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

[Zhangar]

The PRD wrote:

Ex-Clerics

A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description).

Clerics already do have to toe the line to get their class benefits. It is, in fact, written right into the class.

Micromanaging the cleric's spell selection is going above and beyond, though.

Again, I'd view that as a huge warning sign to avoid that GM's game.

[Jaelithe]

Orthos wrote:

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.

So would you be OK with a spell list you're given by the DM, from which you're entirely free to select? It would disallow spells he or she doesn't have in his/her game or to which your character doesn't (yet) have access, include new ones not available outside the campaign, and even on occasion include spells newly available.

Or is the very knowledge that someone invented a spell, one that doesn't exist in this particular game, and you're thus not allowed to have it just too much of a buzz-kill? Because, to me, that's being unreasonable.

[Terquem]

I was only saying that in one of my campaign settings (my oldest one) I still use rules for cleric spells as they were suggested in the Dungeon Master's Guide of 1979 - I don't run any regular "serious" games in this setting (The Strangler of the Shadowmoor is set on Hamth, but it is sort of "off the grid" in a lot of ways mainly because it is a PbP game here)

And in this setting, the very first person to play a cleric helped establish the Pantheon, was okay with those rules, and couldn't cast any spells until the character was second level anyway - so it really isn't relevant to today's games at all

[Kryzbyn]

Fighter: I draw my longsword and charg-
GM: You mean your dagger.
Fighter: What? I have a longsword.
GM: Nope, today it's a dagger.
Fighter: But all of my feats are for the long-
GM: SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT!!!!

[TOZ]

Jaelithe wrote:

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.

There are some things you don't have to experience to know you would not enjoy them. This is certainly one of them.

[Terquem]

No, I agree with most of you, Player's should be allowed to choose the spells they can cast

Player: I memorized six shadow evocations today
DM: The setting is in bright daylight in a public square, and all the monsters are immune to Shadow Magic
Player: MICROMANAGING RESTRICTOR!

So, hyberbole aside, having the ability to select "Any" spell might feel good, but if your selection is made for "cool" or "Awesome" factor and doesn't take into consideration the game's theme, environment, and possible challenges, then what's the point?

[kyrt-ryder]

If you're going to give an example that might be a bit too much hyperbole to be taken seriously Kryzbyn :P

Something about stripping the magic away from the Fighter's weapons [or randomizing which magical effects it has] based on the GM's whim that day might be a better match.

[Orthos]

Jaelithe wrote:

Orthos wrote:

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.

So would you be OK with a spell list you're given by the DM, from which you're entirely free to select? It would disallow spells he or she doesn't have in his/her game or to which your character doesn't (yet) have access, include new ones not available outside the campaign, and even on occasion include spells newly available.

Or is the very knowledge that someone invented a spell, one that doesn't exist in this particular game, and you're thus not allowed to have it just too much of a buzz-kill? Because, to me, that's being unreasonable.

You're free to consider it that. I simply don't care for the idea that I might want to take an option, and for a reason that doesn't involve it being an unbalanced or mechanically unfair option having the option removed.

I don't restrict my players' abilities to choose freely from the options - hells, more often than not I'm trying to encourage them to use stuff more, pointing out 3rd-party options and suggestions and encouraging my players to go through d20PFSRD for more obscure options rather than just sticking to the same three or four selections every time.

My project this autumn is to go through 3.5's Spell Compendium and add every spell in the book to Pathfinder class lists such as Alchemist, Inquisitor, Witch, etc.

TOZ wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

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.

There are some things you don't have to experience to know you would not enjoy them. This is certainly one of them.

I think our mindsets on the subject are simply too opposed. I'm the kind of player and GM that is constantly trying to bring more and more options, more and more resources, more and more new things into my games. GMs who go for the other approach, super-specifying their games down to a select group of options - usually under the umbrella of "limiting options to support a theme" - are generally running games I don't have much interest in.

[Terquem]

You know, I really can't tell you how many players refused to play D&D with me from 1976 to 1982 because I preferred 1st edition, and had a few house rules of my own.

[Kryzbyn]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

If you're going to give an example that might be a bit too much hyperbole to be taken seriously Kryzbyn :P

It's a tool in the character's belt that's changed arbitrarily, whether weapon or spell.

I don't see the difference.

[Terquem]

I also have a very small set of options I allow my players to choose from, one of those options is

"Use you imagination"

Which, as a rule, has become more and more difficult to explain these days.

[Jaelithe]

Zhangar wrote:

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

Ah. For some reason, I thought it was directly aimed at me.

Very good, then.

Quote:

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.)

There's nothing arbitrary about it. If anything, it's precisely the opposite. On the other hand, allowing any and all spells to be used is in my opinion asininely permissive (in certain games ... in others it's perfectly fine).

Nice but failed try slipping the word "arbitrary" in, though. :P

Quote:

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

What fun if "huge swaths of spells" are disallowed? That would just suck. I don't play much anymore, but ... I could look at the 1st level

Pathfinder Core Rules cleric spell list and see how many I'd disallow, if such would interest you, simply as a thought experiment.

Quote:

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

I always thought my players trained me, not vice versa. ;)

Quote:

(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)

An advantage the cleric never should have had in the first place. :P

Restrictions according to a divine caster's deity's inclinations, alignment, attitude, whether the cleric is in perfect, good, fair, poor or "we're returning your deposit" standing with his deity is vastly more interesting than "Oh, take whatever you want. Who gives a sh!t?"

[Terquem]

Arbitrary? So if the game is being played with a rule that states "When you pray for spell levels above 3rd, there is a chance you do not get the spell you asked for," is arbitrary in the same way as telling a fighter his weapon changed without an explanation?

Now, if the game began with a rule that stated, "It is a conflicting and ever changing realm of wild magic, where physical reality can alter on a whim, and some days you will reach for a sword and find you are holding a dagger." And you agree to play in that setting, then..., wait, why do I care about this again?

Different strokes for different folks

[Jaelithe]

TOZ wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

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.

There are some things you don't have to experience to know you would not enjoy them. This is certainly one of them.

Indeed. Perhaps knowing you cannot have whatever you want, whenever you want, without restriction, isn't enjoyable.

To me, that qualifies under TFB.

[Matrix Dragon]

My confession: I outright refuse to play "Core Only" pathfinder, or any other version of it that signifigantly restricts my ability to customize my character. I am fine with a GM asking me to tone down a character's power or when he restricts a few things for setting reasons, but if he starts doing blanket bans of entire books just for the sake of it then I'm not interested in the campaign, lol.

I would also be extremely happy to continue to see paizo add more and more books to pathfinder for as long as my house can contain the books. The more options the better!

[Orthos]

Jaelithe wrote:

On the other hand, allowing any and all spells to be used is in my opinion asininely permissive.

A badge I'll wear with pride. This is what I've done since I started GMing and will continue to do until I put the game away forever.

[Jaelithe]

Matrix Dragon wrote:

My confession: I outright refuse to play "Core Only" pathfinder, or any other version of it that signifigantly restricts my ability to customize my character. I am fine with a GM asking me to tone down a character's power or when he restricts a few things for setting reasons, but if he starts doing blanket bans of entire books just for the sake of it then I'm not interested in the campaign, lol.

I would also be extremely happy to continue to see paizo add more and more books to pathfinder for as long as my house can contain the books. The more options the better!

I don't know. To me, if a player wants to do something, and he or she is going to buy a book, I can at least read over the stuff in the PRD and try to accommodate him.

That only seems reasonable to me.

[Jaelithe]

Orthos wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

On the other hand, allowing any and all spells to be used is in my opinion asininely permissive.

A badge I'll wear with pride. This is what I've done since I started GMing and will continue to do until I put the game away forever.

And, wonder of wonders, I won't be by to shut you down. ;)

And I should qualify "asininely permissive" to "asininely permissive in certain games."

In yours, it may be perfect.

[DrDeth]

Jaelithe wrote:

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

Cracks fingers.

Sure. Hehhehheh.

Algren's "three rules of life": "Never play cards with a man called Doc. Never eat at a place called Mom's. Never sleep with a woman whose troubles are worse than your own."

[TriOmegaZero]

Jaelithe wrote:

To me, that qualifies under TFB.

I don't understand that statement.

Also, it is not about not having whatever I want, it's about having too much minutia in my gaming.

[Orthos]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

To me, that qualifies under TFB.

I don't understand that statement.

TFB = Too F&*@!#ing Bad

[Jaelithe]

Orthos wrote:

I simply don't care for the idea that I might want to take an option, and for a reason that doesn't involve it being an unbalanced or mechanically unfair option having the option removed.

But it's the DM who makes that determination, not the player.

[TOZ]

Orthos wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

To me, that qualifies under TFB.

I don't understand that statement.

TFB = Too F&*@!#ing Bad

So it's too f$$&ing bad that I don't want to spend even more time prepping my clerics spells?

[kyrt-ryder]

Confession: if somebody tells me a legally constructed martial character is overpowered relative to the entirety of the game [rather than the specific party and how it's being played] I let out a belly laugh right then and there and depending on whom I'm speaking with and the nature of our relationship I very frequently ask them what the hell they're smoking.

[Jaelithe]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

To me, that qualifies under TFB.

I don't understand that statement.

Also, it is not about not having whatever I want, it's about having too much minutia in my gaming.

Sorry. I was being pithy and vulgar.

It means "too f**king bad."

I certainly understand the desire to avoid what you consider complications.

[Zhangar]

@ Terquem - well, it IS an enormous hint to not play a divine spell caster in your game =P If someone does it anyway, then yeah, at least they know what they're in for.

@ Jaelithe - ah, is part of the issue that you just don't like prepared spellcasters to begin with?

[DrDeth]

Farrukh Al'Khatel wrote:

I resemble that remark.

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

You get a pass. Not gratuitous.

and- it's Greyhawk, thus it's Rule of Cool.

[DungeonmasterCal]

Geez...and all I said was they should use prayerbooks......

[Orthos]

Jaelithe wrote:

Orthos wrote:

I simply don't care for the idea that I might want to take an option, and for a reason that doesn't involve it being an unbalanced or mechanically unfair option having the option removed.

But it's the DM who makes that determination, not the player.

Yes, and I was speaking from the perspective of a player having that potential option taken away from me.

[Jaelithe]

TOZ wrote:

Orthos wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

To me, that qualifies under TFB.

I don't understand that statement.

TFB = Too F&*@!#ing Bad

So it's too f+$~ing bad that I don't want to spend even more time prepping my cleric's spells?

Why are you assuming it wouldn't take even less time?

[TriOmegaZero]

Jaelithe wrote:

I certainly understand the desire to avoid what you consider complications.

So you're okay with giving me a pared down spell list that you approve of to select from?

Jaelithe wrote:

Why are you assuming it wouldn't take even less time?

Because it sounded like you change what spells I can prepare each time I pray for them. Which will certainly take longer than 'here is my standard load out, I'll let you know if I ever decide to swap something'.

[Jaelithe]

Zhangar wrote:

@ Jaelithe - ah, is part of the issue that you just don't like prepared spellcasters to begin with?

Not at all. Love 'em. Think a cleric whose interactions with his or her deity include stuff like this, as opposed to the "Whatever, here's my teat" school, more interesting.

[Jaelithe]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

So you're okay with giving me a pared down spell list that you approve of to select from?

Absolutely. You'd need some indication of what wasn't allowed and even why. To do otherwise would be tremendously irritating to a player.

Jaelithe wrote:

Because it sounded like you change what spells I can prepare each time I pray for them.

Um ... did you read my posts?

I did mention that if you've used a spell, it's ever after on the table for you unless extraordinary circumstances arise (and, honestly, I don't recall that ever having happened, unless the god[dess] was trying to tell the character something).

I'd take ten seconds and tweak, but that'd be more, "You find yourself with this spell instead of that one." And that wouldn't be some sort of frequent, comprehensive occurrence, but instead a little help from beyond.

[Kryzbyn]

If the rule is stated as "I will have a houserule that will possibly alter the core mechanics of any character, often to your peril" then I suppose a person would have to be a jackass to willingly play if they have a problem with not being able to depend on core mechanics.

Before this turns into a wrongbadfun deal, we'll have to agree to disagree.

My opinion is thus:
Clerics are supposed to be stewards of the gods, chosen because they have the wisdom to choose how to use their deities' bestowed power wisely.
They are not supposed to be divine servants of a magic 8 ball.

[TriOmegaZero]

Then it sounds like your rules wouldn't even come into play with my characters.

[Jaelithe]

Kryzbyn wrote:

If the rule is stated as "I will have a houserule that will possibly alter the core mechanics of any character, often to your peril" then I suppose a person would have to be a jackass to willingly play if they have a problem with not being able to depend on core mechanics.

Yes, because anyone who agrees with me and disagrees with you must be a jackass. Classy.

Quote:

Before this turns into a wrongbadfun deal, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Seems to me that the person calling "agree to disagree" doesn't get to have their say/take their shot and then declare "this conversation is over."

How many times have I already made clear that I have no issue with campaigns that do it differently?

Quote:

My opinion is thus:

Clerics are supposed to be stewards of the gods, chosen because they have the wisdom to choose how to use their deities' bestowed power wisely.
They are not supposed to be divine servants of a magic 8 ball.

Opinion noted and rejected as specious.

No, they're supposed to be wise, but wise enough to know that they don't know everything, and that the gods have reasons for what they do.

The "Magic 8-Ball" crack was a bit obnoxious and wildly off-target, by the way.

Since I have never used this rule to f**k over any of my players, and indeed often employ it to nudge them towards a spell they might need on occasion, I find the bitter opposition over this amusing. It's not only reasonably within a DM's purview, it makes far more sense than what's become the orthodox view.

[Orthos]

I've just neither ever understood nor desired to experience the love some GMs seem to have for reducing options, be it spell selection, feat choices, class availability, or otherwise. I'm too much of a fan of a wide-open, all-options-in game.

Furthermore, those choices are the only mechanical method a PC has of affecting the world. A PC's ability to interact with the game on a mechanical level is limited to their class choices, their feat choices, their spell selection, their equipment, and so forth. Thus, limiting those options limits the PC's ability to affect the world.

[Jaelithe]

DrDeth wrote:

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

Cracks fingers.

Sure. Hehhehheh.

Yep. Whenever you're ready to be renamed DrDeth the Penniless, come on by. ;)

[Captain Olivia Quinn]

I am always making pop-culture references that nobody gets... (in character at least, the players get them, which is why it's bad... lol cause they are said in character)

Let's go to Candy Mountain

[Jaelithe]

Orthos wrote:

I've just neither ever understood nor desired to experience the love some GMs seem to have for reducing options, be it spell selection, feat choices, class availability, or otherwise. I'm too much of a fan of a wide-open, all-options-in game.

Furthermore, those choices are the only mechanical method a PC has of affecting the world. A PC's ability to interact with the game on a mechanical level is limited to their class choices, their feat choices, their spell selection, their equipment, and so forth. Thus, limiting those options limits the PC's ability to affect the world.

Any player affects my games by saying, if unhappy, "Hey, what about this?" I always listen. I don't always agree, but I never stop the conversation until all have had their say.

A PC affects his world with role-play far more than he does mechanics in some games. Mine is one of them.

Frankly, Orthos, were I to DM for you, I'd give the group two options: One, give my method a try, which is only reasonable; two, we'll start a sandbox game from the ground up, and everything's on the table.

I wouldn't just say, "Screw you, man."

[Jaelithe]

And now, something far more important—World Cup Soccer—draws my attention.

[TriOmegaZero]

Jaelithe wrote:

One, give my method a try, which is only reasonable

It's only reasonable if there is some doubt about how fun a person would find it.

[Kryzbyn]

Jaelithe wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

If the rule is stated as "I will have a houserule that will possibly alter the core mechanics of any character, often to your peril" then I suppose a person would have to be a jackass to willingly play if they have a problem with not being able to depend on core mechanics.

Yes, because anyone who agrees with me and disagrees with you must be a jackass. Classy.

There was a qualifying statement there you missed. I bolded it for you.

And thank you for the compliment.

[knightnday]

Confession: People's comment that they will drop a game on a given dime over every perceived slight or table variation boggles my mind. I can count on one hand the number of games I've left in 35 years. Given the comments on the boards, I am shocked that some people manage to game at all.

[TOZ]

Some people are more discerning about their games. :)

[knightnday]

I guess? Or maybe it is easier to be "outraged" on the forums instead of face to face with friends.

[DrDeth]

Jaelithe wrote:

...

Actually Jaelithe your method fits with a early edition, where different level of spells are granted by various level of the Deity. I think it was 1-2 are grant by the Portfolio (which is why in those days Cleric whose Deity had 'died' could still get low level spells), then various levels of servants up until the very highest levels where the Deity answers the prayer directly.

I used to enforce that for the very highest levels but the benefit was that Saint Cuthbert or whoever who also say things like "No, my child, I suggest THIS spell for today's war against the Evil". So yeah, you might not get Gate, but instead something more useful.

But enforcing this for the lower level spells sounds like too much work.

[Kryzbyn]

I'm pretty guarded with my free time.
I won't spend it doing something that frustrates me.

[I'm Hiding In Your Closet]

Orthos wrote:

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.

+1 to this.

[Orthos]

What Kryzbyn said.

That said, being on these forums and seeing all the myriad other playstyles that people apparently enjoy (even if for the life of me I can never understand why) does make me all the more thankful for my own group, who are all very strongly on the same wavelength as to what we want out of the game. I think one of the reasons I'm more comfortable saying "I wouldn't play in a group that does X" is because I know I have my group to stick with where I don't have to worry about those sorts of things becoming a problem.

If I didn't have a play group at all, I either would quit playing entirely if I couldn't find one that shared my mindset, or just deal with a group whose style doesn't quite jive with my own and probably end up bottling up my frustrations save occasional rants to non-group friends about the things I don't like.