It was a reply to both you an Seranov.
Pardon me for my brevity.
|
His response was a bit extreme.
I have to say though, if you take away the "popular" options, then won't other options suddenly become popular, thus forcing you to continually ban every option, once it becomes popular, unless your players carefully metagame, and change from good option to good option, to avoid you banning them?
I mean, it is your game, but that sounds like a headache for you, and your players.
I would not want have to find all the "just good enough" options all the time, just to viable, but not have the DM suddenly ban it for "being just a little too good".
The whole juggling act just sounds maddening.
all I said to the OP is if it was any consolation, I wouldnt allow the archetype. At least his DM didnt overrule the WHOLE arcehtype, just that specific build.
House Rules introduce new or changed rules. a DM saying no isn't a house rule, it's a provision.
I simply dont want to see every barbarian be an invulnerable rager because it's better. If someone came up with a character concept that said 'gee that really needs to be an invulnerable rager' it would be fine.
Like Dervish Dance. If it's the third or subsequent magus with DD for no other reason than I can fork around my stats to min max... its a no.
If your character concept really bleeds it, then fine.
Fred the Invulnerable rager, with the same exact point buy and feats as Tom, the invulnerable rager, because it's optimal, with no real reason why your character would be like that.... sigh.
It got old. So No.
But since it's my table. I dont NEED to explain.
and that's all I was saying to the OP, at least he's letting you play the archetype, just make whatever changes he wants.
I dont allow 20s for starting stats at level 1 either, I don't NEED to explain it. It's just no.
I will never understand the "it gets old" or "it's too popular" arguments. This is a game about role-playing and if the player can role-play their characters well, I don't care what they play. The only way I'd even think about revoking them is if they played the SAME exact character(s) every single time, I'd suggest that they play them with a different personality. This is something we all do for fun, so let players have fun in playing the game.
Y'know, I've tried three times to respond to this, and I can't come up with a response that won't get me flagged. So, once again, just gonna say to Pendagast "Yeah you have fun with that" and bid this thread adieu.
ahahaha I do that all the time where I'm like type type type type and then I just let it go and move on instead of posting
usually it is because I got distracted by something shiny
oh and I think it is different and hard to get my head around that some of you are tired because you are dealing with Invunerable Rager Barbarian #492949592 after having seen the previous 492949591 of them
I am just trying to get a sorcerer in one of my groups remember that they even have spells while teaching the rogue how to build his own character instead of begging the GM to do so for him because he doesn't know how
I get this feeling when I help them that I'm sure a lot of my teachers might have gotten if I had ever tried to learn anything
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't want to explain your decision, why bring it up?
Imagine I said, "Beards are stupid, and I don't allow PCs to have beards in my games, DO NOT QUESTION ME!"
Someone asks why, and I answer "Screw you guys, I do what I want, I don't need to explain, beards suck!"
This what it come off as.
Once again, authorizing a character to play in a game is DM prerogative, it always has been.
He can say, only material from X and Y sources, or No Paladins, or, a popular one at my tables has often been, everyone gets quick draw for free. (Usually due to lack of experience/ rules/sequence familiarity of the players)
further explaining why WHY the DM doesn't want Paladins or whatever just opens up to more mindless arguments on why it is unfair/poor form.
I brought up the fact, to console the OP that if he had played at my table the whole archetype wouldnt be allowed, whereas at his table at least it wasn't that... I dont think there is anything wrong with that. IF you want to play a barbarian make something that's not an invulnerable rager, want to play a magus? don't count on dervish dance.... it's not all the hard.
Personally I can't wrap my head around why there are certain restrictions in PFS and how the changes effect anything, but they are there.
|
|
PFS has some restrictions due to it's special nature.
It's not a home game, and needs to have any DM be able to handle any player.
Also, I was talking specifically about the "no 20 in any score, DO NO QUESTION" thing you throw out.
You cannot criticize or question what is allowed in someone's game, then throw up your arms in protest when others do the same to you.
Also, the "my games are better than yours" attitude is not helping either.