Confessions That Will Get You Shunned By The Members Of The Paizo Community

[DM Under The Bridge]

The Alkenstarian wrote:

Oh, right ... I think I have found some that may actually get me shunned at last (well, more than I am already).

I do not believe in happy endings. Hollywood movies, by and large, grate my nerves for this reason. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the occasional happy ending, once in a blue moon and when the stars are in conjunction, but I prefer most books and movies I watch to avoid it.

I love dystopias. I do not believe in the goodness of humanity ... I think if there's one thing we've comprehensively proven over the course of written history, it is that we're really not very nice as a species considered and consequently, I do not see us moving towards a Gene Roddenberry'esque version of Space Communism ... although his utopian vision for the future is attractive in almost every way ... but more towards a "1984"/"V for Vendetta"-style society, where fear is the primary driving force behind our actions.

I like computer games that do not have happy endings for the same reason. I actually believe that the gripe against ME3's ending, where tens of thousands of people moaned about how it wasn't a happy ending and that's what they wanted, based on all their hundreds of "good" choices throughout the trilogy, fully legitimized the choice made by the game designers and writers. Grow up. War isn't pretty. People die horribly, alone and abandoned, even after doing everything right. So good on the game designers and the writers for daring to stick it to everyone's expectations of Captain Awesome standing on a pile of enemy corpses waving a flag over his or her head while the world cheers. I think I would have lost my lunch if that had happened.

I think the Game of Thrones television series stinks. I think the alterations from the books are so destructive that I can't bear to watch it any longer. It literally gives me a headache.

Despite my strong affection for grim, dark and grimdark, I thought Breaking Bad was just about the worst pile of television fecal matter I had ever had to endure. I...

Nope, no shunning for you. I encountered a few players railing against grimdark last year, and I found it hard to communicate with them because I'm a fan of grimdark, and valiantly fighting against the darkness when it is very likely to consume you.

I disagree with your take on GOT, because Martin's books really needed and editor, so I like the cut-down version of the story.

Agree with your position on Breaking Bad. So much hype, really not worth my time. Stopped after a handful of episodes and I will never get that time back.

[DungeonmasterCal]

I never liked that Clerics can access EVERY spell, even just using Core material. Add in the subsequent releases and it just becomes silly that they would even know to pray for most of them. I believe they should have a prayer book with their spells contained therein.

[Simon Legrande]

DungeonmasterCal wrote:

I never liked that Clerics can access EVERY spell, even just using Core material. Add in the subsequent releases and it just becomes silly that they would even know to pray for most of them. I believe they should have a prayer book with their spells contained therein.

Even 5e, which made some huge changes to spell casting, kept that feature for clerics.

[DrDeth]

I hate fantasy names with gratuitous apostrophes.

"B'ob". "C'athy the D'ark Mistr'ess"

etc.

[DungeonmasterCal]

DrDeth wrote:

I hate fantasy names with gratuitous apostrophes.

"B'ob". "C'athy the D'ark Mistr'ess"

etc.

Agreed.

[PathlessBeth]

DrDeth wrote:

I hate fantasy names with gratuitous apostrophes.

"B'ob". "C'athy the D'ark Mistr'ess"

etc.

Dr'deth, you are shunned by me, 1377be'n.

[Farrukh Al'Khatel]

I resemble that remark.

Though to be fair, it's Greyhawk's version of an Arabic-ish culture.

[The Alkenstarian]

Zhangar wrote:

The Alkenstarian wrote:

I think we all get used to creating characters in a certain way after a while, and stick to it. But one thing I do see an awful lot of with your method, is dithering. A player comes up with what they think is an amazing character concept, based on mechanics and class features with bells and whistles on. Two days later, after declaring that THIS is the character that player is going to make, and everyone else in the group starts preparing for playing with such a character, the same player comes back with a NEW character with bells and whistles on, that he or she wants to play because wow, awesome. And two days after that, it's a NEW character ... and ... so ... on.

Oh yeah, I've totally seen that too. I believe I've avoided doing that myself, but I can think of folks in my group that didn't figure out what they were actually playing until the day the campaign was starting.

Which can be really annoying when you're the GM and trying to integrate them into the plot.

Thank you! Precisely! Being a GM and trying to prepare for something like that is ... argh ... plus argh ... with a side of argh and argh for desert! A lot of your plans go straight into the dumpster.

The end result is that I've stopped making plans for characters by people I know who does this, until the game is 3 to 5 sessions deep, and the character is integrated into the group.

[Neongelion]

Heine Stick wrote:

I'm not a fan of Numeria. I think it's great for its many fans that the nation exists, but I'm seriously contemplating removing Numeria in Heinelarion.

I don't fudge dice rolls. At all.

I like the fighter.

I play the Pathfinder RPG by the book. Seriously, my house rule document is half a page long, and not a single change has been made to the game. I like it that much.

Like The Alkenstarian, I really really really REALLY dislike musicals. I cannot stand that form of entertainment.

I've made this point in another thread, but I've always been curious why some folks do this. IE "remove" parts of Golarion they don't like. Would it not be simpler to just tell your players that they can't go there and there's gonna be no interaction with it or anything that comes out of it and leave it at that?

I know this is nitpicky since there's no real difference between removing Numeria and barring players from interacting with its themes, because the end result is the same. I just found it a bit strange, like people who says Alkenstar doesn't exist in their game to justify banning guns. Just say no guns are allowed, and never have an NPC show up with one. Badda boom.

Sorry if I come across as nosy. Which I know I'm being :<

[DM Under The Bridge]

I remove parts of Golarion I don't like.

[thejeff]

Neongelion wrote:

Heine Stick wrote:

I'm not a fan of Numeria. I think it's great for its many fans that the nation exists, but I'm seriously contemplating removing Numeria in Heinelarion.

I don't fudge dice rolls. At all.

I like the fighter.

I play the Pathfinder RPG by the book. Seriously, my house rule document is half a page long, and not a single change has been made to the game. I like it that much.

Like The Alkenstarian, I really really really REALLY dislike musicals. I cannot stand that form of entertainment.

I've made this point in another thread, but I've always been curious why some folks do this. IE "remove" parts of Golarion they don't like. Would it not be simpler to just tell your players that they can't go there and there's gonna be no interaction with it or anything that comes out of it and leave it at that?

I know this is nitpicky since there's no real difference between removing Numeria and barring players from interacting with its themes, because the end result is the same. I just found it a bit strange, like people who says Alkenstar doesn't exist in their game to justify banning guns. Just say no guns are allowed, and never have an NPC show up with one. Badda boom.

Sorry if I come across as nosy. Which I know I'm being :<

Well, if part of your problem with Alkenstar and guns is that it weakens your suspension of disbelief that guns remain limited to Alkenstar and don't spread rapidly like military secrets always do, then it makes more sense just to remove it/

[Shifty]

Farrukh Al'Khatel wrote:

Though to be fair, it's Greyhawk's version of an Arabic-ish culture.

Would that be 'cultural appropriation'?

[Snowblind]

thejeff wrote:

Neongelion wrote:

Heine Stick wrote:

I'm not a fan of Numeria. I think it's great for its many fans that the nation exists, but I'm seriously contemplating removing Numeria in Heinelarion.

I don't fudge dice rolls. At all.

I like the fighter.

I play the Pathfinder RPG by the book. Seriously, my house rule document is half a page long, and not a single change has been made to the game. I like it that much.

Like The Alkenstarian, I really really really REALLY dislike musicals. I cannot stand that form of entertainment.

I've made this point in another thread, but I've always been curious why some folks do this. IE "remove" parts of Golarion they don't like. Would it not be simpler to just tell your players that they can't go there and there's gonna be no interaction with it or anything that comes out of it and leave it at that?

I know this is nitpicky since there's no real difference between removing Numeria and barring players from interacting with its themes, because the end result is the same. I just found it a bit strange, like people who says Alkenstar doesn't exist in their game to justify banning guns. Just say no guns are allowed, and never have an NPC show up with one. Badda boom.

Sorry if I come across as nosy. Which I know I'm being :<

Well, if part of your problem with Alkenstar and guns is that it weakens your suspension of disbelief that guns remain limited to Alkenstar and don't spread rapidly like military secrets always do, then it makes more sense just to remove it/

I don't find it necessary to suspend disbelief in order to accept that guns haven't spread rapidly from Alkenstar and become dominant weapons of warfare.

Mostly because PF's gun rules make them hideously expensive and god-awful for anyone who doesn't have a PC class or has spent multiple feats making them tolerable. They also have terrible range compared to bows (and outside of about 40 feet have no advantages over a crossbow to NPCs), making them inferior to medieval tech. Guns everwhere makes them a bit less bad, but even then only rifles are really worth using, and those are 500gp each, plus ammo. You can get 2.5 composite(+1) longbows for that much, which deal as much damage but don't jam after about 20 shots and work with rapid shot.

[Jaelithe]

DungeonmasterCal wrote:

I never liked that Clerics can access EVERY spell, even just using Core material. Add in the subsequent releases and it just becomes silly that they would even know to pray for most of them. I believe they should have a prayer book with their spells contained therein.

I have never allowed a divine caster free and full access to the spell list. He or she may pray for spells (with a progressively smaller chance of receiving them, from near-certain to highly unlikely) he or she has employed him or herself, seen used, heard of before, or wishes to add as one the gods grant. Now I'm not one for having players constantly or even regularly role-play such entreaties (other than, "I pray for my spells"), but they're certainly welcome to do so on occasion if it's an appropriate dramatic moment and their inner thespian moves them ... but, in general, a cleric, paladin, warpriest, druid, oracle, inquisitor et al. prays (submits a list of requested spells) and the gods (that's right, the DM) grant those with which they wish to currently endow him/her. It's in my opinion an entirely reasonable control—and damn skippy it's about control—to impose on a home-brew campaign, permitting the DM to allow only the magic he or she wishes in his or her game.

Of course, arcane magic users have their own limitations: They are not simply allowed to cherry-pick their pet spells from the various sources—something that's always irritated me about the modern game, and which I disallow with complete and unapologetic prejudice. Instead, wizard types start with a spell book that contains a number of them (discussed beforehand with the player). (Sorcerers and their ilk begin with an internal template they gradually unlock as they advance in levels, and which the player and I discuss so as to guide their preferences.) In my opinion, arcane magic should be a precious commodity received as a gift, bartered for, bought, created, stolen, extrapolated from something they've seen, found and/or intuited in extremis ... and I want it happening in game, because it's vastly more interesting than the more modern 'flip open a book and say, "Me likee dis one!"' system. Boring. Facile.

NO.

(Note that I would likely not attempt to employ this system while running for a prepackaged reality, where the assumptions are much different—at least not without significant modifications. It would cause, I imagine, more problems than it solves.)

[Slamy Mcbiteo]

Killing the Bard does impress me.

[DM Under The Bridge]

Snowblind wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Neongelion wrote:

Heine Stick wrote:

I'm not a fan of Numeria. I think it's great for its many fans that the nation exists, but I'm seriously contemplating removing Numeria in Heinelarion.

I don't fudge dice rolls. At all.

I like the fighter.

I play the Pathfinder RPG by the book. Seriously, my house rule document is half a page long, and not a single change has been made to the game. I like it that much.

Like The Alkenstarian, I really really really REALLY dislike musicals. I cannot stand that form of entertainment.

I've made this point in another thread, but I've always been curious why some folks do this. IE "remove" parts of Golarion they don't like. Would it not be simpler to just tell your players that they can't go there and there's gonna be no interaction with it or anything that comes out of it and leave it at that?

I know this is nitpicky since there's no real difference between removing Numeria and barring players from interacting with its themes, because the end result is the same. I just found it a bit strange, like people who says Alkenstar doesn't exist in their game to justify banning guns. Just say no guns are allowed, and never have an NPC show up with one. Badda boom.

Sorry if I come across as nosy. Which I know I'm being :<

Well, if part of your problem with Alkenstar and guns is that it weakens your suspension of disbelief that guns remain limited to Alkenstar and don't spread rapidly like military secrets always do, then it makes more sense just to remove it/

I don't find it necessary to suspend disbelief in order to accept that guns haven't spread rapidly from Alkenstar and become dominant weapons of warfare.

Mostly because PF's gun rules make them hideously expensive and god-awful for anyone who doesn't have a PC class or has spent multiple feats making them tolerable. They also have terrible range compared to bows (and outside of about 40 feet have no advantages over a crossbow to NPCs), making them inferior...

A DM I know had the idea of carefully limiting the cleric spell lists by faith. Massive undertaking, he didn't get through it, but it made a lot of sense and would have make the spells of different faiths really specific.

[Dazylar]

I like creating characters that are thematic and have backstory, and then assign abilities which fit that theme and story rather than "the best synergy/optimisation".

I then start to play them and spend the rest of their career trying to make them as powerful as possible because insecurity.

My GMs must think I'm schizophrenic.

Made worse because I detest all the min/max debate and the stupid tier arguments.

[Terquem]

DungeonmasterCal wrote:

I never liked that Clerics can access EVERY spell, even just using Core material. Add in the subsequent releases and it just becomes silly that they would even know to pray for most of them. I believe they should have a prayer book with their spells contained therein.

In my Hamth setting, clerics must have a prayer book (one for levels 1 thru 3, one for levels 4 thru 7, and one each for levels 8 and nine)but they don't contain spells. The books contain information non how to ask the Deity to help you know the right spell you need, depending on your requests. I use first edition rules to then have the spells granted to the cleric and often there is a chance the cleric doesn't get the spells they prayed for.

[Orthos]

Terquem wrote:

often there is a chance the cleric doesn't get the spells they prayed for.

This would piss me off to no end, I'll admit that straight out, and probably kill any interest I had in playing under a GM who did so.

[Voadam]

DungeonmasterCal wrote:

I never liked that Clerics can access EVERY spell, even just using Core material. Add in the subsequent releases and it just becomes silly that they would even know to pray for most of them. I believe they should have a prayer book with their spells contained therein.

An alterative I have used: Spontaneous Divine Casters. This way you get themed NPC clerics and druids like a diviner, a healer, a battle champion, a summoner, etc. PCs can still have ultimate spell list flexibility through scrolls but reduced access to that flexibility and DMs only have to really know a handful of known spells to be on top of most of a PC's capabilities.

[Dazylar]

I think other forumites post too much.

And that they also post too much.

Those are two different things.

[Doki-Chan]

Wall of text crits you for 9999+ damage...

I like Prunes

[DM Under The Bridge]

Orthos wrote:

Terquem wrote:

often there is a chance the cleric doesn't get the spells they prayed for.

This would piss me off to no end, I'll admit that straight out, and probably kill any interest I had in playing under a GM who did so.

What a rich opportunity for roleplaying!

"Hey celestial, I didn't get the spells I asked for today."
"Urgh, gross is the entitlement of clerics this millennium. Look if ye hath a problem take it up with the boss."
"I will!"
*Celestial teleports him to the relevant holy plane, and the complaints department*
*Cleric eventually learns the spells he wanted went to a very deserving cleric and were needed immediately for a truly just cause. They really helped and the cleric meets the other cleric that got "his" spells who thanks him and welcomes him as a brother in arms. What is learned furthermore is that spells are not unlimited, even for a deity and hard choices have to be made about where they go. The cleric learns valuable life lessons and further information on how his faith, the powers that be and spellcasting works in the setting*

[Kalindlara]

Meanwhile, the lich he was on a quest to stop conquers the land. ^_^

[Dazylar]

Doki-Chan wrote:

Wall of text crits you for 9999+ damage...

I like Prunes

Ow!

Please stop posting. Especially replies. No, my reply is required, I am not being hypocritical.

[Orthos]

DM Under The Bridge wrote:

What a rich opportunity for roleplaying!

One person's "rich opportunity" is another's "impending headache and frustration".

DM Under The Bridge wrote:

*Cleric eventually learns the spells he wanted went to a very deserving cleric and were needed immediately for a truly just cause.

What is learned furthermore is that spells are not unlimited, even for a deity and hard choices have to be made about where they go.

This implies that divine magic is somehow limited and only certain amounts of certain spells can be given out. Not what I'm interested in, in any way, shape, or form. I don't like the idea of my deities being limited in power like that. Not in my world, no thank you.

Frankly though I'm against any attempt by a GM to limit the spells their players have access to unless the spell is considered to be too powerful or otherwise problematic. I always cringe a bit when I see posts about things like that. Especially with things like sorcerers' spells known - I don't like the idea of the GM saying "this is the spell you learn at this level, I decide how your magic develops not you". No thank you sir/ma'am.

[Terquem]

I have recently been made aware that I am addicted to talking to strangers on the internet

[knightnday]

I don't allow players to cherry pick through books for spells when I GM.

Prestige classes require in game relationships and development to find and gain. You cannot just "Ding!" get it whenever you want, whatever you want.

[kyrt-ryder]

Prestige classes and other multiclassing requires absolutely nothing except mechanically built in requirements in my games.

When you level, you just "Ding!" and your powers/abilities/whatever advances accordingly, not because of someone else, but because of the progress your own character has made in his own development as an adventurer.

Now, story-wise that development may have had guidance/influence by other people, but it's an absolute non-necessity. I want my players to develop their own stories according to their own objectives, not straight-jacket them.

[Quiche Lisp]

Neongelion wrote:

I've made this point in another thread, but I've always been curious why some folks do this. IE "remove" parts of Golarion they don't like. Would it not be simpler to just tell your players that they can't go there and there's gonna be no interaction with it or anything that comes out of it and leave it at that?

I know this is nitpicky since there's no real difference between removing Numeria and barring players from interacting with its themes, because the end result is the same. I just found it a bit strange, like people who says Alkenstar doesn't exist in their game to justify banning guns. Just say no guns are allowed, and never have an NPC show up with one. Badda boom.

Sorry if I come across as nosy. Which I know I'm being :<

I like removing parts I don't like from the setting, and I like removing them with prejudice.

Like the time I declared to my players that that ridiculous place with Kalistrade penguins has been swept away by an horrendous plague most certainly sent by a devious god (or demon-god) who couldn't stand these horribly dull and duller boring little merchants people who inhabited it.

This was written partly tongue in cheek, but there's no denying sometimes I like playing the petty genocidal uber-deity and indulging my little prejudices in my personal campaign.

So: shun me !

[Quiche Lisp]

I dislike cowardly players who are so afraid for their character's life that they end up causing my character's death.

At times like these I must picture a pretty flower in my mind's eye and tell myself it's only a game so as not to find evil in-game ways to hideously murder the character of said player.

[Quiche Lisp]

Sometimes I like to let my murder-hobo loose with the ridiculous excuse that I'm a force for good in the campaign world.

Bwahahahaha !

[Man, it felt good sooo good to write that -:>]

[I'm Hiding In Your Closet]

I never saw The Avengers (or the recent sequel). If Spider-Man had been in it, I would have been sufficiently motivated (yes, I'm aware he was never an Avenger).

[The Minis Maniac]

I HATE card games. Hate them all and have developed a phobia of any TCG.

[I'm Hiding In Your Closet]

...Even Arcomage? :(

[Quiche Lisp]

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

I never saw The Avengers (or the recent sequel). If Spider-Man had been in it, I would have been sufficiently motivated (yes, I'm aware he was never an Avenger).

But he is ! An Avenger, I mean... in the comics books... you know, the real thing !

I am so shunning you right now (and get out of that closet: it's mine !)

[Jaelithe]

Orthos wrote:

This implies that divine magic is somehow limited and only certain amounts of certain spells can be given out. Not what I'm interested in, in any way, shape, or form. I don't like the idea of my deities being limited in power like that. Not in my world, no thank you.

It doesn't necessarily imply anything of the sort. It does, instead, imply that a deity's motivations and interests are not limited to "make certain each of my priests is perfectly content with his or her lot and spell list 24/7." Players want their gods' powers unlimited, but to also have the gods in their back pocket (for all intents and purposes), anyway—an entertaining juxtaposition.

The divine caster character is a servant of the gods ... and the gods (that make sense to me) are interested far less in making sure you're a bad-ass in your own eyes, and far more in both teaching you and the disposition of your soul, in all likelihood according to the rules of some cosmic game (that quite conveniently plays out in precisely the manner the DM wants—as it should be ... subject of course to fun being had by all). Characters don't make demands and require things be a certain way from their gods. Instead they obey—contentedly or grudgingly ... but they obey, nevertheless, if they actually have faith rather than simply shopping around for the deity who gives them the best deal.

Meanwhile, any player who thinks his spell list sucks should address it with the DM. No doubt changes for the better can be made. But this idea that because a spell is listed in a rule book it must both exist and be accessible in a particular campaign is so enormously presumptuous and asinine it makes me laugh out loud whenever I read it. (And I don't give a flying f**k at a rolling doughnut if that's how Pathfinder does it for Golarion [though that's perfectly cool for their needs and those who enjoy it]. It doesn't sway me one nanometer for one nanosecond.) I tend to lose interest in such a setting rapidly, if not immediately, as a player. Just seems chaotic and counter-intuitive to me. (Then, again, I despise Golarion as a kitchen-sink campaign trying to be everything to everyone and thus failing, so there it is.)

Quote:

Frankly though I'm against any attempt by a GM to limit the spells their players have access to unless the spell is considered to be too powerful or otherwise problematic. I always cringe a bit when I see posts about things like that. Especially with things like sorcerers' spells known - I don't like the idea of the GM saying "this is the spell you learn at this level, I decide how your magic develops not you". No thank you sir/ma'am.

You'd be right to balk at that. It would be unreasonable. It should be done via discussion between player and DM, the better to have the character evolve both according to the player's vision and within the parameters the DM requires. DM should not be inflexible. Player should not be unreasonable.

Wait, what am I saying?

As always, your mileage may vary.

[DrDeth]

The Minis Maniac wrote:

I HATE card games. Hate them all and have developed a phobia of any TCG.

Unless the game is caller "poker" and is played for this stuff called "money" I agree totally. ;-)

Especially if it's a "trading card game" which are cash cows.

[DrDeth]

Quiche Lisp wrote:

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

I never saw The Avengers (or the recent sequel). If Spider-Man had been in it, I would have been sufficiently motivated (yes, I'm aware he was never an Avenger).

But he is ! An Avenger, I mean... in the comics books... you know, the real thing !

It's Marvel dude. Somewhere in some alternate universe, everyone is a Avenger. (and has changed gender)

[Jaelithe]

Orthos wrote:

Terquem wrote:

often there is a chance the cleric doesn't get the spells they prayed for.

This would piss me off to no end, I'll admit that straight out, and probably kill any interest I had in playing under a GM who did so.

And, see, I don't think it should ever have been allowed in the first place years ago. It was a development that led to (certain self-entitled) players thinking they deserved specific spells, particular items at scheduled levels, and advancement at pinball rate: The princess complex writ large on role-playing games.

Some might be amazed at how, when not given everything (especially at first), how much more satisfying it is when actually achieved, rather than just received ... or worse, selected like at a candy store.

[Jaelithe]

DrDeth wrote:

The Minis Maniac wrote:

I HATE card games. Hate them all and have developed a phobia of any TCG.

Unless the game is caller "poker" and is played for this stuff called "money" I agree totally. ;-)

If you're ever in central PA, stop by one of our regular games.

I could use the cash. :D

[I'm Hiding In Your Closet]

Quiche Lisp wrote:

But he is ! An Avenger, I mean... in the comics books... you know, the real thing !

Is he? Great - I'd heard somewhere that he wasn't. He certainly wasn't in the frigging movies....

[Zhangar]

I'm just floored at the level of micromanagement required to make your players come up with a list of eventually dozens of spells that all have to be individually approved (and get unilaterally changed when they're not approved) possibly multiple times in a session.

Running into a GM that really did that would raise the "bail out while I still can" flag.

(Now, spelling out ahead of time "these are the restrictions on what spells you can take" is a whole 'nother ball game - that's restricting what can be done, but still giving the player some flexibility in how their cleric rolls. I.e., the main point in playing a prepared caster is that flexibility. Restricting that is fine, but a spell by spell override after the spells are picked? Ho-lee crap.)

Edit: Hell, if for some reason I stayed in that game, I'd probably get in the habit of just handing the GM a blank sheet of spell slots and ask the GM to fill it in, since the GM is going to dictate my prepared spells to me anyways.)

[Jaelithe]

Zhangar wrote:

I'm just floored...

I'd be floored, too. I'm talking about a "these are the restrictions" kind of situation, with an option to occasionally tweak a cleric's spell list and add a spell or two that "the gods" think might prove beneficial that day, while removing one or two they know will be useless. They're the gods, after all.

In addition, there are certain spells that few characters receive, unless they are particularly blessed/cursed of the gods. Of course, that tends to be player characters and bad-ass NPCs, so such restrictions usually don't affect them.

There's no need for the kind of micro-management about which you're speaking. If a spell's been approved before, it's pretty much on the table forevermore, barring extraordinary circumstances. Leveling requires a look at someone's spells, of course ... but it can be done at the player's and DM's leisure. Players tend to have "go-to" spells, anyway, so the idea that going over a list requires hours or even long minutes is specious, in my experience. Takes me and my players an average of, say, thirty seconds to do this, so ... take that for what it's worth.

One person's "micro-management," of course, is another's "detail-oriented."

[Zhangar]

I think I'm responding more to Terquem, where he really does micromanage his cleric's spell selections after they're picked.

The arbitrary spell restrictions can certainly be done (2E even went that route - divine spells were subdivided into over a dozen "spheres," with specific deities granting degrees of access to the various spheres. Specialty clerics were interesting.)

And yes, I'd imagine going over a spell list to be very quick if huge swaths of spells are just outright banned. =P

(Edit: Or if your players are trained to only select certain spells. =P)

(The cleric would probably be much, much better off as an oracle in that game, as he's been denied the main advantage a cleric gets over an oracle =P)

[Orthos]

Jaelithe wrote:

Orthos wrote:

Terquem wrote:

often there is a chance the cleric doesn't get the spells they prayed for.

This would piss me off to no end, I'll admit that straight out, and probably kill any interest I had in playing under a GM who did so.

And, see, I don't think it should ever have been allowed in the first place years ago. It was a development that led to (certain self-entitled) players thinking they deserved specific spells, particular items at scheduled levels, and advancement at pinball rate: The princess complex writ large on role-playing games.

Some might be amazed at how, when not given everything (especially at first), how much more satisfying it is when actually achieved, rather than just received ... or worse, selected like at a candy store.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Otherwhere]

I'm with Jaelithe on this. Clerics serve a deity, not the other way around. Paladins aren't the only ones who have to toe the line in order to gain their class benefits.

But I'm also in the "earn it, don't expect it" camp.

[Orthos]

The fun of playing spellcasters, at least on the mechanical side, lies almost completely in their spell selection. Losing that freedom of choice of what kind of spells I can select, getting to play with some of the more obscure, or unfamiliar, or new spells that strike my attention, or old favorites that I know work well and are reliable standbys, greatly reduces the enjoyment I get out of playing them.

Going through the books looking for cool new spells that strike my attention is one of the biggest fun parts of playing a spellcaster. A system that restricts the ability to do that restricts my ability to have fun with the class, and regardless of whether it's "to encourage roleplaying more" (IMO a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, at least in my groups), anything that reduces fun is usually a bad idea.

[Orthos]

On that note... a new confession for me.

The vast majority of things I see on this forum seem like solutions to nonexistent problems or problems that are not near as big as the poster makes them out to be.

[Jaelithe]

Orthos wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

Orthos wrote:

Terquem wrote:

often there is a chance the cleric doesn't get the spells they prayed for.

This would piss me off to no end, I'll admit that straight out, and probably kill any interest I had in playing under a GM who did so.

And, see, I don't think it should ever have been allowed in the first place years ago. It was a development that led to (certain self-entitled) players thinking they deserved specific spells, particular items at scheduled levels, and advancement at pinball rate: The princess complex writ large on role-playing games.

Some might be amazed at how, when not given everything (especially at first), how much more satisfying it is when actually achieved, rather than just received ... or worse, selected like at a candy store.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

If you've tried it and didn't like it, so be it. If you haven't tried, and are unwilling to do so because the very idea offends your sensibilities, well ... you're within your rights, but speaking out of ignorance.