| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have found that a character picking a new class out of nowhere typically indicates that the player's attention is on optimization rather than on who the character is.Or that who the character is is shaped in part by the player's optimization. There's no wrong way brossif.
Exactly. Which is why I reserve the right to disallow it, but have rarely exercised that right. In fact, I think that just having the threat hanging over their heads has made my players more likely to think in story terms about how their characters become who they are...multiple times, a character who has wanted to multiclass into something like warpriest has made it a personal quest to go find an instructor in a temple, or to meditate until achieving enlightenment, etc.
YMMV, but I've found that even though that hurdle is a bit annoying, the players feel way better about their identities than in games where they can just say "okay, I'm a warpriest now."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I think everyone's making one excellent point that bears repeating: What really makes the game suffer is when one player makes choices that slow the game down for everyone. Whether it be having to look up arcane rules or run eight summoned creatures or roll for 16 random attacks, one person can drag down an entire table, and that's something to keep in mind when reviewing character concepts... especially in large groups.
Instead of banning things with little explanation, I find it much more helpful to define what the campaign is going to be about.
For Council of Thieves, I made it clear to the players that certain types of weapons and armor would be allowed only by permit, and that there would regular encounters with guards who would search for contraband.
Players adapted nicely, I must say.
I assumed most DMs run with open character advancement, i.e. everything is available unless stated otherwise. I want players to make interesting characters for themselves first so they can enjoy playing.
Do most DMs run the other way around: nothing is open unless you get permission first?
This is a problem I've struggled with. It's a side-effect of options-bloat. There are too many things in the game now for me to pre-ban every potentially overpowered option. So my current rule is to list a few banned things, ask the players to try to avoid being significantly more powerful than the group average, and hope I don't have to ban things retrospectively once they've been chosen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There may be a style difference here I'm not thinking about.
......You can't "ban" after a player has taken an option, you can only remove it and all the annoyance all around that this applies.
Definitely different, then. We have "leveling-up" sessions where we all do it together and the players and GM are involved, so during the level up the player asks, "Is it OK for me to take this?" and I can quickly think about it and say, "Yes" or "No", depending on the circumstances.
Do most DMs run the other way around: nothing is open unless you get permission first?
I'd say that's a little extreme. We just do level-ups together so we're all on the same page. In my mind, it IS a cooperative game.
So you ban gnome illusionists with colorspray in the first two levels? How about witches with slumber hex? One quick cut and those are instant kills.
Not against undead, which are a very common creature type in low-level AP modules. And since I've already said I judge things on a case-by-case, player-by-player basis, it's rather silly to clog up the thread with, "Well, what about THIS?" situations.
EDIT: And yes, we even go so far as to have players ask me, "Is this magic item available in the town we're currently in, or do I have to wait to buy it?"
Yet I have yet to have a player refuse to play in my games because of this. Go figure.
You can't "ban" after a player has taken an option
He asked before taking it, I checked the rules and his vision, then I vetoed. I guess my posting wasn't really clear about that. To be fair, I spent two hours to discuss the topic with him: 'What do you want to achieve with it?', 'What about this or that alternative?', 'It's game-breaking because ...' etc.. He recycled his arguments again and again, probably hoping I'd give up because of fatigue. I told him I don't want this kind of cyclic discussion anymore and he respected it since then.
Maybe there would have been a better solution, but as a quite new GM I have enough on my plate...
You can ban after someone takes something. If it is the first time you've encountered it, then it is fully within your rights as the GM to do so.
You just say, "Ok, that is broken and I don't want it in my game, so I'm not going to have it in my game. Rebuild the character or bring a different character in, you're allowed a free rebuild (Class, Race and Talents) with WBL up to the wealth you've accrued thus far.
You're happy, the player gets to try something new so he is happy.
I've ran into a few players who complain about this, but they are few and far between. In most cases they go in thinking the trait or feat is overpowered, so they are not surprised when it gets the ban hammer. At the end of the day, if the player is not going to back down on not being allowed to use the now banned piece of content, they can always leave to use it in a different game. I'd rather have players who realize that certain combinations can be banned and that if they are taking advantage of it when it is banned they'll be offered a rebuild, instead of players who want to try and boss the GM around.
If I'm GMing, then I've enough on my plate as it is. I don't need someone's bullcrap getting in the way and adding more to my plate. I'm a busy person, making myself more busy by running the campaign.
At the end of the day, if the player refuses, but I don't want to lose the player, I abuse the feature the player refuses to lose until everyone at the table agrees that it is bullcrap. At this point the player either cedes the point under the pressure of the GM and the other players or I target the PC for assassination. One way or another, the feature is not going to be used sooner or later.
If the PCs refuse the hard ban, then anyone who chooses something from the ban list is targeted for assassination. They have a permanent AOE (unlimited range) taunt that is always on.
The point is: if your GM says, "Don't use this," then you shouldn't use it. Full stop.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can ban after someone takes something. If it is the first time you've encountered it, then it is fully within your rights as the GM to do so.
You just say, "Ok, that is broken and I don't want it in my game, so I'm not going to have it in my game. Rebuild the character or bring a different character in, you're allowed a free rebuild (Class, Race and Talents) with WBL up to the wealth you've accrued thus far.You're happy, the player gets to try something new so he is happy.
Disclaimer: Use judiciously, repeat uses may erode good-will and social cohesion.
We just do level-ups together so we're all on the same page.I don't know if it's extreme, but it seems to describe your method. You add the restriction that players sit with all the other players and you when they level. If someone has to leave early or can't make it to the game that week, do they level alone or have their own leveling session?
Maybe I'm slow, but I take a lot of time to consider options. My paladin/oracle has a lot of odd options to weigh. The straight barbarian, not so much. Group leveling will lead to a lot of snap decisions and all that implies for both DM and players.
How often are you just starting to think about what option to take when the GM says "Level up!"? Chances are you have some pretty good ideas what you want to do before that happens. Plus, if any questions come up about your PC and what he can do, everyone is there and problems can be hashed out and everyone put on a common level of understanding of a particular feature.
In my mind, it IS a cooperative game.Cooperative means operate together. If I'm the tank, I don't need to discuss taking options to better tank to cooperate: it's my job and I should do it well. I don't ask each round what I should do, even as I consider other players in my decisions. If this IS a role playing game, the players need to play their own role.
But in many cases the role they pick, as in the role within the party, is selected in consultation with the other players. Player 1 is taking Feat A, Player 2 picks Feat B to complement Player 1. Or Player 1 is going to be a rogue with good lock-picking skills so Player 2, who is playing a wizard, elects not to gear up to make wands of knock. That too makes this a cooperative game.
I don't believe anyone actually allowes simulacrum in their game
I do. For both NPC's and PC's. One of my players actually had a "Copy in every material city" at one stage, cool campaign.
1. Is it on d20pfsrd.com? It's allowed. It isn't, but is content created for Pathfinder? Run it by me first so I know what it is, there's about a 95% I'll say yes.
2. Yes, this does mean that you can take abusive options. So can I, and I can do it better than you can by virtue of having limitless resources as the GM. Being awesome is encouraged; starting a futile tomfoolery arms race is not.
3. The above are subjected to change depending the campaign in question. This will be discussed by the group ahead of time. So no gunslingers in Camelot, in Fantasy Japan katanas are encouraged, and there's always a place for the bard. If it's not allowed this time, it probably will be next time.
4. If, after I have told you fighter is terrible, all but begged you to use Path of War instead, and you still choose to play a fighter, you are not allowed to whine about fighter being a terrible class.
Disclaimer: Use judiciously, repeat uses may erode good-will and social cohesion.You can ban after someone takes something. If it is the first time you've encountered it, then it is fully within your rights as the GM to do so.
You just say, "Ok, that is broken and I don't want it in my game, so I'm not going to have it in my game. Rebuild the character or bring a different character in, you're allowed a free rebuild (Class, Race and Talents) with WBL up to the wealth you've accrued thus far.You're happy, the player gets to try something new so he is happy.
Yes, don't use this often. If you do have to use it often then you might want the player in question to make his character with you, in person, to check everything he chooses ahead of time. There is some bullcrap in Pathfinder, but luckily there isn't much.
More or less I don't care about your offensive capabilities, but I tend to ban more along the lines of feats that make you invulnerable in one way or another. If none of the monsters can hurt you in melee, even if they hit, because of a feat, then that feat might get banned.
The 20th time the PCs kill the BBEG clone it begins to get a bit stale.
Idk, they liked fighting through the fortress of BBEG.
WO, they didn't make like, 10 pit fiends? That's what I would do
They did not. I mean, they get to use the ability, but there is still a social contract keeping the game together. Though, I think they might have looked up 3.5e simulacrum, since the simulacrum-player never really made any simulacrum of creatures they wouldn't have access to.
Oh, so they used simulacrum like they were really dumb, ok
Using Simulacrum to its full potential is dumber, since that's guaranteed to get it banned.
So then simulacrum wasn't actually allowed, a nerfed version was.
They used it. I did not modify it. It was not nerfed.
So then simulacrum wasn't actually allowed, a nerfed version was.They used it. I did not modify it. It was not nerfed.
Sounds to me like they used it wisely.
Nice players... good players *patting them on their heads like puppies*
I've never seen that spell in play, sounds like something that can crack the game wide open.
So far, I've only banned one thing - Sacred Geometry. Wizards really, really didn't need an over complicated feat that massively messes with how long it takes them to do there turn but does exponentially increase the power of all there low level spells. It isn't even offset by a risk of failure at higher levels - I remember someone showing it's always possible to solve it after a certain point, utterly negating the five minutes your player spends solving it every turn.
Pretty much everything else so far has been fair game, including 3.5 material and lots of third party stuff.
Just a general alternative to banning things that slog down the game session: keep in mind, you can just handwave some combats to keep things moving. I found this to be a useful tool in 4e's glacial pace.
Example:
Party with 5th level master summoner scouts out a big scary golem in a high ceiling chamber. MS says he wants to send in some lasers to deal with it. DM and player agree on number of lasers necessary to mitigate risk. Handwave. Adventure continues.
More extreme example:
MS says she desires to nova strike a significant encounter with 20-40 earth elementals. She doesn't know there's a fear effect and DR in play. Party agrees. It's pretty simple as a DM to roll a few percentile dice, and figure out how far those elementals got, before they won or one comes back and says "all friends dead".
PF relies on lots of dice and checks, but many times, slog encounters are more satisfying if they just happen, end, and there is a resource penalty like spells cast and HP lost.
Players want to play exciting encounters, but have to play lesser encounters to get there.
Letting them old school talk their way through some encounters is a nice change of pace.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since you honestly seem to be trying to understand my viewpoint, I'll try once more...
So players are expected to ask if each option is OK. Is there no 'open' list just to cut time?
I don't see how, "I'm taking Power Attack this level, OK?" "OK." takes any time at all. Our level-ups usually take under 10 minutes per PC, with the exception of Mr. "I have to read and ponder every possible option before I pick", and it's a lot faster for me to be there, helping him choose, rather than have him show up at the next game totally unprepared.
You add the restriction that players sit with all the other players...
No. I add the restriction that I'm going to review their level-ups before the next session, and I'm going to make a certain amount of time open so they can all get together and discuss what they're doing. Mr. "3-hour level-up" usually does his stuff at home, e-mails me what he wants to do, and I'll e-mail back the "OK" or "Not OK".
Maybe I'm slow, but I take a lot of time to consider options. My paladin/oracle has a lot of odd options to weigh. The straight barbarian, not so much. Group leveling will lead to a lot of snap decisions and all that implies for both DM and players.
As Bill said, it's several sessions between level-ups. If you prefer to wait until the moment you level up to even consider what you're going to do, then yes, it will take you much more time. And we don't rush you. If you'd rather go home and think about things, then e-mail me to discuss what you're looking at, that's fine.
I'm not a tyrant; I just want to help people build PCs that everyone can enjoy. It's just as unfun to be utterly useless as it is to be OP.
Cooperative means operate together. If I'm the tank, I don't need to discuss taking options to better tank to cooperate: it's my job and I should do it well.
Sounds much more like a PFS table than a homebrew. But I don't make people talk to each other if they don't want to. "I'm not interested in anything any of you might care to contribute" is fine. I have a few players who feel that way.
I don't ask each round what I should do...
Please don't troll. You know darned well I never suggested such a thing.
A gnome illusionist with colorspray can do just that to many if not all encounters in first couple levels. I want to understand what you think the line should be since you called it unforgivable to cross. At least one other player at my table tends to get annoyed when I deal more than half the damage in a combat. Yet I have never been asked to change, go figure. ;)
Since you're obsessed with the gnome illusionist with Color Spray, I'll reiterate that I don't ban such things. They're not nearly as effective as you seem to think. And in a "classic" 4-person party (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard), you expect the fighter to be dealing over half the damage in a combat. If another player complained, I'd ask them to reconsider what they were playing if they didn't feel their damage was measuring up.
Now, suppose someone came to me with the same gnome illusionist and had some bizarre assortment of traits and feats that raised the DC from around 15 to over 20 and made it an at-will ability, and at that point I'd put my foot down.
It's like that famous quote that I will now mangle, "I can't tell you what art is, but I know what I like, and that's not it."
Having hard and fast concrete rules may be "easier", but if it's a whitelist you'll miss interesting character choices. I had a character take the whole series of drow noble feats and she ended up being the best PC I've ever run for. If I were just whitelisting, there's no way I would have ever allowed those feats. If it's a blacklist, you prevent people with perfectly valid build concepts from taking something that fits in perfectly.
I'm going to stick with a dynamic, "Let's build this PC together and make sure he/she fits in with this campaign" approach.
And because it's a total side note unrelated to the above post, I'll just point out that my most-effective groups are the ones who DO discuss each round what they're going to be doing with the rest of the party, and my 'catastrophic failure' groups are the ones where each person takes an, "I'm going to do my own thing" approach.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not outright ban anything except for the occasional dude you meet at a con or gamestore, ah the luxury of playing with the same group more or less forever.
NobodysHome pretty much nailed it on the head as how we run a campaign. We get together listen to what the DM has in mind and then pick appropriate races/classes. We then pick our feats up to level 15 so the DM has a good grasp on the planned character.
If something isn't working for him we change it, if during the campaign something isn't working for him or the player we change it.
I do not outright ban anything except for the occasional dude you meet at a con or gamestore, ah the luxury of playing with the same group more or less forever.
NobodysHome pretty much nailed it on the head as how we run a campaign. We get together listen to what the DM has in mind and then pick appropriate races/classes. We then pick our feats up to level 15 so the DM has a good grasp on the planned character.
If something isn't working for him we change it, if during the campaign something isn't working for him or the player we change it.
With one exception, my group works this way as well.
There is one very secretive player who gets angry when the GM tells him he isn't allowed to break the game, as if he is entitled to or something...
|
I generally generate a list of races / classes before each campaign and let the players know which ones are common, uncommon, rare and very rare.
Common Races and Classes for the area can be freely chosen and I give out a free background trait if you select one as encouragement to stay in theme.
Uncommon Races and Classes are allowed using the regular rules.
Rare races and classes are limited to one racial and one class choice for the entire party, they can decide among themselves who gets to have which selection.
Very Rare races and classes are usually determined by the setting and theme. For example, a Winter Witch in the Legacy of Fire campaign would be disallowed, as would a Samurai in Iron Gods, or a barbarian in Council of Thieves, etc....
I tend to concentrate VERY heavily on the cultural / thematic flavor of the area the campaign is set in and go from there. I use the player's guides and Inner Sea books to figure out where each race/class falls into in a given area.
I generally generate a list of races / classes before each campaign and let the players know which ones are common, uncommon, rare and very rare.
Common Races and Classes for the area can be freely chosen and I give out a free background trait if you select one as encouragement to stay in theme.
Uncommon Races and Classes are allowed using the regular rules.
Rare races and classes are limited to one racial and one class choice for the entire party, they can decide among themselves who gets to have which selection.
Very Rare races and classes are usually determined by the setting and theme. For example, a Winter Witch in the Legacy of Fire campaign would be disallowed, as would a Samurai in Iron Gods, or a barbarian in Council of Thieves, etc....
I tend to concentrate VERY heavily on the cultural / thematic flavor of the area the campaign is set in and go from there. I use the player's guides and Inner Sea books to figure out where each race/class falls into in a given area.
Neat.
I would have no problem, unless humans were rare. Human Hunter, now and forever. *hugs character sheet*
Just use this rule: Yes, everything 1st party is allowed. However, if it turns out that it feels overpowered in a bad way to me or changes the game in some way, shape or form then I'll ban it and you'll get to rebuild.
Alternatively, you could say, "Core Only."
Generally I allow:
Anything in CRB
Anything in the APG
Anything in ISWG
Anything in the ACG
Anything added by the AP we're running
Anything in UM (mostly because I have a magus in the party)
Anything else from any 1st party books present at the table
From those, the things that are excluded:
Gunslinger (unless it fits the setting, but likely not)
Summoner (tends to break things, creates player spotlight issues, other problems)
I don't like telling players they can't do something simply for the fact that it makes my job as GM harder. If I did that, I wouldn't have such cool PCs in my group.
Personally I don't mind the Leadership feat (referring now to the original post). As I understand it, the GM controls the cohort anyway. It can be overpowered if you give the player a combat-oriented cohort (which might be called for in some adventures depending on player skill and knowledge), but if the cohort is, for example, a pacifist rogue who can find traps and pick locks but not much else, or is otherwise not very combat optimized, it doesn't add too much power to the group at all. Remember that the GM gets to pick the cohort, not the player. That being said, I still think to take the feat would require agreement from the GM because it does create a lot of extra work from the GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I don't mind the Leadership feat
I love the leadership feat. Sure, the player gets to control the Cohort like a permanent pet, but those followers of his? Does he think they are really going to listen to him when he says, "DO. NOT. FOLLOW. ME. INTO. DANGER!"? At least one is going to go, and probably an intrepid level 1 at that.
Nothing forces the players forward like planning out their attack plan, and then seeing some of the monsters drag a teenage human boy, that one of the players recognizes as one of his followers, into the monster den. It is an "Oh, Sarenrae damnit" moment where the PCs now need to go save that little idiot.
Personally I don't mind the Leadership featI love the leadership feat. Sure, the player gets to control the Cohort like a permanent pet, but those followers of his? Does he think they are really going to listen to him when he says, "DO. NOT. FOLLOW. ME. INTO. DANGER!"? At least one is going to go, and probably an intrepid level 1 at that.
Nothing forces the players forward like planning out their attack plan, and then seeing some of the monsters drag a teenage human boy, that one of the players recognizes as one of his followers, into the monster den. It is an "Oh, Sarenrae damnit" moment where the PCs now need to go save that little idiot.
In my games, the player does not get to control an NPC Cohort like a pet. Cohorts are still their own characters with their own agency. They're not quite GMPCs but they're definitely not familiars or animal companions, either.
I allow everything paizo, and anything 3pp upon approval. I used to allow anything from Dreamscarred press without prior review, but one player dipped into path of war and was doing way more damage than even the zen archer, who is already a problem. He decided on his own to take the PoW out of his build, and now anything from PoW is subject to strict review.
I have the specific problem that one of my players (the zen archer) most enjoys building spell-less DPR machines; to take that away would greatly lessen his enjoyment of the game.
Other than that, I have a much higher level of system mastery than any of my players, so I allow most things with the understanding that anything too broken will likely be countered with something much, much nastier that I build with the same rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the end of the day, if the player refuses, but I don't want to lose the player, I abuse the feature the player refuses to lose until everyone at the table agrees that it is bullcrap. At this point the player either cedes the point under the pressure of the GM and the other players or I target the PC for assassination. One way or another, the feature is not going to be used sooner or later.
If the PCs refuse the hard ban, then anyone who chooses something from the ban list is targeted for assassination. They have a permanent AOE (unlimited range) taunt that is always on.
The point is: if your GM says, "Don't use this," then you shouldn't use it. Full stop.
Yeah, we had a DM who did this. We hated it.
You cant solve a OOC issue IC. Killing the PC for the Players issues is a Bad Idea.
Just say NO!. Dont be passive-aggressive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the end of the day, if the player refuses, but I don't want to lose the player, I abuse the feature the player refuses to lose until everyone at the table agrees that it is bullcrap. At this point the player either cedes the point under the pressure of the GM and the other players or I target the PC for assassination. One way or another, the feature is not going to be used sooner or later.
If the PCs refuse the hard ban, then anyone who chooses something from the ban list is targeted for assassination. They have a permanent AOE (unlimited range) taunt that is always on.
The point is: if your GM says, "Don't use this," then you shouldn't use it. Full stop.
Yeah, we had a DM who did this. We hated it.
You cant solve a OOC issue IC. Killing the PC for the Players issues is a Bad Idea.
Just say NO!. Dont be passive-aggressive.
Yeah if a player takes something I have banned, I simply ignore whatever result it would produce and politely remind them that, as god and master (GM), I decide what is allowed in the game, not them.
Armed with a chainsaw you say? Funny, it never seems to do any damage... and no one else in the world can see it...
Guess your character is just a crazy guy running around going 'brrrrm brrrrrm pah pah pah WHAAAAAAAAAH!" acting like he's holding something.
I said no chainsaws, but I don't control your character, so if you wanna keep doing that, you go right ahead. :D
If a player tries to run something that the GM has disallowed, you have a fundamental problem with your gaming group. You need to get everyone on the same page before it ever even gets to rolling dice. If you have people in your group who actively choose to ignore the GMs requests, you're going to have more problems later on regardless.
At the end of the day, if the player refuses, but I don't want to lose the player, I abuse the feature the player refuses to lose until everyone at the table agrees that it is bullcrap. At this point the player either cedes the point under the pressure of the GM and the other players or I target the PC for assassination. One way or another, the feature is not going to be used sooner or later.
If the PCs refuse the hard ban, then anyone who chooses something from the ban list is targeted for assassination. They have a permanent AOE (unlimited range) taunt that is always on.
The point is: if your GM says, "Don't use this," then you shouldn't use it. Full stop.
Yeah, we had a DM who did this. We hated it.
You cant solve a OOC issue IC. Killing the PC for the Players issues is a Bad Idea.
Just say NO!. Dont be passive-aggressive.
If the GM says, "I don't want this in my game, so I'm banning it. Here's a free character rebuild", and the player says, "Screw yourself, I'm using it or I'm not playing," and the GM needs the player then congratulations: the PC's character is targeted for death.
It isn't passive aggressive if the other option is kicking the player squarely in the ass out your front door.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM says, "I don't want this in my game, so I'm banning it. Here's a free character rebuild", and the player says, "Screw yourself, I'm using it or I'm not playing," and the GM needs the player then congratulations: the PC's character is targeted for death.
It isn't passive aggressive if the other option is kicking the player squarely in the ass out your front door.
If a player tries to say "Screw you I'll play what I want or else!" the proper answer is to tell them Bye Felicia! And then follow it up with "Would the rest of you prefer I run a NPC with the group, or would you all like to collectively decide to allow someone to run two PC characters?" Of course, this assume you don't have at least 4 PCs. If you do, then you don't even bother and just tell the offending person to not let the door hit them where the good lord split them.
Don't ever let anyone try to hold your game hostage, and don't ever sink to their level. Don't abuse them or try to handle problems with people by doing things to them in game. This usually just ends in a circular feed back loop with each of you becoming bigger jerks each go around.
No, it's still passive aggression. Your other option being open aggression doesn't change that.
Lesser of two evils. One presents a scenario where the player in question decides if he is going to play by your rules or if he is going to go somewhere else, while the other option kicks him out of the game.
In most circumstances I'll give a player three warnings, (1st, "This feature is on the ban list. You can't use it. I'll let you use it this time, but only because you either didn't know or figured I was just going to 'overlook' it," 2nd "Didn't I tell you last week that this isn't allowed? Look, you can't use it. If you try to use it, it doesn't work. If you show up next time with this, I'm kicking you. I don't care if you have to just leave the feature space blank, you can't use this or even have it on your sheet in the rare chance you forget it isn't allowed," 3rd time, I tell him to get the hell out of my game, and not come back. If the person is a kid I put it nicely, if it is a full grown adult I don't hold my punches with it. It is just some alpha wannabe trying to push me around, and I'm not going to put up with it) and then kick him.
However, in the rare chance that my games do not have 6+ people wanting in (I run them at colleges and game stores, there are usually tons of people wanting in), but instead are struggling to get even three players I have to be nicer about it. I remind the person three times that the feature is on the ban list, and then I just kill the person's character over and over until he or she gets it.
However, at the end of the day I only have one thing banned, and that is the Roll With It feat that goblins can take. Mostly because I don't want to have to build every single monster to have a ranged attack just to deal with someone who buffs their acrobatics to absurd levels to make them more or less immune to melee damage.
I'm not going to play excuses with you. If I tell you, "you can't use this in my game," and you show up with it, then you are actively trying to provoke me. Maybe not on the first offense, that might be a mistake, but the second and third offense is blatant and obvious. GTFO of my game, and don't come back. I wont miss you if you're that type of player. If the player apologizes for being a waste of space at my table, then I'll let him back in, but he'll bet getting a list of the banned material with the knowledge that 1st offense is gone.
Trust me when I say I've had plenty of these people come in and try to boss me around in my own games. I've learned, the hard way, that if you court them, they think they can take over in a bad way.
The worst part is that these guys tend to realize you have it out for them, and go out of their way to ensure that if their character dies the party is probably screwed. It is best to just kick them. The unfortunate reality is that these people just meander from group to group ruining people's games. Seriously, screw these people.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lesser of two evils. One presents a scenario where the player in question decides if he is going to play by your rules or if he is going to go somewhere else, while the other option kicks him out of the game.
One presents a scenario where the group becomes toxic, and the other excises the toxic elements from the group instead of letting them fester.
In my games, the player does not get to control an NPC Cohort like a pet. Cohorts are still their own characters with their own agency. They're not quite GMPCs but they're definitely not familiars or animal companions, either.Personally I don't mind the Leadership featI love the leadership feat. Sure, the player gets to control the Cohort like a permanent pet, but those followers of his? Does he think they are really going to listen to him when he says, "DO. NOT. FOLLOW. ME. INTO. DANGER!"? At least one is going to go, and probably an intrepid level 1 at that.
Nothing forces the players forward like planning out their attack plan, and then seeing some of the monsters drag a teenage human boy, that one of the players recognizes as one of his followers, into the monster den. It is an "Oh, Sarenrae damnit" moment where the PCs now need to go save that little idiot.
That isn't following the rules then. The point is this, there is no reason the cohort wouldn't do whatever the PC asked him to do. He idolizes and fully supports the PC's goals. To this end he'd more or less do anything the PC asked him to do so long as he can see and understand why he is doing things. If a PC tells him to do something that would cause undue or pointless suffering on the cohort he is likely to refuse.
The PC doesn't have complete control, the cohort is an NPC that will more or less do anything he is asked so long as it is reasonable in context to the situation.Interestingly enough, every companion PCs can get, follow this, even familiars and animal companions. The PC can't compel these creatures to do something they really don't want to do. Short of dominating them, animal companions, cohorts, eidolons and familiars all actually have free will and can refuse to do things. This just doesn't come up that often, since most players are not psychopaths who want to be cruel to their pets for no reason.