You say that as if Feng Gao HAS any ability that mechanically requires patience or concentration Vod ;)
The only Dexterity/Charisma/Intelligence based skill he has is Acrobatics.
To be more specific, he has Acrobatics, Sense Motive, Survival, Swim, Climb, and Perception.
EDIT: Vod... why wouldn't the Monastery have someone there who could teach him all the martial weapons? If you look at history some of the Sohei used all sorts of period-appropriate martial weapons. Meaning that- logically speaking- at least a few monks would be Fighters or Barbarians rather than Monks.
EDIT 2: how could Feng's 'Combat Focus' prevent itself? It makes perfect sense that it would require so much focus that he couldn't apply patience/concentration to any other ability.
No, you misread what I wrote. The Rage power incorporates the inability to use any ability that requires patience or concentration. Focusing yourself requires that concentration.
Edit 1. Mostly because in my mind that wouldn't be a Monastery, but a Commandry.
Edit 2. Using that you are now going beyond what I would rule as actually following the rules.
Now if you want to be a Barbarian that has joined an Order of Monks that would be fine. I would need a different story. You grew up alone in the wild and were found and were/are being educated by the Monks, would be fine.
EDIT You would also need to abide by the rules of the Monastic Order, which may or may not limit the weapons you use, wealth you can hold etc.
*Hops on the entitlement bandwagon*
(Since this is only a theoretical topic for the purposes of debate, it has been posted in General Discussion rather than Advice.)
Now, say a player were to create a celestial bloodline sorcerer. Said character is wholly evil and regularly binds powerful fiends to her service to do her bidding. The character background says something to the effect of "she gained great power through pacts with powerful celestial creatures, whom she then betrayed to their deaths in order to keep the power she tricked them out of."
Now, let's say there is also a GM who, part way through the campaign (or possibly near the beginning) declared that the above PC was (or would be) cursed by the gods for her vile treachery. The curse would take the form of the PC being changed from a celestial bloodline sorcerer to some other "curse-like" bloodline such as aberrant, abyssal, infernal, or undead.
In the context of the game's story arc, such a significant character change makes perfect sense, so the GM goes with it.
In the context of the game, however, the player is distraught. It was not his choice to have such a change occur. It is (or rather, was) his character and the GM has all but taken it away from him. He has lost what little control in the campaign world he had, his character. He can't even use his Flyby Attack feat anymore because his character no longer has Wings of Heaven!
So I ask you all this: Just how much control does/should a GM have over a player's character? Does the amount or form of character control differ during character creation then it does during the middle of a campaign?
I have a player that constantly wants to have joke items or characters that are just weird for the sake of weirdness. As a GM I just try to nip such things in the bud and not allow the characters to fully develop into something I find deplorable and disruptive to other players or to my own sensibilities. If a player is considering a gunslinger because I said they had carte blanche when it comes to all of the published paizo material, and the setting doesn't have revolvers, I let them know that firearms are vastly mechanically inferior to bows as a choice in my game, and if they want to be relevant to the party, they will have a bad time as a gunslinger. I have a player that wants to create race concepts with the race builder that I just consider stupid, mostly because they are half-jokes. I let him know that right out of the gate, and try to work out an acceptable alternative that doesn't break my immersion as the storyteller of a homebrew game. I'm not willing to spend hours every week prepping an immersive, well oiled machine of a game for someone who just wants to tell a joke with a bad punchline. I am just not motivated to do so.
Thats my take on it as a GM. As a player I prefer to discuss such things between sessions, and try to listen much more than I talk, to see where the "gift" or "storytelling element" or macguffin is going and what the payoff will be. More often than not I am pleasantly surprised.
On the specific example, as a player I would ask the DM if my character could beseech asmodeus or some named or unamed evil power who's goal I am aligned with to give me patronage in the form of the curse being twisted into a fallen angel bloodline. The wings turn black and leathery, the fire of heaven becomes helllfire and the goodness slowly strips away to the venom of hell. Heaven forsakes me, so I take up a new patron. I get to keep all my old powers, just reflavored as being corrupted, (nothing some illusions can't hide) and everyone gets what they want.
It does really mean something. It means Feng Gao the monk has the following traits at level 1:
+1 BAB
+2 Fortitude
40 foot movement speed
Martial Weapon Proficiencies
Light and Medium Armor Proficiencies (Most he'd ever use is Masterwork Studded Leather in the 'flexible modern-ish leather depicted in the artwork' type, which has 0 Armor Check Penalty)
Combat Focus (Rage Mechanic)EDIT @ Vod: I'd probably just scrap the character for something else for your campaign then. When I design a character its because I want to roleplay that character. Changing the backstory is changing the character which kills it for me.
As a GM with a player like you, I would work out an acceptable back story between us before you started building a character. I would also lay out any potential pitfalls, such as pissing off the God where your powers came from.
I have a player that constantly wants to have joke items or characters that are just weird for the sake of weirdness. As a GM I just try to nip such things in the bud and not allow the characters to fully develop into something I find deplorable and disruptive to other players or to my own sensibilities. If a player is considering a gunslinger because I said they had carte blanche when it comes to all of the published paizo material, and the setting doesn't have revolvers, I let them know that firearms are vastly mechanically inferior to bows as a choice in my game, and if they want to be relevant to the party, they will have a bad time as a gunslinger. I have a player that wants to create race concepts with the race builder that I just consider stupid, mostly because they are half-jokes. I let him know that right out of the gate, and try to work out an acceptable alternative that doesn't break my immersion as the storyteller of a homebrew game. I'm not willing to spend hours every week prepping an immersive, well oiled machine of a game for someone who just wants to tell a joke with a bad punchline. I am just not motivated to do so.Thats my take on it as a GM. As a player I prefer to discuss such things between sessions, and try to listen much more than I talk, to see where the "gift" or "storytelling element" or macguffin is going and what the payoff will be. More often than not I am pleasantly surprised.
On the specific example, as a player I would ask the DM if my character could beseech asmodeus or some named or unamed evil power who's goal I am aligned with to give me patronage in the form of the curse being twisted into a fallen angel bloodline. The wings turn black and leathery, the fire of heaven becomes helllfire and the goodness slowly strips away to the venom of hell. Heaven forsakes me, so I take up a new patron. I get to keep all my old powers, just reflavored as being corrupted, (nothing some illusions can't hide) and everyone gets what they want.
And I as Asmodeus, or whomever would likely grant that, although I would likely leave some part of the original look of the Celestial Bloodline just because that sort of deity can be a jerk that way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'm way into fluff - it makes the (imaginary) world go round.
But I have no problem with kurt-ryder's reskinned barbarian. He's gaining no extra power than any other barbarian (which relieves him of the honestly offensive "munchkin" label), he's just taking a class that anyone can take, and giving the whole concept a new roleplaying spin.
That's not mechanical skulduggery (ie munchkinism). That's roleplaying.
Bravo kurt-ryder! I applaud the way you have brought imagination to the fore of your character concept. You've taken completely permissible mechanics and presented them with a different flavour.
For what it's worth, I'm running a cleric of Loki (in Kobold Press's Midgard setting) that is not a priest at all, just a very devout thiefsneak whose patron god favours him with divine benefits. (A couple of well-chosen traits have helped round out my class skills, but alas my middling Int means I'll never be as good at roguish stuff as a rogue. Nor can I disable magical traps. Yet.)
Classes are not professions. They are mechanical constructs. One can mechanically be a fighter while still being a smith, calling oneself a smith, and personally conceiving of oneself as a smith.
As far as the OP goes, it looks to me like just a complete breakdown in GM/player play styles, expectations, and communication. Ick. Or is it really entirely hypothetical, RD?
Personally, I'm way into fluff - it makes the (imaginary) world go round.
But I have no problem with kurt-ryder's reskinned barbarian. He's gaining no extra power than any other barbarian (which relieves him of the honestly offensive "munchkin" label), he's just taking a class that anyone can take, and giving the whole concept a new roleplaying spin.
That's not mechanical skulduggery (ie munchkinism). That's roleplaying.
Bravo kurt-ryder! I applaud the way you have brought imagination to the fore of your character concept. You've taken completely permissible mechanics and presented them with a different flavour.
For what it's worth, I'm running a cleric of Loki (in Kobold Press's Midgard setting) that is not a priest at all, just a very devout thiefsneak whose patron god favours him with divine benefits. (A couple of well-chosen traits have helped round out my class skills, but alas my middling Int means I'll never be as good at roguish stuff as a rogue. Nor can I disable magical traps. Yet.)
Classes are not professions. They are mechanical constructs. One can mechanically be a fighter while still being a smith, calling oneself a smith, and personally conceiving of oneself as a smith.
As far as the OP goes, it looks to me like just a complete breakdown in GM/player play styles, expectations, and communication. Ick. Or is it really entirely hypothetical, RD?
My current Cleric is a blacksmith, ranks in craft(blacksmith) and all, even carries around tools. That came in handy when we needed to get through some locked doors, he pulled out his hammer and chisel and popped the hinges. (The GM started having doors open away from the party to hide the hinges.)
My current Cleric is a blacksmith, ranks in craft(blacksmith) and all, even carries around tools. That came in handy when we needed to get through some locked doors, he pulled out his hammer and chisel and popped the hinges. (The GM started having doors open away from the party to hide the hinges.)
Well, that's just nasty! S/he could at least give you a 50/50...
I still think this thread should have ended at black angel wings.
Sorry to offend but taking a class like barbarian and not actually playing a Barbarian as the character is actually munchkining.
A class is a set of mechanical rules, not a straight jacket.
Does every Barbarian character in your games have to be a savage musclebound brute from the wilds or wastes that eats with his hands, swings a weapon as big as himself, wears only scant furs, and communicates with grunts?
Would you be okay with someone playing a Barbarian with this backstory: He grew up on the streets in a city as an orphan, learning to take care of himself because nobody else would. Developed an intense anger at the world for the vast unfairness in his life. Tried to join the local army/militia as a teen, went through training, and got kicked out because he lost his temper in a training bout and cripped another recruit. He wanders, seeking a chance to prove himself, alwaye eagre to fight, still brimming woth anger.
Nothing there that says barbarian as in furs or savagery, but it's a perfectly fine excuse for someone who fights by drawing power from their anger.
Furthermore, muchkining is attempting to get a mechanical advantage. Using Barbarian as one's class gives one no more advantage than anyone else playing a Barbarian, regardless of what the character calls themself. Calling yourself a Monk doesn't give you +WIS to AC, or Flurry of Blows. It means the character believes he is part of the monastic tradition.
Sorry to offend but taking a class like barbarian and not actually playing a Barbarian as the character is actually munchkining.A class is a set of mechanical rules, not a straight jacket.
Does every Barbarian character in your games have to be a savage musclebound brute from the wilds or wastes that eats with his hands, swings a weapon as big as himself, wears only scant furs, and communicates with grunts?
Would you be okay with someone playing a Barbarian with this backstory: He grew up on the streets in a city as an orphan, learning to take care of himself because nobody else would. Developed an intense anger at the world for the vast unfairness in his life. Tried to join the local army/militia as a teen, went through training, and got kicked out because he lost his temper in a training bout and cripped another recruit. He wanders, seeking a chance to prove himself, alwaye eagre to fight, still brimming woth anger.
Nothing there that says barbarian as in furs or savagery, but it's a perfectly fine excuse for someone who fights by drawing power from their anger.Furthermore, muchkining is attempting to get a mechanical advantage. Using Barbarian as one's class gives one no more advantage than anyone else playing a Barbarian, regardless of what the character calls themself. Calling yourself a Monk doesn't give you +WIS to AC, or Flurry of Blows. It means the character believes he is part of the monastic tradition.
There is an NPC in one of the Kingmaker books that has some levels of barbarian b/c he has anger management issues. Should we call that guy a munchkin? I think the issue is that in 3.x days, barbarians were by default savages, they weren't even literate. That is no longer the case. Personally, I still enjoy playing a wild & crazy barbarian, but story-wise there's no reason that any warrior with a really bad temper couldn't be a barbarian.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah see I can't play like that.
I'm the exact opposite. If I can't flavor my character to suit, then it no longer feels like roleplaying to me.
Focusing yourself and the inability to use any skill that requires patience or concentration do not mesh.
It makes sense to me. He is so focused on combat, that he is not focused on anything else.
Seems to fit the definition of "focused."
To be honest kyrt-rider, there is a term for the kind of people that play like you and it has become derogatory. If you treat things like class as just a meaningless construct to boost your power, you're being a munchkin or "Gros Bill." It's an older term for players like that and there are many GMs and players that don't like people like that in a roleplaying game. That's fit more for Rollplaying, not Roleplaying.
I've not heard that before, nor does it make any sense to me. I'm with kyrt-rider on this one. Being able to make such changes can only help roleplay.
They wouldn't teach martial weapons because monasteries in pathfinder, or golarian at least, just don't. Monks use their body and certain specific monk weapons, but mainly their body. And the point behind Ki is that it is supposed to take focus and concentration. But that is fluff and people that just treat a class like a construct wont care.
Do you have a reference for that? Is there any passage in any Campaign book that explicitly states that monk traditions don't also train in martial weapons sometimes?
Sorry to offend but taking a class like barbarian and not actually playing a Barbarian as the character is actually munchkining.
How on earth is that munchkining!? If anything, he's weaker than a normal barbarian because he's invested in subpar options like Improved Unarmed Strike.
No I am saying you need a backstory and an actual personality, but your class needs to reflect it. Class should not be an arbitrary construct and it should really mean something.
How does kyrt-rider's class not reflect his character's personality and backstory? It totally means something the way he has presented it. Hardly an arbitrary construct.
EDIT: Seems I'm a little late to this particular party. :P
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding confining class to a tightly focused flavor: it's extremely frustrating when you're trying to play a barbarian and other folks at a table are either insisting it's played like some cliched constantly growling Ahnold-esque moron or talking over how you're actually playing your character to reference that.
We abandoned stuff like "thief" as a class name to curb nonsense like that. Confining imagination to cookie cutter parameters is one of the worst things we could do to the game.
GMs need to use their judgment. But it also pays to keep an open mind and try not to let their own preferences lock out new ideas.
Regarding confining class to a tightly focused flavor: it's extremely frustrating when you're trying to play a barbarian and other folks at a table are either insisting it's played like some cliched constantly growling Ahnold-esque moron or talking over how you're actually playing your character to reference that.
We abandoned stuff like "thief" as a class name to curb nonsense like that. Confining imagination to cookie cutter parameters is one of the worst things we could do to the game.
GMs need to use their judgment. But it also pays to keep an open mind and try not to let their own preferences lock out new ideas.
Oh, that reminds me of an argument with my GM (out of game). He mentioned playing in a game run by a friend of his, a novice GM...who did 'stupid things' like have a ship captain be a barbarian. Because barbarians do nothing but rage, right? With less than an hour of raging per day, at max level? (unless I messed up the math). He REFUSED to see the barbarian as anything but an out-of-control psychopath, and you're not allowed to make anything different.
Also (as my bf found out while trying to play a character), in his mind, Clerics have to follow a diety, and be devoted to a cause. 'Cause' here not really meaning much, since when my bf identified the domains he wanted, which fit with his character's (A Cavalier, wanting to multiclass into Cleric) ideals, he was told that it didn't make sense. Also, he was apparently trying to 'powergame' by multiclassing into Cleric to get healing magic. Probably the second-closest I've come to walking out of a session...especially since, not ten minutes later, the GM let me multiclass my sorcerer into Oracle based on even less reasoning...
Why not ask the player what and who his family is? I don't always think intensely about who my uncle was at family creation, sometimes I forget to write things down or don't have much space to write it, and I know a few people who would feel kind of violated by you giving and naming their friends and family.
No need to add much anyway. You can easily replace friends and family with NPCs of your own making. No need to suddenly have father issues or a famous bloodline.
And fluff is easy to change. So long as the GM is okay with it and the other players don't freak out too much. Barbarian's get four skillpoints per level and just get angry now and then, and you can reflavor the rage easily(especially if you have controlled rage imo.) If it helps bring a character idea to life I don't see why not, its not like they're doing something no one else can do.
That can be taken a few different ways. Are you introducing these relationships to give those character's a really bad day? That kind of GMing pisses me off pretty quickly. I'm talking the sort of bad day similar to thus:
You walk in the room to find the BBEG is your uncle. You see the guard captain's look on his face as he sees the relation on your faces. Afterward he no longer trusts you and gets the town to basically shun you for your relationship to the bad guy. Inconveniently enough for you, the prospect on your mission to secure several alliances within the town just became much more grim.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course not, just like the PC can't say the orc didn't crit him. My point was that it was known that extreme view point was not being taken,so it was a bad example.Those who argue semantics normally dont have a real argument. Would you like to try that again with a GOOD example?GM has no control, period. All changes to a PC are part of an agreement between GM and player, and as such should include a discussion if either are unconfortable.GM: The orc crits you with a greatsword for 30 damage. You have 3 HP left, so your character is dead.
Player: Well, since we didn't have a prior discussion about the exact effects of orcs with greatswords hitting my character, I do not agree to you changing my character's status from living to dead, and thus that hit is negated...
If would seems that DM has zero control is a ridiculous extreme to stick to.
You find as a part of a treasure hoard a Belt of STR +2. When you put it on you discover that it is fact a Belt of Opposite Gender.
Can the PC say "No that didn't happen?"
From the original Quote "GM has no control, period."
I gave an example of what zero DM control would look like.
Note: The other extreme, "The DM has complete control over a player character" is equally stupid. That situation exists, it is called a book, and while they are fun to read, I would not want to play one.
|
No I am saying you need a backstory and an actual personality, but your class needs to reflect it. Class should not be an arbitrary construct and it should really mean something.Sherlock Holmes was a Rogue.
Hmmm, in the American series Elementary I would have picked his class as Moron. Each to their own.
If the player provided that as the general backstory, I would certainly not try to change it. That said, the GM has final approval of anything of that sort ("My brothers were killed by orcs and I was adopted by the King, so now I'm the King")
If I say 'the campaign is set in the elven lands and all the PCs are elves working towards defending the kingdom' - you can't play a dwarf. If I disallow a class (which I often do), those are the rules by which the game is played. Simply because a player shows up with the latest splat book (which was more of a problem in the past) he can't simply add those spells to his list or feats to his list.
I agree w/ all of this, but I would still argue that a GM should be asking/conferring with the players prior to changing their back story in any way. This can cause rifts in a gaming group. Just b/c something is convenient for the GM doesn't mean they should do it. I guarantee you, as someone who uses personal story hooks all the time (characters family members, etc) that 99% of the time, the player will have no problem w/ whatever your idea might be, and for that 1% a quick conversation can find a suitable substitute.
Now, to be fair, I know how awesome that sort of thing can feel as the GM to throw a curve ball at the players. And personally? I've tried to facilitate that with my own characters at times. There was one character I built where I specifically told the GM that there were multiple blank spots I had left in my backstory that he could feel free to just go wild with if he wanted to. And he did; the father that my character had thought was dead actually turned out to be one of the Big Bads. It was good times.
I think I'm going to borrow this.
And I would say, an excellent compromise between the two argued opinions, I think. Player doesn't feel like his character is being arbitrarily changed. The GM can surprise the player w/ some back story related stuff.
Very nice.
No I am saying you need a backstory and an actual personality, but your class needs to reflect it. Class should not be an arbitrary construct and it should really mean something.
And why is this?
Like I said before, as long as the fluff EXISTS why does it matter what it IS?
I would still argue that a GM should be asking/conferring with the players prior to changing their back story in any way. This can cause rifts in a gaming group.I don't even disagree with this. I don't feel that I 'changed' his PC backstory. I added to it. (I see these as two different things)
As a long time GM/player, I feel integrating the PCs with the rest of the setting provides a 'depth' you don't get otherwise. Otherwise it seems like the PCs are from another planet - they never meet anyone they've ever met before, they never run into something from their past that impacts their future. Sure I can gen up an NPC for the blacksmith. But if the blacksmith was a friend of your PCs father - now there is a connection that makes sense, and it explains why he's willing to help you. Maybe you find out that your father joined an expedition along with the smith he never told you about, and we suddenly have a plot hook. That's a GOOD thing.
I don't feel I should have to argue with a player 'my father NEVER knew a blacksmith!?!?!?!'
2=2
2+2=4
Strangely, adding something to 2 changes it.
I don't disagree w/ the premise of depth to characters, and I don't disagree that the GM can come up w/ some ideas to create more depth to a character. But I would still say that the GM should ask the player ahead of time. It takes no effort. At all.
And I've never had a player argue that their father didn't know a blacksmith. That's silly. But I could imagine a player arguing their character was not descended from an orc. That's quite a different change and would shape the way the community viewed his character and how the character viewed himself in a way the player may not be comfortable with. And clearly wasn't w/ the example you gave.
Again, I'll ask this again, as it has yet to be addressed. Is it really that much trouble to say, "Hey, Bob, do you mind if I do <insert idea here>?"
(That ship's already come and left Rynjin. You missed it :P)
I was asleep. =(
|
If the player told me at creation he had a mother and father and two sisters, I wouldn't change that. If the player told me at PC creation nothing, I feel well within my GM purview to add as I see fit.
And some players won't mind. Others will. I wouldn't flip out about it, but I would tell you that I prefer a little warning about those things. Some of us work things out as we go.
It's really about knowing your players and not stepping on their toes.