| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It helps preserve the integrity of what the class is supposed to be,The idea of "integrity of what the class is supposed to be" is pretty much everything I disliked about D&d 4e and 5e, though 5th is slightly less egregious.
You don't need a minimum strength score to be an acrobat, or a minimum charisma score to be a singer, or a minimum intelligence score to be a teacher. Classes represent a character's training and self-identification, rather than their natural strengths. Forcing characters to set ability-based limits on classes is telling players "you're playing a video game character with strict fixed options, not a fluid human being with the ability to adapt, learn, and be individualistic in a way meaningful enough to be worth roleplaying.
Why can't a rogue be slow and thoughtful, striking carefully with intelligence but not speed? What kind of monastery kicks its initiates out for only being slightly more agile than the average person? Why does a fey-blooded sorcerer, whose magic comes unexpected and unstudied, need to have a near-genius intellect? Strength requirements for equipment, as seen in some games, actually makes sense, but this—this is just lunacy.
There's a much easier way to fix this as a GM: Require characters (or potential ones) to explain every class they've trained in. Oracle with a Paladin dip? Make sure that player knows why their character joined a holy organization, and how they were able to leave it without incurring divine disappointment. Archetyped barbarian dip, on a LG monk? If the player can't explain why/where their serene and principled fighter learned how to tap into a primal source of brutal rage, don't allow it. It's as simple as that.
Well spoken.
There's a much easier way to fix this as a GM: Require characters (or potential ones) to explain every class they've trained in. Oracle with a Paladin dip? Make sure that player knows why their character joined a holy organization, and how they were able to leave it without incurring divine disappointment. Archetyped barbarian dip, on a LG monk? If the player can't explain why/where their serene and principled fighter learned how to tap into a primal source of brutal rage, don't allow it. It's as simple as that.
The main issue with this is that it opens its own can of worms, in that the fluff of the various organizations may not mesh with the fluff of a perfectly reasonable character, even a perfectly reasonable single-classed character.
For example, Joan of Arc (St. Joan) as a paladin. She's almost an archetypical holy warrior, popularly believed to have been ordered by God to support the French king and defeat the English -- but she never joined a holy organization.
Or (continuing the French theme), a Marseilles stevedore who is a master of la boxe savate, built as a monk but with no monastic background.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OTOH, I'd rather see that kind of personality change be more based on in-game events than planned out ahead of time: At level X, regardless of what's going on in the campaign or the character's life, he's going to become angry and impulsive (Chaotic,Rage), then Y levels later, get control of himself again (back to lawful monk).
Except to some extent, this is an artifact of the level quantification. In first edition, multiclassed characters gained abilities in all of their classes at once. That's no longer possible, since you have to start out with a single class at first level and then gain a second class later.
For a lot of character concepts, there's no need for a personality change because there's no need for a change in the first place. These abilities are things that have always been present (but haven't been expressed on-stage before). I shouldn't have to explain how my bard gained rage powers (or how my barbarian gained the ability to sing magical songs) when those are both part of the same tradition and character (e.g. Kullervo, from the Kalevala).
That's in fact, one reason that the new hybrid classes are as popular as they are, because they allow a lot of iconic heroes that don't fit nicely into the Fighter/Magic-User/Cleric/Thief boxes that, let's face it, still dominate Core.
If you want to play a character without restrictions, then you are going to have a bad time if that class comes with restrictions. Whether the dm is putting them in there, or the core rules are.
Alignment, background, stats or otherwise.
Now I like multiclassing and some hybrid classes, and I would accept and try and work with what the dm has to say on that, whether it fits in the setting or not, what I need to do or have to do to make it work. We can't always agree with the dm, but we can try to work with them to both get what we want - whether that means paladins having to be lawful and a part of an organisation, or your fighter needing 11 strength because the dm thinks they wouldn't have been able to get armour or heavy weapon proficiencies otherwise. Or, of course, certain high stat requirements on the core stats of a hybrid or powerful class because the dm wants to make them rare and elite (and this can have a lot of meaning in rp and worldbuilding later, not every restriction is a bad thing with hindsight).
If we work together we have a game. If we are careful and understanding in our criticisms of house rules, and capable of working together when a dm is enforcing alignment restrictions, we can get our point out without causing undue conflict.
PS
I have also forced a monk to be lawful when the played didn't want them to be (they more wanted chaotic neutral). There are powers and background tied to that, this monk was trained by other monks, and while a wild and reckless fellow, he had to stay the course or the alignment would change, and advancing would get tough. The player wanted to be a bit crazy, abuse substances and have fun, and I can certainly understand that, but what is amusing is there was a character arc here, and eventually their young rebellious times gave way to more archetypal lawful good heroics. Negotiate and come to an understanding.
Further post scriptus
I wouldn't allow a truly low str fighter, but I would more put a minimum of 8 str. :P
I've also run a game where the only races you could play were pseudo-Roman humans and Rakshashas, for lore reasons. The enemies were elves, turtle and insectoid demihumans, all unplayable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The player wanted to be a bit crazy, abuse substances and have fun, and I can certainly understand that, but what is amusing is there was a character arc here, and eventually their young rebellious times gave way to more archetypal lawful good heroics. Negotiate and come to an understanding.
Did his character naturally mature and develop because of in-game happenings, or because you wouldn't let him level up unless he did?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't allow a truly low str fighter, but I would more put a minimum of 8 str. :P
Except that a Fighter is just someone highly trained in using weapons and armor. A Fighter can make an excellent Crossbow Archer, or Fencer, or Blowgunner/Shuriken-Thrower for that matter, and none of those need strength at all.
Fencing needs strength, I say that as a fencer that has also taught a few students. Female fencers also improve their strength, as well as their coordination and technique, and some become quite strong (as an aside, in fencing power is meant to come from the legs, waist and hand, but some, including women, favour shoulder, back and arm strength and are rather top-heavy - leading to strong attacks, bashes, locking and wrestling with the blade). Swordsmanship promotes the opposite of weakness.
Crossbow usage isn't for the limp-wristed, and crossbow mercenaries often had to tangle in melee (slow shooting weapon after all). Hand loading required strength, winch loading means you have to lug around a large crossbow (and armour, and back up weapon).
Thrown weapons require strength to be effective, and whether you are a javelin thrower or launching shuriken or an axe thrower, you are also throwing weapons away and need to be capable when (not if) it comes to hand-to-hand. Some skirmishers are more famous in melee than others.
Having a good strength as a fighter, whatever your type, makes a lot of sense. It doesn't actually take very long for repetitive weapon usage to start to develop attack strength alongside increased endurance.
The player wanted to be a bit crazy, abuse substances and have fun, and I can certainly understand that, but what is amusing is there was a character arc here, and eventually their young rebellious times gave way to more archetypal lawful good heroics. Negotiate and come to an understanding.Did his character naturally mature and develop because of in-game happenings, or because you wouldn't let him level up unless he did?
What is natural? :D
The class has alignment restrictions, he almost changed alignment a few times, but gave up the criminal wastrel life for the path of heroism and inebriation. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The player wanted to be a bit crazy, abuse substances and have fun, and I can certainly understand that, but what is amusing is there was a character arc here, and eventually their young rebellious times gave way to more archetypal lawful good heroics. Negotiate and come to an understanding.Did his character naturally mature and develop because of in-game happenings, or because you wouldn't let him level up unless he did?What is natural? :D
The class has alignment restrictions, he almost changed alignment a few times, but gave up the criminal wastrel life for the path of heroism and inebriation. :)
because you wouldn't let him level up unless he did?
Ex-Monks
A monk who becomes nonlawful cannot gain new levels as a monk but retains all monk abilities.
Fencing needs strength, I say that as a fencer that has also taught a few students. Female fencers also improve their strength, as well as their coordination and technique, and some become quite strong (as an aside, in fencing power is meant to come from the legs, waist and hand, but some, including women, favour shoulder, back and arm strength and are rather top-heavy - leading to strong attacks, bashes, locking and wrestling with the blade). Swordsmanship promotes the opposite of weakness.
Crossbow usage isn't for the limp-wristed, and crossbow mercenaries often had to tangle in melee (slow shooting weapon after all). Hand loading required strength, winch loading means you have to lug around a large crossbow (and armour, and back up weapon).
Thrown weapons require strength to be effective, and whether you are a javelin thrower or launching shuriken or an axe thrower, you are also throwing weapons away and need to be capable when (not if) it comes to hand-to-hand. Some skirmishers are more famous in melee than others.
Having a good strength as a fighter, whatever your type, makes a lot of sense. It doesn't actually take very long for repetitive weapon usage to start to develop attack strength alongside increased endurance.
So basically "I can't imagine it any other way so this is how it has to be". Which is the exact sort of thing a lot of people have been complaining about right in this very thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues must be kleptomaniacs. Rogues steal things. They just do, okay? Any rogue who passes up the opportunity to get the party thrown in jail by blowing a sleight of hand check against the town mayor has clearly lost his/her nerve for a life of crime, so gets clean, goes straight, and gets his/her life on track by taking that job at his/her brother-in-law's dealership.
Lol. I've got a LG sanctified rogue in a Shattered Star game who refuses to steal anything, ever, because he considers it beneath him. Luckily, our party Paladin is a big enough kleptomaniac to make up the difference.
Fencing needs strength, I say that as a fencer that has also taught a few students.
Funny — when I was on the fencing team in high school, I was repeatedly told by coaches that the worst thing I could possibly do was lift weights, because big muscles would get in the way of agility.
Ex-Monks
A monk who becomes nonlawful cannot gain new levels as a monk but retains all monk abilities.
This makes the assumption that the people playing this game, that enjoy many of the features and aspects of the rules set, that have delved into the campaign setting and find it a rich environment to play out their adventures, also keep this POS rule in place.
That they don't object to the idea of ability score prerequisites for classes because of the unfounded assumptions it makes about what a class is and what the player's purpose in selecting that class for their character is, and, in applying that same line of thought to the question of class alignment requirements, haven't decided to house rule alignment requirements out of existence entirely (in a manner involving woodsheds and shotguns).
Maybe look into that.
I guess I've just long since gotten over the attachment to strict play regulations, and 99% of that I tie into when I ditched prepublished settings and races and such and started homebrewing extensively. Racial restrictions on almost all things went out the window, as I didn't have the patience or time to dedicate to cooking up equivalent custom stuff for all the homebrewed races my group and I have put together, and I didn't see any logical reasons why only Human Sorcerers could dedicate their focus in their class to learning new spells while every other race had to use it to get a skill point or hit point or other equivalently minor boon. Pretty much the only restriction I have is "if you lack the proper anatomical feature for the trait/feat/favored class bonus/other such property, you can't take it; otherwise have at it". My go-to example is usually the Toothy trait - written for Half-Orcs, but sure what the heck, your Lizardfolk or Catfolk or Kobold or anything else with a prominent jaw structure can take it too, but things that don't practically have that kind of facial feature it wouldn't make sense.
And frankly, I've long since started coming around to that point of view with classes as well. Removing the "non-lawful" restriction from Bard was a great start, and archetypes have opened Monk and Barbarian up to unusual alignments as well; the only one I really hang onto is Paladin, and even then I'm all in favor of archetypes switching things up to make options for other alignments, especially ones that allow multiple other archetypes to work alongside them.
It's not a matter of GM's being tyrannical wannabe authors or people still being stuck on attachments they should just get over or anything else negative...
I'm sorry, but that's exactly what it is.
People like different things in their entertainment. That's not wrong.
Liking different things is not wrong. What's wrong is when you impose your tastes on my entertainment.
"I'm not being tyrannical or anything else negative. I just insist that I get to pick the toppings for everyone else's pizza."
Those two sentences are incompatible.
So what you're saying is that you get to impose your preference on everyone else, but I'm tyrannical if I do the same?
Nope. No one gets to impose their preferences on anyone else without being tyrannical.
I don't want to play if I have to deal with all of that.
If you don't want to play, don't play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's it, Orfamay! I had hoped not to be forced into this, but now, I have reported you to Paizo's SWAT rules squad. Expect a violent visit soon, or conform and convince us all you are within specs for the Right Way to play PF!
Cease and desist this meaningless squabbling, citizens. Return to the topic at hand.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm perfectly fine with Orfamay playing however he wishes. As I said to Orthos before Orfamay jumped on me, it's great that he likes playing that way.
But it's also fine not to. I don't expect him to conform to the Right Way to play, I'd just like the same courtesy.
+1 to most everything TheJeff has said in this thread.
This thread makes me appreciate my normal gaming groups even more.
-TimD
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the problem is with all stat requirements in principle, because some could be justified, like the minimum Str for an Archer Fighter, given the autopsy evidence of Acincourt bowmen.
But whenever the forum community shoot down a GM's homebrew class stat minimums, or feat prerequisites, it's more often than not because they're imposing unrealistically high scores in utterly non-essential areas.
Some GMs don't seem to appreciate how high a 12 or 13 actually is.
This thread makes me appreciate my normal gaming groups even more.
-TimD
Perhaps ironically, given our opposing viewpoints, I have to agree. Finding out how much some groups like certain things that my groups have long since avoided or abandoned makes me very happy I have the players and fellow GMs I do.
|
I don't think the problem is with all stat requirements in principle, because some could be justified, like the minimum Str for an Archer Fighter, given the autopsy evidence of Acincourt bowmen.
But whenever the forum community shoot down a GM's homebrew class stat minimums, or feat prerequisites, it's more often than not because they're imposing unrealistically high scores in utterly non-essential areas.
Some GMs don't seem to appreciate how high a 12 or 13 actually is.
Which is a reasonable argument - it only took 6 pages and thejeff acting on behalf of an idea he does not personally agree with - but defended on principle.
The actions of some posters in this thread (a houserule thread) is reprehensible. The attacks on the OP, his GM credibility, intelligence and the fact that all of it escaped moderation also reflects upon the sad state of acceptable wolf-pack mentality that passes as consensus on these boards. Make sure to pounce on something that seems weak and unpopular with the "forums" - that way you can get your unmoderated licks in.I never agree with thejeff - pretty much on anything: gaming, politics - you name it. The fact that he has to go back and forth defending the notion of "not everyone plays the same or wants the same thing" on a principle - while remaining civil in the face of a disenfranchised and offended mob has elevated my opinion of him. I may not agree with him, but if anything he is at least fair.
This thread and the bile spewed is a good primer and set of reasons for not getting into gaming.
Ex-Monks
A monk who becomes nonlawful cannot gain new levels as a monk but retains all monk abilities.
This makes the assumption that the people playing this game, that enjoy many of the features and aspects of the rules set, that have delved into the campaign setting and find it a rich environment to play out their adventures, also keep this POS rule in place.
That they don't object to the idea of ability score prerequisites for classes because of the unfounded assumptions it makes about what a class is and what the player's purpose in selecting that class for their character is, and, in applying that same line of thought to the question of class alignment requirements, haven't decided to house rule alignment requirements out of existence entirely (in a manner involving woodsheds and shotguns).
Maybe look into that.
Many GMs and players actually do keep the actual rules of the game in place or at least don't remove all the ones that you think are POS.
Shocking, isn't it.
Nope. Not shocking.
But these are the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew boards. Ergo, no rule is sacred and no facet of game design is writ in stone.
DUTB was quoting the Monk's alignment restrictions as though the mere fact of their existence superceded all in a conversation where such an assumption doesn't fly.
As though we were to automatically agree with that.
On the boards whose whole purpose is the explicit lack of agreement that RAW suffices.
I.e., it was an unfounded assumption, and he needed to see that. That a rule needs to pass muster based on its merits, not the mere fact that it still exists so far.
Had his post listed the Monk alignment requirement AND some manner of reason why it should still be there as well as why its continued inclusion in the rules set has whatever bearing he thinks it has on the so-called natural progression of a character's story as it relates to the class levels he takes, then I would have had no need to post the response I did.
It didn't, so I did.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If this board means no rule is sacred... WHY did suggesting ability score requirements get such a hysterical response? Wouldn't it be, I don't know, better to assume it's a house rule to discuss?
Perhaps ironically, given our opposing viewpoints, I have to agree. Finding out how much some groups like certain things that my groups have long since avoided or abandoned makes me very happy I have the players and fellow GMs I do.This thread makes me appreciate my normal gaming groups even more.
-TimD
It's ok, Orthos, I forgive you for not realizing that CyberPunk 2013 is the most perfect game system ever written. I'll even wish you happy gaming! :)
-TimD
Perhaps ironically, given our opposing viewpoints, I have to agree. Finding out how much some groups like certain things that my groups have long since avoided or abandoned makes me very happy I have the players and fellow GMs I do.This thread makes me appreciate my normal gaming groups even more.
-TimD
It's ok, Orthos, I forgive you for not realizing that CyberPunk 2013 is the most perfect game system ever written. I'll even wish you happy gaming! :)
-TimD
Heh. I've actually never heard of it, so I have no idea what I think of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this board means no rule is sacred... WHY did suggesting ability score requirements get such a hysterical response? Wouldn't it be, I don't know, better to assume it's a house rule to discuss?
We did discuss it, and the overwhelming majority agreed it was a terribly stupid idea. Most of the people who "agree" with the OP are just telling everyone else to be more polite about how stupid it is.
275+ posts in this thread? Wow. I mean ,there must be something to this suggestion if there are this many posts in response.
So basically "I can't imagine it any other way so this is how it has to be". Which is the exact sort of thing a lot of people have been complaining about right in this very thread.But no, see, because the story of how a GM holding a character's advancement hostage to force the player to learn how to stop having wrongbadfun makes it clear that the game needs MORE of these limits, not less!
I propose the following:
Wizards must be lawful. Wizardry requires an intense focus and a detailed mind, so all Wizards must have a lawful alignment. Any Wizard who becomes non-lawful loses the ambition and discipline to continue his/her magical studies, so retires from adventuring and takes a job working at his/her brother-in-law's dealership.
Sorcerers must be chaotic. Sorcery is powered by a "taint" of magic in the blood that is difficult to control (or even restrain). Any sorcerer who becomes non-chaotic looses this primal connection to wild magic, and decided to grow up, give up the zany life of adventure, and take a job at his/her brother-in-law's dealership.
Rogues must be kleptomaniacs. Rogues steal things. They just do, okay? Any rogue who passes up the opportunity to get the party thrown in jail by blowing a sleight of hand check against the town mayor has clearly lost his/her nerve for a life of crime, so gets clean, goes straight, and gets his/her life on track by taking that job at his/her brother-in-law's dealership.
Fighters must be cheerfully stupid brutes. Fighters only know two things - fighting and chewing bubble gum. And they accidentally swallowed the bubble gum. Any fighter who demonstrates caution, planning, or thoughtfulness will immediately have an epiphany about how dangerous and silly the adventuring life is, and realize it's far better to stay home and work on the brother-in-law's dealership.
Barbarians- see fighters, except Barbarians must be irrationally angry. In addition to fighter restrictions, if a Barbarian ever passes up an...
I do not agree. Nor do I enforce any of the absurdities above. They are also not required by the rules (your fighter can take nothing but knowledge skills, and you can roleplay this how you wish).
Now if the rogue class was called thief... :)
Rogues must be kleptomaniacs. Rogues steal things. They just do, okay? Any rogue who passes up the opportunity to get the party thrown in jail by blowing a sleight of hand check against the town mayor has clearly lost his/her nerve for a life of crime, so gets clean, goes straight, and gets his/her life on track by taking that job at his/her brother-in-law's dealership.Lol. I've got a LG sanctified rogue in a Shattered Star game who refuses to steal anything, ever, because he considers it beneath him. Luckily, our party Paladin is a big enough kleptomaniac to make up the difference.
Fencing needs strength, I say that as a fencer that has also taught a few students.Funny — when I was on the fencing team in high school, I was repeatedly told by coaches that the worst thing I could possibly do was lift weights, because big muscles would get in the way of agility.
What are you training the muscles to do? Lifting weights and bulking up isn't the same as offensive strength. Saying this, there is an old false idea that being large in muscle mass means the person is slow or uncoordinated. Large very active and athletic people hate this stereotype. Some fencers are lean, some aren't but strength plays a part, especially if you can confidently dominate with beats (bashing the weapon) and very strong attacks. In fencing, depending on what you focus upon, you strengthen specific muscle groups. Everyone improves the hand muscles and legs (that low footwork), but they develop their strength in specific areas. Often, in ways that help them to stab better. Fencers have famously strong legs (to better launch at or dart away from opponents). Do you remember your legs being tired after drills? You were building up your strength through training. :)
We can discuss this more over messages if you would like.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If this board means no rule is sacred... WHY did suggesting ability score requirements get such a hysterical response? Wouldn't it be, I don't know, better to assume it's a house rule to discuss?We did discuss it, and the overwhelming majority agreed it was a terribly stupid idea. Most of the people who "agree" with the OP are just telling everyone else to be more polite about how stupid it is.
No, there was actually very little "Discussing" of it, mostly people just being insulting.
Discussing would have involved trying to get at the root of the problem and perhaps coming up with alternatives.
The fact is that ANY game mechanic really takes a back seat to actual game play - I've played in some games which were horrible mechanically, but had great fun because the GM made a good campaign/adventure that kept the players engaged and the excitement level high at the table.
Unfortunately, someone who came here looking for help and thoughts on his idea to help modify game play because some aspect of how things were working was instead chased off because of the vitriol of some of the posters.
Its easy to dismiss ideas that you disagree with as "stupid", much more reasonable and more to the point HELPFUL comments could have been made.
Certainly asking questions like "Have you considered Archetypes?" or "What method of stat generation are you using?" could have an impact on how the rule idea will play out in game play.
I've tried a number of house rules across the years, some were ill considered, some were meaningless extra minutiae that did not add or detract from game play. Stupid? No. Just attempts to try to polish the game play some worked some didn't some became meaningless as editions have progressed. So many posts of "you suck and your idea stifles my creativity", meanwhile, they are stifling the creativity of a GM.
His creativity means nothing if it limits the creativity of others.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Same could be said about the "creativity" of dismissive posts.
The Lorax has the right of it. A single good/bad house rule does not a good/bad DM make. Or a whole host of them for that matter. We are a sum of our parts. I would play in a game that was well thought out and executed without second thought as to how many house rules rubbed me the wrong way. And I would avoid a game with "perfect" mechanics that laid a poor story. And story aside, nor does a few wonky house rules ruin a game mechanically. I bet anybody on these boards who, given a certain set of parameters, could launch one of 101 ideas for a cool character regardless.
>log on<
>type "your ideas are stupid"<
>submit<
>log off<
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well said Lorax.
Creativity is stronger than imperfect rules; some requirements or restrictions aren't the end of the world and some changes to class requirements is not tyranny or truly limiting creativity.
The creative process can still occur, classes and characters can still be played but the subject is simply a house rule on certain ability scores being moved around - there are arguments for this and arguments against this.
I don't grasp why people take a house rule so seriously, throw out the insults and claim tyranny or that an idea as yet unimplemented for them is stifling creativity. They are just some numbers people, not a lobotomy and imprisonment in a totalitarian regime. Working yourself up and playing the victim, as if the dm is personally attacking you and your creativity with a house rule is such an overreaction.
On the rules, a provision on stat generation and its alteration to accommodate seems fitting, e.g. max requirement of 8 in low stat generation, max 14 in high stat. Any rule can be altered to better attain a desired result, but then this requires negotiation, not scorn.