in her tent*
Rebecca scrawls in her diary: It's been 4 months in the Mwagni Expanse, and yet for some reason, despite their supposed prevalence, we have yet to come across one dinosaur. Food is running short and I grow weary of my companions. I fear that if we do not find our quarry soon, I may reach the breaking point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Might be mild paranoia, but I'll work out my own demons with fear and trembling.My problem stems from desiring equality of the rules, and the problem is that things like familiarity lead to inequality. The fighter doesn't need to see another character use Power Attack, The wizard doesn't need to see another spellcaster use Haste to add it to his spellbook as a free spell when he levels.
The varisian druid does not need a check to wildshape into a wolf or bear either, just like the wizard does not need to check to learn haste, or the fighter does not need to check to learn power attack.
However:
The human wizard will need an in-game reason to learn the drow spell Web Bolt, unless he goes to the underdark or find a spellbook from the Drow.
The fighter might not be able to put exotic weapon proficiency with the musket unless he goes to a country were gunpowder is easily available, and might not be able to learn "weapon focus: Katana" if he lives in a small village in Irrisen and has never seen any weapon from Tien Xian.
And the varisian druid might not be able to wildshape into a Triceratops until he goes to Mwangi expanse.
There's no unbalance there.
|
|
Might be mild paranoia, but I'll work out my own demons with fear and trembling.My problem stems from desiring equality of the rules, and the problem is that things like familiarity lead to inequality. The fighter doesn't need to see another character use Power Attack, The wizard doesn't need to see another spellcaster use Haste to add it to his spellbook as a free spell when he levels.
The varisian druid does not need a check to wildshape into a wolf or bear either, just like the wizard does not need to check to learn haste, or the fighter does not need to check to learn power attack.
However:
The human wizard will need an in-game reason to learn the drow spell Web Bolt, unless he goes to the underdark or find a spellbook from the Drow.
The fighter might not be able to put exotic weapon proficiency with the musket unless he goes to a country were gunpowder is easily available, and might not be able to learn "weapon focus: Katana" if he lives in a small village in Irrisen and has never seen any weapon from Tien Xian.
And the varisian druid might not be able to wildshape into a Triceratops until he goes to Mwangi expanse.
There's no unbalance there.
While I agree with that, the rules don't support it. Fighters and Wizards can just magically learn spells and feats without any regard for the game RAW.
we play in a planescape world, in a kinna low magic item world (no option to buy/sell, few given).
as for wild shaping, my Dm is kinna strict, and i seek a good guideline options fro "what animals i know..."
what do you all think?
is the list outside of normal forms, is based only on animals one seen?
do you "add" to the known list animals you can summon, and if so at what lvl ?
Late to this, but had my 2 cents to offer:
1) Ask your GM what animals are known in the campaign and what would be reasonable for you to learn and/or be familiar with. If there's an animal you want to be familiar with but the GM does not say you should know it, ask him if there's a quest or something you could go on to discover it.
2) Animals that are known in a Planescape Setting: It can really depend upon where you go, but off the top of my head I would consider the following reasonable: rats (anywhere people go, they're going to show up in normal and Unusual Size), cats and dogs (humans also take them with them), beasts of burden (mules, aurochs, horses), goats and rams (there's a lot of various planar creatures with goat-like features, being able to be familiar with those I would say lends familiarity with the real thing). For similar reasons to the goat I'd also say snakes, birds, lizards, big cats, and wolves are also reasonable.
3) Visit the Beastlands when you have the opportunity. :)
Also remember at 6th level (only 2 levels after you get wild shape) you can also take elemental forms, which should definitely be known and allowable in a Planescape game. And those forms do have some cool benefits--remember in Planescape you're going to need stuff like be able to survive in unusual areas. An allosaurus may be awesome but will most definitely suffocate in many parts of the Plane of Earth; an Earth Elemental will not. If you find yourself more restricted than expected, be creative with it. Milk every special ability you can get for what it's worth and take note of often overlooked or undervalued things like special forms of movement. Most of the animals like dinosaurs are valued because of special attacks but especially in an unusual setting like Planescape where literally anything can happen, what seems worthless may actually be valuable and what seems like an awesome ability may actually be worthless depending on what you're fighting or where you are. And if you prove to your GM that you can shine and be successful even within his restrictions, then that is a great victory in and of itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, in your opinion, a Golarion fighter can learn "weapon focus laser gun"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tsc, why restrict the animals a druid can wildshape into?
I'm guessing one of the reasons a druid player wants to play a freaking druid is to turn into different animals.
Why do so many GMs feel they have to be an ass to players? There is no rule for familiarity at all, and wildshape is perhaps the most iconic ability of the class, so why make the player jump through hoops just to use a g%@+#% class feature!!!
Want a explanation? Well, maybe the druid heard about the animal from other druids, maybe her god told her about it, or maybe the druid wants to do solve a problem and when she uses the wildshape ability, the God of Nature, or whatever, guides her into turnning into a appropriate creature.
Why make the player's life unnecessarilly more difficult and less fun?
I'd be very annoyed if my GM decided to nitpick and restrict my character's class features just for the hell of it!
|
|
Why do so many GMs feel they have to be an ass to players? There is no rule for familiarity at all, and wildshape is perhaps the most iconic ability of the class, so why make the player jump through hoops just to use a g*%$*# class feature!!!
Do you know the 100% RAW/RAI rule for Wildshape so that you can actually say this for sure? The answer is no you don't. The "class feature" has a stipulation in it so what you are essentially saying is a DM is a dick if he uses that stipulation. Nobody is being a dick because the actual rule is not clear as to which way is right.
Hell you could have been playing it wrong this whole time but you think it's dickish when you find out what the right way is.
Enforcing of the rule is not dickish at all. You have no idea whether someone is enforcing the RAW rule or not.
The problem I see with your response is you are used to playing a certain way that gives you all the advantage, then you find out that others don't play it that way because your way could be wrong and it threatens that good thing you had going.
Am I being a dick if I don't throw a magic shop around every corner so the wizard can many many more spells than his usual 2 per level?
Tsc, why restrict the animals a druid can wildshape into?
I'm guessing one of the reasons a druid player wants to play a freaking druid is to turn into different animals.
Why do so many GMs feel they have to be an ass to players? There is no rule for familiarity at all, and wildshape is perhaps the most iconic ability of the class, so why make the player jump through hoops just to use a g+*@@$ class feature!!!
There's no rule for what familiarty is, but that does not mean you can't define familiarity. There's no rule about the penalties to avoid sleeping (other than you aren't able to learn spells), but that does not mean your character can go ahead and do not sleep, ever.
The wildshape rule DOES state that the druid needs to have familiarty with the form. It states so, CLEARLY. What is "familiarty" can be debatable, but you *need* to have some familiriaty.
If you want to wildshape into dinosaurs, and you don't want to wait until you can summon them, or meet them in - game, or know about them through your adventures, then it is easy: make a Mwangi Expanse druid (assuming it's available). It just that easy. You probably won't be able to wildshape into polar bears then, unless you find them in-game, and maybe you can't have the regional traits that you want from Cheliax or Qadira or whatever, but you can have dinosaurs wildshape form.
make the player's life unnecessarilly more difficult and less fun?
I'd be very annoyed if my GM decided to nitpick and restrict my character's class features just for the hell of it!
Would you be very annoyed if your GM decide to play a campaign in Dark Sun, and he says you that Polar Bears aren't a wildshape option? Would you consider it "for the hell of it"? What's the difference?
It's not "nitpicking". It's following the class feature ability. That says, clearly, that you need to have familiriaty with the animal. So you can't wildshape into a kangaroo, because we haven't discovered Golarion's Australia yet.
So, in your opinion, a Golarion fighter can learn "weapon focus laser gun"?Well, they don't exist, so no. But if they did, RAW yes. Nothing in the rules prevents a fighter from some po-dunk town from having weapon focus Kusarigama for example.
They do exist, in Numeria. Can an Irrisen barbarian take "weapon focus laser gun"?
Can a human wizard take "Web Bolt", a drow spell?
Can a human wizard take the (horribly overpowered) "instant force wall" spell from Cheliax source book, no matter what's the opinion of his DM? Can you select spells from books your DM does not want to play with?
I'll go further: can a Druid PC wildshape into the Allosaurs form, which is in Bestiary 2, even if the DM does not have the Bestiary 2, or has it but does not want to use it?
|
|
They do exist, in Numeria.
Ah, wasn't aware of that. What book is that in?
Can an Irrisen barbarian take "weapon focus laser gun"?
Yes.
Can a human wizard take "Web Bolt", a drow spell?
If it's on the wizard spell list, yes.
Can a human wizard take the (horribly overpowered) "instant force wall" spell from Cheliax source book, no matter what's the opinion of his DM?
Can he? Yes. May he? No.
Can you select spells from books your DM does not want to play with?
Can he? Yes. May he? No.
I'll go further: can a Druid PC wildshape into the Allosaurs form, which is in Bestiary 2, even if the DM does not have the Bestiary 2, or has it but does not want to use it?
Again. Can? Yes. May? No.
The rules say he can, but the GM says no. So CAN transform into a Allosaurus, meaning he has the ability to do so, but he MAY not do so because the GM has forbidden it.
Again. Can? Yes. May? No.
The rules say he can, but the GM says no. So CAN transform into a Allosaurus, meaning he has the ability to do so, but he MAY not do so because the GM has forbidden it.
Good enough for me. I find incredibly hilarious the notion that the PCs can decide which books are allowed in the game (such as Bestiary 2, or Ultimate Combat, or Advanced Races guide), but it's good enough for the purpose of this conversation.
Then your druid can transform into a dinousaur, but he may not do it because the GM has forbidden it.
Do you know the 100% RAW/RAI rule for Wildshape so that you can actually say this for sure? The answer is no you don't. The "class feature" has a stipulation in it so what you are essentially saying is a DM is a dick if he uses that stipulation. Nobody is being a dick because the actual rule is not clear as to which way is right.
I know the rule about as well as anyone else, unless you have some superior knowledge not accessible to us mortals. What I'd call "being a dick", is not enforcing a rule, but enforcing a terribly vague rule in a way that limits one of the player's most iconic abilities just because, hey, it could possibly be like this, so screw you, player!
I don't see how limiting wildshape options is making the game more fun for anyone. Will the GM or the other players enjoy the game any more if the druid has to travel around the world just so he can use his defining ability?
The problem I see with your response is you are used to playing a certain way that gives you all the advantage, then you find out that others don't play it that way because your way could be wrong and it threatens that good thing you had going.
You're assuming a lot about the playing style of someone you've never met. I do not think having full access to my class features is "playing in a way that gives me all the advantages", IMO, that's only, you know, having those class features!
Am I being a dick if I don't throw a magic shop around every corner so the wizard can many many more spells than his usual 2 per level?
No, but if you make the wizard travel to new and undiscovered lands, spend months on libraries and practice with other wizards each and every time he wants to learn a new spell, then yes, you are.
|
|
Again. Can? Yes. May? No.
The rules say he can, but the GM says no. So CAN transform into a Allosaurus, meaning he has the ability to do so, but he MAY not do so because the GM has forbidden it.
Good enough for me. I find incredibly hilarious the notion that the PCs can decide which books are allowed in the game (such as Bestiary 2, or Ultimate Combat, or Advanced Races guide), but it's good enough for the purpose of this conversation.
Then your druid can transform into a dinousaur, but he may not do it because the GM has forbidden it.
I mean, basically anything the rules allow and your GM allows, you can and may do.
[
I don't see how limiting wildshape options is making the game more fun for anyone. Will the GM or the other players enjoy the game any more if the druid has to travel around the world just so he can use his defining ability?
Well, let's use the OP as an example, since it's the reason this debate is being held.
The OP says he is playing in his GM homebrew Planescape-like world, which happens to be a low magic world, with no magic shops, no magic item creation, and very few magic items being given to the players.
In this enviroment, melee classes, like the fighter, are going to be hit with a nerf bat. If the best you can hope for is a +1 sword, and you won't have it until lvl 10, you are not going to be as powerful as the "average" fighter in Pathfinder. Which happens to be the fighter that is used as a benchmark for Wildshape.
So, if the fighter-dudes are nerfed, but the DM allow the Druid to wildshape into Allosaurus, Tyranosaurus, and triceratops, then the Druid is going to steal the spotlight much more than it's desired from melee guys. So, there you go, in this case, if you don't limit the Wildshaping feature, you are going to have a lot of people who aren't having as much fun as they could: the guys who play melee fighters. On the other hand, if the DM allow the Druid to transform into dire wolves, bears, and bulls, then he is much better balanced compared to the low-magic-items nerfed fighters and barbarians.
No, but if you make the wizard travel to new and undiscovered lands, spend months on libraries and practice with other wizards each and every time he wants to learn a new spell, then yes, you are.
I don't think this GM is going to force you to go to new and undiscovered lands to learn each and every animal form. I'm quite sure he let the player to be a wolf, a bear, an eagle, a goat, a bull, a horse, a cougar, a squirrel, and many many many other animals. He is forcing him to go to new undiscovered lands only for a few animals: the allosaurus, the tyranosaurus, the stegosaurus, and the deinonochius. Which happen to be the animals that the PC want, because they are the more powerful.
Again. Can? Yes. May? No.
The rules say he can, but the GM says no. So CAN transform into a Allosaurus, meaning he has the ability to do so, but he MAY not do so because the GM has forbidden it.
Good enough for me. I find incredibly hilarious the notion that the PCs can decide which books are allowed in the game (such as Bestiary 2, or Ultimate Combat, or Advanced Races guide), but it's good enough for the purpose of this conversation.
Then your druid can transform into a dinousaur, but he may not do it because the GM has forbidden it.
I mean, basically anything the rules allow and your GM allows, you can and may do.
I agree. So, if your GM does not allow to wildshape into Allosaurus, then you don't.
Peacebond. It's an old thing where warriors don't have to give up their weapons but then are tied down to prevent use in the heat of the moment.Oh yeah, thought that sounded familiar. I have a friend who goes to a lot of Conventions and I think they do that there.
My point was that Peacebonding a weapon for one night is reasonable (and I think the fighter in that anecdote was out of line) but restricting an Eidolon or a Animal companion whenever one is in town is overreaching.
And yes, in the noble's party scenario that was described, I would leave a summon/animal companion at the gate. Although I would instruct any animal companions to stare intently at the guards and lick their chops from time to time.
I would disagree to an extent Elamdri
say your animal companion is a deinonychus. I can see people being nervous about that wondering about town. Think of the horses freaking out while hitched to the hitching rail next to it.
I do NOT think it to be unfair of a GM to limit the total roaming of a animal companion or Eidelon in some towns. Some frontier towns wont care---others will. Heck in some frontier towns certain character races would be in trouble---goblins in sandpoint? How about priests of Sarenrae in taldor? They would all have to either hide their holy symbols or in the case of goblins in sandpoint probably come in unarmed or with some vouching by high athority.
There is some drawback to having a more monstrous appearing eidelon or animal companion. People (and other animals about town) will be more acclimitized to the normal ones and less likely to freak out. Shoot--look at modern times---no shirt, no shoes --no service. People dont start killing people til they let them in.
If a town says--"""um no the dinosaur can't roam the town" well you roll with that. Attacking the town because it was scared for it's own well being makes you an ahole.. It is an animal companion so you have it roam the local area--or take it to the stable area-(apart from the other animals and bed it. Or take it to your room and leave it.
I have had many occasions where my eidelon is not allowed in to areas. I have went to operas where my characters were not allowed armor or weapons. I didn't start murdering people because they exercised their right to allow what they want in their town or hall. Don't like the town rules on AC or eidelons--go to the next town.
now other towns should probably have different views. a town in mowangi expanse could probably care less if AC dinos walk around.
[
I don't see how limiting wildshape options is making the game more fun for anyone. Will the GM or the other players enjoy the game any more if the druid has to travel around the world just so he can use his defining ability?Well, let's use the OP as an example, since it's the reason this debate is being held.
The OP says he is playing in his GM homebrew Planescape-like world, which happens to be a low magic world, with no magic shops, no magic item creation, and very few magic items being given to the players.
In this enviroment, melee classes, like the fighter, are going to be hit with a nerf bat. If the best you can hope for is a +1 sword, and you won't have it until lvl 10, you are not going to be as powerful as the "average" fighter in Pathfinder. Which happens to be the fighter that is used as a benchmark for Wildshape.
So, if the fighter-dudes are nerfed, but the DM allow the Druid to wildshape into Allosaurus, Tyranosaurus, and triceratops, then the Druid is going to steal the spotlight much more than it's desired from melee guys. So, there you go, in this case, if you don't limit the Wildshaping feature, you are going to have a lot of people who aren't having as much fun as they could: the guys who play melee fighters. On the other hand, if the DM allow the Druid to transform into dire wolves, bears, and bulls, then he is much better balanced compared to the low-magic-items nerfed fighters and barbarians.
No, but if you make the wizard travel to new and undiscovered lands, spend months on libraries and practice with other wizards each and every time he wants to learn a new spell, then yes, you are.I don't think this GM is going to force you to go to new and undiscovered lands to learn each and every animal form. I'm quite sure he let the player to be a wolf, a bear, an eagle, a goat, a bull, a horse, a cougar, a squirrel, and many many many other animals. He is forcing him to go to new undiscovered lands only for a few animals: the...
also if it is the GM's own world---possibly those animals on the summon natures ally list dont even exist in that world?
if he can change the level of magic, he could also rule that no such creature as a dire lion or deinonychus exists.
This isn't the Golarion you are used to---just as the fighters find their +5 Magic vorpal swords dont exist in this world---neither do your animal companions.
someone above gave the best suggestion.
work with your GM. FInd out what level of power he wants each character to have (there is a reason he made it low magic level--possibly to limit character powers?) and work with him in that range.
The following scenario happened in a game:
There are sounds of wood being smashed in the forest. We go to investigate.
We discover the party's cleric had gotten up early and had been granted the right to summon a 'thing' by his god. It was huge and had armour and horns and stuff and he had no idea what it was, but it was really awesome!
He was riding it around, smashing into trees.
It was a fiendish triceratops.
We never did find out what it was, but assumed it was some kind of demon.
|
|
Snip
That's fine and dandy, but I reserve the right to refuse to leave my Eidolon/Animal Companion at the gate. And if people want to try to murder me for that, I have a right to defend myself.
To be honest, at some point you just become too high of a level for that stuff to matter. Unless you're playing in a game where NPC scale I guess, but I think that's kinda bad game design, so lets not get into that or I will be arguing until 3 in the morning.
And god help anyone who tells my wizards what to do, I play pretty sadistic, a@%##$$ wizards. Because wizards are awful people.
|
|
You do not have the right to break the local laws. If you do so, you do not have the right to defend yourself from the enforcers of that law.
Alright, I'll rephrase:
"I have the ABILITY to refuse to leave my Eidolon/Pet at the gate and the ABILITY to defend anyone who tries to murder me for it?
Better?
At some point you're too high level for that too matter. Unless you're going into town for some reason that requires cooperation from the locals. I guess you can just kill everyone and loot the place instead of shopping. Or force anyone in town to do what you need.
I fail to see a problem here.
Of course, you're now pretty much the kind of evil villains the survivors hire other adventurers to take on. Or the local nobles send their elites after.
Oooh, free loot.
If you and your pet have saved the town, they'll probably welcome you. If you've made yourself indispensable to the king or whoever's in charge you might get yourself an exemption. Of course, if you're trying to convince the king of some dire threat, breaking his laws and slaughtering his citizens is not the way to go.
What if I just murder the king usurp his throne? Seems a whole lot easier than this "Saving the town" business you speak of.
And you have to survive long enough to reach the levels where you can safely ignore the local laws and customs.
Well that's why you don't get CAUGHT. Silly. ;)
Edit: And some of your more lawful party members might side against you.
Aw, who needs them anyway. Besides, that cute rogue in the back is winking at me when I make her targets flat footed. I'm totally going with her.
|
|
I fail to see a problem here.As a guess, the problem might be things like "we don't let evil characters in this game." =)
Who said anything about EVIL. Look, sometimes in the pursuit of adventure, mistakes are made. Lapses in judgement happen. The occasional villager gets drown in a river for not divulging necessary information.
Are you really going to say that just because of a few, minor, insignificant speed bumps in the campaign that a character is suddenly EVIL?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you really going to say that just because of a few, minor, insignificant speed bumps in the campaign that a character is suddenly EVIL?What can I say? I have views about slaughtering the locals because you didn't feel like asking Yogi to sleep outside tonight.
Look, mistakes were made. Apologies were given. Is it REALLY helping things to stand there going "Oh, he shot my husband to death" or "His bear ate my baby"? OF COURSE NOT. So lets just be adults about this, put all this ugliness behind us, and get down to saving...what's left of this town shall we?
LOL
I can actually see roleplaying built around those arguements Elamdriq
but getting back to the main point----your GM should not make you "KNOW" every animal.
but by limiting magic he is trying to control how powerful the party gets--so you taking a wildshape druid or summoner or something that breaks that power control by circumventing the low magic control, it basically ruins his intent.
everyone dependent on the magic is power limited but you wouldn't be. So Talk to your GM. ask him what his intent on your power level is and work with him. You two should be working together to make it fun for both of you and the other players.
If his intent is to limit powers a little more--he may instead home rule it that you get the shaman negatives to wild shape---ie neg two level to all summons (in order to keep you power appropriate to other players) Like others said, if the party melee are only getting +1 swords and armor at level 10 and you wild shape into a mega raptor with a wild megaraptor companion and summon four other raptors---it kind of kills the fun for the other magically limited characters. If he balances an encouter to their lack of magic--you tear through it in one round. If he makes it challenging for you, their tactics basically become---run around and stay away until druid kills the monster.
I think if you're powerful enough to slaughter a village, you probably don't need your iedolon/companion with you... just saying ;)
|
|
I can actually see roleplaying built around those arguements Elamdri
SO a few months ago we were doing a homebrew inbetween APs and during the homebrew there was a swamp encounter where we're trudging through this swamp looking for lost party members. At that point, the only creatures we'd run into were Hillbilly pixies.
so after a while we managed to sneak up on a goblin war party we assumed kidnapped our friends. Needless to say we murdered the crap out of them, except for one. Only to find out during the interrogation that
A: Goblins in their world are apparently English gentlemen
B: They didn't have our friends
C: They were off to kill a giant boar for a holy day that involved BBQ pork.
So, we played it stone cold, helped him kill the boar and take it back to his tribe, had some delicious BBQ, was called a filthy papist a few times, you get the drift.
He wasn't too happy but we were like "Look, Mistakes were mad, you could just stand there be all like "You guys killed my friends, you guys are bad, blah blah blah" OR we could combine our forces, kill the pig, and all have some delicious BBQ."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SnipThat's fine and dandy, but I reserve the right to refuse to leave my Eidolon/Animal Companion at the gate. And if people want to try to murder me for that, I have a right to defend myself.
To be honest, at some point you just become too high of a level for that stuff to matter. Unless you're playing in a game where NPC scale I guess, but I think that's kinda bad game design, so lets not get into that or I will be arguing until 3 in the morning.
And god help anyone who tells my wizards what to do, I play pretty sadistic, a$*++%! wizards. Because wizards are awful people.
I see no problem there. Except you change your alignment to chaotic evil (might makes right is the motto of chaotic evil), and if any survivor leaves the town, you become outlaw, and hunted by bounty hunters, paladins, and zealot inquisitors. Which can be kinda flavourful, depending on the campaign.
Other than that, which is In Game Role Playing... you are wrong about "my eidolon is a class feature, so the DM has to build everything in his world to make me to have my class feature with me". As a example, Cavaliers and Paladins have mounts as class features, and the DM isn't forced to use 20' wide corridors in his dungeons so the mount fits inside.
|
|
I see no problem there. Except you change your alignment to chaotic evil (might makes right is the motto of chaotic evil), and if any survivor leaves the town, you become outlaw, and hunted by bounty hunters, paladins, and zealot inquisitors. Which can be kinda flavourful, depending on the campaign.
Again with the whole "You slaughtered our village, you poisoned the king, you entrapped the guards in a stone room with no exit but a tiny hole in the top and then cast Cloudkill through the hole into the room." Look, mistakes were made. You can either sit there, fuss over my lapses in judgement and shift my alignment OR we can go and save what's left of the kingdom.
Other than that, which is In Game Role Playing... you are wrong about "my eidolon is a class feature, so the DM has to build everything in his world to make me to have my class feature with me". As a example, Cavaliers and Paladins have mounts as class features, and the DM isn't forced to use 20' wide corridors in his dungeons so the mount fits inside.
Admittedly, no, they don't have to. But I think it's a mark of a bad DM if they don't tweak the campaign somewhat to make sure that classes aren't always being stymied.
It's one thing for example if animal companions and eidolons have to wait at the game a few times, but if it becomes a standard thing, it's somewhat obnoxious. Likewise, the mounted character who has to go for a dungeon crawl is one thing, but a campaign of nothing but dungeon crawls is a problem.
The way I see it, if your campaign is going to be heavily restrictive on some classes compared to other classes, you either have to tweak your campaign or ban a class. I just recently started a campaign where I had to ban paladins because it would be impossible for them to remain lawful good and still participate.
Again with the whole "You slaughtered our village, you poisoned the king, you entrapped the guards in a stone room with no exit but a tiny hole in the top and then cast Cloudkill through the hole into the room." Look, mistakes were made. You can either sit there, fuss over my lapses in judgement and shift my alignment OR we can go and save what's left of the kingdom.
I see no problem there. Except you change your alignment to chaotic evil (might makes right is the motto of chaotic evil), and if any survivor leaves the town, you become outlaw, and hunted by bounty hunters, paladins, and zealot inquisitors. Which can be kinda flavourful, depending on the campaign.
We don't have to sit there or fuss over anything. Your alignment is now chaotic evil, period. So you can go, and save what's left of the kindom, or not, is up to you. But you are chaotic evil, because you act as a chaotic evil. There's nothing wong about it unless you happen to have a holy weapon or LG follower. Or if you try to ask help to paladins or people with detect and smite evil.
Admittedly, no, they don't have to. But I think it's a mark of a bad DM if they don't tweak the campaign somewhat to make sure that classes aren't always being stymied.
Other than that, which is In Game Role Playing... you are wrong about "my eidolon is a class feature, so the DM has to build everything in his world to make me to have my class feature with me". As a example, Cavaliers and Paladins have mounts as class features, and the DM isn't forced to use 20' wide corridors in his dungeons so the mount fits inside.
Funny, I find it the mark of a bad player when he doesn't make a character that fits in the campaign. Like people who make a cavalier in a dungeon crawl campaign and then complaint about his mount being useless.
It's one thing for example if animal companions and eidolons have to wait at the game a few times, but if it becomes a standard thing, it's somewhat obnoxious. Likewise, the mounted character who has to go for a dungeon crawl is one thing, but a campaign of nothing but dungeon crawls is a problem.
In a campaign about dungeon crawls, you have the option to make a beastmaster cavalier with a lizard, or not making a cavalier at all. But if I've planned a Drow Campaign, and I've made a full fledged drow city, with a lot of plot hooks, I'm not going to throw it to the trashbin just because you want to have a damn horse. Take a different character, or get a different hobby so you have something to do on Sundays.
The way I see it, if your campaign is going to be heavily restrictive on some classes compared to other classes, you either have to tweak your campaign or ban a class. I just recently started a campaign where I had to ban paladins because it would be impossible for them to remain lawful good and still participate.
Some classes are going to be banned (like paladins in an evil campaign), but I don't need to ban a cavalier in a dungeon crawl campaign. Either you accept that mounts aren't going to be that useful, and build your cavalier around it, or you don't, and then you make some other character. I don't need to ban the class altogether, and forbid Bob to build a cavalier, which he wants, only because Mike is an obxonious crybaby child with ADHD that can't stand being said no, and have to play "my way or nothing". I tell what the campaign is, if Bob can accept a cavalier with fewer use of a mount, and get fun, nice for him. If Mike can't, he can then build something else, or go to watch TV and let the rest of us enjoy the game if he can't stop whinning- I don't see why I have to restrict Bob just because Mike is whinning.
|
|
Again with the whole "You slaughtered our village, you poisoned the king, you entrapped the guards in a stone room with no exit but a tiny hole in the top and then cast Cloudkill through the hole into the room." Look, mistakes were made. You can either sit there, fuss over my lapses in judgement and shift my alignment OR we can go and save what's left of the kingdom.
I see no problem there. Except you change your alignment to chaotic evil (might makes right is the motto of chaotic evil), and if any survivor leaves the town, you become outlaw, and hunted by bounty hunters, paladins, and zealot inquisitors. Which can be kinda flavourful, depending on the campaign.Save the kingdom? Yeah, we're looking for help in saving it from you!
You're now chaotic evil. No fussing needed. If you showed some understanding of and repentance for your crimes, then you might be able to atone. As it is, you seem to intend to continue. Good enough. You're playing CE. If I was running, I might continue if everyone else was onboard. If not, I'd kick you or your character out. Or have fun with the PvP if the party splits over it. The paladin in your group is going to try to stop you from slaughtering the village, by force if necessary. Or he will fall. Other characters won't face direct mechanical consequences, though clerics and the like may not be pleasing their deities.
Look, MISTAKES WERE MADE. I ADMIT THIS. But really, all this talk about who's alignment needs shifting and who needs to be beheaded for their transgressions is missing the greater issue. Somewhere out there is a guy, who's lived for hundreds of years, and has collected a TON of Phat Lewts and I hear he's been threatening your...is it still appropriate to call it a village now? Does it still meet the population requirements of a village? Whatever, anyway, there's a guy out there and he has stuff I want, and killing him would make the rest of you lot somewhat happy right? Right. I think we should get on THAT and forget about this talk of burning certain individuals at the stake for certain lapses in judgement.
Also, shame about the paladin, early in our adventuring career he was climbing down a rocky cliff face and somehow one of the rocks he went to grasp was covered in slippery grease and he tragically fell 100 feet to his death. Shame that.
|
|
Funny, I find it the mark of a bad player when he doesn't make a character that fits in the campaign. Like people who make a cavalier in a dungeon crawl campaign and then complaint about his mount being useless.Admittedly, no, they don't have to. But I think it's a mark of a bad DM if they don't tweak the campaign somewhat to make sure that classes aren't always being stymied.
Other than that, which is In Game Role Playing... you are wrong about "my eidolon is a class feature, so the DM has to build everything in his world to make me to have my class feature with me". As a example, Cavaliers and Paladins have mounts as class features, and the DM isn't forced to use 20' wide corridors in his dungeons so the mount fits inside.
But that assumes that the players knows this going into the game.
In a campaign about dungeon crawls, you have the option to make a beastmaster cavalier with a lizard, or not making a cavalier at all. But if I've planned a Drow Campaign, and I've made a full fledged drow city, with a lot of plot hooks, I'm not going to throw it to the trashbin just because you want to have a damn horse. Take a different character, or get a different hobby so you have something to do on Sundays.
It's one thing for example if animal companions and eidolons have to wait at the game a few times, but if it becomes a standard thing, it's somewhat obnoxious. Likewise, the mounted character who has to go for a dungeon crawl is one thing, but a campaign of nothing but dungeon crawls is a problem.
Again, I think this assumes that the players know what's going on before hand. I'm sure that I'm not the only one who's created a character for a campaign only to find out that it was vastly different from what I expected or even from what I was told.
As for banning classes, that's a difference of styles I suppose. Typically I ban classes when it would be impossible or against the theme to play the class.
|
|
Do you know the 100% RAW/RAI rule for Wildshape so that you can actually say this for sure? The answer is no you don't. The "class feature" has a stipulation in it so what you are essentially saying is a DM is a dick if he uses that stipulation. Nobody is being a dick because the actual rule is not clear as to which way is right.I know the rule about as well as anyone else, unless you have some superior knowledge not accessible to us mortals. What I'd call "being a dick", is not enforcing a rule, but enforcing a terribly vague rule in a way that limits one of the player's most iconic abilities just because, hey, it could possibly be like this, so screw you, player!
I don't see how limiting wildshape options is making the game more fun for anyone. Will the GM or the other players enjoy the game any more if the druid has to travel around the world just so he can use his defining ability?
The problem I see with your response is you are used to playing a certain way that gives you all the advantage, then you find out that others don't play it that way because your way could be wrong and it threatens that good thing you had going.You're assuming a lot about the playing style of someone you've never met. I do not think having full access to my class features is "playing in a way that gives me all the advantages", IMO, that's only, you know, having those class features!
Am I being a dick if I don't throw a magic shop around every corner so the wizard can many many more spells than his usual 2 per level?No, but if you make the wizard travel to new and undiscovered lands, spend months on libraries and practice with other wizards each and every time he wants to learn a new spell, then yes, you are.
You have no concrete evidence as to the RAW/RAI rule of "being familiar" nor does anyone else. You can't say anyone is being a dick when they use a vague rule a certain way because there is no proof that they are doing it wrong, not counting Rule 0.
If you are used to a DM letting you do something one way and then another DM wants you to do it another is not being a dick on anyone's part. That rule is apparently open on purpose so DM's can have the wiggle room to enforce "what they think" the rule is or should be.
You have player's that think DM's who don't let them win or have access to all classes,races, feats, and items are just beings dicks.
Just sayin.
But that assumes that the players knows this going into the game.
Again, I think this assumes that the players know what's going on before hand. I'm sure that I'm not the only one who's created a character for a campaign only to find out that it was vastly different from what I expected or even from what I was told.
Now, THAT is a mark of a bad DM.