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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:

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.

Moreover, even if you are using Golarion as a game world you are not required or obligated to use everything as stands.

To the original question: there are no flavor requirements, per say, for the classes. That said, someone may remove a class for mechanical reasons and/or enforce a regional requirement for certain classes, be they base class or archetypes as well as prestige classes.

As always, the GM should give ample warning and information and be ready to discuss it with the players.


Neal Litherland wrote:
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."

There doesn't always need to be anymore communication. I find that open conversation leads to arguments. If I wanted to allow something then I wouldn't have banned it in the first place. There is nothing a player is going to say that I haven't though of already. Because I want to enforce and back my restrictions has nothing to do with treating someone like a child.


Personally, I think insisting that mechanical class choices must define anything more about a character than what they can do (and perhaps an explanation of how/why they can do it) is a peculiarly unimaginative way to approach what's supposed to be a supremely imaginative activity.

A multiclass Sohei/Martial can make a perfect Templar if you stop imagining feudal Japan, and just work with "warrior-monk who can flurry a sword while wearing chainmail, and is a master of mounted combat".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Forever Slayer wrote:
When I ban classes that is all you need to know. Me explaining why doesn't change anything.

Sure it does. You might ban class for reason then I go make character with another class that does exactly the same thing that caused you ban the first class. Knowing why helps avoid that.

Had that happen in game once. The GM banned paladins with no explanation so I played LG cleric with Paladin like code. The code of the Paladin was why he banned the class in the first place. Once I found out I reworked my character but it wasted a hour of game time. Another time it was banned summoners. The ban turned out to be because the GM didn't want to deal with a mass of summoned creatures. Too bad the player playing the summoning focused druid didn't know that ahead of time. We all thought was because he felt the Edilon was too much trouble.


voska66 wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:
When I ban classes that is all you need to know. Me explaining why doesn't change anything.

Sure it does. You might ban class for reason then I go make character with another class that does exactly the same thing that caused you ban the first class. Knowing why helps avoid that.

Had that happen in game once. The GM banned paladins with no explanation so I played LG cleric with Paladin like code. The code of the Paladin was why he banned the class in the first place. Once I found out I reworked my character but it wasted a hour of game time. Another time it was banned summoners. The ban turned out to be because the GM didn't want to deal with a mass of summoned creatures. Too bad the player playing the summoning focused druid didn't know that ahead of time. We all thought was because he felt the Edilon was too much trouble.

That's a pretty good reason - people often forget that nothing makes people want to do something more than having the option removed. I've often said that the presence of a paladin often makes players play the chaotic 'not-really-neutral' character they wouldn't have made otherwise.


BadBird wrote:

Personally, I think insisting that mechanical class choices must define anything more about a character than what they can do (and perhaps an explanation of how/why they can do it) is a peculiarly unimaginative way to approach what's supposed to be a supremely imaginative activity.

A multiclass Sohei/Martial can make a perfect Templar if you stop imagining feudal Japan, and just work with "warrior-monk who can flurry a sword while wearing chainmail, and is a master of mounted combat".

Why do you assume restrictions to a class lead to being unimaginative?


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Forever Slayer wrote:
When I ban classes that is all you need to know. Me explaining why doesn't change anything.

It does for me. If I feel like your are being too unreasonable I will find a new table, not so much because of the ban, but because I will know our gaming ideologies are too far apart.


Forever Slayer wrote:
Neal Litherland wrote:
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."

There doesn't always need to be anymore communication. I find that open conversation leads to arguments. If I wanted to allow something then I wouldn't have banned it in the first place. There is nothing a player is going to say that I haven't though of already. Because I want to enforce and back my restrictions has nothing to do with treating someone like a child.

Nothing you wrote changed the validity of his statement, and whether it still counts "because I said so". Whether that counts as treating someone like a child is going to be subjective since people will disagree about when it is ok, and whether or not explaining causes more problems. Example: In my experience it does not, but in your experience it does.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Forever Slayer wrote:
Why do you assume restrictions to a class lead to being unimaginative?

If by "restrictions to a class" you mean "you may only flavor/play a character of a certain class in a specific, cliche way", then it should be pretty obvious. That's all I'm getting at.

Say I want to use a few Ninja levels to give a Scarred Rager Barbarian the Vanishing Trick and Shadow Clone abilities and some sneak attack; the theme is "charismatic tribal-raven-totem warrior who can burst out of the shadows into a rage, and then vanish again". Saying that he has to have actual "Ninja flavor" and an Eastern explanation for his abilities throws a huge wrench into the theme. Banning Ninja because of it's supposedly-required Eastern flavor then bans this build concept, even though it has nothing to do with a dojo, black pyjamas and the mysterious Orient.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blymurkla wrote:
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.

If they are "japan-buffs", they presumably know what a real ninja is, right? The "dressed all in black and covering the face" thing comes from theatre stagehands and has absolutly nothing to do with historical ninjas. Real ninjas disguised themself so they would be indistuinguishable from other people, either a specific group or the general populace. A ninja might look like a common local farmer, for instance.

It's pretty much in the job description of a ninja to look like they belonged in whatever region they are in. I really don't see how that could clash with any type of setting.


Derklord wrote:
If they are "japan-buffs"...

There are Japan-buffs and then there are Japan-buffs, and then there are also Japan-buffs... enthusiasm for actual historical and cultural knowledge is not a property of all of these. The only thing worse than getting involved with the wrong person in an argument about things like whether or not there was really such a thing as a "ninja-sword" is winning that argument.


RDM42 wrote:

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.

Because we're on a Pathfinder forum, perhaps?

The only way you can talk about this subject is if everyone agrees to the same setting. Otherwise you essentially have one person shouting about oranges, and the other shouting about apples, because the DMs decided to make their own changes and have different kinds of fruit.

Saying, "in Ultimate Combat's write-up, there is no requirement for a ninja to be from a certain culture or country," is, as far as I can tell, a true statement. The logic that follows is that, since there has been no requirement stated, that a character with ninja levels may come from any race, anywhere in Golarion, as that's the world the Pathfinder RPG is attached to.

If someone chooses to make their own setting, that's fine. But that's a house-rule, not the core rules. You can house rule that all wizards have to be in their 70s, or that all rogues have to be part of a thieves' guild, but there's nowhere in the core rules that says that. That's the DM putting his or her own requirements onto a class.

That's fine. But it's when a DM, or a player, doesn't realize the difference between "this is what the write-up in the book says" and "this is what I have chosen to change it to in this game."

That's the issue I'm trying to get to the heart of. And whenever someone says "in my game, that's the way it is" it distracts from the conversation, because we aren't talking about "your game," we're talking about the rulebooks.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't think this kind of thing is appropriately called "house rules". It's more character creation guidelines.

Also, Pathfinder is a setting and an RPG line. This is the RPG line forum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neal Litherland wrote:

Saying, "in Ultimate Combat's write-up, there is no requirement for a ninja to be from a certain culture or country," is, as far as I can tell, a true statement. The logic that follows is that, since there has been no requirement stated, that a character with ninja levels may come from any race, anywhere in Golarion, as that's the world the Pathfinder RPG is attached to.

This isn't entirely accurate. Obviously it isn't 'stated' anywhere, but the Ninja does certainly have eastern weapon proficiencies, and those weapons are indeed tied to certain regions.

The non-setting books are not 'tied' to Golarion. If a setting includes something like 'this is where eastern weapons are found' then it is reasonable to conclude that any classes whose mechanics are tied to those weapons are also from those regions.

Paizo would never publish anything in a non setting book that was tied to a specific Golarion region. It is possible though to make some connections logically.

Of course GMs are free to ignore that. There is nothing wrong with Elven Ninja from Katapesh. Equally there is nothing wrong with the elderly exiled ninja living in Absalom from training a young goblin protege in his arts, but there is equally nothing wrong with a GM saying 'that doesn't fit how I see the world and wanted to present it' or 'your unique background is too convoluted and doesn't seem to fit'.

Obviously a good GM will listen to his players and try to find some way to make what they want to play work for them, but equally a good player will understand that a GM is trying to present a whole world and a specific atmosphere and the characters while exceptional, should also be part of that.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neal Litherland wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

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.

Because we're on a Pathfinder forum, perhaps?

The only way you can talk about this subject is if everyone agrees to the same setting. Otherwise you essentially have one person shouting about oranges, and the other shouting about apples, because the DMs decided to make their own changes and have different kinds of fruit.

Or you can do like the rest of us do and only talk about Golarion in the campaign setting specific forums.

We can easily converse about the game in setting neutral phrasing. Then everyone is talking about boxes instead of fruits.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, if I want to divorce the class description from the class mechanics, I wouldn't play a class-based RPG.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think we can stay setting neutral, and still have the conversation.

If the GM bans the ninja or gunslinger the next question is do you have a problem with the mechanics of the ninja class, the flavor of the ninja class, or any "Asian" themed flavor?

Some people say that is not real D&D/Pathfinder to have those things to which you can point to older editions and say "there it is".

Of course he can say "It is not the D&D I grew up with" or "It's not the D&D I am used to so I don't like it", which I understand, even if I still don't agree, and a lot of times that is really what it boils down to, even if the person does not realize it.

Example:
Psionics used to be a hot-button topic in the forums for a long time. People would say it is overpowered/broken because ______.
Many times there were just people who remembered 1st edition psionics so they never gave 3.x a fair chance. Other times them or the players misread(or did not read at all) the rules. So it would be pointed out how the rules actually work. Some of these people really just didn't like the idea of psionics and used their misinterpretations of the rules as an excuse because once they became aware of the rules they just said "Well I just don't like it so I still won't allow it".

PS: When they started off using the rules(or other reason) as an excuse they probably really thought that was the real reason, but after all of their reasons were broken down they realized they just didn't like it. Many times people do this without realizing it. I have almost done similar things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
Personally, if I want to divorce the class description from the class mechanics, I wouldn't play a class-based RPG.

I have always seen that description as a helpful suggestion from the author in case the player can't think of anything. Now some classes like the paladin make it more difficult to separate the class and the flavor, but being tied to flavor for every class would stop a lot of concepts from being played.

PS:Not trying to change your mind, just giving perspective on how it could be an issue.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
Personally, if I want to divorce the class description from the class mechanics, I wouldn't play a class-based RPG.

...Why not? Combining the freedom to conceptualize a character however you want with the massive number of available class abilities creates an absolutely enormous opportunity for imaginative characters. I just don't really get what's gained by following "recommended flavor" text if you've got something more interesting in mind.


wraithstrike wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:
When I ban classes that is all you need to know. Me explaining why doesn't change anything.
It does for me. If I feel like your are being too unreasonable I will find a new table, not so much because of the ban, but because I will know our gaming ideologies are too far apart.

And now you know my secret. I don't get my feelings hurt if you find another table.


Dave Justus wrote:
Neal Litherland wrote:

Saying, "in Ultimate Combat's write-up, there is no requirement for a ninja to be from a certain culture or country," is, as far as I can tell, a true statement. The logic that follows is that, since there has been no requirement stated, that a character with ninja levels may come from any race, anywhere in Golarion, as that's the world the Pathfinder RPG is attached to.

This isn't entirely accurate. Obviously it isn't 'stated' anywhere, but the Ninja does certainly have eastern weapon proficiencies, and those weapons are indeed tied to certain regions.

The non-setting books are not 'tied' to Golarion. If a setting includes something like 'this is where eastern weapons are found' then it is reasonable to conclude that any classes whose mechanics are tied to those weapons are also from those regions.

Paizo would never publish anything in a non setting book that was tied to a specific Golarion region. It is possible though to make some connections logically.

Of course GMs are free to ignore that. There is nothing wrong with Elven Ninja from Katapesh. Equally there is nothing wrong with the elderly exiled ninja living in Absalom from training a young goblin protege in his arts, but there is equally nothing wrong with a GM saying 'that doesn't fit how I see the world and wanted to present it' or 'your unique background is too convoluted and doesn't seem to fit'.

Obviously a good GM will listen to his players and try to find some way to make what they want to play work for them, but equally a good player will understand that a GM is trying to present a whole world and a specific atmosphere and the characters while exceptional, should also be part of that.

I'm not sold on using a class's weapon proficiencies to dictate where they're from, especially since what equipment you can use varies from one class to another, and which equipment a particular PC takes off that list can also be wildly different. Then we bring in racial proficiencies, and what you can use with multi-classing, and it becomes an even weaker justification.

I do agree that a DM has fiat over what is allowed at the table. However, the point I'm making is that by applying one's own feelings to a class, and limiting what you can do with it, that squeezes out a lot of creativity, and limits players.

I'm fine with a DM saying "this is the way I want to present it, and it's my opinion." A player then has to decide to stay or go, based on that. It's when a DM says, "look, this isn't an Eastern game, so you can't play an Eastern class," and isn't aware that they, not the book, has made the choice to label ninja, samurai, etc. as said Eastern class.

Bonus points if the DM is perfectly fine allowing someone to play a monk, as long as that monk was reflavored to a barroom brawler, or a traveling prize fighter, and doesn't see the inherent problem with holding those two views simultaneously.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Hubaris wrote:
Your Barbarian doesn't have to be a muscle-bound, illiterate monster.

AM NOT "AM BARBARIAN," BUT AM DIFFERENT BARBARIAN, AND BARBARIAN AM "DIHS-UH-GREEH" WITH TALKY-MAN.

WHAT MAKE AM BARBARIAN GOOD BARBARIAN AM WHEN BARBARIAN STRONGEST AND AM SMASH. AM SIMPLE. AM STRONG. AM SMASH ALL! REAL BARBARIAN NOT "REED," BARBARIAN DO BETTER THINGS THAN "REED". LIKE SMASH!

AM FIND IF "BARBARIAN" AM NOT SMASH AND AM READ, AM NOT REAL BARBARIAN.

AT LEAST, NOT "AM BARBARIAN."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neal Litherland wrote:

Masters of disguise, these characters are one-half monk, and one-half hitman.

Sound like someone familiar?

I see what you did there, and I like it. :)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Forever Slayer wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:
When I ban classes that is all you need to know. Me explaining why doesn't change anything.
It does for me. If I feel like your are being too unreasonable I will find a new table, not so much because of the ban, but because I will know our gaming ideologies are too far apart.
And now you know my secret. I don't get my feelings hurt if you find another table.

Then there should be no problem explaining why so I(not me specifically) can leave instead of facing constant rejection. Explaining can make everyone's lives easier.

Also like another poster said it can make sure I don't get rejected on the same grounds. Enough of this could make someone feel like they are being targeted if they don't know why it is happening.

As for the arguing part I don't tend to game with people who argue(impolite discussion) about everything. We(myself and the other group member) can disagree and remain civil.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Neal Litherland wrote:

Masters of disguise, these characters are one-half monk, and one-half hitman.

Sound like someone familiar?

I see what you did there, and I like it. :)

I'm glad someone found that amusing. I'd been holding onto that joke for months looking for a place to make it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AM DIFFERENT BARBARIAN wrote:
Hubaris wrote:
Your Barbarian doesn't have to be a muscle-bound, illiterate monster.

AM NOT "AM BARBARIAN," BUT AM DIFFERENT BARBARIAN, AND BARBARIAN AM "DIHS-UH-GREEH" WITH TALKY-MAN.

WHAT MAKE AM BARBARIAN GOOD BARBARIAN AM WHEN BARBARIAN STRONGEST AND AM SMASH. AM SIMPLE. AM STRONG. AM SMASH ALL! REAL BARBARIAN NOT "REED," BARBARIAN DO BETTER THINGS THAN "REED". LIKE SMASH!

AM FIND IF "BARBARIAN" AM NOT SMASH AND AM READ, AM NOT REAL BARBARIAN.

AT LEAST, NOT "AM BARBARIAN."

Wait... if you can't read, then how did you know what talky-man wrote?


BadBird wrote:
...Why not? Combining the freedom to conceptualize a character however you want with the massive number of available class abilities creates an absolutely enormous opportunity for imaginative characters.

The ability to "conceptualize a character however you want" is limited by a class-based system. Maybe I want to be a character that has numerous abilities that aren't connected to a theme.

In order to accomplish this in a class-based system, I need to jump through hoops (by picking various classes), which then automatically forces me to receive other abilities that may not fit my concept.

If the most important thing to me is the freedom to pick the abilities I want in order to realize the concept in my head, I would rather use a system that allows me to purchase the abilities individually.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
BadBird wrote:
...Why not? Combining the freedom to conceptualize a character however you want with the massive number of available class abilities creates an absolutely enormous opportunity for imaginative characters.

The ability to "conceptualize a character however you want" is limited by a class-based system. Maybe I want to be a character that has numerous abilities that aren't connected to a theme.

In order to accomplish this in a class-based system, I need to jump through hoops (by picking various classes), which then automatically forces me to receive other abilities that may not fit my concept.

If the most important thing to me is the freedom to pick the abilities I want in order to realize the concept in my head, I would rather use a system that allows me to purchase the abilities individually.

Yeah but it's not that binary. You can like the mechanics of a class based system but still want more ability to customize the way those mechanics apply to the game. It's not just one or the other and I have a hard time buying the idea that Pathfinder's mechanics live or die based entirely on the 1-3 sentences that most people skip over at the top of a class' section in a book.


Tormsskull wrote:
BadBird wrote:
...Why not? Combining the freedom to conceptualize a character however you want with the massive number of available class abilities creates an absolutely enormous opportunity for imaginative characters.

The ability to "conceptualize a character however you want" is limited by a class-based system. Maybe I want to be a character that has numerous abilities that aren't connected to a theme.

In order to accomplish this in a class-based system, I need to jump through hoops (by picking various classes), which then automatically forces me to receive other abilities that may not fit my concept.

If the most important thing to me is the freedom to pick the abilities I want in order to realize the concept in my head, I would rather use a system that allows me to purchase the abilities individually.

Ever heard of m&m 3e? It's a pretty good points-based system and it has an srd. You might like it. I like it.

Liberty's Edge

"RDM42 wrote:

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.

My main issue is that Dms who restrict certain classes then end up being the ones who complain the most when they can't take the same class. If you don't want guns or ninjas in your campaign fine. I may not agree and I can respect a fellow DM decision. Respect my decision if I decide to ban the same class. Thankfully such gamers are rare.

I see no problem with reskinning a class, Archtype or feat. As long as both sides players and DM agree.


memorax wrote:
"RDM42 wrote:

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.

My main issue is that Dms who restrict certain classes then end up being the ones who complain the most when they can't take the same class. If you don't want guns or ninjas in your campaign fine. I may not agree and I can respect a fellow DM decision. Respect my decision if I decide to ban the same class. Thankfully such gamers are rare.

I see no problem with reskinning a class, Archtype or feat. As long as both sides players and DM agree.

Well, yeah. Usually unless it's something extremely specific such as guns, or what have you the only thing I might be banning is a specific flavor. There are no pseudo-Japanese ninja in this game. There may well be this world flavored individuals with a skill set that can be described similarly but with flavor and trappings associated with the setting.


Neal Litherland wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

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.

Because we're on a Pathfinder forum, perhaps?

The only way you can talk about this subject is if everyone agrees to the same setting. Otherwise you essentially have one person shouting about oranges, and the other shouting about apples, because the DMs decided to make their own changes and have different kinds of fruit.

Saying, "in Ultimate Combat's write-up, there is no requirement for a ninja to be from a certain culture or country," is, as far as I can tell, a true statement. The logic that follows is that, since there has been no requirement stated, that a character with ninja levels may come from any race, anywhere in Golarion, as that's the world the Pathfinder RPG is attached to.

If someone chooses to make their own setting, that's fine. But that's a house-rule, not the core rules. You can house rule that all wizards have to be in their 70s, or that all rogues have to be part of a thieves' guild, but there's nowhere in the core rules that says that. That's the DM putting his or her own requirements onto a class.

That's fine. But it's when a DM, or a player, doesn't realize the difference between "this is what the write-up in the book says" and "this is what I have chosen to change it to in this game."

That's the issue I'm trying to get to the heart of. And whenever someone says "in my game, that's the way it is" it distracts from the conversation, because we aren't talking about "your game," we're talking about the rulebooks.

Pathfinder is a rules set designed to be able to be used with any number of settings, published by a third party or homebrew.

Golarion is a specific setting made by the same company to base their Adventure paths in.
The two are not one and the same and inseparable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:
When I ban classes that is all you need to know. Me explaining why doesn't change anything.
It does for me. If I feel like your are being too unreasonable I will find a new table, not so much because of the ban, but because I will know our gaming ideologies are too far apart.

I must have missed the world where people willing to GM, much less good ones were such a common thing that people have a glut of options for which table to play at.

Liberty's Edge

Ryan Freire wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:
When I ban classes that is all you need to know. Me explaining why doesn't change anything.
It does for me. If I feel like your are being too unreasonable I will find a new table, not so much because of the ban, but because I will know our gaming ideologies are too far apart.
I must have missed the world where people willing to GM, much less good ones were such a common thing that people have a glut of options for which table to play at.

It varies by particular gaming scene. I'm in three games with different GMs as of a month from now (when one of my Saturday players starts running Mummy's Mask on that day after I finish running CotCT), and am running a fourth (on Fridays). All are good, and several have only minimal overlap...in at least one case due to personality conflict.

So, yeah. That's a thing that happens in some people's lives.

Liberty's Edge

Good players are not that easy to find either. So neither really can be too unreasonable at a table. With all due respect its not that hard to DM. Saying that players should not voice any complaints simply because DMs are not a DM a dozen. Is kind of dumb IMO. I went through a string of bad DMs before I became one. So their not as rare as you think IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
DMs are not a DM a dozen.

Wordplay. I like it.


memorax wrote:
Good players are not that easy to find either. So neither really can be too unreasonable at a table. With all due respect its not that hard to DM. Saying that players should not voice any complaints simply because DMs are not a DM a dozen. Is kind of dumb IMO. I went through a string of bad DMs before I became one. So their not as rare as you think IMO.

I didn't say that, i kind of implied that leaving the table because you think not being allowed to play a certain class by the gm is that beyond the pale is overreacting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:
When I ban classes that is all you need to know. Me explaining why doesn't change anything.
It does for me. If I feel like your are being too unreasonable I will find a new table, not so much because of the ban, but because I will know our gaming ideologies are too far apart.
I must have missed the world where people willing to GM, much less good ones were such a common thing that people have a glut of options for which table to play at.

I am of the philosophy that a game you don't enjoy is a game not worth attending, and if myself and someone were too different in our gaming views, no matter if I am a GM or player, we may be better off at separate tables. If one is not enjoying the game there really is no reason to show up.

Also good is subjective. I have had people not like my games, and other tell me they had a great time. I have also observed tables I personally would not sit at, but other players enjoyed it.

PS: Just to get some context I was never saying Forever Slayer is a bad GM. We might actually get along fine at the table. I was saying as a general statement that by a GM telling a playing how he views certain things the player can decide if he wants to stay or not, therefore FS deciding to explain things can actually matter. In an earlier comment he said him explaining things would not matter at all.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azten wrote:
memorax wrote:
DMs are not a DM a dozen.
Wordplay. I like it.

The funny thing is completely unintentional on my part. Autocorrect strikes again.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
memorax wrote:
Good players are not that easy to find either. So neither really can be too unreasonable at a table. With all due respect its not that hard to DM. Saying that players should not voice any complaints simply because DMs are not a DM a dozen. Is kind of dumb IMO. I went through a string of bad DMs before I became one. So their not as rare as you think IMO.
I didn't say that, i kind of implied that leaving the table because you think not being allowed to play a certain class by the gm is that beyond the pale is overreacting.

That is also not what I was implying. Part of my quote which you missed was ".....not so much because of the ban, but because I will know our gaming ideologies are too far apart."

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
I must have missed the world where people willing to GM, much less good ones were such a common thing that people have a glut of options for which table to play at.

Come over to Phoenix then.


Ryan Freire wrote:

I must have missed the world where people willing to GM, much less good ones were such a common thing that people have a glut of options for which table to play at.

There is this thing called the internet which means people are not as limited by location as they used to be, so even if someone leaves over what your opinion claims is a poor reason they can still find another table, and in larger cities it is not so hard to find a group. So, I guess you did miss it.

Feel free to reply, but read my entire comment this type.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
If the most important thing to me is the freedom to pick the abilities I want in order to realize the concept in my head, I would rather use a system that allows me to purchase the abilities individually.

I don't really follow why not being able to customize everything about a character's build would stop someone from wanting to customize the concept at all, but to each their own.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My way has worked with various groups for 31 years now. If something isn't broke you don't need to fix it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Good players are not that easy to find either. So neither really can be too unreasonable at a table. With all due respect its not that hard to DM. Saying that players should not voice any complaints simply because DMs are not a DM a dozen. Is kind of dumb IMO. I went through a string of bad DMs before I became one. So their not as rare as you think IMO.

It's not that hard to GM averagely. GMing well, on the other hand, often requires quite a bit more work. Yes, quite a few people could just run a module right out of the box as such. It takes a bit of sophistry to pretend it's not a much bigger time investment than being a player.

The fact that you had to go through a lng string of bad GMs before becoming one should in itself be telling you something that you are trying to deny in this selfsame post.

On the other hand, 'the player should just shut up and never question anything' is pure bull as a philosophy.


BadBird wrote:
I don't really follow why not being able to customize everything about a character's build would stop someone from wanting to customize the concept at all, but to each their own.

To me it's a simple this follows that sort of thing. If I want the ability to truly customize my character to a very high degree, I'm not going to play a class-based RPG.

If I decide to play a class-based RPG, I realize that I'm going to have to pick a class which is going to have various mechanics and a theme associated with it.

Playing a class-based RPG and then wanting to disregard the theme and often have to multiclass to achieve my character concept seems like using a spoon to dig a grave.

But as you say, to each their own.


Personally I have no problem with a player reskinning a class as long as the player is not expecting mechanical changes, and are willing to accept that some equipment is not available in my game. They also have to be able to justify any ability the class gets. So the ninja does not get different weapon and armor proficiencies to replace the eastern weapons and armor. They also have to be able to explain any class ability in terms of the current culture. If they do that then I have no problem. The ninja could easily be a member of the order of assassins from the middle east.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neal Litherland wrote:
I'm not sold on using a class's weapon proficiencies to dictate where they're from, especially since what equipment you can use varies from one class to another, and which equipment a particular PC takes off that list can also be wildly different.

Weapon proficiencies are on of the mechanical things that give a class a certain flavor. Some flavor is just fluff, but other parts are actually mechanical, or at the very least aided by the class mechanics.

The ninja class has eastern weapons and ki based powers because it is specifically trying to emulate a Japanese assassin as filtered through myth and then popular culture. Can you use those mechanics to build a different flavor? Sure, but you are probably ignoring some of those mechanics at least.

If you want to make an 'Agent' the class for that Rogue (leaving aside the mechanical difficulties with that class.) An 'Agent' wouldn't have ninja style mystic powers or generally focus on eastern style weapons. Would a ninja make an effective agent? Once again, yes, but unless you are ignoring or changing class feature, you don't really have a good analog for 007, even though it could probably do the job.

Some classes are indeed designed with some baked in flavor. Paladin is probably one of the strongest, with Ninja and Samurai being right up their as well. Others are a lot more flexible.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

Example:

Psionics used to be a hot-button topic in the forums for a long time. People would say it is overpowered/broken because ______.
Many times there were just people who remembered 1st edition psionics so they never gave 3.x a fair chance. Other times them or the players misread(or did not read at all) the rules. So it would be pointed out how the rules actually work. Some of these people really just didn't like the idea of psionics and used their misinterpretations of the rules as an excuse because once they became aware of the rules they just said "Well I just don't like it so I still won't allow it".

I didn't allow 3.5 psionics in several of my games for a completely different reason. I didn't have enough system mastery of it to be sure it was being run correctly, and didn't have the time to invest in making sure I was at least in general aware of what the powers and other options did. While it wasn't any more complex than the base spells, it was a whole additional thing to learn, and banning it meant not having to deal with it.

I think this is a valid reason for a GM to ban anything from the game. For example, I think the Shaman class is pretty cool, but it is one complex beast and there is a lot of information you have to grok to understand what it can do. Similarly, Occult Adventures has a lot of new stuff, and I could certainly understand a DM not wanting to deal with all of that, regardless of whether it is 'balanced' or cool flavor.

51 to 100 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Your DM Banned The Ninja? Why Not Call it "The Agent" and See What Happens? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.