Well, allowing Unchained Rogue is pretty nice. And, you dont really know that the group isnt much on teamwork.
Look, try a unchained rogue- yes, do trapfinding, maxed out Perception (Half elf, gives low light also), Trap Spotter talent, etc.
*IF* your group doesnt support you or you're not having fun, just do another PC.
It's a new group. Go in trying to do it their way, at least to start- why not?
Be a conjuration focused wizard. Amaze and wow your friends with your unconventional use of summons to trigger traps. Meanwhile, you can take a bunch of save or suck spells for those times when you just don't feel like rolling dice.
Why choose just one route when you could be a wizard and potentially cover them all? ;) "I feel like doing some damage today." Studies more Summon Monster and direct damage spells. "I don't want to roll dice today. Studies more save-or-suck spells.
EDIT: Of course, this assumes you just flat out don't want to play a rogue. If you don't mind playing a rogue, I really do think you'll find a lot of value in the unchained version. And DrDeth has a good point about playing it the group's way the first time you join them.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a new group. Go in trying to do it their way, at least to start- why not?
For the same reason you don't join a group that says 'we need you to play the healer' when you don't really want to do that.
You shouldn't roll a cleric and have to spend the first few sessions realizing that the rest of the group expects you to spend every round making sure their HP is at full. Nor should you roll a rogue and spend as much time learning that they just want you there to search and disable traps while sitting on the sidelines ignored in combat.
If the fighter player or the druid are already talking about how he will flank with you/will summon flanking partners for you, then go for it. But it's best to get that information out in the open before you start playing and wasting your time (and theirs!) with a group that isn't going to reciprocate your teamwork.
Maybe the ranger or fighter can take a dip into rogue for the trap stuff? Even 4 levels of rogue will reduce their BAB by 1, but will grant them a lot more skill points (well, a few more skill points for the ranger...). Plus sneak attack, a couple talents (bonus feats!), evasion, and uncanny dodge...
OP needs to provide more information
Be a conjuration focused wizard. Amaze and wow your friends with your unconventional use of summons to trigger traps. Meanwhile, you can take a bunch of save or suck spells for those times when you just don't feel like rolling dice.
Why choose just one route when you could be a wizard and potentially cover them all? ;) "I feel like doing some damage today." Studies more Summon Monster and direct damage spells. "I don't want to roll dice today. Studies more save-or-suck spells.
I'm glad someone else mentioned this :)
It's a nice think-outside-the-box option.
Unless the GM has additional restrictions I didn't hear about beyond "core only", it looks like there's still more options here than simply a win-or-lose choice between traditional sorcerer and traditional rogue.
There might still be some fair questions that need to be answered, too, though:
* What does the GM mean by "core only"? (This could mean different things to different GMs.)
* What happened to the previous Rogue, and why didn't the rest of the group want to play a Rogue?
* Why does the group think it specifically needs a Rogue? (Maybe the GM is particularly rough on Rogues? Maybe the GM really has a thing for traps? Maybe the group is laboring under the impression that a party cannot function without a Rogue, and would be surprised to find out that a Rogue isn't necessary?)
* What makes the OP think that the group "isn't big on cooperation"?
* What is it about playing a Rogue that repels the OP? (Maybe one bad experience, and a second try will reveal it's not so bad? Maybe everything about the character concept is repellent, and contaminating a Sorcerer by adopting trigger-traps and open-locks type spells or multiclassing or playing a Bard is just as bad as playing a Rogue? Maybe simply the fact that making any compromise to this specific group is off-putting to the OP? Maybe the OP just really likes throwing fireballs?)
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _________
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./ It’s a trap! \
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _,,,--~~~~~~~~--,_ . . . .\ ._________/
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ : : : :::: :::: :: : : : : :º ‘-, . . \/. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ :: : : :::: :::: :::: :::: : : :o : ‘-, . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ :: ::: :: : : :: :::: :::: :: : : : : :O ‘-, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .,-‘ : :: :: :: :: :: : : : : : , : : :º :::: :::: ::’; . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .,-‘ / / : :: :: :: :: : : :::: :::-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;\ . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . /,-‘,’ :: : : : : : : : : :: :: :: : ‘-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;| . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . /,’,-‘ :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : ::_,-~~,_’-, ;; ;; ;; ;; | . . . . . . .
. . . . . _/ :,’ :/ :: :: :: : : :: :: _,-‘/ : ,-‘;’-‘’’’’~-, ;; ;; ;;,’ . . . . . . . .
. . . ,-‘ / : : : : : : ,-‘’’ : : :,--‘’ :|| /,-‘-‘--‘’’__,’’’ \ ;; ;,-‘ . . . . . . . .
. . . \ :/,, : : : _,-‘ --,,_ : : \ :\ ||/ /,-‘-‘x### ::\ \ ;;/ . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . \/ /---‘’’’ : \ #\ : :\ : : \ :\ \| | : (O##º : :/ /-‘’ . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . /,’____ : :\ ‘-#\ : \, : :\ :\ \ \ : ‘-,___,-‘,-`-,, . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . ‘ ) : : : :’’’’--,,--,,,,,,¯ \ \ :: ::--,,_’’-,,’’’¯ :’- :’-, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .) : : : : : : ,, : ‘’’’~~~~’ \ :: :: :: :’’’’’¯ :: ,-‘ :,/\ . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .\,/ /|\\| | :/ / : : : : : : : ,’-, :: :: :: :: ::,--‘’ :,-‘ \ \ . . . . . . . .
. . . . .\\’|\\ \|/ ‘/ / :: :_--,, : , | )’; :: :: :: :,-‘’ : ,-‘ : : :\ \, . . . . . . .
. . . ./¯ :| \ |\ : |/\ :: ::----, :\/ :|/ :: :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : ‘’-,,_ . . . .
. . ..| : : :/ ‘’-(, :: :: :: ‘’’’’~,,,,,’’ :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : : : :,-‘’’\\ . . . .
. ,-‘ : : : | : : ‘’) : : :¯’’’’~-,: : ,--‘’’ : :,-‘’ : : : : : : : : : ,-‘ :¯’’’’’-,_ .
./ : : : : :’-, :: | :: :: :: _,,-‘’’’¯ : ,--‘’ : : : : : : : : : : : / : : : : : :...
This is terrific! How did you do it?
On topic:
I played a bog-standard rogue in RotRL and had great fun through book 2 and parts of book 3. Some encounters in book 3 were great; in others my PC was totally superfluous and I started multi-classing into fighter. The game broke up at the end of book 3.
I haven't seen Unchained, but it could go a long way toward alleviating the uselessness that I felt.
I recently started playing an archaeologist bard. As mentioned above it seems to fit the rogue slot well enough. I'm looking forward to seeing how it plays as I level up.
Straight up bard looks like a great fit for this party. Plenty of PCs, so your buffing abilities will carry extra weight.
...This is terrific! How did you do it?.
.
.*SNIP*
Google: "ascii it's a trap"
A bard would be really effective in a party of 6 with 1 or 2 animal companions and possibly some summoned allies.
But if you want to play a sorcerer, play a sorcerer. The other wizard can go arcane trickster if they want some rogue stuff, or the fighter and/or ranger can dip too. Probably less effective for the cleric to multiclass rogue, but if the druid wildshapes, it might get 2 to 5 sneak attacks a round--and can summon its own flanking buddy, or use its animal companion.
One reason to play a rogue in the current group description you have is that the unchained Rogue can get a lot of mileage out of DEX. You get Dex to hit and Dex to damage which means you only need enough strength to carry your gear. This matters because it means you'll likely have a much higher modifier to the the Rogue Class Skills like disable device than the other guys will. That's handy if you need to fill those roles.
Also, unless I'm mistaken, the Elven Curve Blade works with your Finesse Training class features, so you could potentially have a good number of feats to play around by skipping the TWF feats and just going to town on people with the exotic two-hander. Might be a fun build that's pretty inline with your Great Axe idea from the original post.
Finally, if you play an Elf you get the ECB proficiency for free, and you'll have a low Fort save, so if don't like the build you can always just get wrecked and then tell the other guys in your group "I don't want to play the exact same class!". It's perfect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"[They] are really pushing for me to play a rogue" and "Also this group does not appear to be big on teamwork" raises an enormous red flag, as rogue is a class for which teamwork is critical.
If they don't have your back, then you're just getting used as a minesweeper. And that's rubbish.
It's a new group. Go in trying to do it their way, at least to start- why not?For the same reason you don't join a group that says 'we need you to play the healer' when you don't really want to do that.
You shouldn't roll a cleric and have to spend the first few sessions realizing that the rest of the group expects you to spend every round making sure their HP is at full.
I will happily do that if it means a new group will accept me as a team player, one who fits in. Small price to pay.
Besides, I can put my own RPing spin on it and make it fun.
I've GM'ed Rise of the Runelords twice and there is no particular need for a rogue in that AP - especially when there's already a ranger in the group. Play whatever you want as long as it doesn't crash too badly with the expectations of the GM.
First, wow did not expect so much feedback. Thanks folks!!! :)
I'll copy and paste snippets I have received. There's more but here's a few exchanges. The GM did say other stuff on request...
** most of spoiler omitted **..."No aram zeys here(core only), you are possibly going to lose out on some loot (can't open magicked chest/locked room). Unless you want to summon babau demons to use their dispel magic and disable device to open every locked chest/door. Not sure how common adamantine weapons are in this campaign. Considering we're in rural backwater, probably not. Lack of adamantine might put a dent in the usual pathfinder style of smashy everything open. Also, may be metagaming a bit, but rise of the runelords is all about defeating ancient wizards. And if I were an ancient wizard, you bet I'd trap up my lair. EXPLOSIVE RUNES! :p "
Thank you for the extra information :)
Reading the info you provided in the spoiler, it sounds to me like you've probably got nothing to worry about:
The group (or at least the member quoted above) seems concerned that not having a rogue might result in losing out on loot, might mean there's some trap trouble, and might mean that captured PCs from a previous adventure might be difficult to free.
They don't seem to me to be so stuck on the idea that you're being forced into it - to me, that quote simply looks like a friendly suggestion to help shore up some perceived weak spots.
I didn't see anything that spooked me in the quoted material, though I admit it's possible for me to miss some subtle hints you could have picked up on.
Unless you really think there's some serious red flags otherwise, I'd just build the character you like, and wherever convenient for you I suggest making sure you take at least some token steps to address some of that group member's concerns (such as some way to open locks), at least so long as it doesn't mess with your character too much.
If you do nothing else as a token nod to those concerns, at least offer to hire a Rogue hireling or something just long enough to free the captured PCs just to win some points from their players.
In any case, if I'm reading the quotes right, I have a feeling nobody's going to throw their dice at you if you choose to play a sorcerer :)
Good luck, and have fun.
Ok, so in your case Core=CRB+APG+other main books(since archetypes are not CRB you can't be doing just that).
I am confused though. Most of the tools to make a good blaster are in CRB(fireball and ancillary caster feats)+APG(Dazing spell,human FCB)+UC(magical lineage)+ARG(Paragon surge, if you feel like embracing the cheese). You might be able to push it a bit further with a big pile of splats, but the above is sufficient to make a pretty decent blaster.
Seeker sorcerer is out unless you can persuade your GM to allow PFS stuff.
I would seriously recommend an archeologist bard if you want a rogue type. You lack a face character, and an archeologist fills that gap while still having spellcasting. Or alternatively, you stick with a sorcerer and you could take the Vagabond Child Trait(UC) and put points into disable device and perception(which are class skills because of that trait and the draconic bloodline). That way you can find and disable any non-magical traps you find (dispel magical ones). Skill points will be tight, so you will probably end up wanting to play human. As a cha based caster, you can also do a decent job of covering face skills as well(not great, but sufficient for the most part).
To me that reads less like "hey man, we need you to play a rogue" and more like "hey man, it'd be awesome if you can put some ranks in Disable Device". I think you should be good playing whatever, but it might be a nice gesture to spend a trait to make Disable Device a class skill and putting some ranks in it. :)
Well, or you could use the variant multiclassing to get trapfinding at lvl 3.
But you might want to use it with a class that dont need the 3rd level feat and you might want to skip into a prestige class or go into another class after that.
The easiest way is to just multiclass lvl 1 rogue and get the trapfinding ability and then just pick something else while you rank up disable device.
Yeah, disable device does not sound like a big issue there. Actually, I'd say the urban ranger is a pretty good trapsmith, even though favored community is not quite a good as the usual favored terrain imo.
Also, I can't help but be a little picky with some of the arguments the OP was giving. "Someone who can deal with locks, mundane traps, and such would probably be a good idea...Having someone, at some point, able to deal with magical traps might be a good idea." Ehm, the party has that, it's the urban ranger, unless s/he decides to NOT boost perception and disable device on a ranger archetype with trapfinding (or tends to be missing most sessions and they need a fallback option). There would be quite a few toes being stepped on in this party. As for locked chests and explosive runes, the sorcerer is in fact quite capable of handling these - there are spells like knock and dispel magic, for starters.
Overall, I'd say be willing to play ball if the group sounds fun, but don't play pure rogue unless you want to. Personally, I think they should be quite able to handle trapfinding with their current crew (although I'd trade a line or two with the ranger player since that's the character that should be the trap expert imo), and it is the face department where they need more help. My first pick would be a bard with ranks in stealth, DD and perception, even though inspiring competence in the ranger may be the more optimal way to do it. You can back up the primary trapsmith and scout, and you are a natural face, especially as the additional versatile performances start coming online.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you play a rogue with an urban ranger? JUST to be outclassed or are they looking for the unchained comparison
Yeah, if they have an urban ranger, then the guy asking you to be a rogue for lock/trap disabling purposes probably doesn't understand what the urban ranger can do.
(Hopefully it's not the urban ranger's player asking you. Heh.)
It's looking like you're being asked to fill a role that the asker doesn't realize is already handled.
(Edit: It'd be sort of like if the group had a life oracle, and you were being asked to play a cleric to do healing =P)
It might just be that they thought a rogue would be best equipped for the rescue mission. {shrug}
If you already have an urban ranger then there is literally no reason for you to play a Rogue at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have 2 9th level divine casters, a 9th level arcane caster, a trapfinder, and melee.
You seem to be missing a face and a skill monkey. Why don't you play a bard?
It might just be that they thought a rogue would be best equipped for the rescue mission. {shrug}
Isn't that normally a princesses job?
OH! You mean as a rescuER....
One thing about this that makes me go ??? is the slow XP progression in a campaign designed for fast XP progression. That's going to result in a noticeable deficit in expected level for the challenges in the adventure, at least without other changes being made.
Bummer that the core-only restriction came down after the fact.
To all those folks discussing the urban ranger, it looks like what happened was that the original group got captured and a new group was created to cover them. The GM took the opportunity to limit the selections (notice there are no archetypes on the new team). I'm guessing the new team is built CRB only, even if the last team had other options. They seem to be building things around the idea that they may not be able to recover their original characters, or perhaps they just intend to move forward with the new team regardless. That's why they're looking for someone who can find traps again.
Rarednaw- the messages make them seem pretty reasonable about it. I believe they are suggesting rogue as the most convenient fit (and because the other player was going to play one) but really they're just looking for someone who can find traps.
If you tell the GM that you don't want to play a rogue but wouldn't mind playing someone who can find traps, he will likely work with you to make it happen. Vagabond Child (the disable device trait) isn't in the allowed list of trait resources, but ask if the GM will make an exception for that. Then, you can build a sorcerer who uses dex as their second highest stat (don't they all?) and have disable device, detect magic, and dispel magic as your trapfinding methods.
If the GM is uncomfortable with that, he should still respond with alternatives and you guys can hash it out. If the response is "why don't you just play a rogue" then you might want to reconsider joining. It sounds like the player you are being asked to step in for left because he made some mistakes and got sour about it, but that could just be bias slanting the story. How the group reacts to your request to play something different should let you know more about them.
Man... all this discussion is making me want to roll up a rogue.
I'd play one and love every second of it.. but that's just me.
I think there is an oracle curse that grants Disable Device, and there might be some Mysteries that are quite blasty.
Too bad they're not CRB. :-(
Maybe ask the GM for some wiggle room since everyone else got to use
some non-CRB stuff?
{. . .}
Core Rulebook, RotRL Anniversary Edition player Guide traits, web enhancement traits...
3rd level PC, with 4th level XP, 5,000 gp starting wealth.
So here's a question: Since the previous party was non-Core, is the new Core limit just for classes (and lack of archetypes other than Unchained Rogue), or does it cut out non-Core feats also?
If you do decide to go with Rogue, and if Core-only (other than Unchained Rogue) is a hard limit for classes but not for feats, and since you are only 1.5 levels away from 5th level, I just had an idea of how to keep your Rogue relevant after you get through the phase where your lockpicking, etc. is needed, although it has a STEEP feat tax:
1. Make sure one of your 1st or 3rd level feats is Nature Soul (it also helps to be Human to alleviate some of the pain of the feat tax, so that you have more than 1 1st level feat).
2. When you hit 5th level (or 4th level if you somehow get awarded a feat then), get Animal Ally -- now you have a flanking partner, to help you get Sneak Attack, even if your comrades don't know what they're doing with respect to teamwork; however, watch out, because it will be rather flimsy for the next couple of levels, because your effective Druid level for determining its advancement is 3 levels behind your character level.
3. When you get another feat (7th level unless something weird happens), take Boon Companion to get your Animal Companion up to what it would be for a Druid of your level. If Animal Companion advancement lets you put an extra Intelligence point on it, you could even have it take a Teamwork feat that you also take (feats other than Animal Feats require Intelligence >=3). People normally ignore Teamwork feats because they are hard to coordinate between players (especially if your group isn't much oriented towards teamwork anyway), but between you and your Animal Companion, you don't have this problem (although I haven't done enough study to determine WHICH Teamwork feats to recommend).
(And yes, I know about Carnivalist Rogue, which is one of the relatively rare archetypes that DOESN'T trace out Trapfinding, and for which you could get a Mauler Familiar, but the switch to Core-only other than Unchained Rogue would seem to ban both the Carnivalist and Mauler archetypes, which are both of recent vintage.)
With 5 other characters in the group, 3 of which can theoretically use summon spells, I doubt you will ever lack for flanking partners.
^The original poster did say that the rest of the party wasn't big on teamwork, which suggests that they might be a bit deficient in setting up flanks, relative to what you would expect from their numbers.
By the way, if you did pay the enormous feat tax I posted above, your Animal Companion level is tied to your character level, not any class level, so if you decided to go Arcane Trickster after doing your initial Rogue stuff, you wouldn't have to worry about your Animal Companion falling behind. Also, if you could convince your DM to also use Fractional Bonuses from Unchained, it would make Arcane Trickster significantly better, since when you start it you are probably going to have 3 levels of Rogue + 3 levels of Wizard + 1 level of Arcane Trickster (pre-Unchained: Base Attack Bonus = 2 + 1 + 0 = 3; with Unchained, Base Attack Bonus = 2.25 + 1.5 + 0.5 = 4.25, which rounds down to 4), and for a 1/2 BAB prestige class starting from 3/4 BAB and 1/2 BAB parent classes, every little bit of BAB helps.
It depends on the group and the GM. So I agree with those who want more details...
Several years ago, there was ONLY Core - and people enjoyed playing it. Yes, if you know the advanced stuff, it feels terribly restricted, especially if you care about optimisation. But it can still be fun. In fact, I am playing within a newbie group (the GM is also new) and we are restricted to Core - the GM didn't even introduce all rules yet. Oh, and I am the rogue. And I enjoy it like everyone else...
People really get up in arms about this crap...
Just make a rogue... And a character you actually want to play. Bring both to the first session, and talk to them about your ideas. See where things go. All of this internet paranoia and speculation might be for nothing.
Google: "ascii it's a trap"...This is terrific! How did you do it?.
.
.*SNIP*
You won "the Internets" with that effort. I've only seen it won 2 or 3 other times on the Paizo messageboards. Well done sir.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, so in your case Core=CRB+APG+other main books(since archetypes are not CRB you can't be doing just that).
I am confused though. Most of the tools to make a good blaster are in CRB(fireball and ancillary caster feats)+APG(Dazing spell,human FCB)+UC(magical lineage)+ARG(Paragon surge, if you feel like embracing the cheese). You might be able to push it a bit further with a big pile of splats, but the above is sufficient to make a pretty decent blaster.
Seeker sorcerer is out unless you can persuade your GM to allow PFS stuff.
I think you misunderstand. The other players got to use non-Core. I do not...the Core ruling came down after the original players. The GM going forward will allow very limited non-Core stuff, but my take is he wants flavor, not optimization.
Course if the party runs into Slumber witches I'm going to pout. :)
GM, here, and there seems to be a few confusions and misconceptions in here. ;)
Actually, anything that is not from the CRB, the Web Traits document, or the RotRL AE Player's Guide traits, requires GM approval. This was true, or supposed to be true, for all the PCs in the game. The reason the other player who was going to play a rogue as his replacement PC, is that he had misunderstood or missed my email with the above limitation. He didn't want to play in such a limited-source campaign, wanting an "All Paizo is legal, third party stuff on approval" game instead.
I also requested a PC-only game, no cohorts, animal companions, familiars, etc. RotRL is built for 4 15 point PCs, and maybe an AC or familiar. With 5 20 point PCs, you are already ahead of the game. The Core requirement is also based on the AP being originally written with only Core available.
Unchained Rogue is approved because I am working on my PFS Rogue, and seeing if Unchained works for him, so I have already looked it over. The other Unchained classes are on my reading list, just not sure when I will get the time. I probably need to update my 3rd level PFS Summoner to Unchained, just to make sure that the Eidolon is built legally. I have already screwed that one up as APG at least once already.
The group made a decision to try and power through all of Thistletop without rest. They managed the top level, then headed down. Unfortunately, they were low on consumable resources, managed to miss their AoOs on an enemy whose tactics said to run away at a certain point, and the path he was forced to take, due to PC placement, caused another encounter, one of the harder ones, to activate. That encounter, despite all the players could do, beat them up pretty badly. Didn't help that bad dice rolls caused things like the Wizard failing a Will save and running away in fear, and bad attack and/or damage rolls against an enemy with some DR.
So, currently, the Wizard from the original party is dead, the Urban Ranger, the Paladin and the Druid are imprisoned without any resources. Heck, until the Cleric channeled, most of them were unconscious. So, at present, and this is what brought on my comment on the Rogue, was that they had no way to get the first party free. I thought it was amusing, but that is probably just me.
So, at present, the active party is the original cleric, a fighter, a ranger, and a wizard. In my experience with these players, other than young M being a bit... bossy, they work fairly well together, it just doesn't help when their dice go cold, and mine get hot.
There is a non-Core request thread on our Roll20 site, which I look at and try to answer. Sometimes, it takes me a while. Sometimes I say yes, sometimes I say no. I need to go through, and tabulate all the answers into the first post in that thread, just for ease of lookup. I use the thread, so I don't forget what I have approved, later.
So, play what you want. I am sure things will work out. It won't be long before death becomes just a bump in the road, unless you want to try a different PC.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you misunderstand. The other players got to use non-Core.
And you didn't immediately go "Yeah...f*~! that."?
Why?
"Hey, join my ice cream club."
"Yeah, sure, any rules?"
"Well, we have this whole big selection of ice cream toppings like sprinkles and nuts, but those are only for established members of the club."
"Oh...do I at least get to pick what flavor of ice cream I like?"
"Well, sure. As long as you like Pistachio ice cream. If you pick Pistachio we're okay. If you don't want to pick Pistachio, ehhh, not sure you're the right fit for such an exclusive ice cream club."
This is the scenario you're in. Why are you bothering with the "exclusive ice cream club" that forces arbitrary restrictions that don't apply to any of the other members, and picks your flavor for you? Why aren't you going to the Coldstone or Baskin Robbins down the street and picking the flavor you want, with what you want on it, and going about your merry way?
I think you misunderstand. The other players got to use non-Core. I do not...the Core ruling came down after the original players. The GM going forward will allow very limited non-Core stuff, but my take is he wants flavor, not optimization.
Course if the party runs into Slumber witches I'm going to pout. :)
Why do they want you to be the rogue?
For now I suggest playing whatever you want. The ranger can handle the traps.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Read it again. He didn't say you have to play a rogue. He didn't even say non-core was impossible. Just that it needs to be checked and approved first.
The ranger is imprisoned.
Thought a rogue might help with the rescue.
He said, play what you want.
That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty surprised that there were three posts continuing the "play what you want" (with a little bit of "restrictions are evil" sprinkled on top) even after the GM of the game posted an incredibly reasonable sounding clarification pointing out that the player can, in fact, play what he wants.
Oooohhh forums, how we love thee.
Regardless, I'm glad the issue was cleared up. :)