Your DM Banned The Ninja? Why Not Call it "The Agent" and See What Happens?

[Neal Litherland]

I've been beating this drum for a while now, so anyone tired of listening to the tune, apologies for taking up your time. However, I keep running into players and DMs who insist that their version of a class is the only way it can be played, despite no back-up from the rules on their opinions.

This week's argument I'm railing against? Any character with ninja levels must be from fantasy Asia, or trained by the same, otherwise they're not a ninja.

As I've made clear in Want to Play a Ninja, But Your DM Said No? Try Calling it "The Agent" Instead, no base class in Pathfinder that I have found (I haven't finished reading Occult Adventures yet) expressly states that anyone with levels of X class must be from Y nation or culture. There are plenty of prestige classes like that, from the Eagle Knights to the Bloatmages, but base classes seem to be open to anyone from anywhere, with the exception that some of the archetypes are limited to certain races.

So why is there a knee-jerk tendency to say that a class MUST be presented in a certain way when the rules don't say so? I'd think after so many knights in shining armor and light-fingered rogues it would be refreshing to have a heavily scarred half-orc ninja in the party, or the eldest son of a noble family with 5 levels of barbarian on his sheet.

Is it just me?

POSTSCRIPT: This is NOT a post about how DMs should never say no to a player, or how a player's wants trumps the DM's discretion. The title is simply that; a title. The question I'm poking at here is why so many players insist on tying neutral mechanics to certain flavors a class is not required to have.

[Frosty Ace]

Just be an Unchained Rogue in your favorite black pajamas. They'll never know the difference. B)

[Hubaris]

Your Witch isn't required to have a Broom of Flying.
Your Barbarian doesn't have to be a muscle-bound, illiterate monster.
Your Monk doesn't have to be Eastern inspired.
Your Warlord doesn't have to be Genghis Khan.
Neither should the Ninja.

I reflavour characters all the time much to the chagrin of my party and GM. I don't see the need to box myself in creatively when the mechanics of another class plays better despite the name. A fix when it comes to the party is to tell them "I'm an ex-con who has been touched by a deity and fights for justice" (Paladin/Rogue/Oracle). Its really not for them to know what the paper says.

When my GM asks me what I'm playing, I find its better to describe the character first before getting into the mechanics. Tell them your aspirations, beliefs, fighting style, ideals, then when they're on board mention the mechanical options. Its a little bit of a cheat but its worked for me in the past.

[Reiko of White Wave]

...I'm just tryin' to help... :'(

[Neal Litherland]

Hubaris wrote:

Your Witch isn't required to have a Broom of Flying.

Your Barbarian doesn't have to be a muscle-bound, illiterate monster.
Your Monk doesn't have to be Eastern inspired.
Your Warlord doesn't have to be Genghis Khan.
Neither should the Ninja.

I reflavour characters all the time much to the chagrin of my party and GM. I don't see the need to box myself in creatively when the mechanics of another class plays better despite the name. A fix when it comes to the party is to tell them "I'm an ex-con who has been touched by a deity and fights for justice" (Paladin/Rogue/Oracle). Its really not for them to know what the paper says.

When my GM asks me what I'm playing, I find its better to describe the character first before getting into the mechanics. Tell them your aspirations, beliefs, fighting style, ideals, then when they're on board mention the mechanical options. Its a little bit of a cheat but its worked for me in the past.

Am I silly for assuming that's the way players are SUPPOSED to approach the DM?

That's pretty much the way I've always operated as a player. I come up with the concept, and with mechanics to support it. Then I shoot the concept at the DM. Once the concept is approved, I submit the mechanics, and discuss. I've never had a DM say no, though once or twice I have been told that I've got enough rope to hang myself with. It's always been entertaining, both for me, and the rest of the table.

[Hubaris]

@Neal: I've been at tables where its been "What class are you playing? What is your alignment? What is X? What is Y?" Honestly its too straightjacketing for me personally but it does happen. Coming from a GURPS background probably biases me though.

*Shrug*

[Gulthor]

Yeah, we reflavor classes all the time; I think it's ludicrous that anyone would insist that a "ninja" would *have* to be from Tian Xia and couldn't have been trained as covert operative.

I would really hope this is a non-problem.

[Deighton Thrane]

I'm not against playing classes against type, or their supposed flavor, but it's a lot easier to adjudicate for a game by knowing that your player's character is a paladin versus a warpriest. They're both holy warriors, who can play very similarly, but have important distinctions, like a warpriest can be a liar and a cheat. The paladin should have a little more problems getting away with this.

[Ambrosia Slaad]

Neal Litherland wrote:

This week's argument I'm railing against? Any character with ninja levels must be from fantasy Asia, or trained by the same, otherwise they're not a ninja.

...So why is there a knee-jerk tendency to say that a class MUST be presented in a certain way when the rules don't say so?

I submitted an article for the next upcoming Wayfinder issue (the article didn't make it in) about Vudrani vishkanya who brought their psychic rogue (aka ninja) skills with them when they immigrated into the River Kingdoms.

[Grey Lensman]

For a short lived campaign I played a Fetchling Ninja with a focus on shadow powers - The character considered herself more of a thief but the ninja class abilities fit the concept of a Fetchling learning the abilities of a Shae ancestor. She even wore the mask. I hope to try and bring it into another game at a later date - even if there isn't an Asian culture to draw on in the game. T

[Scythia]

That's a rational approach.

Unfortunately, those who ban classes for cultural reasons are not always being rational.

[Squiggit]

It basically goes back to the "is a class a class or a mechanical abstraction" debate.

One side feels that classes are just a bundle of mechanics and the name of the class doesn't matter. They often also believe multiclassing also doesn't matter. So a ninja is not necessarily a ninja and a monk 1/ninja 4 is not necessarily a monk who abandoned their training to become a ninja or something.

The other feels like they do matter and if you're a barbarian, yes, you are a wild tribesmen and everything that entails. If you're a ninja, yes you're a black pajama wearing mystical acrobat throwing shurikens and swinging a sword.

And unfortunately there's very little common ground you can find here.

[Set]

It would be neat if the ninja, monk and samurai had an alternate class feature (nothing as developed as an archetype) to swap out kama, nunchaku, katana, etc. for some non-Asian weapon proficiencies, to help hammer this concept home and encourage the idea of Garundi monks (Ouat dwarven monks!), Ustalavan (or Halfling!) ninja or Aldori (or elven!) samurai.

[CalethosVB]

I have a half-orc Bloodrager that is noble-born, set to inherit his uncle's estate. His uncle, hating orcs in general, decides to send the stain on the family's good name out into the world to see what he will, to become wiser and to freely express himself. Due to his orc heritage, he has a little bit of a temper. He's okay at swordsmanship, but the whip is his weapon of choice, mostly an outlet of artistic expression. While he visits the world at large, he begins to learn how to cast spells, though not enough to take him away from his martial studies. Boy, will he be surprised when he returns home to find his uncle married with a child on the way.

[Cydeth]

Personally? I have absolutely no issue with the idea of re-flavoring the Ninja. I have issues with the mechanics, but no one has asked to play one...so I haven't looked into it heavily. *shrugs*

When I ban something, it's not because of the feel. It's because either I don't want guns in this setting, because I don't allow evil characters (antipaladin), or because I don't like the mechanics (I replaced the summoner with the Unchained version).

[RDM42]

Unless there is something about it that just flat cannot fit, like perhaps guns in a non gun setting, Evil like Cydeth said when I am not gming evil, or they are broken in some way or contain something I just don't feel like dealing with, reflavoring classes is rarely an issue.

[Samasboy1]

Set wrote:

It would be neat if the ninja, monk and samurai had an alternate class feature (nothing as developed as an archetype) to swap out kama, nunchaku, katana, etc. for some non-Asian weapon proficiencies, to help hammer this concept home and encourage the idea of Garundi monks (Ouat dwarven monks!), Ustalavan (or Halfling!) ninja or Aldori (or elven!) samurai.

Hmmm.....ninja could just get Rogue weapons.

Monk....I guess Brawler weapons.

Samurai....all martial plus one or two exotic (dueling sword for Aldori, Curve Blade for elf).

Something like that.

[wraithstrike]

Neal Litherland wrote:

I've been beating this drum for a while now, so anyone tired of listening to the tune, apologies for taking up your time. However, I keep running into players and DMs who insist that their version of a class is the only way it can be played, despite no back-up from the rules on their opinions.

This week's argument I'm railing against? Any character with ninja levels must be from fantasy Asia, or trained by the same, otherwise they're not a ninja.

As I've made clear in Want to Play a Ninja, But Your DM Said No? Try Calling it "The Agent" Instead, no base class in Pathfinder that I have found (I haven't finished reading Occult Adventures yet) expressly states that anyone with levels of X class must be from Y nation or culture. There are plenty of prestige classes like that, from the Eagle Knights to the Bloatmages, but base classes seem to be open to anyone from anywhere, with the exception that some of the archetypes are limited to certain races.

So why is there a knee-jerk tendency to say that a class MUST be presented in a certain way when the rules don't say so? I'd think after so many knights in shining armor and light-fingered rogues it would be refreshing to have a heavily scarred half-orc ninja in the party, or the eldest son of a noble family with 5 levels of barbarian on his sheet.

Is it just me?

POSTSCRIPT: This is NOT a post about how DMs should never say no to a player, or how a player's wants trumps the DM's discretion. The title is simply that; a title. The question I'm poking at here is why so many players insist on tying neutral mechanics to certain flavors a class is not required to have.

I have seen this(nonsense in my opinion) come up several times. If you try to rename the class they say no because Pathfinder's flavor writeup is permanent, and you can't by pass it.

If you try to use another class, such as a ranger to do the ninja concept they also say no.

It is like they are going out of their way to kill any "Asian" mechanics or concepts. If you point out some factual historical element they revert to some other excuse.

I get that the GM gets final say in what is in his gameworld, but I would prefer for him to just say "I am biased against ____, even though I don't have a logical reason for it", and to try to hide behind excuses.

Some do admit this. <thumbs up to them, even if I don't agree with their ideas>

[Blymurkla]

I'm close to banning ninjas and samurais at my table.

Oh, sure, you can re-flavour classes. A rogue can be a paid spy, a pirate, a playful aristocrat or what-ever and thus does not have to be a low-life thief from the city.

But the ninja is, to me at least, basically a rogue with a very heavy Japan-flavour.

Plus, the few players I've encountered who've been interested in the ninja have been Japan-buffs seeking out exactly that flavour, and thus doesn’t want to re-flavour the ninja to anything else.

I can compromise, though. I'm currently considering giving my hobgoblin khanate a lite whiff of pseodo-japan. Might actually serve to mix up the heavy mongol-flavour they have. A small, reclusive elven society with ninjas and samurais might work too. Or halflings, gillmen or dwarfs.

[Neal Litherland]

Deighton Thrane wrote:

I'm not against playing classes against type, or their supposed flavor, but it's a lot easier to adjudicate for a game by knowing that your player's character is a paladin versus a warpriest. They're both holy warriors, who can play very similarly, but have important distinctions, like a warpriest can be a liar and a cheat. The paladin should have a little more problems getting away with this.

Not sure what you're getting at, here, given that the DM is supposed to know what's on your sheet AND what's in your background. The only occasion I can think of where you'd have to take the DM aside is when you're coming to a Society style game, and there's no sign-off required on your concept before the game starts, as long as it falls withing the rules.

The point here, though, is an important one. Your DM needs to know what you have, and how you're presenting it. The rest of the table has no such right; they see what you describe, and what you do when the dice come out. So, while the DM might know you just have a Fighter, the rest of the party might take your pious code and prayers as the signs of a low-level paladin. If you bill yourself as a scout, the party could mistake you for a ranger, or an outdoorsy rogue, without once guessing that your sheet has the word "ninja" on it.

[Neal Litherland]

Squiggit wrote:

It basically goes back to the "is a class a class or a mechanical abstraction" debate.

One side feels that classes are just a bundle of mechanics and the name of the class doesn't matter. They often also believe multiclassing also doesn't matter. So a ninja is not necessarily a ninja and a monk 1/ninja 4 is not necessarily a monk who abandoned their training to become a ninja or something.

The other feels like they do matter and if you're a barbarian, yes, you are a wild tribesmen and everything that entails. If you're a ninja, yes you're a black pajama wearing mystical acrobat throwing shurikens and swinging a sword.

And unfortunately there's very little common ground you can find here.

Have I missed something in the write-ups, though? The barbarian's class description specifically says they can come from "all walks of life, both civilized and savage." How does someone square the opinion of "you have to come from a savage tribe" with that kind of class description, which is more inclusive? Ditto the ninja, since it never sates a nation of culture the class comes from, but refers to them only as hired agents of sabotage skilled in a variety of weapons and mystical techniques? The same could be said of bloodragers, monks, and warpriests.

It comes back to players and DMs who want you to take their opinions as fact. I will readily accept that someone has an opinion, and they are more than welcome to that opinion. But when someone tells me that their opinion is the only way a class can be played, that's something that needs to be backed up with text in the rulebook. As far as I know, no such text exists for any of the base classes.

[wraithstrike]

Deighton Thrane wrote:

I'm not against playing classes against type, or their supposed flavor, but it's a lot easier to adjudicate for a game by knowing that your player's character is a paladin versus a warpriest. They're both holy warriors, who can play very similarly, but have important distinctions, like a warpriest can be a liar and a cheat. The paladin should have a little more problems getting away with this.

I don't think anyone is advocating tricking the GM, or changing the mechanics based on flavor, so even if the paladin is now a "samuari" he should still lose his powers for violating the paladin code, even if the name changes to "samurai code".

[RDM42]

wraithstrike wrote:

Neal Litherland wrote:

I've been beating this drum for a while now, so anyone tired of listening to the tune, apologies for taking up your time. However, I keep running into players and DMs who insist that their version of a class is the only way it can be played, despite no back-up from the rules on their opinions.

This week's argument I'm railing against? Any character with ninja levels must be from fantasy Asia, or trained by the same, otherwise they're not a ninja.

As I've made clear in Want to Play a Ninja, But Your DM Said No? Try Calling it "The Agent" Instead, no base class in Pathfinder that I have found (I haven't finished reading Occult Adventures yet) expressly states that anyone with levels of X class must be from Y nation or culture. There are plenty of prestige classes like that, from the Eagle Knights to the Bloatmages, but base classes seem to be open to anyone from anywhere, with the exception that some of the archetypes are limited to certain races.

So why is there a knee-jerk tendency to say that a class MUST be presented in a certain way when the rules don't say so? I'd think after so many knights in shining armor and light-fingered rogues it would be refreshing to have a heavily scarred half-orc ninja in the party, or the eldest son of a noble family with 5 levels of barbarian on his sheet.

Is it just me?

POSTSCRIPT: This is NOT a post about how DMs should never say no to a player, or how a player's wants trumps the DM's discretion. The title is simply that; a title. The question I'm poking at here is why so many players insist on tying neutral mechanics to certain flavors a class is not required to have.

I have seen this(nonsense in my opinion) come up several times. If you try to rename the class they say no because Pathfinder's flavor writeup is permanent, and you can't by pass it.

If you try to use another class, such as a ranger to do the ninja concept they also...

If what you want are the mechanics I don't give two shakes of a rats hiney so long as you reflavoring them in a way that fits the setting. If, however, you want to stick a full on flavor and fluff Japanese samurai into the burning lands where there is no such thing and the flavor and fluff is more east European? No.

One does not always wish to GM a fish out of water/dude dropped in through a random magic portal etcetera game. I know you love Japan dearly, but in this campaign at least try to branch out a little. If you want a Samurai come up on a spin of the class that fits HERE.

[ryric]

Heh, I've actually had the opposite problem - a GM who believed that the ninja class was unnecessary because you could just play a rogue with the proper flavor.

[RDM42]

Ninja class, let's see, 'temple agent of Osveta, goddess of vengeance.

[Freehold DM]

Sorry, but the ninja, as well as the samurai, are too deeply rooted in 2nd ed OA (semi)nonsense for the two to ever be completely divorced. A simple name change isn't going to do it. You're going to need to build a time machine and convince gygax and Co to build a less eurocentric world their first time out.

[ryric]

Freehold DM wrote:

Sorry, but the ninja, as well as the samurai, are too deeply rooted in 2nd ed OA (semi)nonsense for the two to ever be completely divorced. A simple name change isn't going to do it. You're going to need to build a time machine and convince gygax and Co to build a less eurocentric world their first time out.

There was a 2e OA? I thought they were kits in 2e. I remember 1e OA, and yes, it still colors some of my expectations.

[memorax]

wraithstrike wrote:

I have seen this(nonsense in my opinion) come up several times. If you try to rename the class they say no because Pathfinder's flavor writeup is permanent, and you can't by pass it.

If you try to use another class, such as a ranger to do the ninja concept they also say no.

It is like they are going out of their way to kill any "Asian" mechanics or concepts. If you point out some factual historical element they revert to some other excuse.

I get that the GM gets final say in what is in his gameworld, but I would prefer for him to just say "I am biased against ____, even though I don't have a logical reason for it", and to try to hide behind excuses.

Some do admit this. <thumbs up to them, even if I don't agree with their ideas>

I have been victim of this only twice and with Pathfinder. I may not like them saying no to certain classes as long as they are honest about why they ban. So far with one exception they have. What gets me is when they go on a rant about it. Whether the players are interested in such a rant or not. Then once they stop being a Dm insist on playing the same class.

Player: Can I play a Gunslinger?

Me: No I don't like Paizo rules on guns

Player: Let's try and see maybe the gun rules are not so bad

Me: I rather not I don't like their gun rules. Last game as DM you went on big rant on how guns don't belong in fantasy now you want to play one.

Player (looking shocked that I remembered his rant) That's true let me take something else

I suggest Dm turned players who ban stuff don't take what they ban at games. Espcially if you go off on a unwanted rant about it. Makes you look like hypocrite.

[RDM42]

memorax wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

I have seen this(nonsense in my opinion) come up several times. If you try to rename the class they say no because Pathfinder's flavor writeup is permanent, and you can't by pass it.

If you try to use another class, such as a ranger to do the ninja concept they also say no.

It is like they are going out of their way to kill any "Asian" mechanics or concepts. If you point out some factual historical element they revert to some other excuse.

I get that the GM gets final say in what is in his gameworld, but I would prefer for him to just say "I am biased against ____, even though I don't have a logical reason for it", and to try to hide behind excuses.

Some do admit this. <thumbs up to them, even if I don't agree with their ideas>

I have been victim of this only twice and with Pathfinder. I may not like them saying no to certain classes as long as they are honest about why they ban. So far with one exception they have. What gets me is when they go on a rant about it. Whether the players are interested in such a rant or not. Then once they stop being a Dm insist on playing the same class.

Player: Can I play a Gunslinger?

Me: No I don't like Paizo rules on guns

Player: Let's try and see maybe the gun rules are not so bad

Me: I rather not I don't like their gun rules. Last game as DM you went on big rant on how guns don't belong in fantasy now you want to play one.

Player (looking shocked that I remembered his rant) That's true let me take something else

I suggest Dm turned players who ban stuff don't take what they ban at games. Espcially if you go off on a unwanted rant about it. Makes you look like hypocrite.

Sometimes after saying no I have purposely sought out and played that class next time I had a character. The main reason being that I wanted to see if it was something I might let in in future games, and the best way to figure that out was by playing one actively in a campaign.

[Grey Lensman]

memorax wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

I have seen this(nonsense in my opinion) come up several times. If you try to rename the class they say no because Pathfinder's flavor writeup is permanent, and you can't by pass it.

If you try to use another class, such as a ranger to do the ninja concept they also say no.

It is like they are going out of their way to kill any "Asian" mechanics or concepts. If you point out some factual historical element they revert to some other excuse.

I get that the GM gets final say in what is in his gameworld, but I would prefer for him to just say "I am biased against ____, even though I don't have a logical reason for it", and to try to hide behind excuses.

Some do admit this. <thumbs up to them, even if I don't agree with their ideas>

I have been victim of this only twice and with Pathfinder. I may not like them saying no to certain classes as long as they are honest about why they ban. So far with one exception they have. What gets me is when they go on a rant about it. Whether the players are interested in such a rant or not. Then once they stop being a Dm insist on playing the same class.

Player: Can I play a Gunslinger?

Me: No I don't like Paizo rules on guns

Player: Let's try and see maybe the gun rules are not so bad

Me: I rather not I don't like their gun rules. Last game as DM you went on big rant on how guns don't belong in fantasy now you want to play one.

Player (looking shocked that I remembered his rant) That's true let me take something else

I suggest Dm turned players who ban stuff don't take what they ban at games. Espcially if you go off on a unwanted rant about it. Makes you look like hypocrite.

It depends on the approach taken - I know a GM/sometimes player who has occasionally done just that to see if maybe his banning was wrong. Of course, he also will say that up front when he asks to play it.

[RedDogMT]

This thread feels like a not-so-subtle attempt at garnering blog hits.

[memorax]

Grey Lensman wrote:

It depends on the approach taken - I know a GM/sometimes player who has occasionally done just that to see if maybe his banning was wrong. Of course, he also will say that up front when he asks to play it.

Well in my experience it's less to see why they should have banned the class. More they get to ban what they want at their game tables then expect to be given free rein as a player. I don't mind if you ban stuff but unless your playing a class to see if it banning it was wrong. I just don't see why a anti-gun DM suddenly as a player wants to play a Gunslinger. Espcially if as a DM their very passionate against allowing something.

[David knott 242]

If a GM does not like the Asian flavor of a ninja or samurai, he could ban the Eastern armor and weapons and any other obvious Eastern equipment without banning the classes themselves. I think those classes could still work even if limited to Western gear.

[RDM42]

memorax wrote:

Grey Lensman wrote:

It depends on the approach taken - I know a GM/sometimes player who has occasionally done just that to see if maybe his banning was wrong. Of course, he also will say that up front when he asks to play it.

Well in my experience it's less to see why they should have banned the class. More they get to ban what they want at their game tables then expect to be given free rein as a player. I don't mind if you ban stuff but unless your playing a class to see if it banning it was wrong. I just don't see why a anti-gun DM suddenly as a player wants to play a Gunslinger. Espcially if as a DM their very passionate against allowing something.

Or could just not allow the class in that campaign- say a gunslinger in a world without guns or tech inventions, or a low tech world - but has no objection to them in other worlds which are not that one. My Burning lands campaign is not going to sprout guns, period. Other worlds or campaigns I run? Some yes, some no. If guns and by extension gunslingers are a thing in another person's game world? No objection to playing one. Nothing whatsoever inconsistent about it.

[RDM42]

David knott 242 wrote:

If a GM does not like the Asian flavor of a ninja or samurai, he could ban the Eastern armor and weapons and any other obvious Eastern equipment without banning the classes themselves. I think those classes could still work even if limited to Western gear.

Yup. If you make the mechanical bits fit the world cannon and flavor, then have fun with it.

[voska66]

Set wrote:

It would be neat if the ninja, monk and samurai had an alternate class feature (nothing as developed as an archetype) to swap out kama, nunchaku, katana, etc. for some non-Asian weapon proficiencies, to help hammer this concept home and encourage the idea of Garundi monks (Ouat dwarven monks!), Ustalavan (or Halfling!) ninja or Aldori (or elven!) samurai.

I had monk order in Brevoy that were Aldori dualist. The Aldori dueling sword was considered monk weapon and Aldori Dueling feat was added to their list of bonus feats.

Worked really well as Monk Archetype. They lost the monk weapons replaced by the light weapons group and added the Dueling sword to the group.

[Ambrosia Slaad]

Set wrote:

It would be neat if the ninja, monk and samurai had an alternate class feature (nothing as developed as an archetype) to swap out kama, nunchaku, katana, etc. for some non-Asian weapon proficiencies, to help hammer this concept home and encourage the idea of Garundi monks (Ouat dwarven monks!), Ustalavan (or Halfling!) ninja or Aldori (or elven!) samurai.

Yeah, when I worked up the vishkanya ninja archetypes, I swapped out several of the standard ninja weapon proficiencies for Vudrani-appropriate ones.

[Kalindlara]

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

Set wrote:

It would be neat if the ninja, monk and samurai had an alternate class feature (nothing as developed as an archetype) to swap out kama, nunchaku, katana, etc. for some non-Asian weapon proficiencies, to help hammer this concept home and encourage the idea of Garundi monks (Ouat dwarven monks!), Ustalavan (or Halfling!) ninja or Aldori (or elven!) samurai.

Yeah, when I worked up the vishkanya ninja archetypes, I swapped out several of the standard ninja weapon proficiencies for Vudrani-appropriate ones.

That sounds like the sort of thing you should send me. ^_^

[Caedwyr]

Freehold DM wrote:

Sorry, but the ninja, as well as the samurai, are too deeply rooted in 2nd ed OA (semi)nonsense for the two to ever be completely divorced. A simple name change isn't going to do it. You're going to need to build a time machine and convince gygax and Co to build a less eurocentric world their first time out.

Why does this apply to the ninja/samurai but not the monk?

[QuidEst]

Caedwyr wrote:

Freehold DM wrote:

Sorry, but the ninja, as well as the samurai, are too deeply rooted in 2nd ed OA (semi)nonsense for the two to ever be completely divorced. A simple name change isn't going to do it. You're going to need to build a time machine and convince gygax and Co to build a less eurocentric world their first time out.

Why does this apply to the ninja/samurai but not the monk?

What are you talking about? Europe had lots of monks!

[Nox Aeterna]

"Your class name isnt written for the world to see."

Simple put , you can play a "cleric" kind of char without being an actual cleric class at all. You can play a great musician like a "bard", but dont need to be a bard at all...

The ninja , just like all other classes , is a bundle of stats and rules , what fluff you add over it is something that doesnt need to have anything to do with your usual idea of a ninja.

[Azten]

Caedwyr wrote:

Freehold DM wrote:

Sorry, but the ninja, as well as the samurai, are too deeply rooted in 2nd ed OA (semi)nonsense for the two to ever be completely divorced. A simple name change isn't going to do it. You're going to need to build a time machine and convince gygax and Co to build a less eurocentric world their first time out.

Why does this apply to the ninja/samurai but not the monk?

And how does it matter for the players who weren't even alive during second edition? A Ninja can be a Magic Thief/Assassin, and a Samurai can be Honor Bound(non-paladin) Knight.

[Squiggit]

Freehold DM wrote:

Sorry, but the ninja, as well as the samurai, are too deeply rooted in 2nd ed OA (semi)nonsense for the two to ever be completely divorced. A simple name change isn't going to do it. You're going to need to build a time machine and convince gygax and Co to build a less eurocentric world their first time out.

You say that but...in what way?

I'm looking at the pathfinder samurai right now. What 'nonsense' about it makes it incompatible with the rest of D&D? Which class feature?

Resolve? Weapon Expertise? Hnnorable Stand? Last Stand? Mounted Archer?

I really can't figure out which of these options makes it unworkable and why it'd still be unworkable if say, it was a Cavalier archetype called Resolute Cavalier or something that traded away tactician, charge and expert trainer for those.

[Dave Justus]

I am a big fan of re flavoring things, but I don't like the 'player entitlement' vibe going on here. If a DM and a player both like a reskin, that is great, but setting does matter, and classes (and especially archetypes) do have fluff, that can be important to generating a coherent setting beyond what the numbers are.

If in your setting you want ninjas (which despite technically being a base class are really more of a rogue archetype) to be from a specific culture, and unique and special to that culture and something that sets that culture apart, then it is perfectly valid to make that distinction. Having unique mechanics available to specific groups is far more significant and memorable in game terms than just re-skinning everything so everyone is always the same.

It is a question of balance, and obviously people will disagree on where particular lines are drawn, and certainly one can discuss it, but I feel pretty strongly that the final call, especially for a custom setting, should be with the DM and players need to accept that.

[Forever Slayer]

When I ban classes that is all you need to know. Me explaining why doesn't change anything.

[ryric]

"I asked everyone to make acamademians and one of you made a nimja."

"He's a professor of ninja studies."

I think some GMs have been burned by the player who is so obsessed with one character archetype that they play it in every game. So Pathfinder? Ninja. GURPS? Ninja. Star Wars? Ninja. Victorian steampunk? Ninja. Carefully researched game set in the mythology of the Native Americans? NINJA.

This can cause a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. You can see it with nearly any fandom - I've seen a player try to make a Jedi in every setting - but it often manifests with Eastern lore and I've seen GMs blanket ban things as a reaction.

Because there is a certain type of player out there who will pitch fantasy James Bond, then change into black pajamas in Session 2 because it says "ninja" on their character sheet.

Personally, I'm all for reskinning. Go for it. But I do understand why some GMs are leery.

[Neal Litherland]

RDM42 wrote:

memorax wrote:

Grey Lensman wrote:

It depends on the approach taken - I know a GM/sometimes player who has occasionally done just that to see if maybe his banning was wrong. Of course, he also will say that up front when he asks to play it.

Well in my experience it's less to see why they should have banned the class. More they get to ban what they want at their game tables then expect to be given free rein as a player. I don't mind if you ban stuff but unless your playing a class to see if it banning it was wrong. I just don't see why a anti-gun DM suddenly as a player wants to play a Gunslinger. Espcially if as a DM their very passionate against allowing something.

Or could just not allow the class in that campaign- say a gunslinger in a world without guns or tech inventions, or a low tech world - but has no objection to them in other worlds which are not that one. My Burning lands campaign is not going to sprout guns, period. Other worlds or campaigns I run? Some yes, some no. If guns and by extension gunslingers are a thing in another person's game world? No objection to playing one. Nothing whatsoever inconsistent about it.

This gets into the "in my campaign, it's totally legit" logic that a DM can rule anything in his or her home world.

In order for this conversation to actually happen, though, we all need to agree that we're talking about the same thing. For all intents and purposes, we are all playing Pathfinder, and we're all in Golarion. A game world which expressly has all the elements of the books we are reading.

Anyone can say "well there's no reason for players to object in MY game, because X thing doesn't exist there" but it adds nothing to the discussion because we aren't talking about using different settings, or a DM house-ruling that in THEIR version of the setting, X thing doesn't exist.

Aside from that, though, the ninja isn't like the gunslinger in that it doesn't have a signature weapon. You could strip out all the Eastern weapons and armor, and the ninja is still a perfectly viable class. You could play them with bronze age weapons, or sci-fi laser pistols, and it's still mechanically viable. The same is true of the samurai.

The point being made is that a lot of players are insisting that these classes HAVE to look and play exactly like their iconic art, and that you can't give them to any culture not Tian Xia. Also, for some reason, no one seems to know what to do when you want to build non-human characters with these classes.

[Neal Litherland]

Forever Slayer wrote:

When I ban classes that is all you need to know. Me explaining why doesn't change anything.

It does change things, though. It shows that the DM is willing to communicate with players, rather than treat them like children who are expected to accept the "because I said so" approach.

A table has to be a cooperative effort, and nothing can happen if the players don't all agree to let it happen. Which is why if there is a logical reason for a ban, it hurts no one to lay that logical reason out. Even if that reason is as simple as, "for plot reasons I will not disclose right now, I don't want any players to have access to ki powers."

[RDM42]

Wth makes you think we are all talking about or playing in golarion? It certainly isn't the case for probably almost as large a contingent as those that do. Many that do play golarion don't play anything near bog standard.

I don't see hint to limit the discussion to playing in golarion as really a legitimate debate tactic.

[Neal Litherland]

Dave Justus wrote:

I am a big fan of re flavoring things, but I don't like the 'player entitlement' vibe going on here. If a DM and a player both like a reskin, that is great, but setting does matter, and classes (and especially archetypes) do have fluff, that can be important to generating a coherent setting beyond what the numbers are.

If in your setting you want ninjas (which despite technically being a base class are really more of a rogue archetype) to be from a specific culture, and unique and special to that culture and something that sets that culture apart, then it is perfectly valid to make that distinction. Having unique mechanics available to specific groups is far more significant and memorable in game terms than just re-skinning everything so everyone is always the same.

It is a question of balance, and obviously people will disagree on where particular lines are drawn, and certainly one can discuss it, but I feel pretty strongly that the final call, especially for a custom setting, should be with the DM and players need to accept that.

I wanted to edit my initial post to add this, but it doesn't seem like I can, so I'll reply individually.

This isn't a question of what a DM can or can't do in his or her own homebrew setting, or with house rules that change things. I think we all agree that Rule 0 exists, and there's no reason to bring it up because we all know it. The question that's being asked is, by the core rules, is there a flavor requirement for any base class?

Now, a DM can ENFORCE a flavor requirement, but doing so is a house ruling, and not part of what's actually in the book. If a DM says that barbarians cannot live in cities, or that they're all illiterate, that is adding text to a class that isn't there. The same is true if the DM says that all rogues must be criminals, despite that being nowhere in the class description. It's no less of a home rule to say that samurai and ninja HAVE to be from Eastern nations. Or to make the same call regarding the monk, since no one seems to have an issue with monks who are from Cheliax or Andor.

Which strikes me as cognitive dissonance, now that I'm thinking about it.