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

[Neal Litherland]

Dave Justus wrote:

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.

My question, then, is why do we ban the ninja, but give the monk a pass?

Monk weapons are also traditionally Eastern in many respects, but how many times have we given the caveat of, "you can play a monk as long as you use a staff or kicks; no kama or shuriken."

The argument appears to be the same for allowing/disallowing either class. Monk, since it's in the core book, is one that feels like it has more right to be in a game simply because it came first. So, I suppose what I'm asking, is that where does it stop when you ban on flavor? If you ban the samurai and the ninja, do you then ban the monk? Do you ban certain nationalities of character? Do you ban access to certain exotic weapons, even if a player eats the cost for the feat, and takes a trait that gives them said exotic weapon to start with?

All of these things are up to DM discretion. But once you use the blanket, "this isn't Western enough for my game" argument, it's going to apply to a lot more stuff than just one or two classes, and a few exotic weapons.

EDIT: Also, a note on "baked in" flavor. Barbarian rage began emulating the historical Berserker rage associated with the Vikings. If I recall correctly, it began with a kit in 2nd edition. Despite that, though, I don't see anyone arguing you can't have barbarians from whatever culture or country you choose. Nor do I see anyone saying your Rage HAS to look a certain way in order for the character to be acceptable. So why does something inspired by Japan get all this baggage, but something inspired by Scandinavia is re-flavored without any real issue?

[Freehold DM]

There have been unarmed(or simply armed) combatants in all cultures. Ditto with the crazy dude who roars and throws himself at the enemy.

[Dave Justus]

Monk is probably given a pass because it is easier to ban from supplemental material than core material. I have though seen many a game where monk wasn't allowed because a European flavor was desired.

I certainly have in games I have run demanded that all the players have certain origins. If I was running a campaign that was focused on the players being locals dealing with the uprising in Galt, I probably wouldn't let you play a Mwangi.

As for why Japan flavored things get special ban love, it is probably a reaction of 80s Japanophilia when often you would find that everything Japanese inspired in an RPG was simply mechanically better than everything else. A most common example is how superior the Katana is treated in many game systems, when in reality they aren't particularly great weapons. Pathfinder is better than that (as we move farther and farther away from the 80s the impulse has lessened) but you can still see it. As a perfect example, the Ninja is pretty much a straight upgrade of the rogue (at least if one doesn't consider unchained and some other archetypes.) With the Rogue that probably needed to happen, but it can indeed leave a bad taste in the mouth for those that have a long history with RPGs.

Anyway, that is my best understanding of the reason, if it was something you were really curious about.

[Freehold DM]

Dave Justus wrote:

Monk is probably given a pass because it is easier to ban from supplemental material than core material. I have though seen many a game where monk wasn't allowed because a European flavor was desired.

I certainly have in games I have run demanded that all the players have certain origins. If I was running a campaign that was focused on the players being locals dealing with the uprising in Galt, I probably wouldn't let you play a Mwangi.

As for why Japan flavored things get special ban love, it is probably a reaction of 80s Japanophilia when often you would find that everything Japanese inspired in an RPG was simply mechanically better than everything else. A most common example is how superior the Katana is treated in many game systems, when in reality they aren't particularly great weapons. Pathfinder is better than that (as we move farther and farther away from the 80s the impulse has lessened) but you can still see it. As a perfect example, the Ninja is pretty much a straight upgrade of the rogue (at least if one doesn't consider unchained and some other archetypes.) With the Rogue that probably needed to happen, but it can indeed leave a bad taste in the mouth for those that have a long history with RPGs.

Anyway, that is my best understanding of the reason, if it was something you were really curious about.

strange. There are several ethnic mwangi in galt, or so I thought.

[Deadmanwalking]

Freehold DM wrote:

strange. There are several ethnic mwangi in galt, or so I thought.

There are.

I think he was referring to country of origin rather than ethnicity, though.

[Dave Justus]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Freehold DM wrote:

strange. There are several ethnic mwangi in galt, or so I thought.

There are.

I think he was referring to country of origin rather than ethnicity, though.

More to the point I was trying to come up with an example without doing any research. I assumed Mwangi were rare in Galt. I haven't run a Galt based campaign, and don't really plan to, but I think one can get the idea.

In particular, while I probably wouldn't care about ancestral origin in such a campaign, I might not allow regional traits from elsewhere as an example.

[BadBird]

Tormsskull wrote:

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.

Fair enough. Personally I like the interplay between theme and class(es); there's an alchemy at work when you're bouncing back and forth between class options and character concept. As an example, say I'm going to create a Paladin, but I don't want a stereotype armored goon-for-good. So the process goes something like:

"Paladin, holy warrior-type, ditch the armor... dex-based? Dervish Dance? Sarenrae, scimitars... "islamic" theme? Sufi mystic.

Fast, agile, robes... Monk level? Scimitar flurry? Crusader's Flurry. Wisdom AC? No, ability trainwreck. Sohei. Armored flurry: mithral under flowing robes, wisdom unnecessary.

Oaths? Vengeance won't work; Savagery? Loses saves... Sohei picks up saves. Gains spells and... Holy reach + combat reflexes + dex-based.

So, mystic... magic? Paladin spells? Unsanctioned Knowledge - Vanish, Mirror Image, Good Hope; Pearls of Power.

Now back to concept - a mystic. Calm, meditative, quiet... no trace of righteousness, only pity for evil. Serene even in violence. Surprising magical powers."

Haroun ad-Din ibn Salah an-Re, Warrior-Mystic.
Sohei Monk 1/ Paladin 10
Human: 13STR, 15/17DEX+, 12CON, 13INT, 10WIS, 14CHA.
Traits: Magical Knack, Fate's Favored

1P. Weapon Finesse / +Human: Weapon Focus: Scimitar
2P.
3P. Dervish Dance
4P.
5M. Crusader's Flurry: Scimitar / +Monk: Combat Reflexes
6P.
7P. Power Attack
8P.
9P. Unsanctioned Knowledge: Vanish, Mirror Image, Good Hope, Greater Invisibility
10P.
11P. Improved Critical: Scimitar

Still a Paladin, but totally different from normal Paladin flavor - including dex-based scimitar flurry and a pack of unique spells. Way more interesting (in my opinion).

[Ryan Freire]

Also because investigator fits the concept of "agent" better than ki mystic assassin does.

[Tormsskull]

BadBird wrote:

Still a Paladin, but totally different from normal Paladin flavor - including dex-based scimitar flurry and a pack of unique spells. Way more interesting (in my opinion).

Yeah, sounds cool. I'm not saying that you can't make interesting characters in a class-based RPG. Heck, you can make an interesting 1st level fighter with all of the various options out there.

Based on what you've posted, it shows that you're comfortable at working within the limitations of a class-based system. My point is, imagine those limitations didn't exist.

Think of all the character concepts you could make if you could simply select abilities rather than classes.

At level one you could have the unarmed damage of the monk, sneak attack of the rogue, and rage of the barbarian.

Bottom line - options are good. Classes are packages of options. Why not have even more options by allowing the options to be selected individually?

[ryric]

Tormsskull wrote:

Bottom line - options are good. Classes are packages of options. Why not have even more options by allowing the options to be selected individually?

There are systems out there that let you do that. They tend to be even more complicated than Pathfinder because the math and rules needed to balance such open-ended choice are extensive. Putting options in packages makes them easier (not easy, but easier) to balance. The last attempt I've seen to take the D&D class based model and give it modular class abilities was 2e Skills & Powers, which was a balance trainwreck. Star Wars Saga edition did an okay job of making every class ability a "talent," but your class still restricted what your pool of selectable talents was.

I can make a character that does what I want in PF in a fraction of the time it would take in GURPS or Mutants & Masterminds. Also, for many players, having some level of inspiration to hang your imagination on is very useful. Pure "pick what you want" system can be a lot of fun, but that's not what I'm looking for in a game like Pathfinder. Generally for those I'll play something like Cortex which is much, much more rules light.

[Black Hammer]

Tangent time, getting to thoughts on ninjas last.

I don't like monks.

I never liked monks. I like the idea of unarmed specialists, but calling them monks and modelling them directly after the kung fu guy always bothered me. It's a stereotype, but there's also the stereotype of the massive, brooding brawler, the lightning-quick boxer, and so forth. Unlike fighter or cleric, which leave a lot of room in their definition, monk is unpleasantly tight.

You WILL run fast. You WILL make many weak iterative attacks a turn. You WILL get these bonuses to your will, and THESE skills.

Monk should be trashcanned entirely, replaced with a brawler-type of class, and offered a "David Carradine" specialization for those who want to walk through walls.

Oddly, they don't pay me to design RPGs. Wonder why.

As for ninjas in particular, I feel similarly. We have rogues. What does ninja offer that rogue doesn't? Especially since the class revolves around the distorted Hollywood ninja who fits poorly into a RPG except as minion fodder. There is no clear "historical" ninja, so we're left with Hollywood. The best representation of a ninja in film I can think of is Shichibei in Sword of Doom, and he's arguably also a great example of a rogue in every sense of the word. (He also has a gun.)

Stripped of the Eastern theme, what's left for ninja? I don't see enough space between monk (which I've ranted about above) and rogue to fit another base class. Assuming you gut monk and expand brawler, you could fit a "ninja" specialization crossing between brawler and rogue, perhaps, but as it stands, monk already has too much speed and stealth emphasis built into it.

[Green Smashomancer]

Black Hammer wrote:

Tangent time, getting to thoughts on ninjas last.

I don't like monks.

I never liked monks. I like the idea of unarmed specialists, but calling them monks and modelling them directly after the kung fu guy always bothered me. It's a stereotype, but there's also the stereotype of the massive, brooding brawler, the lightning-quick boxer, and so forth. Unlike fighter or cleric, which leave a lot of room in their definition, monk is unpleasantly tight.

You WILL run fast. You WILL make many weak iterative attacks a turn. You WILL get these bonuses to your will, and THESE skills.

Monk should be trashcanned entirely, replaced with a brawler-type of class, and offered a "David Carradine" specialization for those who want to walk through walls.

Oddly, they don't pay me to design RPGs. Wonder why.

As for ninjas in particular, I feel similarly. We have rogues. What does ninja offer that rogue doesn't? Especially since the class revolves around the distorted Hollywood ninja who fits poorly into a RPG except as minion fodder. There is no clear "historical" ninja, so we're left with Hollywood. The best representation of a ninja in film I can think of is Shichibei in Sword of Doom, and he's arguably also a great example of a rogue in every sense of the word. (He also has a gun.)

Stripped of the Eastern theme, what's left for ninja? I don't see enough space between monk (which I've ranted about above) and rogue to fit another base class. Assuming you gut monk and expand brawler, you could fit a "ninja" specialization crossing between brawler and rogue, perhaps, but as it stands, monk already has too much speed and stealth emphasis built into it.

There is a Brawler Base Class. The Ninja is a Rogue, its an archetype of the class itself.

[Tormsskull]

ryric wrote:

Putting options in packages makes them easier (not easy, but easier) to balance.

No disagreement there.

ryric wrote:

Also, for many players, having some level of inspiration to hang your imagination on is very useful.

Easily done in a pick what you want system by providing sample characters. This provides the best of both worlds.

As I said before, to each their own. For me it just seems odd to play a class-based game and then want to disregard the class's theme.

Doing so seems to imply that an individual views classes as simply packages of abilities. If that is the case, aside from the balance issue, there doesn't seems to be a compelling reason to use classes.

[Freehold DM]

ryric wrote:

Tormsskull wrote:

Bottom line - options are good. Classes are packages of options. Why not have even more options by allowing the options to be selected individually?

There are systems out there that let you do that. They tend to be even more complicated than Pathfinder because the math and rules needed to balance such open-ended choice are extensive. Putting options in packages makes them easier (not easy, but easier) to balance. The last attempt I've seen to take the D&D class based model and give it modular class abilities was 2e Skills & Powers, which was a balance trainwreck. Star Wars Saga edition did an okay job of making every class ability a "talent," but your class still restricted what your pool of selectable talents was.

I can make a character that does what I want in PF in a fraction of the time it would take in GURPS or Mutants & Masterminds. Also, for many players, having some level of inspiration to hang your imagination on is very useful. Pure "pick what you want" system can be a lot of fun, but that's not what I'm looking for in a game like Pathfinder. Generally for those I'll play something like Cortex which is much, much more rules light.

i respectfully disagree. Skills and powers took some time to make it work, but I was able to make characters that worked perfectly in theme and in game. It was a timesink, but that's about it.

[Black Hammer]

Green Smashomancer wrote:

There is a Brawler Base Class. The Ninja is a Rogue, its an archetype of the class itself.

Whoops. Was having flashbacks to a different version of ninja, clearly I'm getting too old for all these rules. Time to go play those diceless narrative games where everyone else is a different supernatural creature doing a normal things and I just want to be a normal guy doing unnatural things.

[ryric]

Freehold DM wrote:

ryric wrote:

The last attempt I've seen to take the D&D class based model and give it modular class abilities was 2e Skills & Powers, which was a balance trainwreck.

i respectfully disagree. Skills and powers took some time to make it work, but I was able to make characters that worked perfectly in theme and in game. It was a timesink, but that's about it.

You could make balanced classes with S&P, but it was really easy to imbalance them. Just compare the cleric and the fighter - cleric got 125 points to buy class abilities and the fighter got, what, 10? And the cleric could buy pretty much all the fighter abilities for the same cost as the fighter? It was trivially easy to build a cleric that had fighter THACO, all armor and weapons, and still had 7th level casting and was only missing a few cleric spells that no one ever used anyway. All with a better XP table than the fighter.

Don't get me wrong, I had a lot of fun playing and running 3e Skills&Powers. But it was nowhere near balanced, unless your DMing style involved a metaphorical rolled up newspaper to swat bad players.

[BadBird]

Tormsskull wrote:

Based on what you've posted, it shows that you're comfortable at working within the limitations of a class-based system. My point is, imagine those limitations didn't exist.

Think of all the character concepts you could make if you could simply select abilities rather than classes.

At level one you could have the unarmed damage of the monk, sneak attack of the rogue, and rage of the barbarian.

Bottom line - options are good. Classes are packages of options. Why not have even more options by allowing the options to be selected individually?

I like modular or open systems fine. TES: Morrowind is still my all-time favorite open-world game (the fan-created updated graphics make it look amazing again, thankfully), and that's a system where every skill levels independently and you can custom-build spells, let alone items.

When using Pathfinder, I'm going to get creative within what limitations there are. The idea that characters should stick to basic, stereotype concepts really gets under my skin. If a GM wants to stay within a particular theme or flavor, great; but within those boundaries...

[Tectorman]

Tormsskull wrote:

ryric wrote:

Putting options in packages makes them easier (not easy, but easier) to balance.

No disagreement there.

ryric wrote:

Also, for many players, having some level of inspiration to hang your imagination on is very useful.

Easily done in a pick what you want system by providing sample characters. This provides the best of both worlds.

As I said before, to each their own. For me it just seems odd to play a class-based game and then want to disregard the class's theme.

Doing so seems to imply that an individual views classes as simply packages of abilities. If that is the case, aside from the balance issue, there doesn't seems to be a compelling reason to use classes.

I played a couple of games of Mutants & Masterminds. I made a couple of different characters, and was satisfied with neither. Even with the sample characters as examples, I still had no basis for figuring out which options to take to make my character as powerful as he was expected to be for his level and how much extra I had to play with to express incidental things about him just to flesh him out as a character.

So yeah, I agree that classes ARE simply packages of abilities. And the balance issue is all and is only the compelling reason I need to use classes. Does the fluff help? Sure. It provides inspiration for what sort of character would have a certain set of abilities if a player has no idea of his own. It's a springboard to help get the gymnast into the air. But how many gymnastics routines involve the gymnast running up to the springboard and just standing on it?

So in the absence of a compelling reason to do so, such as the game automatically being meant for a specific setting or a GM's having established what setting his game will be in* (neither reason really having a place in the default assumptions of a setting neutral game system like Pathfinder), I consider the suggested fluff of any given class to be 100% discardable, just by nature of the design.

*Which is not me saying that these reasons aren't valid and worthy, just that they exist at a separate level from the class mechanics. Example: using lightning in Star Wars is evil. If I'm playing a game written solely for the Star Wars setting, I should expecting using lightning to be evil. If I'm playing a setting-neutral game that the GM has said will be used for Star Wars, I should expect using lightning to be evil. But under no circumstances should I expect the use of lightning to be evil without one of those two influences, no matter how the use of lightning manifests itself in the game (a feat, a power, a spell, a class ability, etc.). And if the setting-neutral game forgets itself and suggests that lightning still is evil, despite the lack of any compelling reason why, then I'm perfectly justified ignoring the hell out of that fluff.

[Deadmanwalking]

Tectorman wrote:

I played a couple of games of Mutants & Masterminds. I made a couple of different characters, and was satisfied with neither. Even with the sample characters as examples, I still had no basis for figuring out which options to take to make my character as powerful as he was expected to be for his level and how much extra I had to play with to express incidental things about him just to flesh him out as a character.

This is a bit off-topic, but did you have someone familiar with the game helping you out? And what edition were you using? The first edition had...issues, but 2nd and 3rd are much better.

Assuming you were doing 2nd or 3rd, you really should have had some help from someone experienced with the system. M&M is usually simpler than Pathfinder in play, but the character creation is an order of magnitude more complex than creating anything but high level wizards and the like.

That said, and again assuming 2nd or 3rd Ed., the specific problem you note seems a bit odd: Your Attack + Damage should equal Power Level x2. So should your Defense (or Dodge and Parry in 3rd Ed.) + Toughness. In 3rd Ed. so should your Fortitude + Will (though skimping on this last one is workable).

Assuming you've got that...you should be fine, really. And that's spelled out pretty clearly in the rules. A more experienced player can help you make a more versatile character (and should, if available) but the basics are right there.

[Ian Bell]

I have played at plenty of tables where playing a monk required specific justification, etc.; I think 'why do we ban the ninja and give monks a pass' is starting from a false premise.

[RDM42]

I will pretty much let you play any class if it can fit within the restrictions and flavor/history of the setting. Some are rather difficult: Gunslinger, for example when there are no guns. Still, if you came with a Bolt Ace, why not?

If I had no Paladins but you came to me with a place within the lore of the world where they would fit and be logical, why not?

Usually if something is banned it is banned because it does not fit. If you make it fit within the framework then the reason for the ban, at least in that area, goes away.

[Cevah]

I have 1st Ed O&A. There, the Ninja class was a side class to another class. That is, they had a "normal" class as their cover, but had special training in unusual stuff on the side. This was expressed as a separate XP track for advancement, and XP being divided proportionately. [Or something like that, it's been a while.] While it was tied into the O&A setting, it could easily be lifted into others.

I chose to play a character like that, but the Asian requirement of being from Tien is but a word on the sheet. It is not a character requirement. I see it as a class that is founded in secrecy, with mystical and magical powers. However, I felt that the Ninja chassis in PF was not sufficient for my concept, so I multiclassed into Witch to gain some additional mojo. This planned since before 5th level. [Being old school, I don't plan out the 20 level growth path of my character at level 1, but usually plan only a level or two ahead. This is my main gripe with the archetype system -- preplanned from day one vs. grow as campaign changes.]

As to those silly pajamas, they are not in the wardrobe. What is there are pirate cloths. Being a pirate captain on a pirate ship in a pirate infested area is a perfectly normal disguise for a character that hides in plain sight. [Not visually hidden, but rather mentally unnoticed as different.] As a Merchant, [never a "Ninja"], he has an extensive network of informants, and is working up a merchant empire, pirate style. He also has other less visible connections and he uses those to his advantage when he can.

As the character grew, I went back to the source books for ideas, and chose a specific area in Tien to have come from, as well as some other background stuff to round out the character's backstory, and to build in plot hooks for upcomming level plans. For example, I have chosen to go Witch, by stating that his particular clan hired Witches for support on selected missions, and that some members even learned some witchcraft to augment what they could do on standard missions. It could have been Wizard, Cleric, Bard, or any other caster, but since I wanted Witch, I had the backstory use Witch. Now with the backstory solidified with a secondary class option, I could then multiclass in a way that fit the theme I was going for, while having a story reason.

I have also considered taking a level of Monk for boosting saves and gaining unarmed combat, or Bard since I have quite a few bards in my network. I have even considered Chevalier for the aura feature. [My character has had issues :-( with weak will.] But such decisions will be based on character needs at the present time, and not any preplanning path.

All this to say that I play the class because it fits the theme of the character I want to play, and that I use other classes to customize the character in ways that feats cannot. Could I do this with another class or classes? Sure. But the class name also has some appeal. :-)

As for Ninja tropes in entertainment, you have the Naruto anime, which is the pajama variety, you have the Bruce Lee Enter the Dragon type, the American Ninja type, and the G.I.Joe bad guys type. You even have the TMNJ and Kung Fu Panda types. They are all different, but still have Asian flavor in the background. It is not a required background, but the myth is so heavily rooted in Japan, that it is difficult to get away from it. Even with the tie to the location, a stronger tie is to the culture of the secret society with mystical and/or magical powers due to special training. You can easily relocate "Asia" but not so easily replace the secret training.

/cevah, merchant

[Artifix]

This makes me think of one person I play pathfinder with. They hate me because I play classes differently then just "I am a fighter with a sword and I slash everything." Also same person gets annoyed at me for trying to role play as a character who doesn't do [insert something here] well. I've been trying to get around it by not actually saying my class but instead saying what my character is built to do.

"So I am going be playing a drug lord, who uses the raw form of his drug to fight, while selling a more processed form to gain money!" -Summary of how I described a drug lord I was playing. He was a investigator with a dip in alchemist.