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

[Terquem]

I'm the one who brought it up, original, not Jaelith. Jaelith has defended the point I tried to make, rather well actually, and I appreciate that. But I'd like to say that if someone refused to play (and I am talking about a historic situation, not a modern one) that is if someone refused to play in the game I was running in 1977 because I showed them the DMG and what was written then about managing cleric spells, I'd have been okay with that.

On these boards I am running 10 games, playing in another. Most of my games have house rules (all but one, actually) players on these boards have expressed outrage and shock at my insistence on certain house rules, and then either refused to participate, or even at times, dropped out after starting

meh, we're okay, I don't hold grudges, as I said

Different strokes for different folks - it's all good.

[captain yesterday]

I've never seen the following shows:
Battlestar Galactica
Lost
Dancing with the Stars
Heroes
Agents of S.h.i.e.l.d.
Any Star Trek after Next Generation
Survivor
The Bachelor or Bachelorette
Duck Dynasty (okay I wouldn't get shunned for this one, just bragging)
Anything Stargate related after the original movie, which we all know is f+*$ing epic)
Buffy the vampire slayer

[Kalindlara]

captain yesterday wrote:

I've never seen the following shows:

Battlestar Galactica
Lost
Dancing with the Stars
Heroes
Agents of S.h.i.e.l.d.
Any Star Trek after Next Generation
Survivor
The Bachelor or Bachelorette
Duck Dynasty (okay I wouldn't get shunned for this one, just bragging)
Anything Stargate related after the original movie, which we all know is f@%%ing epic)
Buffy the vampire slayer

Same.

Get us a Bestiary entry, because we are monsters. ^_^

[thejeff]

Terquem wrote:

I'm the one who brought it up, original, not Jaelith. Jaelith has defended the point I tried to make, rather well actually, and I appreciate that. But I'd like to say that if someone refused to play (and I am talking about a historic situation, not a modern one) that is if someone refused to play in the game I was running in 1977 because I showed them the DMG and what was written then about managing cleric spells, I'd have been okay with that.

Though unless I missed something, that section was all about having to be true to alignment and the deity's faith in order to get spells, not about having spells restricted regardless of behavior.

[Terquem]

Yeah, well, that was derived from what I said when Cal opened the worms 'r us super store

[Thymus Vulgaris]

Kalindlara wrote:

captain yesterday wrote:

I've never seen the following shows:

Battlestar Galactica
Lost
Dancing with the Stars
Heroes
Agents of S.h.i.e.l.d.
Any Star Trek after Next Generation
Survivor
The Bachelor or Bachelorette
Duck Dynasty (okay I wouldn't get shunned for this one, just bragging)
Anything Stargate related after the original movie, which we all know is f@%%ing epic)
Buffy the vampire slayer

Same.

Get us a Bestiary entry, because we are monsters. ^_^

Me too, and add anything Stargate related before and including the original movie too.

[Terquem]

I have not yet seen a complete episode of Adventure Time...I know, I'll pack up now and be on my way

[Jaelithe]

Orthos wrote:

Wow, yeah, those [Comprehend Languages, Endure Elements, Magic Weapon and Summon Monster I] are spells my players use all the time. While it's only a small segment of the available spells at that level, it's easily four of the most-frequently used.

And in my opinion, they're spells that should not be on the table for 1st level characters, at least not in my campaigns.

Quote:

And amusingly the two you've perma-banned are the two that still retain usefulness at high levels and give players something worthwhile to do with their low-level slots past level 10 or so.

I'm ever so gratified my statements amuse you.

Do you not read what's written in its entirety, rather than simply reflexively reacting to what you incorrectly infer?

I said, "I allow 21 or 22 of the 25 1st-level spells to a 1st level cleric" and "I like low-level characters to have to face off against language problems and the weather. Those two spells make day-to-day existence too facile."

See? Didn't say anything about perma-bans. But it's in my opinion silly and wasteful of excellent play opportunity to want low-level characters to freakin' glide through the game without getting their hands dirty, having to sweat, actually figure things out and occasionally freezing their little cojones/boobies off.

Am I going to give out an approved spell list for divine casters at 1st level that doesn't include Comprehend Languages and Endure Elements? Almost certainly, because it is far less interesting and limits my options for challenging low-level characters in ways they absolutely should, in my opinion, be challenged.

Am I, for the same character at 15th level, or 12th level, or 9th level, or even 6th level, still likely to have Endure Elements off the list? Nope. By then they're elite servants of their god. They've paid their dues. They've proven their faithfulness. Some of life grows smoother for them.

I want low-level characters challenged by the extremes of the mundane.

[kyrt-ryder]

Wouldn't it be a bit better to simply rule that- for whatever reason- scrolls of Comprehend Languages and Endure Elements don't function/can't be made [or just can't be purchased]?

That way if the cleric wants to provide these services he has to blow some of his limited spell slots on them, reducing his overall combat capability for the day.

[Jaelithe]

thejeff wrote:

From your initial post it also sounded much more limiting.

I'm going to have to go back and reread my initial post, to see if you're right, or whether you're merely reading into what I said your own assumptions and preconceptions.

Until I do, I don't concede that at all. But I'll go reread after this post.

Quote:

Now it seems like you're just banning a couple of spells/level completely, maybe with a few more as not appropriate for a given deity? At least from Core.

Not even that. There are low-level spells I consider inappropriate in the context of my game for a low-level character, but have no problem when one who's achieved higher levels chooses to grab that spell.

But, then, I've always been one, when someone's playing a caster, to give them a list of spells from which they can select, and expand it as play progresses. Thus, this stuff rarely if ever comes up.

I also have no problem if someone says, "Hey, what about this spell? It's really effective and I like it." I'm just as likely to say, "OK, knock yourself out" as I am "No effin' way." It's not as if I don't make errors or amend my thinking.

Quote:

Are spells from other sources more limited? That's a common complaint from some GMs - that it doesn't make sense for clerics to get instant access to every new spell that comes out.

I'd customarily take spells from other sources on a case-by-case basis. I'm certainly not a "Core Only" guy, and have in addition many spells unique to my own game. I also LOVE when a player creates a spell. To me, that's a great part of the game.

Quote:

You also limit other spell-casters in similar ways, right?

I do. Arcane casters are expected to barter, be rewarded, buy, create, find, intuit, receive as gifts, scrounge and steal spells, not just open a book, go, "OOOOH!" and point. Play the game and earn your spells.

I get annoyed when what I'm saying makes perfect sense, and is arguably superior to the orthodox way of doing things, and the counter-arguments equate to, "Waaah! I don't like that!" People have every right to play in a game they enjoy. They have no right to accuse me of tyranny because they're whiny and obtuse. (And I'm by no means saying you're doing that, thejeff.)

[captain yesterday]

Terquem wrote:

I have not yet seen a complete episode of Adventure Time...I know, I'll pack up now and be on my way

not only have I not seen Adventure Time, I've also never seen Gravity Falls or Aqua Force Hungerteam or whatever it's called :-)

I also think the Family Guy Star Wars episodes are superior to the original movies, in fact I can't watch the original movies anymore without injecting Family Guy lines "Luke! If that's you raise your right hand! No your right hand!" "It's me you f!**ers!" Classic!

[Zhangar]

@ Jaelithe - your example isn't perfect - Let's say, for instance, the party knows they're fighting a necromancer in a crypt or cemetery, and the cleric wanted animate dead for use as a counter-spell.

(Remember, animate dead isn't a ritual; it's something that can be done mid-battle as a standard action. To hilarious effect.)

Your example's more about the player being belligerently stupid (he picked an anti-undeath goddess but wants undead minions? really? A smart player actually wanting that would've picked a more compatible deity to begin with) than the player being "entitled."

Now, if the PC was following a deity that opposes undead or disease or whatever, requests a dicey spell (like a Sarenrae follower prepping contagion), and then uses the dicey spell in a manner that directly violates the deity's interests (actually spreading plague), then yes, that PC would be in "you need an atonement spell* or to find a more compatible god" territory very quickly.

I'd give the player the classic "are you sure?" warning before he or she did it, but otherwise I don't feel any excessive urge to protect players from obviously bad decisions =P

* Atonement DOES require sincerely regretting the action in question...

Edit: Wait, wizards can't learn spells from captured spellbooks and scrolls in your game? Am I following that right?

[thejeff]

Jaelithe wrote:

I do. Arcane casters are expected to barter, be rewarded, buy, create, find, intuit, receive as gifts, scrounge and steal spells, not just open a book, go, "OOOOH!" and point. Play the game and earn your spells.

I get annoyed when what I'm saying makes perfect sense, and is arguably superior to the orthodox way of doing things, and the counter-arguments equate to, "Waaah! I don't like that!" People have every right to play in a game they enjoy. They have no right to accuse me of tyranny because they're whiny and obtuse. (And I'm by no means saying you're doing that, thejeff.)

Makes perfect sense to you.

And frankly, "I don't like that!" is a perfectly valid counter-argument, when it comes to playing a game.

It's not clear to me what you're saying about arcane casters: The casters aren't opening a book, going "OOOOH!" and pointing - the players may be. And there are various ways for prepared arcane casters to get spells, including " barter, be rewarded, buy, create, find, <snip>, receive as gifts, scrounge and steal spells". I assume those work fairly similarly in most games, though you may limit scroll access more than most. Or do you not allow learning from scrolls? The real change is how you handle the 2 spells gained automatically each level - which by RAW are the result of behind the scenes research and intuition.
Or for spontaneous casters who would seem to really be screwed over by such methods, since they don't get a lot of chances to learn spells and any time they have to settle, they're losing out permanently on something they wanted. But I don't really understand how you handle them. I often like to play sorcerers as very intuitive, with spells just coming to them as they advance -I pick and choose, but the character doesn't. They don't need any knowledge Arcana or Spellcraft to learn their spells. There's no reason they should need to be taught them.

[thejeff]

I'd also say that it's probably partly tied to other aspects of playstyle: If you like sandbox games where much of the action is driven by the characters seeking out ways to better themselves, questing for spells and things make good adventure seeds.

In a more plot driven game, such things tend to distract from the quest that's the focus of the game.

[LordSynos]

Jaelithe wrote:

thejeff wrote:

From your initial post it also sounded much more limiting.

I'm going to have to go back and reread my initial post, to see if you're right, or whether you're merely reading into what I said your own assumptions and preconceptions.

Until I do, I don't concede that at all. But I'll go reread after this post.

Jaelithe wrote:

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.

Bolded the bit I feel is important. It read a lot like "The player submits a spell list, and then I give them back a different spell list, the ones that actually get to use, with no discussion or warning." Which is a lot more limiting than what you seem to be suggesting now, imo.

Jaelithe wrote:

I get annoyed when what I'm saying makes perfect sense, and is arguably superior to the orthodox way of doing things, and the counter-arguments equate to, "Waaah! I don't like that!" People have every right to play in a game they enjoy. They have no right to accuse me of tyranny because they're whiny and obtuse. (And I'm by no means saying you're doing that, thejeff.)

In your opinion and from your perspective, it makes perfect sense. From a different one, it's nonsense. But you're right, there's no such thing as badwrongfun, just a bit of heated discussion. :)

[captain yesterday]

I would like to see Gravity Falls tho, it sounds pretty fun :-)

[LordSynos]

Jaelithe wrote:

Do you not read what's written in its entirety, rather than simply reflexively reacting to what you incorrectly infer?

I said, "I allow 21 or 22 of the 25 1st-level spells to a 1st level cleric" and "I like low-level characters to have to face off against language problems and the weather. Those two spells make day-to-day existence too facile."

See? Didn't say anything about perma-bans. But it's in my opinion silly and wasteful of excellent play opportunity to want low-level characters to freakin' glide through the game without getting their hands dirty, having to sweat, actually figure things out and occasionally freezing their little cojones/boobies off.

Jaelithe wrote:

Comprehend Languages, Endure Elements, Magic Weapon and Summon Monster I

And only the first two would be totally off the board in most cases. I like low-level characters to have to face off against language problems and the weather, at times. Those two spells make day-to-day existence too facile.

Totally off the board does sound a lot like perma-ban. Of course, you've also got "in most cases" in there, which could mean anything from "only for NPC's" to "not until level 15".

Jaelithe wrote:

I want low-level characters challenged by the extremes of the mundane.

And Clerics, who may not have the Con for Fort saves (though probably does, in fairness), and certainly doesn't have the skill points for Linguistics, overcomes those challenges with their spells. Or not, apparently. :P

[Kryzbyn]

So, a quick recap:

I do X* in my games!
<push back>
Well ,actually I do Y**...
<more push back>
You're all being ridiculous and obtuse!
<more push back>
Well ok, I really do Z***
<facepalm>

* something ridiculous as presented.
** something slightly less ridiculous.
*** something reasonable and in now way similar to * as presented.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

We have certain expectations of the game.

One of the things players expect is that the rules for his class are the ones in the book. If the DM does it a different way, he should make it clear.

In the book, the player decides which spells he prepares, not the DM. If the DM said, at character creation, that actually the DM decides what spells are prepared (playing the role of the god in question), that is certainly something a DM can legitimately do in his campaign, but the player should have the option to change his mind about playing a class if the DM house-rules it so that his choices are taken away.

If I was in your campaign and said I want to play a cleric and you said that the god/DM chooses which spells the cleric prepares, then I'd say 'Okay, I'll play something else'. No harm, no foul. If I agreed to play a cleric when I know your house rule, then I can't whine about it later.

If I want to play a cleric but you don't tell me that you house-rule who gets to choose which spells are prepared and just surprise me with that during play, that's a dick move. I'd immediately change my PC into a non-cleric, and if I wasn't allowed then I'd leave the game. It's an alarm bell when DMs do stuff like that, and one dick move is usually followed be several more.

Once bitten, twice shy.

[Jaelithe]

thejeff wrote:

Makes perfect sense to you.

Golly, you think? I've heard nothing here to refute it making perfect sense, other than the "I don't like that!" which we discuss below.

Quote:

And frankly, "I don't like that!" is a perfectly valid counter-argument, when it comes to playing a game.

Which is probably why I followed that statement with, "People have every right to play in a game they enjoy." Why you cut that line I have no idea.

If a player thinks the way I do something is unfair, I'm willing to discuss and even change it if they make their case. If they agree that it's fair, but they just think it sucks, I'm willing to consider an alternative if they offer one. Not sure what more I could do than that.

Quote:

It's not clear to me what you're saying about arcane casters ...

The real change is how you handle the two spells gained automatically each level—which by RAW are the result of behind-the-scenes research and intuition.

They certainly get two spells, but they won't be whichever two the player chooses, regardless of whether that spell's common or not. I find that absurd. I'll ask them to give me a spread of four or five spells, so that I can make certain they're not asking for one that doesn't exist, that's too rare in context, or that isn't appropriate for that character (which is a discussion I'd have with the player). They might also create an entirely new spell, which we'll discuss and institute if we both think it's apropos.

Quote:

I often like to play sorcerers as very intuitive, with spells just coming to them as they advance -I pick and choose, but the character doesn't. They don't need any knowledge Arcana or Spellcraft to learn their spells. There's no reason they should need to be taught them.

That's exactly how it should be done, like they're uncovering something that's already within them—a template gradually revealed. The player would select spells that go with their vision thematically, I'd check them out, and if they're on the approved list, go for it. No need for me to interfere if the player's just doing their thing.

[Orthos]

thejeff wrote:

In a more plot driven game, such things tend to distract from the quest that's the focus of the game.

This.

[Jaelithe]

Kryzbyn wrote:

So, a quick recap:

I do X* in my games!
<push back>
Well ,actually I do Y**...
<more push back>
You're all being ridiculous and obtuse!
<more push back>
Well ok, I really do Z***
<facepalm>

* something ridiculous as presented.
** something slightly less ridiculous.
*** something reasonable and in now way similar to * as presented.

Actually, I've had to clarify what I do. I haven't changed what I do for the purposes of this discussion.

So, to me it's ...

I do this.

[B!tch and moan.]

I clarify.

[B!tch and moan.]

I clarify some more.

[Oh, OK.]

Part of it is me assuming that what I say is clear, and part of it is others assuming the absolute worst.

[Jaelithe]

Orthos wrote:

thejeff wrote:

In a more plot driven game, such things tend to distract from the quest that's the focus of the game.

This.

And since I don't employ APs or modules ...

[Orthos]

Jaelithe wrote:

Orthos wrote:

thejeff wrote:

In a more plot driven game, such things tend to distract from the quest that's the focus of the game.

This.

And since I don't employ APs or modules ...

Which comes back full circle to what was said two pages ago - our playstyles and GMing styles are completely and utterly opposed to each other.

[thejeff]

Jaelithe wrote:

Orthos wrote:

thejeff wrote:

In a more plot driven game, such things tend to distract from the quest that's the focus of the game.

This.

And since I don't employ APs or modules ...

I've played an awful lot of plot driven quest games that don't use APs or modules - or any published material except rules for that matter.

Generally more flexibility than APs, since it's not all prepared ahead of time and can be developed to match what the players do, but there's still a similar scope and overarching threat.

[Jaelithe]

Zhangar wrote:

Wait, wizards can't learn spells from captured spellbooks and scrolls in your game? Am I following that right?

Uh ... I don't think I said or implied that.

If the spell's out there, and the character captures it, well ... then he or she has every right to exploit it.

To do otherwise would be nonsensical, in my opinion.

[Kryzbyn]

I've bought APs or modules before to sort through them for campaign ideas, or to see how other folks work with a specific long-term arc or plotline or theme. I'd use this info to design my own campaigns.
Lately though, I just end up running the AP because of time constraints.

[thejeff]

Jaelithe wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Makes perfect sense to you.

Golly, you think? I've heard nothing here to refute it making perfect sense, other than the "I don't like that!" which we discuss below.

Quote:

And frankly, "I don't like that!" is a perfectly valid counter-argument, when it comes to playing a game.

Which is probably why I followed that statement with, "People have every right to play in a game they enjoy." Why you cut that line I have no idea.

If a player thinks the way I do something is unfair, I'm willing to discuss and even change it if they make their case. If they agree that it's fair, but they just think it sucks, I'm willing to consider an alternative if they offer one. Not sure what more I could do than that.

I didn't cut it actually. Just read most of the responses here as "I wouldn't like that and wouldn't want to play that way" rather than as whining and entitlement or attacks on you as evil for doing so.

I'm not sure fairness is the issue. I'm not even sure what "fair" means in this context. As for an alternative, there's the approach given in the rules, but that's not one you'd accept, I assume. If you're looking for an alternate approach that still leaves you with control over their spells, I doubt that would be acceptable to most who'd object.
Personally, I'd be worried about a new-to-me GM who showed me such house rules because I wouldn't know until I had more experience with him how he'd actually use them. A GM I'd played with for awhile and trusted introducing such rules would get a lot more leeway. With a new one, I'd probably want to play a non-caster until I saw how badly the rules were used to screw casters.

I know you say they won't be, but that's exactly what the bad, controlling GM would say and I don't know you enough to trust you.

Quote:

Quote:

It's not clear to me what you're saying about arcane casters ...

The real change is how you handle the two spells gained automatically each level—which by RAW are the result of behind-the-scenes research and intuition.

They certainly get two spells, but they won't be whichever two the player chooses, regardless of whether that spell's common or not. I find that absurd. I'll ask them to give me a spread of four or five spells, so that I can make certain they're not asking for one that doesn't exist, that's too rare in context, or that isn't appropriate for that character (which is a discussion I'd have with the player). They might also create an entirely new spell, which we'll discuss and institute if we both think it's apropos.

Quote:

I often like to play sorcerers as very intuitive, with spells just coming to them as they advance -I pick and choose, but the character doesn't. They don't need any knowledge Arcana or Spellcraft to learn their spells. There's no reason they should need to be taught them.

That's exactly how it should be done, like they're uncovering something that's already within them—a template gradually revealed. The player would select spells that go with their vision thematically, I'd check them out, and...

Can you just give out the approved list beforehand, so I can plan around it? I'm perfectly okay with banning some spells, at least in theory. Maybe even with not allowing access to some until higher level, though for spontaneous casters, that's closer to a permanent ban.

[Jaelithe]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

We have certain expectations of the game.

I'm posting in the Gamer section. I'm always careful to avoid the Pathfinder sections, where the default stuff holds sway, and rightly so.

Not here, though.

Quote:

One of the things players expect is that the rules for his class are the ones in the book. If the DM does it a different way, he should make it clear.

In the book, the player decides which spells he prepares, not the DM. If the DM said, at character creation, that actually the DM decides what spells are prepared (playing the role of the god in question), that is certainly something a DM can legitimately do in his campaign, but the player should have the option to change his mind about playing a class if the DM house-rules it so that his choices are taken away.

This DM wouldn't say it at character creation. I'd say it in preliminary discussions about the campaign, where it'd be made clear that the player largely controls his or her spell selection, but that the spells are not drawn from the Core Rule book, and instead the Core Rule book judiciously pruned ... and, on occasion, I might tweak a spell or two on the prepared spell list because it's a little help from the gods, or because it's really not a spell the character would use. (That would be amending an error on my part, since I should have caught it before it made the list, like the whole example above.)

Again, this presumption that I'm lying in wait to f**k players over is monumentally irritating.

Quote:

If I was in your campaign and said I want to play a cleric and you said that the god/DM chooses which spells the cleric prepares, then I'd say 'Okay, I'll play something else'. No harm, no foul. If I agreed to play a cleric when I know your house rule, then I can't whine about it later.

And, see, even if you did whine later, saying, "Man, I think this is a little too restrictive" (which it has never proven to be in 35 years), I'd want to make the player happy, and we'd talk about it. I can't stand knowing players are unhappy. That just sucks for everyone.

Quote:

If I want to play a cleric but you don't tell me that you house-rule who gets to choose which spells are prepared and just surprise me with that during play, that's a dick move. I'd immediately change my PC into a non-cleric, and if I wasn't allowed then I'd leave the game. It's an alarm bell when DMs do stuff like that, and one dick move is usually followed be several more.

Once bitten, twice shy.

Honestly, I don't see how any DM would think he or she has the right to do that. It's more than a dick move, from where I sit. It's ... demented.

[thejeff]

Jaelithe wrote:

Zhangar wrote:

Wait, wizards can't learn spells from captured spellbooks and scrolls in your game? Am I following that right?

Uh ... I don't think I said or implied that.

If the spell's out there, and the character captures it, well ... then he or she has every right to exploit it.

To do otherwise would be nonsensical, in my opinion.

But I suspect you don't allow easy purchase of scrolls? Not as easily as the standard guidelines allow anyway.

Capturing them as loot works and has the advantage of being completely under GM control - nothing can be captured that you don't place.

[Jaelithe]

thejeff wrote:

A GM I'd played with for awhile and trusted introducing such rules would get a lot more leeway. With a new one, I'd probably want to play a non-caster until I saw how badly the rules were used to screw casters.

I understand. I play with people who trust me implicitly.

I'm just not used to the "He may be trying to screw me, so's I'm gonna head 'im off at the pass" mentality. I find it insulting.

Quote:

I know you say they won't be, but that's exactly what the bad, controlling GM would say and I don't know you enough to trust you.

See, and I don't want to play with someone I don't already pretty much trust.

Quote:

Can you just give out the approved list beforehand, so I can plan around it? I'm perfectly okay with banning some spells, at least in theory. Maybe even with not allowing access to some until higher level, though for spontaneous casters, that's closer to a permanent ban.

Sure, why not? Of course, I'd reserve the right to "un-ban" certain spells, later. The problem I see with my mentality on this, though, is a player later saying, "But, dude, I would have done this if I knew you were going to un-ban that spell later"—which in my mind would be a valid objection. I guess I'd probably have no problem with a judicious rewrite of the character if such would please the player if I happened to "un-ban" a spell.

[Jaelithe]

thejeff wrote:

But I suspect you don't allow easy purchase of scrolls? Not as easily as the standard guidelines allow anyway.

Your suspicion is spot on.

Quote:

Capturing them as loot works and has the advantage of being completely under GM control - nothing can be captured that you don't place.

Precisely ... but if I want to have an NPC arcane caster use a spell, and later the PCs capture his stuff, I'd better not finagle a way to prevent them from exploiting the loot. To me, that would be a dick move.

[thejeff]

Jaelithe wrote:

thejeff wrote:

But I suspect you don't allow easy purchase of scrolls? Not as easily as the standard guidelines allow anyway.

Your suspicion is spot on.

Quote:

Capturing them as loot works and has the advantage of being completely under GM control - nothing can be captured that you don't place.

Precisely ... but if I want to have an NPC arcane caster use a spell, and later the PCs capture his stuff, I'd better not finagle a way to prevent them from exploiting the loot. To me, that would be a dick move.

That's what sorcerers are for. All the arcane power, no advantage to the party wizard. :)

[Jaelithe]

LordSynos wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

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...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.

Bolded the bit I feel is important. It read a lot like "The player submits a spell list, and then I give them back a different spell list, the ones that actually get to use, with no discussion or warning." Which is a lot more limiting than what you seem to be suggesting now, imo.

I guess that depends on just how much the DM actually does by way of changing the spell list.

As I've said, if a spell's been used before, it's not going to be refused unless circumstances are truly extraordinary. (In practice, that means the player playing the cleric says, "Standard stuff, today," I grunt an acknowledgment and we're done.) Honestly, I think every divine caster should have his or her own customized list of spells permitted, based on the god served, current standing with said god, cleric's inclinations, et al.

Quote:

In your opinion and from your perspective, it makes perfect sense.

I don't come here with anyone else's perspective. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Not all opinions are of equal value or substance.

Quote:

From a different one, it's nonsense.

I'd summarily dismiss anyone who called it "nonsense," because it ain't. I readily accept anyone saying, "Man, I just don't want to do it that way." That's cool. We'll try it or we'll figure something else out.

[thejeff]

Jaelithe wrote:

thejeff wrote:

A GM I'd played with for awhile and trusted introducing such rules would get a lot more leeway. With a new one, I'd probably want to play a non-caster until I saw how badly the rules were used to screw casters.

I understand. I play with people who trust me implicitly.

I'm just not used to the "He may be trying to screw me, so's I'm gonna head 'im off at the pass" mentality. I find it insulting.

Quote:

I know you say they won't be, but that's exactly what the bad, controlling GM would say and I don't know you enough to trust you.

See, and I don't want to play with someone I don't already pretty much trust.

To some degree I agree with you. That would seem to imply no new GMs though? Or new players, since they wouldn't yet have the experience to trust implicitly?

Something like this is a huge red flag though - basically "I'm changing the rules to make it easier to screw with you". A GM playing by the standard rules can still screw with you, but I'm more willing to extend the trust unless she shows signs of abusing it. This is a sign. Not a guarantee, but a sign.

Quote:

Quote:

Can you just give out the approved list beforehand, so I can plan around it? I'm perfectly okay with banning some spells, at least in theory. Maybe even with not allowing access to some until higher level, though for spontaneous casters, that's closer to a permanent ban.

Sure, why not? Of course, I'd reserve the right to "un-ban" certain spells, later. The problem I see with my mentality on this, though, is a player later saying, "But, dude, I would have done this if I knew you were going to un-ban that spell later"—which in my mind would be a valid objection. I guess I'd probably have no problem with a judicious rewrite of the character if such would please the player if I happened to "un-ban" a spell.

Seems to me a more open process of "here's the spells I'd approve" would seem less antagonistic than asking for some and only getting a subset. Especially if you were open to discussion on some of them - things normally banned but very thematic for the character for example.

[Jaelithe]

thejeff wrote:

To some degree I agree with you. That would seem to imply no new GMs though? Or new players, since they wouldn't yet have the experience to trust implicitly?

Well, I think my group would want someone to play for a while before being given the reins.

As for new players, if they can't make a leap of faith based on the testimony of long-time players, that's their problem. I can't be held responsible for the fact that someone else screwed them. Play a fighter or rogue the first time around, I suppose. Alternately, leave your comfort zone and take a chance.

Quote:

Seems to me a more open process of "here's the spells I'd approve" would seem less antagonistic than asking for some and only getting a subset. Especially... Seems to me a more open process of "here's the spells I'd approve" would seem less antagonistic than asking for some and only getting a subset. Especially if you were open to discussion on some of them - things normally banned but very thematic for the character for example.

I really just think that communication between player and DM is key.

I'd likely be down with spells that are normally banned if the player created a character for which they'd be wicked cool—especially in a sorcerer. They'd appear on his or her template ... and they wouldn't be disseminated as with a Scroll of Rare Spell that's now inevitably becoming a somewhat more common spell.

[Terquem]

I don't like the Pathfinder counterspell rules

It seems to me that with the limited number of spells available to any particular caster on any particular day, memorizing or preparing a particular spell JUST TO BE ABLE TO COUNTER some other caster casting that spell, seems counter intuitive.

[TriOmegaZero]

Jaelithe wrote:

Honestly, I don't see how any DM would think he or she has the right to do that. It's more than a dick move, from where I sit. It's ... demented.

And yet there are GMs that do things like that. Hence why we said 'no, I would not want to play under your rules' when you posted them.

[Jaelithe]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

Honestly, I don't see how any DM would think he or she has the right to do that. It's more than a dick move, from where I sit. It's ... demented.

And yet there are GMs that do things like that. Hence why we said 'no, I would not want to play under your rules' when you posted them.

But ... that's not remotely what I said.

[TOZ]

What you say has little to do with how people perceive your words.

[Jaelithe]

TOZ wrote:

What you say has little to do with how people perceive your words.

That's once again been made abundantly clear.

You'd think I'd learn.

[knightnday]

Jaelithe wrote:

thejeff wrote:

To some degree I agree with you. That would seem to imply no new GMs though? Or new players, since they wouldn't yet have the experience to trust implicitly?

Well, I think my group would want someone to play for a while before being given the reins.

As for new players, if they can't make a leap of faith based on the testimony of long-time players, that's their problem. I can't be held responsible for the fact that someone else screwed them. Play a fighter or rogue the first time around, I suppose. Alternately, leave your comfort zone and take a chance.

Just reading the boards for a day shows how little trust there seems to be between GMs and players. I guess I don't get it? I mean, it really really comes across all too often that people are so gunshy and have had apparently so many bad experiences it is amazing they ever play again. And I just don't buy it.

I don't, I really don't. I think people had A bad experience, maybe a handful, and are now just so jaded that they won't give anyone new a chance without an ironclad contract on what the GM is allowed to do to them, or what the player is allowed to do in the game.

I've played with people like this. One guy refused to allow anything outside of his control to happen to his character. He would just get up and leave a game if he took more damage than he thought he should, or if there was a chance of death, or if he was denied what he wanted.

I don't care to play with people like that, be they a GM or player, don't get me wrong. Entitled isn't a word that I'd associate with them -- most I would associate are banned here.

But for the love all all the Gods, people need to get a bit of trust for their fellow gamer. I dunno how much of this is the boards exaggeration or just people don't want to associate with "those" people -- the ones who do it "that way." But just like a relationship, if you got burned a few times that doesn't mean everyone of your mating preference are evil and bad because THEY were. You had a bad experience, move past it!

Grumble grumble shun away. I'm fine with that.

[TOZ]

If you're taking these boards as a representative sample, you're doing it wrong.

[Brox RedGloves]

I don't trust Paizo staff to moderate the boards impartially

I roll stats, 4d6, drop lowest, re-roll 1's

I love playing Black Crusade, but the pbp players and GM's are completely unreliable. (Note: Before the suggestion "Well why don't you DM, then" is lobbed around: It's because I'm a terrible DM and wouldn't inflict that sort of misery on anyone. I may gripe about reliability, but I do have the common decency to know my own faults as well and admit them.)

I'm from the Chicago area, and sometimes I put ketchup on my hot dogs just for spite.

[knightnday]

TOZ wrote:

If you're taking these boards as a representative sample, you're doing it wrong.

No, I've seen the same sort of sentiments elsewhere, although I suppose it could be the same people just under different names elsewhere. Regardless, I feel some days like I am a support meeting for abused players (mostly players, sorry to say. Most of the GMs don't get to rag on the players before the thread turns to how someone got screwed over.)

[Kung Fu Joe]

Brox RedGloves wrote:

I'm from the Chicago area, and sometimes I put ketchup on my hot dogs just for spite.

Click here.

[TriOmegaZero]

Ketchup on hot dogs isn't a thing? Guess I'm doing it wrong.

[Kirth Gersen]

Where's the "unlike" button?

[TriOmegaZero]

AND with mustard.