DM using a PRC banned for PC's [3.5]

[evil-frosty]

How would you feel if the DM made a villain using a prestige class he previously would not allow you to use in your build? This is unfair obviously but the DM can do it rather easily since he's the DM.

My thought here so far is that some PRC's with PC's are over-powered, while the same PRC possibly on a villain just makes the encounter more difficult and/or more interesting. Depending on how you use the PRC obviously. So DM usage vs. PC usage is not equal in terms of power.


As a relative side note how do you feel when the DM makes the villain gestalt when you are not using that variant in the game for the most part? This is all me wondering about the general consensus of feelings players generally have as I make and tune my personal house-rules and campaign world.

[Alefiend]

Have you considered that maybe the reason he didn't allow PCs to take that class is because he wanted to give it to the villain and make him unique? It's the GM's job to make the game fun and exciting. Following rules is secondary.

Gestalting the BBEG will make it more of a challenge, so that the party doesn't paste him when the big showdown happens. Again, unique and exciting. Beat that villain and you'll feel like you've accomplished something.

That said, there is a fine line between making villains unique and challenging, and straitjacketing the players out of laziness or fear. Only you can decide if that's what is happening in your game.

[Hirax]

I'd be fine with both those things under most circumstances.

[Eurus]

How would you feel if the DM made a villain using a prestige class he previously would not allow you to use in your build? This is unfair obviously but the DM can do it rather easily since he's the DM.

My thought here so far is that some PRC's with PC's are over-powered, while the same PRC possibly on a villain just makes the encounter more difficult and/or more interesting. Depending on how you use the PRC obviously. So DM usage vs. PC usage is not equal in terms of power.


As a relative side note how do you feel when the DM makes the villain gestalt when you are not using that variant in the game for the most part? This is all me wondering about the general consensus of feelings players generally have as I make and tune my personal house-rules and campaign world.

Sounds fine to me. Logically, the PCs outnumber most villains by several times over. If a DM doesn't want to throw in minions -- there's something cinematic about a single villain, after all -- he pretty much has to use non-PC options. Part of this is because if a PC is overpowered, it's illogical and unfair to tailor every encounter to exploit their very few weaknesses, while PCs dealing with a powerful enemy are expected and justified in planning it out.

An Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, for example, would probably make a better villain than a PC. As a PC, it's a very powerful "no" button that most reasonable encounters simply can't deal with. As a villain, the PCs would have more resources to wear him down or simply overpower him.

Presumably, the DM's goal is to make challenging encounters without actually causing a TPK. Well technically the goal is fun, and the above is a common means to achieve that goal... So yeah, he's allowed to use whatever resources he wants in pursuit of that end, with the assumption that if he ends up going too far and creating an unstoppable monster, it probably counts as a failure on the GM's part rather than a success.

[navar100]

It depends. The reason the DM does it makes all the difference. This goes for anything denied to players but allowed to NPCs. If it's a plot point then it's ok. However, if the DM just can't stand a player having such power, of whatever it is, then he's being Il Duce.

[evil-frosty]

My main worry is if the PC's cry foul when this happens which would ruin their fun which then would defeat the point of the game.

[ericgrau]

I think it becomes a bigger issue when the villain starts pulling out abilities that the PCs didn't expect and therefore didn't prepare for. They get cheated out any chance to play smart. If the villain is merely tougher from a gestalt or a PrC similar to others or what not it's no big deal.

I mean making the villain arbitrarily more difficult isn't much different from raising his level. What's the big deal with that? It's when the villain says "Haha, I have cheesy trick X that you're not allowed therefore I can negate all of the Y your whole character is built on!" that's a problem.

[awa]

Personally i have no problem with it and in my games i often make up special powers for villains that i think will be interesting for the pcs to fight against and have never had a complaint. (except from a little brother who complained about every thing). their are a lot of prestige classes that do not appear to have been intended for pc use.

[Alleran]

I see no problem with this. For example, a Tainted Scholar should never be allowed anywhere near a player short of infinite loop T1 games (especially in combination with Necropolitan or the Evil subtype), but the DM could certainly use it to make a very powerful, but still ultimately beatable BBEG. And the Tainted Scholar PrC can be very suitable for a BBEG, too.

[Belril Duskwalk]

My main worry is if the PC's cry foul when this happens which would ruin their fun which then would defeat the point of the game.

I say if you're reasonably up front about denying the class (ie. you can't be a mystic theurge, don't multiclass your cleric to wizard thinking you can) that helps a bit. If they want to know why, just tell them "for this campaign, the plot demands it be so." Maybe you offer to let them use the PRC once they defeat the big boss type that used it, after all, the restriction is there so the boss is unique. If the boss is dead, no reason for the PRC to be off limits anymore really. For flavor, say, "now that your character has seen how theurgy works, he could pick it up if you wanted."

Honestly, I don't see the big difference between telling a player they can't make a character with PRC X and telling them they can't play as a dragon or something. Any way you slice it, the DM has a box full of toys the average player is never going to get to use for his own. I say, what's one or two PRCs next to that.

As for the gestalt thing... Seeing as villains tend to arrive on the scene fully leveled and ready to roll, is there any major difference between a gestalt villain and a high level multi-class villain? So long as you're not creating something that you expect to be a one-man TPK, that sort of thing is wide open.

[Morithias]

I'm okay with it if it's justified in story.

For example in the "Demon king" campaign. One of Gil's apostles (Gil is the former demon king), has the fiendbinder class, which I banned the PC's from taking.

The reason being is that binding a demon using truespeak is a unique power of the demon king and his apostles, you can't enter fiendbinder unless you're an apostle.

Of course if one of the PC's is insane enough to take Miki's blood and become her apostle...well...go ahead..take it. Just remember once you're an apostle, you're a demon which means the demon king owns you basically.

[Acanous]

Tainted Scholar isn't actually that bad if you remove the ways to be immune to Taint-death and hard-cap max taint at 100.

Sure, you get all the spells ever, but each one you cast takes you closer to death, and while there are ways to avoid it (Like buying a Miracle to take your taint down a step), that brings your DCs back to a manageable level.

Really, it's like nuclear power for casters. Really great having the energy, but if you screw up, you end up with a meltdown.

[StreamOfTheSky]

If he banned it because it's evil-oriented and this is supposed to be a game where the PCs are the good guys, no problem. Makes total sense.

If he banned it because he thought it was overpowered...I'd be rather annoyed at the hypocrisy.

As for gestalting...no problem at all. just because PCs aren't playing gestalt doesn't mean gestalt beings can't exist. As long as he's accounting for the increased challenge or trying to, it's fine.

[Uhtred]

My first game I ran, I banned everything but Core, because I was new and Core was the only material I knew I could reliably consult. As I got better and more familiar with the books and started reading Completes and Tomes and Races and Eberron and the like, I started seeing options for building interesting and flavorful NPC's and villains, but kept my players restricted to Core. As a result, almost every encounter they had with a villain was memorable, every NPC they temporarily added to their party was able to meaningfully contribute to combat or encounters in a unique way. The players loved having their powers tested and felt the limitations imposed on them challenged them as players to get creative with what they were allowed, not to gripe about things I was allowed to do that they weren't. If the game is fun and interesting and challenging, then be grateful that this guy is finding new ways to keep you interested.

That being said, banning Archmage and then building one specifically to counter your mostly martial party is a serious jerk move.

[Spuddles]

I'd be fine with both those things under most circumstances.

Samesies.


I "soft" gestalt a lot of monsters I think should be fun and interesting, but unfortunately are too weak or weirdly designed to scale with advancing via class levels or more monster hd. What I mean by soft gestalt is give an ogre mage sorc casting of his CR, or give a hag dread necro casting of the average party level, or give a frost giant warblade maneuvers equal to its CR.

This method works really well for making fun, dynamic, difficult, and memorable encounters that are appropriate challenges.


I think it becomes a bigger issue when the villain starts pulling out abilities that the PCs didn't expect and therefore didn't prepare for. They get cheated out any chance to play smart. If the villain is merely tougher from a gestalt or a PrC similar to others or what not it's no big deal.

I mean making the villain arbitrarily more difficult isn't much different from raising his level. What's the big deal with that? It's when the villain says "Haha, I have cheesy trick X that you're not allowed therefore I can negate all of the Y your whole character is built on!" that's a problem.

Increasing HD adds more saves, hp, bab, class features, and skills, beyond level baselines. Those are often not desirable. Having opponents that can reasonably deal with common PC abilities (like magic) can be easily solved with some gestalt. It also has the advantage of not leaving loot for the players.

[Ravens_cry]

Personally, I don't like it unless there is some in-game justification, as I rend to prefer NPC/PC transparency.

[Godskook]

How would you feel if the DM made a villain using a prestige class he previously would not allow you to use in your build? This is unfair obviously but the DM can do it rather easily since he's the DM.

The game already endorses this, with PRC classes like Beholder Mage(which no PC should be allowed in, *EVER*).


As a relative side note how do you feel when the DM makes the villain gestalt when you are not using that variant in the game for the most part? This is all me wondering about the general consensus of feelings players generally have as I make and tune my personal house-rules and campaign world.

Anything that can make the villain more robust is fair game, imho, as long as the DM accounts for it within his CR rating(not the game's, which just doesn't work).

Hell, players shouldn't even be aware of things like that, at all, unless they're Joe-level (c.deskslave.org/) good about game mechanics.

[Skaven]

I wouldn't have a problem with it. He/She are the DM, most enemies have abilities you can't get as a PC. Just because the lump of HP and abilities you don't have has a name I don't see the problem.

[Ashtagon]

For those of you who are opposed to this in a party composed of conventional races (humanoids varying between Small to Large, which generally fulfil the "men in rubber suits" trope):

How do you feel when the BBEG turns out to be a beholder or a dragon or a lich?

The GM should be required to provide enemies that have powers not available to the PCs. That's part of what makes them monstrous.

[Captainspork]

Tend to agree. If a PRC is op then giving it to a "boss" makes sense...generally they are stronger. Also, making one party member significantly stronger than the other pcs is a problem in of itself. Having said that, using the exact PRC build a player personally designed would bother me a little bit, but that has more to due with a lack of creativity on the part of the dm.

[Ravens_cry]

To expand on what I said earlier, if there was an in-game justification for it, like representing some secret or forbidden technique, I wouldn't mind so much, but if the DM banned something because it was disruptive and then used them themselves? I'd be a little peeved.

[TuggyNE]

Tainted Scholar isn't actually that bad if you remove the ways to be immune to Taint-death and hard-cap max taint at 100.

Sure, you get all the spells ever, but each one you cast takes you closer to death, and while there are ways to avoid it (Like buying a Miracle to take your taint down a step), that brings your DCs back to a manageable level.

Really, it's like nuclear power for casters. Really great having the energy, but if you screw up, you end up with a meltdown.

The analogy is remarkably good in fact: without outside interference, you can get a whole lot of power most unfairly with extreme reliability, and let other people deal with the fallout.

It's only when you get heavy restrictions on it that bad things start happening to you.

1
Back on topic, it depends, to some extent, on how it's presented; it might certainly feel a bit unfair, but I could probably get over that as long as it's obviously done for a good reason.

[Yukitsu]

I mostly am OK with this when done for thematic reasons, rather than limiting power or making an Uber NPC. I don't like it when it's done explicitly to negate optimization on one side, but to embrace it on the other.

[Godskook]

If he banned it because he thought it was overpowered...I'd be rather annoyed at the hypocrisy.

I'm sorry sir, but you're confused. Hypocrisy is when two people who *should* be held to the same standards, but the man espousing the standards merely pretends to keep them.

What we have here is two people who should be held to *different* standards, as they are serving different roles. To achieve hypocrisy, the DM would have to hold his players to one standard, than not hold himself to that same standard when the DM becomes a player, while pretending to still hold himself to that standard.

For instance, banning ToB for 'balance' reasons, then making the betrayer cleric when he turns PC would ring of hypocrisy, assuming he claims that his cleric is more balanced than ToB(or he's stupid, take your pick).

(And yeah, I realize I'm being a little hyperbolic, but its hard to come up with a good example of this without writing a 10 page short story about it.)

[Ranting Fool]

How would you feel if the DM made a villain using a prestige class he previously would not allow you to use in your build? This is unfair obviously but the DM can do it rather easily since he's the DM.

My thought here so far is that some PRC's with PC's are over-powered, while the same PRC possibly on a villain just makes the encounter more difficult and/or more interesting. Depending on how you use the PRC obviously. So DM usage vs. PC usage is not equal in terms of power.


As a relative side note how do you feel when the DM makes the villain gestalt when you are not using that variant in the game for the most part? This is all me wondering about the general consensus of feelings players generally have as I make and tune my personal house-rules and campaign world.

As a DM I'd think twice about adding gestalt when I've told the PC's we're not having it (Well half didn't like it) as that would cause some of my players to be a tad grouchy.... that said the PC's won't know if the BBEG has gestalt or just a few extra levels in something else...

As far as letting NPC's be classes I band for the PC's... Yes I would do that but generally for fluff/plot reasons. Some classes such as Warmage would require (from the fluff) a warmage college and high level mage dumping magic into your brain (from what I remember) and if there wasn't a Warmage college in my world it wouldn't make much sense. Same for dragon disciple or something if all the dragons are long dead/never existed in this world.

In my current campaign Druids are a very big "Elf Members only" and I was very very tempted to ban all PC druids, though in the end I let a PC be a Druid.

Last campaign I told the PC's that they couldn't be a "long lived" race as it was set within a great city under a massive barrier and it's been so long that only an Elf or Dwarf would know whats on the other side of it (And the PC's themselves really enjoyed finding out) and if they were old enough they would just KNOW what happened to make the barrier. The few elves in the city were part of the ruling body and couldn't be approached by puny PC type people.

But as said by others it all depends WHY the DM has done this :smallbiggrin::smalltongue::smallbiggrin:

[Felhammer]

No a player cannot be an Assassin. Yes, an NPC can be an Assassin.

I am not seeing the problem with a PrC being available to NPCs but not PCs. :smallsmile:

Gestalt is just making the Villain more challenging. The PCs will probably be completely oblivious to the fact that he is gestalted (unless he uses lots of iconic abilities (like using Fireball and summoning a Paladin's Steed).

[awa]

in regards to banning something becuase it's broken for a pc but then goes and uses it as a dm id say that's perfectly fine. many abilities help a pc more then a monster. For example creating spawn and being incorporeal are devastatingly powerfully abilities for a pc and not a very big deal for a monster.

as long the dm acknowledges his and rewards xp for the actual challenge and not what it's official cr is everything is fine.

[Ernir]

It's being a **** DM that's bad. I don't think not using PC creation rules for the NPCs makes you one. Being all "neener-neener, my NPC is so awesome and you guys can't do anything!" about it would make you one, though.

[nedz]

It its done for Plot reasons then fine, if its done for other reasons then its not so good. A DM shouldn't need to do this for power reasons.

Its more problematic with spells since the PCs should be able to learn the spells after they acquire the BBEG's spell books, so why not before ? Its possible to add fluff I guess, but that's also a weak justification.

[LordBlades]

As others have said, for me the PrC thing mainly depends on what are the reasons behind it.

If it's done for good story reasons (said PrC is strongly associated to the villains for example and there's no good way to refluff it to fit a PC in the context of the campaign) then sure, no problem.

If it's done for other reasons (like it's too strong or DM says 'I don't like it 'or whatever), then I wouldn't be cool with it at all. Same goes for gestalt. If DM's villains don't get to play by the same rules as the rest of the world, why stop at gestalt and not simply make up their HP, AC, BAB, saves and abilities?

[Water_Bear]

I don't see anything wrong with it, as long as you aren't breaking any rules. DM's have a lot of lee-way in terms of building NPCs; you don't need to use any particular Array or Point Buy, you aren't limited in terms of what classes you select as long as they exist, and DMs are repeatedly encouraged to make monsters out of whole cloth if need be. If the NPC meets the pre-reqs, feel free.

On the other hand, I personally wouldn't do it as a matter of style. Building NPCs under the same restrictions PCs follow increases verisimilitude and, more importantly, reigns in my tenancy for overpowered BBEGs somewhat. More than once I've glanced forlornly at my Banned list thinking "If only I could give this guy a couple of Incantrix levels..." only to pull back at the last second.

So yeah; no problem as long as you trust your self control as a DM.

[StreamOfTheSky]

in regards to banning something becuase it's broken for a pc but then goes and uses it as a dm id say that's perfectly fine. many abilities help a pc more then a monster. For example creating spawn and being incorporeal are devastatingly powerfully abilities for a pc and not a very big deal for a monster.

And many abilities vastly favor NPC usage to PC usage. Like expensive poisons. Or disease. Or long-term curses. Or level drain and ability score drain/damage.

Having that stuff happen to a PC in the middle of a dungeon is MUCH MUCH more devastating than having it happen to an NPC in the middle of a dungeon.

So, when you DM do you abstain from using things like that? Yeah...didn't think so.

[navar100]

And many abilities vastly favor NPC usage to PC usage. Like expensive poisons. Or disease. Or long-term curses. Or level drain and ability score drain/damage.

Having that stuff happen to a PC in the middle of a dungeon is MUCH MUCH more devastating than having it happen to an NPC in the middle of a dungeon.

So, when you DM do you abstain from using things like that? Yeah...didn't think so.

However, a PC could use disease or poison if he wanted to. (Ignoring alignment for the moment.) It really isn't a question of how effective something is but outright forbidding a PC from doing something. The reason behind it makes all the difference. Monsters like beholders and dragons and their abilities are irrelevant. Besides, it's not like a PC spellcaster can't Disintegrate or use Anti-Magic Field as well. This is about NPC humanoids with class levels.

NPCs inherently follow different rules than PCs, i.e. their ability scores, levels, and magic items are arbitrarily assigned by the DM through fiat. They didn't have to earn them through adventuring and gaining XP. How different and why the difference is what's key between the DM doing what a DM is supposed to do and the DM being a donkey cavity. A DM should get the benefit of the doubt. One instance doesn't mean anything. A series of patterns provides the picture, and the DM can still be Honest True fair.

[awa]

And many abilities vastly favor NPC usage to PC usage. Like expensive poisons. Or disease. Or long-term curses. Or level drain and ability score drain/damage.

Having that stuff happen to a PC in the middle of a dungeon is MUCH MUCH more devastating than having it happen to an NPC in the middle of a dungeon.

So, when you DM do you abstain from using things like that? Yeah...didn't think so.

I almost never gives npcs extremely expensive potions and when i do i usually give them enough that some will be left over as loot.

in regards to effects like poison and disease as long as the monster is cred appropriately it doesn't matter. Pcs tend to have a far wider range of defenses and attack types then monsters do.

[Man on Fire]

How would you feel if the DM made a villain using a prestige class he previously would not allow you to use in your build? This is unfair obviously but the DM can do it rather easily since he's the DM.

My thought here so far is that some PRC's with PC's are over-powered, while the same PRC possibly on a villain just makes the encounter more difficult and/or more interesting. Depending on how you use the PRC obviously. So DM usage vs. PC usage is not equal in terms of power.

It really depends on PrC and reason why it was banned. If DM bans say, Dragon Disciple, because Dragons in the setting are all evil and ony wicked people serve them, I would be actually expecting Dragon Disciples to show as antagonists.


As a relative side note how do you feel when the DM makes the villain gestalt when you are not using that variant in the game for the most part? This is all me wondering about the general consensus of feelings players generally have as I make and tune my personal house-rules and campaign world.

I'm actually thinking of doing that for gods in my setting for Pathfinder game (because I don't see divine rules for Pathfinder) - every god is 20 level gestalt with exception of the main one, who's dragon on one side and something on another.

[OverdrivePrime]

My whole thing on DMing is that the PCs shouldn't ever know what the mechanics of NPCs are. They get to know what they observe and can draw conclusions based on that, but they should never know things like class or prestige class. That ruins the whole feel of the game, to me. Same thing for one another. If players want to, they can share their character builds with one another, but for my games, all they need to know is that everything is DM approved. Any problems with it, talk to me about it.

So, my players might suspect that I'm using a custom template and prestige class for a particular villain, but their characters should never know things like that.
They can figure out, "Hrm, Massan Bokarik seems to be some sort of undead, and he's almost as good with his ice scimitar as he is with frost magic, and his magic seems to be arcane." But they don't get to know that he's a 22nd level custom frost lich warblade/modified wu jen / modified jade phoenix mage.

[nedz]

My whole thing on DMing is that the PCs shouldn't ever know what the mechanics of NPCs are. They get to know what they observe and can draw conclusions based on that, but they should never know things like class or prestige class. That ruins the whole feel of the game, to me. Same thing for one another. If players want to, they can share their character builds with one another, but for my games, all they need to know is that everything is DM approved. Any problems with it, talk to me about it.

So, my players might suspect that I'm using a custom template and prestige class for a particular villain, but their characters should never know things like that.
They can figure out, "Hrm, Massan Bokarik seems to be some sort of undead, and he's almost as good with his ice scimitar as he is with frost magic, and his magic seems to be arcane." But they don't get to know that he's a 22nd level custom frost lich warblade/modified wu jen / modified jade phoenix mage.
Well I think you are right, but veteran players will work most things out and it can create bad feelings if you've banned them. It is meta gaming but so is character creation. It depends upon your players mainly, but I do know one who would be liable to walk over far less than this.

[eggs]

I think this depends strongly on the grounds for banning something.

If the DM banned Warmind because psionics don't fit into the setting, then throws in a Psychic Warrior NPC (ie. banning based on false claims), or says Sorcerers are too strong, then throws one in as a DMPC (ie. holding a double-standard where it isn't appropriate), my jimmies would be in a bit of a twist.

If something like Planar Binding, Polymorph or Incantatrix was banned from players on account of being too powerful or abusable, but the DM gave the ability to a villain anyway (ie. a double-standard where it's justifiable), I'd be a bit irked, but not enough to bring it up or press the issue - those abilities are problematic for players, but make cool encounters and plots, so it's understandable.

If a PrC is written and presented as an organization, like the Red Wizard or Paragnostic Apostle, and there was some reason that organization is off-limits, or if a PrC is completely based around capital-E Evil in a game about do-gooders doing good (ie. taking game fiction seriously), it would be acceptable to limit PCs by the fictional guidelines.

[Fitz10019]

It's the GM's job to make the game fun and exciting.

The Living Greyhawk campaign had a list of banned spells, and a second list of spells banned for PCs (but usable by NPCs). As LG was my intro to tabletop playing, this distinction seems normal to me.

Also, sometimes when I read a prestige class and realize how one-trick-pony, or location-dependent it is, I usually conclude, 'oh, this was written for NPCs.' I imagine it's possible that a DM would shepard his rookie players away from 'it's-a-trap' classes, but then create those limited situations where those goofy classes can shine for NPC villains.

I think it's a good idea for a DM who is wary of the ToB (or Psionics, or Skill Tricks, or homebrew, etc.) to use those classes for NPCs to build a better understanding of them. Allowing PCs to use them can happen next year, possibly.

[Darius Kane]

IMO many materials are more likely intended for NPCs than for PCs, either because they're too focused on one thing or are way too specific with their fluff. That's why I wouldn't mind a DM to not allow some prcs or feats or whatever, but on the premise that he does it with my fun in mind, not for nefarious reasons.

[Psyren]

I see no problem with this. For example, a Tainted Scholar should never be allowed anywhere near a player short of infinite loop T1 games (especially in combination with Necropolitan or the Evil subtype), but the DM could certainly use it to make a very powerful, but still ultimately beatable BBEG. And the Tainted Scholar PrC can be very suitable for a BBEG, too.

This, and great example too.

Sometimes challenging the players means pulling out bigger guns than they have. It's a thin tightrope to walk but a doable one.


Tainted Scholar isn't actually that bad if you remove the ways to be immune to Taint-death and hard-cap max taint at 100.

So... it's fine if you houserule it? Because you can say that about anything, even Planar Shepherd and Beholder Mage :smallconfused:

[Kelb_Panthera]

Tainted Scholar isn't actually that bad if you remove the ways to be immune to Taint-death and hard-cap max taint at 100.

Sure, you get all the spells ever, but each one you cast takes you closer to death, and while there are ways to avoid it (Like buying a Miracle to take your taint down a step), that brings your DCs back to a manageable level.

Really, it's like nuclear power for casters. Really great having the energy, but if you screw up, you end up with a meltdown.

Tainted scholar might be salvageable with houserules, but I don't think this is enough. I once ciphered the maximum "safe" level of taint's effect on bonus spells and save dc's for a humanoid tainted scholar, built on the elite array and with no immunities to taint.

The numbers are ridiculous. His first level spells would be obscenely hard to resist and he'd have so many spells in his belt that even if he had to escape and the party caught up same day, he'd still be able to spam magic at them with nary-a-care.

At this point I auto-ban tainted scholar for both sides of the screen. It just doesn't exist in our games.