I'm speechless (ranting thread) [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

big teej

2011-08-22, 11:25 PM

I'm going to start this thread with the item that started my incredulity.

incredulidity...

whatever.

as many of you know by now (or should know if you follow any of my threads)

I hold classes to be in game constructs, and as such, occaisionally require a justification for class/race/feat choices etc.

mostly class/race.

I have just encountered an individual who insists on "role play reasons" for feat choices.

to the order of "you can't take toughness if it doesn't 'make sense' for your character"

discuss.

I plan on completely formulating my rant before I post it, so this thread will have a massive wall of text added by me sometime in the next few days... in the meantime, feel free to discuss the above absurdidty... and the following one.

"you cannot consider yourself knowledgeable of a class/race/feat/whatever until you have played a character with it"

(almost) direct quote, I promise

discuss.

Drachasor

2011-08-22, 11:32 PM

Now the shoe is on the other foot.

Hoisted on your own petard.

The tables have turned.

You've gotten a taste of your own medicine.

olentu

2011-08-22, 11:37 PM

Keld Denar

2011-08-22, 11:37 PM

"you cannot consider yourself knowledgeable of a class/race/feat/whatever until you have played a character with it"

Wait, a player has to "unlock" knowledge of classes by playing one? Like Dragon Age?

Couldn't you...I dunno...meet one, IC?

Just because your long deceased Swashbuckler knew he was a Swashbuckler, that means that your Wizard who grew up in a landlocked, isolated mountain valley town would know what a swashbuckler was, but your friend's rogue who grew up in a sea-side deepwater port wouldn't?

Thats pretty bass ackwards, if I do may syself.

Rixx

2011-08-22, 11:39 PM

I understand that you're probably very angry, but I doubt you're going to productively mobilize an entire forum to jump to your aid in this argument.

Knaight

2011-08-22, 11:42 PM

Well feats from leveling are less common then levels so I can see how one might consider them a bigger event in a characters life then just taking a level in a class and so require more justification for them.
Yeah, feats make much more sense as in game constructs than levels do. After all, they could be a representation of actual impressive feats. And unless a tower is being navigated for the sum total of the game, the same does not apply to levels.

"you cannot consider yourself knowledgeable of a class/race/feat/whatever until you have played a character with it"

Yeah, no. This is like insisting that I don't know that 12+15 is 27 until I take a pile of 12 apples, a pile of 15 apples, put them together, and count. And that after doing that, I don't know that 11+16 is still 27, because its a different equation. Indirect study and mathematical analysis can give a solid understanding, particularly once you've done something similar.

Drachasor

2011-08-22, 11:42 PM

HFool

2011-08-22, 11:42 PM

So wait, I'm confused. You said they can't take Toughness because it doesn't make sense, or they called it out in the game?

Drachasor

2011-08-22, 11:44 PM

So wait, I'm confused. You said they can't take Toughness because it doesn't make sense, or they called it out in the game?

Dinky wizard wants 3 more HP? Doesn't make sense, your backstory doesn't have him toughening himself up in any way!

Like that.

Kenneth

2011-08-22, 11:44 PM

I kind of agree with this.

But that is the Roleplayer in me.

If a player of mine was playing a wizard who was frail and sickly I would just look at him with a 0.o look and say "really toughness?"

It makes more sense to me to keep your feats and class/prestige class selection with something that you are roleplaying you character concept as.

If you wanted your sorcerer to be descended form teh fey, why are you going dragon disciple?

Knaight

2011-08-22, 11:45 PM

Dinky wizard wants 3 more HP? Doesn't make sense, your backstory doesn't have him toughening himself up in any way!

Like that.

That was my interpretation as well. See also: "No, you can't take a level of Warblade. Your character wouldn't call themselves a Warblade. No, I don't care that it better represents a swordsman."

If a player of mine was playing a wizard who was frail and sickly I would just look at him with a 0.o look and say "really toughness?
Seems reasonable to me. Its 3 extra hit points, which themselves theoretically represent more than just physical toughness. Its a good way to represent innate magical protection. Or it would be, if it weren't for the existence of Improved Toughness.

In short, the vast majority of the people here are all for representing a character. They aren't necessarily for using the mechanics as anything more than building blocks for that character, as that character is more than just a class and some feats.

Talbot

2011-08-22, 11:48 PM

Somebody has to ask the important question here:

You're mad somebody wouldn't let you take toughness?!

Drachasor

2011-08-22, 11:49 PM

If a player of mine was playing a wizard who was frail and sickly I would just look at him with a 0.o look and say "really toughness?"

Not to crash your world, but 3 more HP does not make someone NOT frail and sickly if they already were. They are now just slightly less frail and sickly, PERHAPS!

I could see SOME sorts of levels requiring some sort of RP justification. Ideally you set up that you were studying magic before taking a level in wizard, after all. Taking a level in Warblade if you were already a Fighter though? I don't see any need for requiring RP for that since you are basically doing the same thing as before. I'm also fairly comfortable with people ret-conning such stuff, though it's never come up in any game I've run (people usually plan their characters out a bit).

HFool

2011-08-22, 11:52 PM

Dinky wizard wants 3 more HP? Doesn't make sense, your backstory doesn't have him toughening himself up in any way!

Like that.

What? That's not even something like tactical feats or weapon styles; what backstory or training couldn't be support "Yeah, my guy's isn't going to die so soon!" And come on, that's either 3.5 or 4e; there's less realistic and unexplained stuff in the core (as in crux) rules.

Drachasor

2011-08-22, 11:57 PM

What? That's not even something like tactical feats or weapon styles; what backstory or training couldn't be support "Yeah, my guy's isn't going to die so soon!" And come on, that's either 3.5 or 4e; there's less realistic and unexplained stuff in the core (as in crux) rules.

*shrugs* Crazy to me, honestly. I work with my players to help them make whatever cool concept they want. Though...they never really go anywhere crazy awesome with that. Going to do a Star Wars game and will anyone be an Iron Man Jedi? Nooooooo *sigh*

Feats? Classes? Everything else? Those are just tools to realize a dream!

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-08-23, 12:09 AM

The first quote is alarmingly common. Too often it's just a kludgy way to mitigate "powergaming," where that can mean really anything depending on the DM's system knowledge. Heck, it can mean taking toughness, even though that's the opposite of choosing feats to make your character more powerful. It can just be a DM trying to maintain more realism (verisimilitude, whatever) in his game... in that case, I would suggest playing a more realistic game to start with.

The second quote is less common, but also has a grain of truth in it. When I was new to D&D, I only realized a monk was terrible once I actually made one for play. Theory is based off the RAW, so it can't take into account the way your table runs. Playing a class at your table gives you more information about that class. That said, the statement is an exaggeration. You can learn a lot about D&D just by reading class PO handbooks and maybe some TO shenanigans.

erikun

2011-08-23, 12:10 AM

"you can't take toughness if it doesn't 'make sense' for your character"
I think that, if I was a DM, I'd just say you can't take toughness and be done with it. :smallbiggrin:

A bit more seriously, saying you can't take a feat unless "you roleplay it" is like saying you can't take a feat unless "you roleplay it". Oh gee, I pick up a sword; now I'm a fighter. Oh gee, I've walked everywhere I go for the last three levels; I'm now qualified for Toughness.

I could see the logic for feats that are supposed to represent in-game groups or secret knowledge (although you could have the feat without the fluff) and I could see the DM refusing to allow a feat/prestige class/ability without accessing it through "in-game" means, but doing that with every single feat is just counterintuitive and counterproductive. You do not need to go to school for, say, learning to swing a sword better, or being more resilient, or learning people's names locally.

"you cannot consider yourself knowledgeable of a class/race/feat/whatever until you have played a character with it"
Okay everyone, get out your level 500 characters that have at least one level in every class and prestige class. Now roll your initiative. Now roll your to-hit dice against the CR 1 orc. Now roll your damage.

Congratulations! You are now considered knowledgeable about everything in D&D. Your certificates are in the mail.

Saintheart

2011-08-23, 12:23 AM

Past life experiences. There's your feat justifications. :smallbiggrin:

Lord.Sorasen

2011-08-23, 12:35 AM

I've always... Sort of agreed. Hate me if you will, but: If your wizard has no reason for being tougher than a typical wizard, why should his stats make him so? I've always disliked this idea that the way you build a character is completely isolated from the roleplaying.

What I really feel here though? If you're under this guy as a DM... Just go for it. Toughness is really, really easy to justify. Here are ten justifications:

1. The wizard doesn't limit himself to book knowledge: "Sure, I have to study to learn my magic, but sometimes the only way to do things is to learn by doing!"
2. The wizard disliked company, and while it made his adventuring life more difficult it made him tough.
3. The wizard has, somewhere within him, the blood of a much sturdier beast. It's what gave him the edge to learn magic, and it's also made him strong.
4. The wizard was trained to be a fighter. In the day he learned how to take blows on the battlefield, and by night he secretly learned the ways of magic. He never really became much as a warrior, but hard work always pays off somehow.

Ok, so I have 4. But I am making those without thinking at all.

What I mean is, why is it a problem at all to you that another player has a playstyle differing from yours?

big teej

2011-08-23, 12:38 AM

Wait, a player has to "unlock" knowledge of classes by playing one? Like Dragon Age?

Couldn't you...I dunno...meet one, IC?

Just because your long deceased Swashbuckler knew he was a Swashbuckler, that means that your Wizard who grew up in a landlocked, isolated mountain valley town would know what a swashbuckler was, but your friend's rogue who grew up in a sea-side deepwater port wouldn't?

Thats pretty bass ackwards, if I do may syself.

I was unclear.

the individual was speeking on his DMing mindset. and had earlier made the claim that "I know the rules inside and out pretty much"

I then also found out the entire group was experienced with dnd.

becoming curious, I asked a completely legitimate and very basic question

"if the party is experienced, why are they so limited?"

I didn't particularly care that we were so limited, I'm a curious guy!

his answer was to the effect of "I am only knowledgeable about the PHB, since that's what I've played.... except for casters"

to which I responded with something along the lines of.
"can you really call yourself knowledgeable about the rules without being knowledgeable of the constructs they define?"

etc. etc. etc.

at which point he dropped the bombshell of what his definition of "knowledgeable" is,

"unless I've played a character with it, I do not consider myself knowledgeable of the feat/race/class"

to which I responded
"You don't need to play a character with toughness to know it's a crappy feat."

I understand that you're probably very angry, but I doubt you're going to productively mobilize an entire forum to jump to your aid in this argument.

of course not, there is no convicing this indivdual...

I simply couldn't go to sleep without venting to some slight degree.

which is what this is for. :smalltongue:

I got the impression that meant that a PLAYER wasn't knowledgeable about a what it meant to have/use a feat/whatever until they had done so at least once. Much more reasonable, but still generally wrong. I might be wrong about that intention though.

correct.
lets say I want to take.... extra smiting, improved toughness. and..... Fiery Fist.

these are banned due to the fact the individual has never used these feats.

So wait, I'm confused. You said they can't take Toughness because it doesn't make sense, or they called it out in the game?

I used toughness as my example during my discussion with him.

and to use an example given elsewhere in the thread which was spot on to my point.

lets say I'm playing the wizard McFrail who has had a case of whooping cough since birth.

str, dex, con around 6-8

and I want to take toughness.

my understanding is I would not be allowed to take toughness for this character because it "doesn't make sense' for wizard mcfrail to have 3 more hit poins

Dinky wizard wants 3 more HP? Doesn't make sense, your backstory doesn't have him toughening himself up in any way!

Like that.

something like this yes.... I could have been mistaken. but ..... I feel this is close enough to it to be agreed with.

Somebody has to ask the important question here:

You're mad somebody wouldn't let you take toughness?!

no no no no no no no :smalltongue:

I simply used toughness as my example while talking with him.

his stance was "if I haven't used the feat/race/class, I cannot consider myself "knowledgeable" in how the feat/race/class works and/or plays"

to which I responded

"you don't have to play a character with toughness to know it's a crappy feat"

I like to think it's fairly obvious from the things I tend to post that I'm far from a power gamer, and I certainly don't subscribe to the stormwind fallacy either.

and I couldn't help but feel like if I were to play under this individual, I'd be labled a power gamer within half an hour of begining the game...

.... it also sent up more than a few red flags that I witnessed the group discussion (over a group chat service) effectively disintegrate under basic questioning.... but that can wait till my full blow hugernomic post.

and undoubtably this is a horribly thought and and wierd sounding post... but I'm tired, should be in bed, and am not the most articulate at the moment, and, as I said, I intend to fully break down our discussion and vent at length in the coming days.

Saintheart

2011-08-23, 01:29 AM

So what you're basically saying is that your DM is insanely paranoid of any option from a splatbook and is religiously for "core".

Fine, then, especially for Tier 1. Play a wizard or cleric. Or freaking druid. Break core. If it's in the PHB, he's "knowledgeable" about it. :smallcool:

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-08-23, 01:33 AM

Coidzor

2011-08-23, 01:40 AM

Ok, so I have 4. But I am making those without thinking at all.

Why is it a deal-breaker if it's so easy to do it without thinking?

What possible gain is there in adding in a few extra sentences to "I'm taking Feat Y this level?"

Wait, a player has to "unlock" knowledge of classes by playing one?

...But how can he play one without unlocking it. :smallconfused:

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-08-23, 01:55 AM

Actually something like that happened to me just the other week. Imagine a girl that wears a miniskirt getting pissed off at another girl for wearing even shorter miniskirt. IMO it's just ridiculous (and yeah, the second girl is me :smallbiggrin:).
All I can say to the OP (kinda): You reap what you sow, only twofold.

Drachasor

2011-08-23, 02:01 AM

Teej, I don't know what to say. Does this guy not allow casters since he's never played one?

Hmm, if you want to play in his campaign, I guess you'll have to get a full list of what he allows and doesn't allow, and make sure there are no exceptions. Then plan out your character and foreshadow every feat you plan on taking....hopefully you won't have to do that with skill points.

I've always... Sort of agreed. Hate me if you will, but: If your wizard has no reason for being tougher than a typical wizard, why should his stats make him so? I've always disliked this idea that the way you build a character is completely isolated from the roleplaying.

Does a Wizard need an excuse to have a Con 1 or 2 higher than another Wizard? Toughness is not really any different than that. It's a supremely minor detail that can easily just be standard variance in the population.

Wait wait wait. So let me get this straight. You treat classes as in-game constructs, but... when your DM treats feats like in-game constructs as well, you are outraged? :smallconfused:
Well... That's something you don't see often.

I covered this in the first response post, I don't think we need to belabor it too much.

Serpentine

2011-08-23, 02:06 AM

I hold classes to be in game constructs, and as such, occaisionally require a justification for class/race/feat choices etc.

mostly class/race.

I have just encountered an individual who insists on "role play reasons" for feat choices.

to the order of "you can't take toughness if it doesn't 'make sense' for your character"

discuss.Doesn't sound any different to me to your view of classes, except applied to feats instead. And although it's not something I'd require of my players, it's something I'd be quite pleased if they did. And it's also not all that hard to do. To take the "dinky Wizard with Toughness" example flying around: "He was a pale and sickly weakling, and as a result was picked on by the other young wizards. Although he's still prone to ill health, his experience being bullied has made him a bit more able to take a punch than he would otherwise have been." Bam. The feat choice now makes sense for your character.

Kenneth

2011-08-23, 02:08 AM

Mini skirts are Broken.

I jsut want to cleairyf that I am ot agianst anybody taking a class /feat or what have you at a given point in their career.

But for me if You have been playing your character a certain way for ( insert example number here) 16 Levels, then you take something that is completely against your character concept and the very way you've been playing that character at 17th level, You best bet your behind that as your DM I am going to say no, not becuase of my being an arse but beucase It makes no sense for your character. and i will explain my point of view on why i am denying it. I played with an atheist fighter before who through several duo escaped with my Disciple (homebrewed class think archivist but not as powerful) he relaized that Deities are out there and had better start respecting them and so took a few levels of cleric in response to his newly found devotion.

But if he never via roleplay or character concept or anythnig ever expressed his character acknowdlegedment of dieties Him taking a level of cleric for me would make no sense.

and also.. Mini skirts are broken,

Drachasor

2011-08-23, 02:13 AM

Mini skirts are Broken.

and also.. Mini skirts are broken,

Bah, weak will save.

I jsut want to cleairyf that I am ot agianst anybody taking a class /feat or what have you at a given point in their career.

But for me if You have been playing your character a certain way for ( insert example number here) 16 Levels, then you take something that is completely against your character concept and the very way you've been playing that character at 17th level, You best bet your behind that as your DM I am going to say no, not becuase of my being an arse but beucase It makes no sense for your character. and i will explain my point of view on why i am denying it. I played with an atheist fighter before who through several duo escaped with my Disciple (homebrewed class think archivist but not as powerful) he relaized that Deities are out there and had better start respecting them and so took a few levels of cleric in response to his newly found devotion.

But if he never via roleplay or character concept or anythnig ever expressed his character acknowdlegedment of dieties Him taking a level of cleric for me would make no sense.

In some cases this is pretty much needed sure, but in most cases? Not really. I'd be willing to allow a player to multi-class into something unexpected if there was a reasonable way for him to do it and he could say he had been studying it. If it was a total 180 for the character though...I guess I would say no. I've never had anything like that happen in any game I've been a player or GM for though.

Arundel

2011-08-23, 02:28 AM

Knaight

2011-08-23, 02:35 AM

How that makes you feel is pretty much how all of the Refluffers feel around Stormwinders. Makes you clap your hands to the side of your head and quizzically exclaim "What?"

Oh, are there real names for what I am calling Refluffers and Stormwinders? If not I just coined them.

Then the people who don't like D&D look at the whole mess, and decide that classes are clearly a terrible, terrible idea that never end well.

Arundel

2011-08-23, 02:40 AM

Thespianus

2011-08-23, 04:17 AM

Mini skirts are Broken.

That's it. I'm sick of all this "Mini skirts are Broken" bullsh*t that's going on in the d20 system right now. Mini skirts deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine mini skirt at the Gap for 2,400 Gil (that's about $20!) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even dance and twirl around a pole while wearing my mini skirt.

The Gap's tailors spend 2 minutes working on a single mini skirt and fold it up to two times to produce the finest items of clothing known to mankind.

Mini skirts are thrice as short as European skirts and thrice as sexy for that matter too. Any legs a normal skirt can display, a mini skirt can display much better. I'm pretty sure a mini skirt could easily entice a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slit.

Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered to invent the Gap? That's right, they were too scared to meet the disciplined girls and their mini skirts of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the girls with mini skirts first because their fully displayed legs was inviting and respected.

So what am I saying? Mini skirts are simply the best skirt that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for mini skirts:

Always a Masterwork item.
+4 Inherent Bonus to Charisma
+3 enhancement bonus to all Charisma based checks
+2 dodge bonus to AC.
+4 circumstance bonus to Gather Information, Perform(dance) and Diplomacy checks.

Now that seems a lot more representative of the charming power of 1 ounce mini skirts in real life, don't you think? [/QUOTE]

Amphetryon

2011-08-23, 08:35 AM

lets say I want to take.... extra smiting, improved toughness. and..... Fiery Fist.

these are banned due to the fact the individual has never used these feats.I think I must be missing a step in the logic here. From what I can tell, you use feats by taking them. However, you can't take them until you use them, by this rule, and you can't use them until you take them.

Congratulations, all feats are now banned.

Surely that's not what's intended?

Killer Angel

2011-08-23, 08:59 AM

"you cannot consider yourself knowledgeable of a class/race/feat/whatever until you have played a character with it"

(almost) direct quote, I promise

discuss.

Maybe I'm missing something, 'cause the way I understand this statement, it's not completely wrong (so, feel free to correct me).
You can know the RAW and spells, but if you've never played a wizard, it won't be easy to play one for the first time. Knowledge comes with experience, and reading the build of a complex character in Iron Chef thread, doesn't mean that you're able to play it at full efficiency. I can build a solid ranger without thinking too much on it, but give me a psionic and I'll be lost. That, is the player's experience.

Morph Bark

2011-08-23, 09:03 AM

"you cannot consider yourself knowledgeable of a class/race/feat/whatever until you have played a character with it"

So someone who never plays and always DMs is not knowledgeable in anything?

Ryu_Bonkosi

2011-08-23, 10:14 AM

That's it. I'm sick of all this "Mini skirts are Broken" bullsh*t that's going on in the d20 system right now. Mini skirts deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine mini skirt at the Gap for 2,400 Gil (that's about $20!) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even dance and twirl around a pole while wearing my mini skirt.

The Gap's tailors spend 2 minutes working on a single mini skirt and fold it up to two times to produce the finest items of clothing known to mankind.

Mini skirts are thrice as short as European skirts and thrice as sexy for that matter too. Any legs a normal skirt can display, a mini skirt can display much better. I'm pretty sure a mini skirt could easily entice a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slit.

Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered to invent the Gap? That's right, they were too scared to meet the disciplined girls and their mini skirts of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the girls with mini skirts first because their fully displayed legs was inviting and respected.

So what am I saying? Mini skirts are simply the best skirt that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for mini skirts:

Always a Masterwork item.
+4 Inherent Bonus to Charisma
+3 enhancement bonus to all Charisma based checks
+2 dodge bonus to AC.
+4 circumstance bonus to Gather Information, Perform(dance) and Diplomacy checks.

Now that seems a lot more representative of the charming power of 1 ounce mini skirts in real life, don't you think?

Wow, this mini skirt is just about as good as a Katana.

CTrees

2011-08-23, 10:16 AM

So someone who never plays and always DMs is not knowledgeable in anything?

DM will have played via NPCs. Actually, potentially played a lot more classes than the PCs, just for shorter time periods.

Coidzor

2011-08-23, 10:43 AM

I think I must be missing a step in the logic here. From what I can tell, you use feats by taking them. However, you can't take them until you use them, by this rule, and you can't use them until you take them.

Congratulations, all feats are now banned.

Surely that's not what's intended?

Nah, it was probably intended as a lame cop-out excuse for whenever anything rubbed him even slightly the wrong way.

Keld Denar

2011-08-23, 10:53 AM

Surely that's not what's intended?

I think he just stated it difficultly. What I believe he ment was that if the DM hasn't experienced it, its not allowed. If the DM hasn't personally run a Dervish, for example, or had a Dervish NPC, then nobody else at the table is allowed to play a Dervish because the DM hasn't seen it in action under his own control to assess whether its rediculously overpowered and poorly balanced.

I personally think that that's being a bit too controlling, that the DM has issues with trust, and all that jazz, but thats more or less what I think Teej is saying.

Ryu_Bonkosi

2011-08-23, 11:06 AM

Nah, it was probably intended as a lame cop-out excuse for whenever anything rubbed him even slightly the wrong way.

"Wait, why is your fighter taking a metamagic feat? :smallconfused:"

"I need it for later in my build and this is the only level it fits in at. :smallbiggrin:"

"But it doesn't make sence for a Fighter to take a metamagic feat! :smallmad:"

"Fine, he has ADHD and thought it was a good idea at the time. :smallamused:"

:smallfurious:

:smallcool:

Coidzor

2011-08-23, 11:17 AM

"Wait, why is your fighter taking a metamagic feat? :smallconfused:"

A fighter taking metamagic feats gets what he deserves, so this is a bad example of anything that a DM would need to worry about.

And if he's building a gish, then you already know why.

Crow

2011-08-23, 11:19 AM

Tyndmyr

2011-08-23, 11:28 AM

Wait wait wait. So let me get this straight. You treat classes as in-game constructs, but... when your DM treats feats like in-game constructs as well, you are outraged? :smallconfused:
Well... That's something you don't see often.

Basically, all these sorts of restrictions do is encourage metagaming. The sort of optimizer that knows what he wants to do for the next twenty levels? Yeah, he'll have no trouble at all justifying these things in backstory.

It's really just penalizing the guy who's casually playing the game for straying from his stereotype. It actively discourages character growth and change.

Yes, mechanics and story should be interrelated...but either can inspire you to change the other. Good ideas should be encouraged and developed, regardless of where they come from.

thompur

2011-08-23, 11:40 AM

That's it. I'm sick of all this "Mini skirts are Broken" bullsh*t that's going on in the d20 system right now. Mini skirts deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine mini skirt at the Gap for 2,400 Gil (that's about $20!) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even dance and twirl around a pole while wearing my mini skirt.

The Gap's tailors spend 2 minutes working on a single mini skirt and fold it up to two times to produce the finest items of clothing known to mankind.

Mini skirts are thrice as short as European skirts and thrice as sexy for that matter too. Any legs a normal skirt can display, a mini skirt can display much better. I'm pretty sure a mini skirt could easily entice a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slit.

Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered to invent the Gap? That's right, they were too scared to meet the disciplined girls and their mini skirts of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the girls with mini skirts first because their fully displayed legs was inviting and respected.

So what am I saying? Mini skirts are simply the best skirt that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for mini skirts:

Always a Masterwork item.
+4 Inherent Bonus to Charisma
+3 enhancement bonus to all Charisma based checks
+2 dodge bonus to AC.
+4 circumstance bonus to Gather Information, Perform(dance) and Diplomacy checks.

Now that seems a lot more representative of the charming power of 1 ounce mini skirts in real life, don't you think? [/QUOTE]

That reminds me...is there any way to get a micro-mini pre-epic?

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-08-23, 11:47 AM

That reminds me...is there any way to get a micro-mini pre-epic?
Yes. It's called a belt.

Serpentine

2011-08-23, 11:52 AM

Ha!
Nothing useful to add, just wish I could "like" that :smalltongue:

Morph Bark

2011-08-23, 11:58 AM

DM will have played via NPCs. Actually, potentially played a lot more classes than the PCs, just for shorter time periods.

Not necessarily. A DM might have just only used monsters and commoner questgivers, or made everything up on the spot. I know I've done that loads of times, much more often than I've actually taken a class and made an NPC for it.

CTrees

2011-08-23, 12:08 PM

Not necessarily. A DM might have just only used monsters and commoner questgivers, or made everything up on the spot. I know I've done that loads of times, much more often than I've actually taken a class and made an NPC for it.

You're right, I should have said "may," rather than "will."

NecroRick

2011-08-23, 12:18 PM

Then the people who don't like D&D look at the whole mess, and decide that classes are clearly a terrible, terrible idea that never end well.

You don't have to dislike D&D to come to that conclusion...

Doug Lampert

2011-08-23, 12:31 PM

Then the people who don't like D&D look at the whole mess, and decide that classes are clearly a terrible, terrible idea that never end well.

You can get the same problem in point or skill based systems. The problem is a pointless insistence that you spend your XP or equivalent in things you do onscrean in gametime.

I've spent less time playing point based systems than D&D, yet I've probably seen this MORE often in such games than in D&D. D&D rules pretty well tell you what this character can learn and do, this is much better for avoiding pointless GM banning than saying "the GM will have to use his judgement as to how many restrictions are reasonable on a power" and then debating whether requires a replacable focus is really a reasonable disadvantage or not or "you can only advance skills you used" and then endlessly debating whether a session FOCUSSED on talking to NPCs used your diplomacy or not when you didn't actually roll dice for that.

Bah. Class and level have problems (so do other systems), but this is actually a problem that comes up more in non-D&D systems than in D&D.

DougL

JoshuaZ

2011-08-23, 12:40 PM

"Wait, why is your fighter taking a metamagic feat? :smallconfused:"

"I need it for later in my build and this is the only level it fits in at. :smallbiggrin:"

"But it doesn't make sence for a Fighter to take a metamagic feat! :smallmad:"

"Fine, he has ADHD and thought it was a good idea at the time. :smallamused:"

:smallfurious:

:smallcool:

Even this can be fluffed appropriately. It might represent innate magical talent that they haven't unlocked yet. He could even then decide to get interested in magic when some wizard recognizes their innate potential. I'd be a little more comfortable with this if it were a spell focus feat rather than metamagic, but the basic idea still works.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-08-23, 12:45 PM

correct.
lets say I want to take.... extra smiting, improved toughness. and..... Fiery Fist.

these are banned due to the fact the individual has never used these feats.

no no no no no no no :smalltongue:

I simply used toughness as my example while talking with him.

his stance was "if I haven't used the feat/race/class, I cannot consider myself "knowledgeable" in how the feat/race/class works and/or plays"

to which I responded

"you don't have to play a character with toughness to know it's a crappy feat"

I like to think it's fairly obvious from the things I tend to post that I'm far from a power gamer, and I certainly don't subscribe to the stormwind fallacy either.

and I couldn't help but feel like if I were to play under this individual, I'd be labled a power gamer within half an hour of begining the game...

.... it also sent up more than a few red flags that I witnessed the group discussion (over a group chat service) effectively disintegrate under basic questioning.... but that can wait till my full blow hugernomic post.

So when he's DMing, you're not allowed to use anything he never used, despite the fact that he's only played non-caster core? This guy sounds terrible.

Tyndmyr

2011-08-23, 12:45 PM

You can get the same problem in point or skill based systems. The problem is a pointless insistence that you spend your XP or equivalent in things you do onscrean in gametime.

I've spent less time playing point based systems than D&D, yet I've probably seen this MORE often in such games than in D&D. D&D rules pretty well tell you what this character can learn and do, this is much better for avoiding pointless GM banning than saying "the GM will have to use his judgement as to how many restrictions are reasonable on a power" and then debating whether requires a replacable focus is really a reasonable disadvantage or not or "you can only advance skills you used" and then endlessly debating whether a session FOCUSSED on talking to NPCs used your diplomacy or not when you didn't actually roll dice for that.

Bah. Class and level have problems (so do other systems), but this is actually a problem that comes up more in non-D&D systems than in D&D.

DougL

This is also true.

Personally, I'm not wedded to the idea that players gain all their skills in a lump. This is a gameplay abstraction. In practice, I'm comfortable with players just acting like it's a new skill when they first use it.

Just took a level in wizard? Feel free to describe yourself dabbling in wizardry. You don't have to do so beforehand...the actual choice of level and time of level up is strictly metagame, and need not be that critical to the story.

HappyBlanket

2011-08-23, 12:48 PM

Then the people who don't like D&D look at the whole mess, and decide that classes are clearly a terrible, terrible idea that never end well.

Well, sure? :smallannoyed:
But the real question is why are they in our board then, right?

Because some people, like myself, came to d&d hoping to find a system for the ideas and character concepts we hoped to play :smalltongue: Something to provide crunch for our fluff, so to say. We do so, only to find that d&d requires us to jump through flaming hurdles and walk on tightropes to make any character that isn't already pre-made in the form of a class (you want an introverted character with musical magic and a electricity theme? Okay, play a Bard. Also you can't be introverted unless you multiclass five times and take these two feats. Also your father is a dragon now).

And of course, there are always other systems to go to, but d&d is by far the most publicized, and therefore the go-to system for anyone with only fledgling experience in the roleplaying game world. And by the time we realize how inappropriate it is for what we're trying to accomplish we've already immersed ourselves in the metagame.

Andorax

2011-08-23, 12:54 PM

Well, obviously there's a logic fail in here:

lets say I want to take.... extra smiting, improved toughness. and..... Fiery Fist.

these are banned due to the fact the individual has never used these feats.

So he can't take the feats because he hasn't used them, but he hasn't used them because he can't take them? Logically speaking, it's impossible to obtain the benefits of feats you don't have, and by his rules, it's impossible to take the feats because it represents stuff you've never done before.

As for the "knowledgable about" argument...shrug it off. Let him feel his sense of systems superiority, since he's not actually stealing knowledge out of your head.

That aside, I'm honestly not seeing the problem here. You're being called upon to actually put some thought into the world-consistency and setting represented by your mechanical choices. To use OOTS for an example, recall how absurd Elan was (not that he isn't regulary absurd, mind you) when he declared he was going to take a level of Wizard to be more like V. RP-focused DMs (such as this guy) see your "I can take whatever I mechanically qualify for and damn the backstory" attitude just like this.

It's a thought exercise. Work with it. If you plan your builds, build your justification in along the way. wizard McFrail wants to take toughness? Spend the level prior to your feat-granting level talking IC about how you've nearly figured out an alchemical cure to your whooping cough that you've been working on in your off time. Alchemical cure not only "fixed" your cough, but happened to have extra side benefits. Better living through alchemy!

Want to take Extra Smiting? Run out of smites on a regular daily basis, and skip the tavern to spend the night in a prayer vigil at the local church instead.

Obviously, I wasn't there to hear the whole conversation. I don't know if the DM is just looking for some RP effort on your part or if this is only the tip of some obscure uber-controlling iceberg. If it's the former, then put some effort in and see where it takes you.

Heck, when I DM, I request (not require) that players take feats and flaws that are in some way thematically related. If you're going to take a flaw like Shakey (-2 to missile combat), pair it off with something like Weapon Focus (some melee weapon).

Hiro Protagonest

2011-08-23, 01:00 PM

So he can't take the feats because he hasn't used them, but he hasn't used them because he can't take them?

No, if Teej wanted to take those feats while the guy he's talking about is DMing, he can't because the guy has never taken them, despite sticking to non-caster core.

erikun

2011-08-23, 01:41 PM

Wow, this mini skirt is just about as good as a Katana.
Wait until you see my next character. He'll be wielding a katana with a miniskirt attached.

Lightning Warrior, eat your heart out. :smallcool:

TheRinni

2011-08-23, 01:56 PM

If a player of mine was playing a wizard who was frail and sickly I would just look at him with a 0.o look and say "really toughness?"

Seems reasonable to me. Its 3 extra hit points, which themselves theoretically represent more than just physical toughness. Its a good way to represent innate magical protection. Or it would be, if it weren't for the existence of Improved Toughness.
In short, the vast majority of the people here are all for representing a character. They aren't necessarily for using the mechanics as anything more than building blocks for that character, as that character is more than just a class and some feats.

This is a good point. But, purely for the sake of argument, I'd like to offer another example in the place of Toughness. Let's say the wizard in question, a person who has devoted himself wholly to the study of magic, decided to take Martial Weapon Proficiency at level 6. This character has no prior experience with weaponry, and no prior desire to learn of them. He has no experience or training. Yet, suddenly, he can wield a battleaxe.

While this scenario may be on the more "extreme" end of the spectrum, I could see why a DM would be opposed to it under the argument "it doesn't make sense for the character."

candycorn

2011-08-23, 02:02 PM

Because some people, like myself, came to d&d hoping to find a system for the ideas and character concepts we hoped to play :smalltongue: Something to provide crunch for our fluff, so to say. We do so, only to find that d&d requires us to jump through flaming hurdles and walk on tightropes to make any character that isn't already pre-made in the form of a class (you want an introverted character with musical magic and a electricity theme? Okay, play a Bard. Also you can't be introverted unless you multiclass five times and take these two feats. Also your father is a dragon now).

Or play a Divine Bard with a low charisma, and go into seeker of the song for 5 levels to get the anthem of thunder and pain?

For this, you need: Knowledge (Arcana)... you said you wanted to have magic, right?
Perform... you said you wanted it to be musical, right?
And Skill focus (Perform)...

Ok, one feat, and it's themed... And helps explain why your music is good, even though your charisma is poor. And a single Alternate Class Feature.

Really, I don't understand the complaint. In order to make the character you want, you have to use the options provided (multiclassing, feats, alternate class features) to customise your character to your specifications?

How horrid of them to not print a book titled "Happyblanket's Ideal Class lists" and enter exactly every concept you wanted.

Seriously, that's why customizing is good. It lets you take many options, and mix until you get something that has all the ideal abilities for your specific ideas. And yeah, the more you do it, the better you get with doing it... But that's true of anything.

Greenish

2011-08-23, 02:07 PM

Yet, suddenly, he can wield a battleaxe.There's nothing stopping him from wielding any weapon (provided it's about the right size). Sure, he'll be slightly better at fighting with one he's proficient with, but he's still half-BAB (probably) with poor strength, it doesn't help him that much that he's got the knack for swinging an axe. Maybe he has always had it, but it hasn't come up.

DiBastet

2011-08-23, 02:11 PM

darksolitaire

2011-08-23, 02:12 PM

There is one thing that personally irks me here; a DM deciding which fits and which doesn't fit to a character for his sense of character flavor, instead of mechanical worries.

Let me clarify.

If DM says that my character shouldn't take Iron Will, because it makes my character's will saves too powerful, then that's O-kay.
If DM says that my character shouldn't take Iron Will, because it has been fluffed to exist for fighters/elves/what-have-you only for story reasons, then that's O-kay.
If DM says that my character shouldn't take Iron Will, because it doesn't make sense for my character...

It's his world and he has final say in it, but it is my character, and I decide what does and what does not fit him. If my Paladin takes a level in Black Guard without first spending some time kicking puppies, that obviously he has had severe internal struggle which has been invisible the whole time. It also means that I want my Paladin to take a level in Black Guard. If you can't accommodate that desire, then good day to you.

All of the above is IMO.

Alchemistmerlin

2011-08-23, 02:22 PM

Makes perfect sense to me. There's a feat in SW:Saga Edition for learning the lost Wookiee martial art of Wrruushi. The feat does not state that you must learn from someone to learn the martial art, but given that it is, in universe;

A) an established style
B) Something only a Wookiee can know

Then it makes no sense for my wookiee character to know it before discovering at least some vague things about it in researching his homeworld.

If it was not intended that way then it wouldn't be called "Wrruushi Training" it would be called "That feat that adds X damage and can only be learned by Wookiees" to avoid the issue all together.

TheRinni

2011-08-23, 02:26 PM

If DM says that my character shouldn't take Iron Will, because it doesn't make sense for my character...

It's his world and he has final say in it, but it is my character, and I decide what does and what does not fit him. If my Paladin takes a level in Black Guard without first spending some time kicking puppies, that obviously he has had severe internal struggle which has been invisible the whole time. It also means that I want my Paladin to take a level in Black Guard. If you can't accommodate that desire, then good day to you.

All of the above is IMO.
My opinion differs from your's in only two ways:

1. There is a difference between invisible and nonexistent. Even if a character's conflict is completely internal, as a DM, would expect there to be some signals that he is "going over to the dark side." It, by no means, has to be obvious. However, the DM should be aware of such a thing - even if that means telling him out of game.

2. I don't believe a DM should be completely, and absolutely, accommodating to a player's every whim and desire.

Other than that, I agree that a DM shouldn't have complete control over a player's character. However, as you've previously stated, it is the DM's world. I believe he is entitled to give his opinion on what does and does not make sense within it.

Coidzor

2011-08-23, 02:27 PM

Other than that, I agree that a DM shouldn't have complete control over a player's character. However, as you've previously stated, it is the DM's world. I believe he is entitled to give his opinion on what does and does not make sense within it.

Sure, but that doesn't change whether or not the DM is just plain wrong. :smalltongue:

TheRinni

2011-08-23, 02:36 PM

Sure, but that doesn't change whether or not the DM is just plain wrong. :smalltongue:

Here's an example from a game I ran a while back:

We used the 3.5 system, but the setting was one of my own creation. It was a post-apocalyptic world, in which very little plants and vegetation grew. This was mostly due to ash and mist blocking sunlight, and was based heavily off of the Mistborn novels by Brandon Sanderson.

Druids had been hunted to (near) extinction decades ago. I was willing to allow a player to play one - under the condition that he took the world into account when writing his backstory. However, one could say that I was still being unaccommodating towards that player - as I would've forced him to use the Sandstorm variant.

Whether this was wrong, or right, is far too subjective.

hangedman1984

2011-08-23, 02:39 PM

Arundel

2011-08-23, 02:40 PM

Here's an example from a game I ran a while back:

We used the 3.5 system, but the setting was one of my own creation. It was a post-apocalyptic world, in which very little plants and vegetation grew. This was mostly due to ash and mist blocking sunlight, and was based heavily off of the Mistborn novels by Brandon Sanderson.

Druids had been hunted to (near) extinction decades ago. I was willing to allow a player to play one - under the condition that he took the world into account when writing his backstory. However, one could say that I was still being unaccommodating towards that player - as I would've forced them to use the Sandstorm variant.

Whether this was wrong, or right, is far too subjective.

See, that is totally different. That is a pre-existing setting ban on something, so something the players knew when they were plotting the characters out. It is not (I assume) something you pulled out later against one character taking a feat you didn't like. It does not make you a Stormwinder like the DM in the OP.

TheRinni

2011-08-23, 02:42 PM

don't metamagic feats require a caster level?
From DandWiki:
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/3.5e_Metamagic_Feats

These feats include metamagic, and feats of the magical type. All of them require spell-casting or spell-like abilities of some kind.

Many races have spell-like abilities, which would qualify them to take these feats, despite the fact it wouldn't make sense for them.

dextercorvia

2011-08-23, 02:43 PM

don't metamagic feats require a caster level?

No, most of them have no prereqs. The rest just require another metamagic feat.

Greenish

2011-08-23, 02:43 PM

Here's an example from a game I ran a while back: <snip>That's not what he's talking about. If all druids in your setting use the Sandstorm ACFs, that's okay, but if you insist that his druid, specifically, can't have Dire Toad as an animal companion because his druid isn't the sort of character to have a toad, that'd be a problem.

[Edit]: Swordsage'd while looking up the Sandstorm druid.

TheRinni

2011-08-23, 02:46 PM

That's not what he's talking about. If all druids in your setting use the Sandstorm ACFs, that's okay, but if you insist that his druid, specifically, can't have Dire Toad as an animal companion because his druid isn't the sort of character to have a toad, that'd be a problem.

His character is the only druid in the setting. Period. Therefore, it is a limitation imposed on his character, specifically. I determined that his character isn't the sort to have a Dire Toad, because it doesn't make sense in the game.

Granted, this is another scenario that is on the extreme end of the scale. I limited the character, but I had my reasons for doing so. I tend to assume that most DMs have their reasons as well.

HappyBlanket

2011-08-23, 02:49 PM

Or play a Divine Bard with a low charisma, and go into seeker of the song for 5 levels to get the anthem of thunder and pain?

For this, you need: Knowledge (Arcana)... you said you wanted to have magic, right?
Perform... you said you wanted it to be musical, right?
And Skill focus (Perform)...

Ok, one feat, and it's themed... And helps explain why your music is good, even though your charisma is poor. And a single Alternate Class Feature.

Really, I don't understand the complaint. In order to make the character you want, you have to use the options provided (multiclassing, feats, alternate class features) to customise your character to your specifications?

How horrid of them to not print a book titled "Happyblanket's Ideal Class lists" and enter exactly every concept you wanted.

Seriously, that's why customizing is good. It lets you take many options, and mix until you get something that has all the ideal abilities for your specific ideas. And yeah, the more you do it, the better you get with doing it... But that's true of anything.

First; it was a hypothetical example. No need to single me out.

Second, and perhaps somewhat kinda less calmly; my most sincere and heartfelt apologies for my entirely unwarranted and completely baseless assertion that a class system such as that presented in d&d would pose an unwelcome hurdle (or an unwelcome flaming hoop) to fledging players who simply wish to pull off even a rudimentary and two dimensional concept such as the example provided. What was I even thinking. Thirdly, that build (which I understand you just pulled off the top of your head, and is therefore not indicative of the optimal method or of your character building ability), only fits the concept at level, what, 14? And what if the game starts earlier than that? What then? "No, you can't play that character, because you only meet the prereqs for the fluff after 13 levels?" Granted, there are plenty of options for a character builder, but is it really wrong to assume that many concepts simply can't be done (effectively) within the class system?

Granted, that's one of the reasons for Homebrew, I suppose. Which solves the problem as far as my gripes are concerned, provided all homebrew ever isn't banned and that the gm isn't gung-ho about using RAW.

edit: I should also probably note that this is at least two degrees of separation from the original topic.

dextercorvia

2011-08-23, 02:49 PM

From the SRD:

Many races have spell-like abilities, which would qualify them to take these feats, despite the fact it wouldn't make sense for them.

Where did you find this quote. It isn't in the feat section.

Thespianus

2011-08-23, 02:51 PM

From the SRD:

Many races have spell-like abilities, which would qualify them to take these feats, despite the fact it wouldn't make sense for them.

I can't find that quote in the SRD, and I can't find anything in the PHB that says that metamagic feats can't be taken by a non caster...

Could you please link to it? I've been searching like crazy :)

Greenish

2011-08-23, 02:55 PM

His character is the only druid in the setting. Period. Therefore, it is a limitation imposed on his character, specifically. I determined that his character isn't the sort to have a Dire Toad, because it doesn't make sense in the game.Wait, what? I think you didn't really understand what I tried to say, so lets try again.

If you say his druid can't have a toad companion, because druids in your setting (even if he's the only one!) don't have toad companions, that's okay.

If you say his druid can't have a toad companion, because you've decided his character doesn't like toads, that's what he has a problem with.

TheRinni

2011-08-23, 02:55 PM

Where did you find this quote. It isn't in the feat section.

Haha, sorry. Looks like I accidentally pulled that from dandwiki's SRD documents, instead of the SRD itself: http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/3.5e_Metamagic_Feats

I will edit my post accordingly.

Seerow

2011-08-23, 02:57 PM

All I've gotten out of this thread is a sudden desire to play a Druid turned into a Dire Toad, and somehow getting Charm/Dominate Humanoid/Monster on the Druid Spell List.

Greenish

2011-08-23, 02:58 PM

Haha, sorry. Looks like I accidentally pulled that from dandwiki's SRD documents, instead of the SRD itself: http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/3.5e_Metamagic_Feats

I will edit my post accordingly.Those are all homebrew. :smallamused:

[Edit]:
All I've gotten out of this thread is a sudden desire to play a Druid turned into a Dire Toad, and somehow getting Charm/Dominate Humanoid/Monster on the Druid Spell List.Greensinger Initiate, ECS, gets you Charm Person/Monster on druid list.

Seerow

2011-08-23, 03:00 PM

Those are all homebrew. :smallamused:

[Edit]: Greensinger Initiate, ECS, gets you Charm Person/Monster on druid list.

Hypnotoad is pleased.

http://i644.photobucket.com/albums/uu165/bagerap/fit%20for%20public/HYPNOTOAD.jpg

TheRinni

2011-08-23, 03:01 PM

Wait, what? I think you didn't really understand what I tried to say, so lets try again.

If you say his druid can't have a toad companion, because druids in your setting (even if he's the only one!) don't have toad companions, that's okay.

If you say his druid can't have a toad companion, because you've decided his character doesn't like toads, that's what he has a problem with.

I understand.

So, on the lower end of the scale, a DM could decide that it doesn't make sense for Wizards to have Toughness in his world. The Feat Index describes the Toughness Feat as "You are tougher than normal." In this DM's world, Wizards are simply not allowed to be tougher than the average individual because of the amount of time they are forced to be inactive.

This would be an acceptable limitation only if applied to all Wizards. It only becomes unfair when applied to a single character. Is this correct?

EDIT:

Those are all homebrew.
Sorry, sorry! I just spent a good five minutes laughing my ass off. That's what I get for Googling instead of looking through my books. xD

Greenish

2011-08-23, 03:03 PM

This would be an acceptable limitation only if applied to all Wizards. It only becomes unfair when applied to a single character. Is this correct?Well, it would be fairly silly either way, but yeah, that's the gist of it.

The basic problem is that the DM claims to know the character better than it's player.

[Edit]:
Sorry, sorry! I just spent a good five minutes laughing my ass off. That's what I get for Googling instead of looking through my books. xDUse d20SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm). Never trust dandwiki.

TheRinni

2011-08-23, 03:09 PM

Well, it would be fairly silly either way, but yeah, that's the gist of it.

The basic problem is that the DM claims to know the character better than it's player.

But, what if the player also admits to it not making complete sense - what if the player is just doing it for mechanical, munchkin-esque purposes? Would it then be acceptable for the DM to step in and say "no"?

[Edit]: Use d20SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm). Never trust dandwiki.
I'm going to stick with my PDF book copies from now on, but the SRD will also be nice to have on file. Thank you!

Seerow

2011-08-23, 03:16 PM

But, what if the player also admits to it not making complete sense - what if the player is just doing it for mechanical, munchkin-esque purposes? Would it then be acceptable for the DM to step in and say "no"?

What player would ever say they're doing something just for munchkinesque purposes? Almost any player taking something, even if it is for mechanical benefit, can come up with SOME way to justify their character wanting to take it. It could be something as simple as "My character thinks it will improve his effectiveness/survivability in combat" or "My character intends to become a part of this prestige class, and knows that working towards that means taking this feat". That right there covers the vast majority of feat choices for any mechanically inclined character.

In the cases of stuff like toughness... honestly, if the wizard wants to gimp himself wasting a feat on it, let him! It's a few extra HP, it will almost never actually make a legitimate difference in the game past first level. It's pretty clearly a RP oriented choice, and nobody looking to make a powergamed character is taking stuff like that unless it's a prerequisite for something else (which is covered under the justifications above)

Gavinfoxx

2011-08-23, 03:19 PM

Actually something like that happened to me just the other week. Imagine a girl that wears a miniskirt getting pissed off at another girl for wearing even shorter miniskirt. IMO it's just ridiculous (and yeah, the second girl is me :smallbiggrin:).

Does anyone else feel kinda guilty about kinda wanting to see a photo of the lovely Anarchy Kanya now? >.> <,< >.>

Seerow

2011-08-23, 03:22 PM

Does anyone else feel kinda guilty about kinda wanting to see a photo of the lovely Anarchy Kanya now? >.> <,< >.>

Apparently you haven't been on the internet long enough to learn rule #1. Or Rule #72.

darksolitaire

2011-08-23, 03:23 PM

My opinion differs from your's in only two ways:

1. There is a difference between invisible and nonexistent. Even if a character's conflict is completely internal, as a DM, would expect there to be some signals that he is "going over to the dark side." It, by no means, has to be obvious. However, the DM should be aware of such a thing - even if that means telling him out of game.

Our opinions don't differ here. I used extreme example with the Black Guard, I wouldn't even consider pulling that one off, unless it's specifically that kind of game. In my group we also keep each other informed of our plans four our characters, and DM has a say in everything and isn't kept in the dark.

I could have made less extreme example, obviously.

2. I don't believe a DM should be completely, and absolutely, accommodating to a player's every whim and desire.

If I sounded like I believed that, then I wrote poorly. I wasn't talking about accommodating, as in, DM has to work around it either mechanically, or story-wise. I was talking about using an option that doesn't create any extra work for the DM, but doesn't fit his sense for my character.

Other than that, I agree that a DM shouldn't have complete control over a player's character. However, as you've previously stated, it is the DM's world. I believe he is entitled to give his opinion on what does and does not make sense within it.

It is my duty to play good, accommodating character, as opposed to neutral evil ninja drow assassin. I make character in parameters given to me, but I create the sense and flavor of the character within those parameters, and aim to dictate them entirely.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-08-23, 03:25 PM

But, what if the player also admits to it not making complete sense - what if the player is just doing it for mechanical, munchkin-esque purposes? Would it then be acceptable for the DM to step in and say "no"?
Is that somehow wrong to make the mechanics first and then the fluff? I think not. So instead of saying simply "No" the DM could work with the player on creating the fluff.

Gavinfoxx

2011-08-23, 03:26 PM

Apparently you haven't been on the internet long enough to learn rule #1. Or Rule #72.

Yea, probably true. Wishful thinking I guess...

Elric VIII

2011-08-23, 03:30 PM

Is that somehow wrong to make the mechanics first and then the fluff? I think not. So instead of saying simply "No" the DM could work with the player on creating the fluff.

Haven't you heard?

D&D is about creating the worst character you can in order to boost your roleplaying ability. That's why Rangers roleplay so much better than Druids. :smallbiggrin:

TheRinni

2011-08-23, 03:31 PM

I was talking about using an option that doesn't create any extra work for the DM, but doesn't fit his sense for my character.

...

I make character in parameters given to me, but I create the sense and flavor of the character within those parameters, and aim to dictate them entirely. I think this is a great balance.

Is that somehow wrong to make the mechanics first and then the fluff?

Not necessarily. Although, I asked that question with this pattern in mind: decide fluff/base mechanics, decide to add a mechanic to your fluff 6 levels in, change established fluff in the middle of a campaign to accommodate your new idea.

Of course, I do believe that this "change," can be done well. It's often called "development." Unexpected character development is something I often encourage.

I had no intention of stating that anything should be created first.

Coidzor

2011-08-23, 03:33 PM

His character is the only druid in the setting. Period. Therefore, it is a limitation imposed on his character, specifically. I determined that his character isn't the sort to have a Dire Toad, because it doesn't make sense in the game.

Granted, this is another scenario that is on the extreme end of the scale. I limited the character, but I had my reasons for doing so. I tend to assume that most DMs have their reasons as well.

You... really can't see the difference there? :smallconfused:

I find that most DMs have no reason more than their own persnicketiness if it's not something they did while creating a custom setting. What with it being, by its nature, a spur of the moment, knee-jerk reaction rather than something they presumably thought about since they took the time to customize D&D.

Seerow

2011-08-23, 03:34 PM

Haven't you heard?

D&D is about creating the worst character you can in order to boost your roleplaying ability. That's why Rangers roleplay so much better than Druids. :smallbiggrin:

My Truenamer turned me into the king of roleplay at our table. I totally won at D&D.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-08-23, 03:35 PM

I had no intention of stating that anything should be created first.
Well. You used that annoying, offensive word, so I assumed that you think that it's somehow wrong to do so. Good that I was mistaken. :smallwink:

My Truenamer turned me into the king of roleplay at our table. I totally won at D&D.
Oh. So that's why over 99% of any D&D settings population consist of commoners?

Boci

2011-08-23, 03:41 PM

Not necessarily. Although, I asked that question with this pattern in mind: decide fluff/base mechanics, decide to add a mechanic to your fluff 6 levels in, change established fluff in the middle of a campaign to accommodate your new idea.

Well it beats retiering your character/killing them off. The game's about having fun, so I don't think you should be penalized for changing your mind about what you want to play, as long as it doesn't happen too often.

HappyBlanket

2011-08-23, 03:42 PM

My Truenamer turned me into the king of roleplay at our table. I totally won at D&D.

Underpowered classes and good roleplaying go hand in hand. Obviously. They're pretty much entirely related.

TheRinni

2011-08-23, 03:42 PM

I find that most DMs have no reason more than their own persnicketiness if it's not something they did while creating a custom setting. What with it being, by its nature, a spur of the moment, knee-jerk reaction rather than something they presumably thought about since they took the time to customize D&D.

I can't say I've ever played with this type of DM. I usually find that everyone has their reasons for doing something. And, since DnD is a social experience, I find that DMs are usually willing to discuss their reasoning with their players.

If it's just a hasty reaction, perhaps most would be willing to reconsider their judgment, after given time to think it over?

Well. You used that annoying, offensive word, so I assumed that you think that it's somehow wrong to do so. Good that I was mistaken. :smallwink:

I apologize. I rarely think of powergaming as something offensive. I've had many fun games that were intentionally created for us to play Munchkins. On the opposite end of the spectrum, some of my favorite games have been intentionally underpowered.

Kenneth

2011-08-23, 04:40 PM

Hiro Protagonest

2011-08-23, 04:44 PM

Gavinfoxx

2011-08-23, 04:47 PM

HappyBlanket

2011-08-23, 04:48 PM

OK, so what I get from this entire thread is the following.

I am a bad DM becuase when the player in our island based campaing decided to be an aquatic elf (canmnot think of the actual name right now) druid and takes a camel as a animal compain. I say " No that does not make any sense for your character."

Somehow I got teh idea that my job was to create a rich interesting environment for teh player to explore in with the slighest of hints of an over arching plot. and though teh world is based in mythology to not have the suspension of disbleif getting TOO out fo whack with cases of this that make no sense as to the setting or the purpose.

Sorry in advance for ganging up on you like this. But there are several different and valid points being made in response, so it can't be helped.

But if the player said "Undine the Aquatic Elf traveled to a desert town as a child, lived there long enough to befriend a camel, and then returned to the islands while insisting the camel come as well, as a result of their companionship," you'd be okay with that? Since that doesn't require suspension of disbelief at all?

Because the need for that detail in a character's backstory won't hinder the munchkin of the group in the slightest (after all, for such a player, "backstory" is nothing more than an empty box on the character sheet). However, it will blow a hole in the genuine roleplayer's gaming experience, since the backstory previously created for Undine now has to be reworked entirely.

Arundel

2011-08-23, 04:51 PM

OK, so what I get from this entire thread is the following.

I am a bad DM becuase when the player in our island based campaing decided to be an aquatic elf (canmnot think of the actual name right now) druid and takes a camel as a animal compain. I say " No that does not make any sense for your character."

Somehow I got teh idea that my job was to create a rich interesting environment for teh player to explore in with the slighest of hints of an over arching plot. and though teh world is based in mythology to not have the suspension of disbleif getting TOO out fo whack with cases of this that make no sense as to the setting or the purpose.

Nowhere in the bold section do you say "run my player's characters for them". Really if you're based on mythology there is no such thing as "the suspension of disbleif getting TOO out fo whack". Are familiar with mythology? There is some crazy crazy stuff in mythology. Gods turning into ducks to rape people, blue oxen the size of aircraft carriers, creatures who scream till your head explodes, etc. Think about how insane vampires would sound if you haven't grown up accepting that bit of mythos.

Because the need for that detail in a character's backstory won't hinder the arch typical soulless optimizer in the slightest (after all, for such a player, "backstory" is nothing more than an empty box on the character sheet). However, it will blow a hole in the genuine roleplayer's gaming experience, since the backstory previously created for Undine now has to be reworked entirely.

S-s-s-s-stormwinding!

Greenish

2011-08-23, 05:05 PM

But, what if the player also admits to it not making complete sense - what if the player is just doing it for mechanical, munchkin-esque purposes?The player is either doing it because it fits his concept of his character (mechanical), or he's doing it because he doesn't really have a character concept ("munchkin-esque"). In neither case does the feat (or whatever) clash with the character. :smallamused:

Underpowered classes and good roleplaying go hand in hand. Obviously. They're pretty much entirely related.Related? They're the same thing!

HappyBlanket

2011-08-23, 05:07 PM

S-s-s-s-stormwinding!

I'm sorry if you took that to mean I somehow believed roleplaying and optimizing were mutually exclusive :smalltongue: I meant to say that the DM's measures were more penalizing from a roleplaying aspect than a mechanical one. So if it's implemented with the intention of hindering gaming abuse while supporting a good roleplaying experience, it's effectively backwards.

By the way, since it just occurred to me that mechanical might not mean what I think it means, I use the term "mechanical" to refer to matters pertaining to quantifiable statistics.

LansXero

2011-08-23, 05:16 PM

I dont see why it would even be a weird choice; if a character/person is aquatic or only knows about the sea and sea-like stuff, its very possible that it will want a companion that complements him. If I have a swim speed, why would I take a fishy/coastal companion? Much more logical to find a creature who can travel easily where I can not, and uses the smallest amount of water possible, as Ill be needing most of it to keep fresh :D

Arundel

2011-08-23, 05:16 PM

I'm sorry if you took that to mean I somehow believed roleplaying and optimizing were mutually exclusive :smalltongue: I meant to say that the DM's measures were more penalizing from a roleplaying aspect than a mechanical one. So if it's implemented with the intention of hindering gaming abuse while supporting a good roleplaying experience, it's effectively backwards.

By the way, since it just occurred to me that mechanical might not mean what I think it means, I use the term "mechanical" to refer to matters pertaining to quantifiable statistics.

I think it was "typical soulless optimizer". I assure you some of us do in fact possess souls. In a jar on the shelf.
:smallwink:

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-08-23, 05:17 PM

I think the point of this thread is that what makes sense from a game world perspective for one person is not going to make sense to someone else. When the DM restricts feat choices so that they must fit his interpretation of the player's character, he becomes a crotchety old man. Like hanging out with grampa, it's possible to play under a crotchety old man, but it's not ideal. When I restrict something because it doesn't make sense to me, I plan to be a self aware old man (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2337#comic) about it and give the player some molasses candy to cheer him up.

HappyBlanket

2011-08-23, 05:29 PM

I think it was "typical soulless optimizer". I assure you some of us do in fact possess souls. In a jar on the shelf.
:smallwink:

Eh. I was looking for a word to describe the kind of player I was thinking about, and Munchkin slipped my mind. I'll edit it in for accuracy.

For what it counts, I consider myself to be an optimizer. In that I try to make effective builds, that is (try being the key word). It wasn't meant to be an insult to optimization, unlike my own attempts to optimize.

Sewercop

2011-08-23, 06:02 PM

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-08-23, 06:06 PM

I belive the op is saying that unless the gm has played with the race\class\feat, it is unavailable to the players because he do not posess the understanding on how it works.

The op then stated that you do not need to play a character with the toughness feat to know how the toughness feat works.

So if i wanted to play a paladin that went into blackguard, the only way that could happen were if the gm had done that earlier in his gaming days.
If the gm only had played a paladin, that would not be possible.

If my understanding of the op is correct, I too would have felt the need of venting.Yeah, that's pretty ridiculous. I can see something like "I'm unfamiliar with Incarnum, so unless you want to lend me the book and teach me the basics..." but not allowing anything you haven't played? Yeesh.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-08-23, 06:09 PM

So when he's DMing, you're not allowed to use anything he never used, despite the fact that he's only played non-caster core? This guy sounds terrible.

No, if Teej wanted to take those feats while the guy he's talking about is DMing, he can't because the guy has never taken them, despite sticking to non-caster core.

I belive the op is saying that unless the gm has played with the race\class\feat, it is unavailable to the players because he do not posess the understanding on how it works.

I said that twice, but did anybody pay attention to me? Nooo. Well, at least someone else gets it.

Arundel

2011-08-23, 06:18 PM

We noticed. We just decided trying to run your player's characters was a far more grievous affront to all that is good and sacred.

HappyBlanket

2011-08-23, 06:25 PM

To be fair, I'm not entirely certain we can say with good faith that this is still about the original post.

Arundel

2011-08-23, 06:30 PM

Well the OP DM told OP you can't take this feat because I decided it doesn't fit your character. We're still on topic.

Elric VIII

2011-08-23, 06:46 PM

To be fair, I'm not entirely certain we can say with good faith that this is still about the original post.

I've got a related anecdote, if that helps.

I was playing a LG Crusader/Wizard Gish. I was an ex-soldier that in his old age (I took the middle aged category, even though I was a melee character) took to studying magic to compensate for his now frail body.

My DM had a scenario where a Succubus had seduced, and was planning to kill, a duke. When we confronted the creature (in the main hall of the duke's castle) we were put in the position of allowing the succubus to imprison us and, potentially, kill the duke or allow her second in command to kill a former loyal retainer of the duke.

I decided that my character, the veteran soldier, when put in the position of killing another soldier or a duke, was more likely to put the life of a lord/duke/king above that of any soldier (including himself). So I had my character attack the Succubus.

The DM decided that my character wouldn't do that and proceeded to railroad us into a nice battle in which he played his opposing side NPCs and basically let us watch. Although that is a completely different problem.

molten_dragon

2011-08-23, 07:18 PM

First you say this.

I hold classes to be in game constructs, and as such, occaisionally require a justification for class/race/feat choices etc.

Then you say this.

I have just encountered an individual who insists on "role play reasons" for feat choices.

to the order of "you can't take toughness if it doesn't 'make sense' for your character"

No offense man, but you're being a bit hypocritical here. It seems like this other guy is behaving no differently than you do, and yet for some reason you are upset by it.

Makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Ryu_Bonkosi

2011-08-23, 07:18 PM

I belive the op is saying that unless the gm has played with the race\class\feat, it is unavailable to the players because he do not posess the understanding on how it works.

The op then stated that you do not need to play a character with the toughness feat to know how the toughness feat works.

So if i wanted to play a paladin that went into blackguard, the only way that could happen were if the gm had done that earlier in his gaming days.
If the gm only had played a paladin, that would not be possible.

If my understanding of the op is correct, I too would have felt the need of venting.

I see the OP's DM's statement as, "You (the person) can't understand how some race/class/feat works if you haven't played it yourself.

Example: You can't consider yourself knowledgeable of Monk/Truenamers/Divine Mind's suckiness unless you have played one, even though it is kind of easy to see.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-08-23, 07:27 PM

DiBastet

2011-08-23, 07:34 PM

The basic problem is that the DM claims to know the character better than it's player.

+1

However, let us always remember the exceptions. There are some times when the DM should come in and stop the player from making a certain decision that wouldn't live up to the char. This mostly happens with long stabilished characters and mature players. Like the players sees a new item, that grants the char fairy wings and uses glitterdust 3x a day, and says something like "THIS IS AMAZING! TINKERBELL WINGS!!! My dour, serious, long stabilished dwarven paladin high priest should COMPLETLY have one", I as the DM would stop the player. He may think the item is perfect: Little fairy wings. His char probably doesn't.

But these are exceptions, and should be treated as such.

Edit: I'm "some other guy".

Drachasor

2011-08-23, 07:40 PM

+1

However, let us always remember the exceptions. There are some times when the DM should come in and stop the player from making a certain decision that wouldn't live up to the char. This mostly happens with long stabilished characters and mature players. Like the players sees a new item, that grants the char fairy wings and uses glitterdust 3x a day, and says something like "THIS IS AMAZING! TINKERBELL WINGS!!! My dour, serious, long stabilished dwarven paladin high priest should COMPLETLY have one", I as the DM would stop the player. He may think the item is perfect: Little fairy wings. His char probably doesn't.

But these are exceptions, and should be treated as such.

I don't even think that was necessarily a good exception. There are lots of ways to handle the dwarf using it. For one, he could refuse to recognize it is kind of silly. Or he could refuse to acknowledge it, since it is very useful. Or it could be played as the Dwarf achieving some secretly held childhood fantasy and hence softening his gruff personality.

molten_dragon

2011-08-23, 07:48 PM

Yeah, that was already pointed out by me... and some other guy.

Eh, I'm too lazy to read 4 pages of posts before replying.

big teej

2011-08-23, 07:48 PM

sadly, facebook chat has not saved a great portion of the discussion, as I planned on using direct quotes from both sides of the discussion.

in light of this, I will attempt to reconstruct the discussion from memory as close as I can, and do a much better job about making my point.

I will admit, my original post was..... poorly thought out, it was very late at night and I was typing while flustered, and many of the points and issues I wished to address got lost in that. :smallredface:

oh well, hopefully sometime in the next 2-3 days I can get up a good explanation.

those of you looking for an update: it is my understanding that the individual has been removed through some unholy combination of "RAGEQUIT" and "being booted"

I must confess...... I have this morbid curiosity to play with this player.... and at the same time don't want to be in the same room with him. :smalltongue:

oh well.

Drachasor

2011-08-23, 07:49 PM

Eh, I'm too lazy to read 4 pages of posts before replying.

Is the first response to the OP that hard to read?

Worira

2011-08-23, 08:02 PM

Because some people, like myself, came to d&d hoping to find a system for the ideas and character concepts we hoped to play :smalltongue: Something to provide crunch for our fluff, so to say. We do so, only to find that d&d requires us to jump through flaming hurdles and walk on tightropes to make any character that isn't already pre-made in the form of a class (you want an introverted character with musical magic and a electricity theme? Okay, play a Bard. Also you can't be introverted unless you multiclass five times and take these two feats. Also your father is a dragon now).

And of course, there are always other systems to go to, but d&d is by far the most publicized, and therefore the go-to system for anyone with only fledgling experience in the roleplaying game world. And by the time we realize how inappropriate it is for what we're trying to accomplish we've already immersed ourselves in the metagame.

OK, want to learn the elaborate secret for how to build an introverted character in DnD? Hold on tight, 'cause here it comes: say "my character is introverted". If you really, really want to commit yourself to the concept to the hilt, you could even not take ranks in social skills. Then make a sorcerer with Perform: Whatever, and maybe take an instrument. Describe your verbal components as singing, and take a bunch of electrical spells. Congratulations, you're an introverted character with musical magic and an electrical theme.

And no, having your posts responded to is not being "singled out", at least not in any sort of nefarious way.

DiBastet

2011-08-23, 08:32 PM

I don't even think that was necessarily a good exception.

Bold by me. That's exactly what I said: An exception, and it should be treated as such.

However...

Or it could be played as the Dwarf achieving some secretly held childhood fantasy

This is so completly out of touch with what I was saying, but so full of awesome that I take it partially back.

wuwuwu

2011-08-23, 08:50 PM

OK, want to learn the elaborate secret for how to build an introverted character in DnD? Hold on tight, 'cause here it comes: say "my character is introverted". If you really, really want to commit yourself to the concept to the hilt, you could even not take ranks in social skills. Then make a sorcerer with Perform: Whatever, and maybe take an instrument. Describe your verbal components as singing, and take a bunch of electrical spells. Congratulations, you're an introverted character with musical magic and an electrical theme.

And no, having your posts responded to is not being "singled out", at least not in any sort of nefarious way.

He pointed out that that was just a quick example anyways, and not meant to be his actual argument.

BUT

I'm going to use this as an opportunity to cite my own experience in trying to build a character concept in 3.5 and being unable to adequately without a fairly late start.

The idea was a guy wielding a chain in such an aggressive manner that not only did he hurt his target and people near his target, he also hurt himself.
The only way [I personally] could find to do this was to take 5 levels of War Mind and take the Vicious weapon enhancement, putting the minimum level for my character concept at 10, and requiring me to pay gold for my fighting style.
Or I could have homebrewed a class, I guess.

The point is, is that there ARE some character concepts, that due to the class-based structure of the system, are hard to create.

Icestorm245

2011-08-23, 09:01 PM

... Wouldn't it just be easier to have someone trained you in the feat like the example in the DMG? So a wizard wants toughness, so he gets a drill sargeant to train him for a week doing a brutal regiment of physical excercises. Honestly, this is why preresiquites exist for feats, to explain WHY you are able to get that feat. Take power attack for example. Str 13. You just hit things really really hard. Heck, a wizard can justifiably take it (although I'd have to seriously talk that wizard out of it). Dodge. Dex 13. You just don't like getting hit. There is NO need to justify feat selection so long as that feat has a pracitcal value to the character. (Skill Focus: Move Silently will have very little value to someone in mountain plate).

BillyBobJoe

2011-08-23, 09:02 PM

First you say this.

Then you say this.

No offense man, but you're being a bit hypocritical here. It seems like this other guy is behaving no differently than you do, and yet for some reason you are upset by it.

Makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Yeah, except in the other DM's case, he's saying that, no, no matter what, unless it make perfect sense from a roleplaying perspective, and he is familiar with it, you may not use it, which is much worse than "I occasionally require justification for race/class/feat choices." I feel that the OP is more saying, "Why is your druid/wizard taking the Ashbound feat?" (which has completely conflicting fluff) than, "You can't take toughness because you're a wizard."

big teej

2011-08-23, 09:43 PM

Yeah, except in the other DM's case, he's saying that, no, no matter what, unless it make perfect sense from a roleplaying perspective, and he is familiar with it, you may not use it, which is much worse than "I occasionally require justification for race/class/feat choices." I feel that the OP is more saying, "Why is your druid/wizard taking the Ashbound feat?" (which has completely conflicting fluff) than, "You can't take toughness because you're a wizard."

I must admit I haven't followed discussion quite as closely as I would have liked (first week back in school)

but yes, this is correct.

my stance can be summarized by things like.... (warning, bad example incoming)
"so you've played an illiterate barbarian for 8 levels.... you even went into Frenzied Berserker... why are you taking a level in wizard?"

his stance is more like....
well, the aforementiond wizard comment.

Elric VIII

2011-08-23, 09:46 PM

He pointed out that that was just a quick example anyways, and not meant to be his actual argument.

BUT

I'm going to use this as an opportunity to cite my own experience in trying to build a character concept in 3.5 and being unable to adequately without a fairly late start.

The idea was a guy wielding a chain in such an aggressive manner that not only did he hurt his target and people near his target, he also hurt himself.
The only way [I personally] could find to do this was to take 5 levels of War Mind and take the Vicious weapon enhancement, putting the minimum level for my character concept at 10, and requiring me to pay gold for my fighting style.
Or I could have homebrewed a class, I guess.

The point is, is that there ARE some character concepts, that due to the class-based structure of the system, are hard to create.

Why does the concept have to be viable from level 1?

People grow and learn things. Unless you want your character to come out of the womb swinging that chain around, I don't see much of a problem. The concept is possible.

If I want a character that can stop time is the class system poorly designed because I can't achieve this at level 1?

wuwuwu

2011-08-23, 10:12 PM

Why does the concept have to be viable from level 1?

People grow and learn things. Unless you want your character to come out of the womb swinging that chain around, I don't see much of a problem. The concept is possible.

If I want a character that can stop time is the class system poorly designed because I can't achieve this at level 1?

"Stopping Time" and "fights with wild abandon" are in entirely different realms of power. But even then, re-fluffing certain spells/powers can allow you to play that from level one.

Stop time for a split second, allowing you just enough time to plan your next move to give yourself a better chance of dodging (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/precognitionDefensive.htm)

Stop time just long enough to sneak past their defenses, landing a hit. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/precognitionOffensive.htm)

Stop time for a fraction of a moment, letting you place your weapon at a weak point they opened up while dodging your weapon at it's current location (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/prescienceOffensive.htm)

When I tried to re-fluff for my chain-wielding guy, I couldn't find any options to duplicate the effect (although I'm sure some splat book has an equivalent to Vicious weapon enhancement as a feat or low level spell, but splat-book diving for a character concept is not a good thing either)

Elric VIII

2011-08-23, 10:32 PM

*snip*

I am a Fighter (Psychic Warrior (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/classes/psychicWarrior.htm)) that harms myself (Overchannel (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm)) and makes himself better at fighting (Metaphysical Weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/metaphysicalWeapon.htm)).

There's even a feat that describes reckless abandon perfectly (Reckless Offense (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm)).

And in a delightful bout of irony, these are all from EPH, too.

There is also Duskblade with Blade of Blood, if you need full BAB.

Amphetryon

2011-08-23, 10:41 PM

but splat-book diving for a character concept is not a good thing eitherThis leads us down the path where a game must be all things to all people in order to meet the definition of "good", unfortunately. If the core rulebook, regardless of system, has to be able to allow you to seamlessly model every concept every potential player could conceive (so as to avoid 'splat-book diving'), from the character's inception. . . well, I've never seen a game that does that without a very broad definition of modelling the concept, I can say that much.

wuwuwu

2011-08-23, 10:48 PM

Reckless offense was a part of the build, yes.

Psychic Warrior was almost used, but I didn't like the way it stacked up with War Mind so I went Fighter/Human Paragon.

The problem with Body Fuel and Metaphysical weapon is they are not "swinging you weapon around so wildly you are hurting yourself to do more damage", mechanically. And the character concept wasn't "hurting himself to make himself fight better", it was "hurting himself in the process of fighting".

Mechanically, Body Fuel is sacrificing physical abilities for PP. It's not really the same as "I swing my chain around, letting it wrap around my leg, cutting it open, but surprising my enemy". I think the best I could re-fluff it and still have it "be real" is purposely cutting my hamstrings/wrists to give me a surge of raw psychic power.

And since it takes a standard action, it is an entirely separate thing from using Metaphysical Weapon (although I have no problem with metaphysical weapon representing a fighting style, just as I re-fluffed Vicious to be a fighting style). So, while I can use Body Fuel to damage myself in vital areas, and then using the burst of energy the pain provides me to improve my fighting style, I can't have them represent the fighting style I want.

Reckless Offense does, however, cover half of the fighting style. The other half is hurting myself to do more damage to others. AND the ability to strike multiple foes with each individual strike.

Also, think about how bad that character would be in a fight. A melee fighting character that sacrifices his melee fighting abilities (fluffed as purposely slicing his own achilles, mind), sacrificing his full attack (hell, even his normal attack that turn), to gain pp. And then the next turn he uses that pp to "improve his style", sacrificing another full attack.

I would be crippling myself to fit my concept, and no party wants that.

Now, the level 10 War Mind one I had could still perfectly function as a member of the party, and did everything I wanted the character to do, but it was only available at level 10.

Also, I just looked at ToB. The character concept is almost fully functional at level 1, if you use the Iron Heart school. If you stick to SRD, it's only operable at level 10.

This leads us down the path where a game must be all things to all people in order to meet the definition of "good", unfortunately. If the core rulebook, regardless of system, has to be able to allow you to seamlessly model every concept every potential player could conceive (so as to avoid 'splat-book diving'), from the character's inception. . . well, I've never seen a game that does that without a very broad definition of modelling the concept, I can say that much.

Well, the core rulebook should be able to fulfill the needs of the very basic archetypes. If the character concept was something wild like "a cowboy who communicates with chickens while being able to teleport through dimensions and uses vacuum cleaners as weapons, while channelling the elemental force of salt and being able to transform into a robot", then you can't complain about splat book diving (only, that was an lolsorandumb example, so it's probably easily produceable with only core. Off the top of my head, a druid and branching out of core, a warforged)
But a very basic and simple concept such as "fighter who hurts himself in the process of hurting his enemies more" should easily fit in.

Coidzor

2011-08-23, 11:08 PM

splat-book diving for a character concept is not a good thing either

Having a more robust toolset with which to realize one's concept is a bad thing, eh? And why is that?

Elric VIII

2011-08-23, 11:14 PM

*snip*

Sorry, I ninja-editted you there, I meant Overchannel. Body fuel is just horrid.

As for hitting multiple enemies, a Human PsyWar 2/Fighter 1 can acquire Overchannel and the Whirlwind attack tree by level 3.

Or, you can full attack ay BAB 6. Nothing stops you from hitting multiple foes.

Or, you can take 1 level in EWM at 6 to get a Flurry of Blows ability with the Spiked Chain.

So, PsyWar 5/EWM 1 gets you the build you want. With 1 flaw you can even manage some Hustle/Linked Power fun in order to get the ability to buff, overchannel, and full attack in a timely fashion.

And you are correct, Punishing Stance is also a great representation of this, so you could even stick a level of Warblade in there.

But, jst to once more reference the attacking multiuple enemies bit: getting off more attacks/round is something associated with higher power levels. You cannot expect a character to be fully fleshed out at level 1. especially considering the estion of "where do you go form there?"

Having a more robust toolset with which to realize one's concept is a bad thing, eh? And why is that?

Some people's mental peg-board just doesn't have enough space. :smallbiggrin: (No offense is intended to anyone, this is just a generic snarky comment.)

Seerow

2011-08-23, 11:17 PM

But a very basic and simple concept such as "fighter who hurts himself in the process of hurting his enemies more" should easily fit in.

But honestly... how many people want to play a class that involves regularly hurting themselves? Especially at level 1 when a single hit is already pretty likely to take you out.

It simply isn't a high demand concept that needed to be introduced right away. Despite your personal feelings, it is pretty niche. Remember, most people don't like crit fumble charts and the like, introducing a new weapon that has a significant chance of dealing damage to yourself is pretty much just wasting pagecount to satisfy a pretty small niche in the player base.

wuwuwu

2011-08-23, 11:31 PM

Having a more robust toolset with which to realize one's concept is a bad thing, eh? And why is that?

You misinterpret. Having to spend 200$ to realize your concept, and for 3.5, having to spend all that time tracking down stores that still sell 3.5 books (the closest gaming store to me that sells 3.5 stuff is 30 minutes away, and only sells the Complete line) is a bad thing.

Alternatively, having to steal all those .pdfs from poor Wizards is a bad thing.

(I want to note how surprised I was to discover that Wizards doesn't sell .pdfs of their books, according to my brief google searches)

Although I guess, if you boil it down to the ACTUAL problem I have with it all, is how sloppy Human Half-Dragon Fighter 2/Sorcerer 4/War Mind 8/Divine Crusader 6 looks on my character sheet (which is not honestly a legitimate complaint), when the concept was something like "dragon blooded psychic who crusades in the name of his god".
Which is better fit by Silverbrow Human (is Silverbrow a real race or a homebrew? I've only ever seen it referred to once...) Divine Mind. So honestly, I'm incapable of defending my point here because I'm terrible at examples. :smallredface:

Seerow

2011-08-23, 11:36 PM

Alternatively, having to steal all those .pdfs from poor Wizards is a bad thing.

As far as I'm concerned once a company stops making their product available for sale, they lose any right to complain about someone getting it via other means.

I mean, luckily I had my books before 4e came out and 3.5 went the way of the dodo, but I certainly don't look down on anyone for pirating material that can no longer be found legally. And I certainly don't refer to Wizards as "poor Wizards" for not getting money for a product they failed to make available.

Although I guess, if you boil it down to the ACTUAL problem I have with it all, is how sloppy Human Half-Dragon Fighter 2/Sorcerer 4/War Mind 8/Divine Crusader 6 looks on my character sheet (which is not honestly a legitimate complaint), when the concept was something like "dragon blooded psychic who crusades in the name of his god".
Which is better fit by Silverbrow Human (is Silverbrow a real race or a homebrew? I've only ever seen it referred to once...) Divine Mind. So honestly, I'm incapable of defending my point here because I'm terrible at examples.

I think Silverbrow human is legit, but I'm not sure of where at offhand. However another fitting alternative would be the Dragonborn.

Knaight

2011-08-23, 11:37 PM

You misinterpret. Having to spend 200$ to realize your concept, and for 3.5, having to spend all that time tracking down stores that still sell 3.5 books (the closest gaming store to me that sells 3.5 stuff is 30 minutes away, and only sells the Complete line) is a bad thing.
Now, this I agree to. Core is pretty highly limited when it comes to concept realization. The XPH adds quite a bit, and it is basically free with the SRD, but having to shell out ridiculous amounts of cash for the system is pretty obnoxious.

Claudius Maximus

2011-08-23, 11:50 PM

Silverbrow Human is in Dragon Magic, if anyone really cares.

Lord.Sorasen

2011-08-24, 12:44 AM

Why is it a deal-breaker if it's so easy to do it without thinking?

What possible gain is there in adding in a few extra sentences to "I'm taking Feat Y this level?"

"I'm taking Feat Y" gives me nothing about a character. For me it matters just as much as a character's weight. Or like the color of his shirt, for instance. I really don't care about a character's traits if they're isolated from that character.

Continuing with the "toughness" example, I want to hear why they are tough! That's what really matters in a character. If your character's traits, I don't care the source, don't match the character's history or experiences, then I don't view it as a valid thing to have. In my mind, it's the same as giving a western knight a Katana. Feel free to do it: But I want to know why it can happen. Regardless of the source of power.

It's easy to justify toughness on a wizard... But it does make the player think. Why would this wizard have toughness? Perhaps they'll realize it doesn't really fit their concept. Or perhaps they'll give some justification, and by doing so their character will gain depth. Both are fine solutions.

Coidzor

2011-08-24, 05:14 AM

It's easy to justify toughness on a wizard... But it does make the player think.

You just said you came up with all of those explanations without thinking, though. So which is it? Does one have to think or is it completely thoughtless?

Also, you've just done the amusing thing of seeming to say that describing the entirely metagame process of leveling up is more important than the entirety of the in-game actions of the character.

Drachasor

2011-08-24, 10:22 AM

"I'm taking Feat Y" gives me nothing about a character. For me it matters just as much as a character's weight. Or like the color of his shirt, for instance. I really don't care about a character's traits if they're isolated from that character.

Continuing with the "toughness" example, I want to hear why they are tough! That's what really matters in a character. If your character's traits, I don't care the source, don't match the character's history or experiences, then I don't view it as a valid thing to have. In my mind, it's the same as giving a western knight a Katana. Feel free to do it: But I want to know why it can happen. Regardless of the source of power.

It's easy to justify toughness on a wizard... But it does make the player think. Why would this wizard have toughness? Perhaps they'll realize it doesn't really fit their concept. Or perhaps they'll give some justification, and by doing so their character will gain depth. Both are fine solutions.

Like I said before, if a Wizard has a 12 Con does he have to explain why it isn't 10? This gives him far more toughness than the Toughness feat, but we accept it as normal variation in a population. If that's not worth talking about, I don't see how Toughness is.

HappyBlanket

2011-08-24, 11:51 AM

OK, want to learn the elaborate secret for how to build an introverted character in DnD? Hold on tight, 'cause here it comes: say "my character is introverted". If you really, really want to commit yourself to the concept to the hilt, you could even not take ranks in social skills. Then make a sorcerer with Perform: Whatever, and maybe take an instrument. Describe your verbal components as singing, and take a bunch of electrical spells. Congratulations, you're an introverted character with musical magic and an electrical theme.It was already pointed out that it was just an example spontaneously pulled out of my ass, but yes, that would certainly work. Granted, unless the character wants to only take Electrical spells, he'll need Spell Thematics, but that's why Spell Thematics is incredibly silly and should have it's fluff given for free.

And no, having your posts responded to is not being "singled out", at least not in any sort of nefarious way.
Poor choice of words on my part. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say "no need to say that I personally hate WoTC forever because d&d doesn't have a book dedicated to me based solely on the sentiment that thorough splatbook knowledge was difficult and requiring of heavy investment (as in dedication to the game)."

But okay. I understand that there is no system that could ever account for every concept conceivable. I guess I just feel a bit restricted going from roleplaying to d&d, expecting to have the same amount of freedom -.- Blergh... And it's not like I care for being more powerful or something like that. I'm just sick of hearing that I can't use a character concept without fulfilling some arbitrary requirement first.

Boci

2011-08-24, 12:39 PM

I guess I just feel a bit restricted going from roleplaying to d&d,

You really have a talent for poorly choosing your words, unless you meant to imply that D&D is not roleplaying.:smallbiggrin:

Elric VIII

2011-08-24, 12:59 PM

It was already pointed out that it was just an example spontaneously pulled out of my ass, but yes, that would certainly work. Granted, unless the character wants to only take Electrical spells, he'll need Spell Thematics, but that's why Spell Thematics is incredibly silly and should have it's fluff given for free.

You basically do get this for free, read your DMG pg 34 under "Describing Spell Effects."

A short quote:

A magic missile could be a dagger-shaped burst of energy that flies through the air. It also could be a fistlike creation of force that bashes into its target or the sudden appearance of a demonic head that spits a blast of energy.

Tyndmyr

2011-08-24, 01:17 PM

Sorry in advance for ganging up on you like this. But there are several different and valid points being made in response, so it can't be helped.

But if the player said "Undine the Aquatic Elf traveled to a desert town as a child, lived there long enough to befriend a camel, and then returned to the islands while insisting the camel come as well, as a result of their companionship," you'd be okay with that? Since that doesn't require suspension of disbelief at all?

Because the need for that detail in a character's backstory won't hinder the munchkin of the group in the slightest (after all, for such a player, "backstory" is nothing more than an empty box on the character sheet). However, it will blow a hole in the genuine roleplayer's gaming experience, since the backstory previously created for Undine now has to be reworked entirely.

I would agree with this. I'm an admitted optimizer, and I can play at very, very high levels of optimization. I have exactly no trouble justifying anything, ever via backstory. No, any limitations that are imposed on optimization come from me thinking "Ok...this is probably too much for this group." or limits outlined at character creation.

I can totally write an interesting story about even the most creative of TO builds. In fact, it's probably easier and better than writing about Dwarfy McSteriotypical Dwarf, who likes axes and beards and also gold.

If you limit things based on backstory, you only impose limits on those who care about backstory. I, frankly, don't. The tale of what I do at the table is what matters, not the short blurb of preamble for it. I hold that this is somewhat separate from roleplaying, but even so...limiting things based on backstory is a TERRIBLE way to try to restrain power levels or munchkins.