No they are not. Even the devs say flavor text is mutable. They can show you the designers intent in some cases, but flavor text are never not rules.Sure they are. Imagine for a moment the characters enter a tavern. One character orders a round of beers. Another character accepts one of the drinks, takes a sip, and says, "This cranberry juice is terrible." At this point, it has to be accepted that the drink is somehow not a beer, the character has said something strange and confusing, or that the character didn't actually say that. Those are rules. Without them, the games lacks continuity. Not all rules are mathematical, not all are formulaic, not all are mandates. Rules can be mutable. Rules do pertain to flavor.
But fluff text accompanying a class description is not the sort of rule that generally forbids you from playing a character a certain way. Apparently, in this GM's game, there is a rule against raging outside of combat. That's a rule. It's just not a rule arising from the Pathfinder rulebook.
"No psionics" could be a rule. "This game is set in Golarion" is a rule.
That is not a rule. It is a player being difficult.
And a GM being wrong is also not a rule. It is a GM being wrong. Also for the sake of this forum the rules refer to the official rules, otherwise people can just use houserules all day, and no concensus will ever be reached. I don't know if you what you just tried saw a strawman or one of those other fallacies, but I do know it was wrong.
I don't understand why you find this concept so objectionable. The game encompasses the world. It is defined by rules. Hence, anything that describes the world is a "rule." Just because something doesn't have a plus this or that, or subtype, or whatever, doesn't mean that what is described in-game doesn't matter.
Barbarians are described in a certain way. If your barbarian doesn't "rage" then you are changing how the class works. The problem in the OP is not that the GM read the flavor text, it's that they read into it implications that aren't there. They invented something wholecloth, but tried to claim it was based on the text. Most likely this was caused by a bias toward seeing the barbarian a certain way.
No, you are NOT changing how the class works.
Whether it's called Rage, Zen Focus, or Steroid Injections, the effects are still the same: +4 Str/Con/Will saves, -2 AC.
Flavor has NOTHING to do with how things WORK they have to do with how they affect the concept.
So if the flavor is A.) Restricting how the class WORKS and B.) Restricting the concept, then C.) The GM is doing something wrong.
Let me ask you this. If I say my barbarian uses a "sugar high" in combat and wields two bananas (stats as kukris), is my GM doing something wrong because he's restricting my concept?
Let me ask you this. If I say my barbarian uses a "sugar high" in combat and wields two bananas (stats as kukris), is my GM doing something wrong because he's restricting my concept?
That's a different discussion. You're not taking an opposing argument to an extreme, you're addressing a different problem.
The problem is not how much latitude players have in reskinning mechanics, it's whether the original 'skin' should restrict mechanics.
The answer is "it depends." For some people, Double Banana is a problem. For others, it's using rage to open doors. This isn't a different discussion, it's one of several relevant discussions. Does flavor text = part of the rules? Yes. Is there flavor text suggesting barbarians can only rage in "combat?" No. Could a GM say so anyway? Yes. Can you quit the game because this seems an arbitrary expression of will about something that does not threaten the game? Yes. Please do. Does it suck claiming the rules say something they don't? Yes, that sucks.
Let me ask you this. If I say my barbarian uses a "sugar high" in combat and wields two bananas (stats as kukris), is my GM doing something wrong because he's restricting my concept?
He's doing it right, because when he kicks that player out of his game, I can then recruit the player for MY game!
Bananas ahoy!
Let me ask you this. If I say my barbarian uses a "sugar high" in combat and wields two bananas (stats as kukris), is my GM doing something wrong because he's restricting my concept?
Depends on whether the concept itself is disruptive to the game as a whole. If we're playing a silly game, it would work. If not, probably not. Though a low Wis (insane) Barbarian who THINKS that's what's going on would be a good middle ground.
The problem here is that this isn't really relevant. Being able to use your class features out of combat isn't disruptive to the game. It HELPS the game, in fact.
Your DM is restricting your character just to nerf it. The flavour texts does not support his thesis, and flavour text is not RAW.
90% of the time flavour text should be mutable. The other 10% is where the RAW and the flavour really do match.
There comes a point where you have to ask "Why are you playing like X when you could be playing Y?"
Why are you playing a high intelligence fighter who only wears leather armour and focuses on sneaking around? This is fine, but why aren't you a rogue?
It's great that you're playing a neutral good druid with a horse who wears dragonscale plate and acts like a cavalier, eschewing most of your nature based spells and your wild shape for healing, but isn't that what a cavalier or paladin are for?
It's wonderful that you have a wizard-rogue-cleric who focuses on party buffs and being a troubadour, but have you seen the bard? Seeing as you feel "searching for traps is beneath you"?
I don't force much on my players, but I do nudge them towards flavour text over reskins when the flavour they want pretty much exists.
But telling a barbarian he has worse tactics than a badger and he cannot rage outside of combat when there are obvious examples for when that can happen is silly.
The question, I think, is whether the flavor text is intended to be exhaustive.
When raging, a barbarian gains +4 strength. That presumably increases combat ability, as the flavor text says. The GM here apparently feels that this means you can't use rage outside of combat. But, if we're going to do that, we should also assume that rage has no other non-combat effects. Doesn't affect carrying capacity, say. Because that's not combat. Doesn't affect what you can lift. You're in combat, all you can do is roll to hit.
The existence of rules for using rage to achieve obviously non-combat results ought to be enough to settle this, though, really.
Actually, temporary Strength bonuses don't improve carrying capacity.
"Temporary increases to your Strength score give you a bonus on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The bonus also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and to your Combat Maneuver Defense."
Apart from the skill check bonus, it reads depressingly like it does only have combat applications.
|
There are, as has been shown, non-combat rage abilities. Of course, by RAW, and RAI, you can rage out of combat.
Oh, and yes, I'd have issues with bananas. They don't COST the same as kukris. You can't replace them at the fruit stand, or from a tree. That's not real reskinning.
The sugar high? Go for it.
They're custom bananas.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a teacher, I can say that a kid on a sugar high attacking other kids with twin bananas would come pretty close to barbaric.
If they were as effective as Kukris then we'd probably be in a lock down situation.
Banans just can't do damage like that.
French bread though.....now that's another story.
Once again though, it's the gm's world. If he makes it so every barbarian in his world can only berserker rage during combat, then your stuck with it. As long as he's consistent in this ruling throughout his entire world, then that is fine. This can work for you as much as against you at times, though is much less of a burden for the GM.
All gm's tweak their worlds to suit them. If they're up front about it, you deal with it or don't play.
As written I have arranged with this situation and changed to the Urban Barbarian with controlled rage.
But this situation let me thinking about the question I asked the community: "Is flavour a part of the rules?"If you would say "YES!", I can handle this situation, because it´s in the rules. But the most say "NO!" and so I am sure, that it is "DM-arbitrariness". And that let me ask me:
|
"Can I still handle this situation and what will I do, if somthing like this happen again? Will or should I leave the group?"
|
By the way, my wife asked me after I told her about: "Are you mad? Why do you still play with those people?" I am wondering how much of you ask the same question ... So, this above is the real question behind my question. I don´t realy look for an answer for getting the "real rage ability" back (but it´s nice you show me some). I am looking for an answer to handle the (next) situation.
There comes a point where you have to ask "Why are you playing like X when you could be playing Y?"
Why are you playing a high intelligence fighter who only wears leather armour and focuses on sneaking around? This is fine, but why aren't you a rogue?
My DM asked me the same question. On beginning I had two other characterconcepts, one with the rogue and one withe ranger. But both are not "good enough" to stand in the frontline / meele combat on lvl 1, while the other players have lvl 3.
So the only way I could play "my characterconcept" (Elf high INT and DEX) was to take the barbarian. And yes, on this point I was a munchkin, a powerbuilder, a min-maxer. But the character is not powerfull or overpowert, he is only optimized for the concept.
But telling a barbarian he has worse tactics than a badger and he cannot rage outside of combat when there are obvious examples for when that can happen is silly.
He and one other player says to me - that the barbarian is the best concept of the three concepts. But after a while it seems that he change his mind and thinks "S@%$, why is this character so good - I must do something..." and then he told me I must play "a real barbarian..." OK, I am not sure if this is what he is thinking, but I want to understand him and why he did this.
To be quite honest with you, I would not have put up with this as patiently as you have. I'm not saying throwing a tantrum is worth it or justified, but nobody would blame you for bowing out of this game, because it's likely to only get worse form here. Once a GM resorts to unreasonably strict enforcement of "the rules" because he thinks your character is over powered, it's you vs the GM, and you CANNOT win that fight in-game.
That, plus the fact that your character is optimization-lite to say the least and he isn't even enforcing actual rules leads me to believe that this cannot be resolved OUT of game either, as he seems like the sort to shrug all your arguments off and say "Deal with it or leave".
I say cut out all the BS leading up to that outcome and bow out while both of you still have your dignity.
Elf high INT and DEX? Tank?
The ranger sounds great? The rest of your group vetoed this? Give him a little CON and frontlining isn't that hard.
Also, why are they level 3 while you're level 1? Why aren't they buffing you if you're the tank. A little Bear's Endurance, Shield and Cat's Grace go a long way for any tank. 2-4 hp shouldn't be a deal breaker.
It sounds like your group is bullying you. Tell your guys: I want to play a rogue or a ranger. Discuss new battle tactics. What's your party make up?
No group has to be Fighter/Healer/Expert/Wizard. That's an old school mentality that wasn't even true in the old school.
Honestly, have the elf rage, and go die in combat so you can roll up something the GM isn't out to get. Or, if he pulls the same shenanigans with the new character, take the hint and leave the game. Find someone who wants to play with other people, instead of tell them a story.
|
|
Well mate, I have nothing but admiration for you so far.
You've approached this amazingly calmly as far as I can tell, going out of your way to at least try to accomodate the GM and group in the hopes they were acting in some form of rational way that you may not have fully understood. You've taken advice from this forum, even stuff you didn't necessarily agree with, and tried to use it to help as well.
However, the more I read, the less it sounds like your group are being rational or even kindly at this stage. I don't understand why you're two levels lower than them, nor do I understand why you'd be tanking for them if you are in fact 2 levels lower. That's just asking for a character to be killed really. 2 levels is quite significant in HP and hitting power.
On top of this, your GM is making fairly intense calls on the flavour of his campaign, seemingly in order to gimp your character. While I can see times where flavour is important (as I've pointed out already), this really doesn't appear to be one of them.
I think the real question you need to find out is why are they targeting you like this? I have never been a fan of telling people to get out of games, particularly since most are hard to come by. But this one is sounding more and more like a situation you should seriously consider getting out of my friend.
Best of luck with it, I hope it resolves to your satisfaction at least. I admired the way you tried to work within their boundaries, but they seem to keep shifting the goal posts on you. Its very hard to win when the goals keep moving.
Cheers
Find someone who wants to play with other people, instead of tell them a story.
I have not enough freetime and they are the only ones I know which play 1/month ... and I like the kingmaker kampagne and the character.
Once a GM resorts to unreasonably strict enforcement of "the rules" because he thinks your character is over powered, it's you vs the GM, and you CANNOT win that fight in-game.
I remember that the "problem" started 2-3 sessions before, when the DM ask me "Why do you have such a high Attack and DMG?!" and I answerd why give him my character sheet and he just shaked his head and give it back...
Elf high INT and DEX? Tank?
(..)
Also, why are they level 3 while you're level 1?
They started before and think, I should start at lvl 1. I didn´t know the group before and only know the DM a little (from sports).
Why aren't they buffing you if you're the tank. A little Bear's Endurance, Shield and Cat's Grace go a long way for any tank. 2-4 hp shouldn't be a deal breaker.
They only buff me once in the past wit henlarge person. I started to buy healpotions because I don´t want to ask everytime and hear: "But you still have enough HP, let´s see later ..."
I am now Lvl 6 (the others, too) - and yes it was a hard way for me beeing "the damage dealer" the last Levels. But the hardest situation was, that their "friend" started later with the same Lvl as we have ...
(...) That's an old school mentality that wasn't even true in the old school.
YES! I Think this is the problem. They are sooooo old school, they could not understand what I am talking about when I say: "This isn´t a D&D barbarian, this is a pathfinder barbarian!"
You try to stand, but their meaty little clubs they call manhood keep smacking your face.
You beg to know why.
All they tell you is that it is your fault, and you know what you did.
You dared to be different.
Sometimes I think so, but the most time I think they are only ... hmm ... too old school?
You've approached this amazingly calmly as far as I can tell, going out of your way to at least try to accomodate the GM and group in the hopes they were acting in some form of rational way that you may not have fully understood. (...)
I think the real question you need to find out is why are they targeting you like this? I have never been a fan of telling people to get out of games, particularly since most are hard to come by. But this one is sounding more and more like a situation you should seriously consider getting out of my friend.
Best of luck with it, I hope it resolves to your satisfaction at least. I admired the way you tried to work within their boundaries, but they seem to keep shifting the goal posts on you. Its very hard to win when the goals keep moving.
Thanks for your words and the question you have posted for me.
As written I asked them why and the 3 hours we talked about "rage" was verry hard for me. because there was a break and sometimes I thought: "OK, perhaps I should leave you now." But I stay and take the "controlled rage" (without using it outsite combat situations etc.) and they say:
"But the controlled rage is better as the rage, and the urban barbarian is not proficient with medium armor, so you are not proficient with medium armor, too."
I only smile, said OK and thought: "OK, I have to dip in 1 Lvl fighter and must optimize the character more ..."
=(
I didn't think the last one was very insulting, I was literally just pulling lines from the Barbarian flavor text and pointing out what would happen if they were used as rules. I think the strongest word I used was "silly" in that post.
o.O - What have we done, that our posts were deletet.
I was searching for a post from the one, which thinks like my DM ("You have to learn the differnz between rage and anger")
I would like to talk to him (per PM), to understand my DM- thinking better. Perhaps he can give me an answer.
=(
I didn't think the last one was very insulting, I was literally just pulling lines from the Barbarian flavor text and pointing out what would happen if they were used as rules. I think the strongest word I used was "silly" in that post.
o.O - What have we done, that our posts were deletet.
I was searching for a post from the one, which thinks like my DM ("You have to learn the differnz between rage and anger")
I would like to talk to him (per PM), to understand my DM- thinking better. Perhaps he can give me an answer.
Someone referred to you as a 'munchkin' and a 'roll-player', and I reported that post. Probably created a deletion cascade to remove posts that had quoted it.
|
I hate to jump to the "hazing" conclusion, but this is sounding like a dysfunctional group.
Honestly, the advice to leave this group is probably your best bet at this point. There are healthier groups out there, and even if you can't find any locally there are many online options, including here on these boards.
Just don't let them(or those few that attacked you here) make you bitter. The best revenge is living/gaming well, after all. :)
I have a question: given the Barbarian class, wouldn't it be more mechanically advantageous for you to wield one giant banana as a two-handed weapon instead? Maybe switch to a watermelon?
Gallagher the Barbarian!
That is distressing! Especially since "lift heavy thing off party member" is one of the canonical uses. It also concerns me because it would have seemed obvious to me that bull's strength would indeed let you carry more.
I completely agree. The complete disconnect of ability bonuses/penalties/damage from the actual ability score has been a pet peeve of my gaming circle for as long as we realized it was there.
I understand the intention behind it, but it does lead to strangeness at times, as well as what I believe to be unintentional consequences for some classes/rules introduced after the core rulebook. We house rule it into what we want it to be, and carrying capacity being affected is one of our changes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
here:
http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/memberlist.php
I've had some luck with this. There might be a group right near you you didn't know about.
So basically, I'd do play-by-email or play-by-post or even just sit around reading the books and thinking how it would be fun to have a group rather than playing with this group.
www.penandpapergames.com/forums/memberlist.php
Play-by-email /-post could be an option and perhaps I have a look in the link, too. But I will also give the group an other try/chance [I will give you feedback what´s going on ;-)]