Should this be allowed?

[Walkwalk]

So I recently moved, and fell in with a new group. To be entirely blunt, I'm not entirely happy with them.

Case in point, our latest campaign.

One of the players is playing a Female Wizard/Artificer from Rashemen. Her argument is that she's a cultural rebel against the 'only men can create magical artifacts' rule. Which is fine, I suppose. The build isn't that optimised, given that she's split caster levels. But now, at level 17, she wants to take a level in Hathran, which specifically says that you aren't allowed to take Item Creation feats.

Feats which, naturally, her 5 levels in Artificer provided her. Her argument is that since she took them beforehand, they shouldn't affect the class at all. The DM seems on the fence right now.

Is it just me, or is that a load of Grade A bull****? At the very least, using any off her feats should result in immediate expulsion from the Hathran order. The same order that her backstory has her explicitly defying to become an artificer. The two classes just seem mutually exclusive.

A part of me feels like I'm overreacting though, simply because she's not very optimized right now.

Any thoughts?

[Namfuak]

The special requirement pretty much explicitly prevents her from taking this since you can't possess any item creation feats save for scribe scroll, and she has to be in good standing with an organization which she is explicitly defying. If your DM doesn't want to give it to her but is on the fence from a rules standpoint, there's your rule.

If you wanted to give this to her, perhaps she is trained by a coven of ex-Hartrans who agree with her that women should be able to make magic items.

[CRtwenty]

As per RAW she is ineligible for the class, despite her attempts to handwave the restrictions away. Fluffwise she is definitely ineligible for the class.

That said this is something better left between her and the DM. I wouldn't make that big of a deal out of it if the DM decides to go with it anyway. It's not a very powerful prestige class so she's still going to be under-optimized, but as long as she's having fun it shouldn't be that big of a deal unless she's actually hurting the party in some significant way.


If you wanted to give this to her, perhaps she is trained by a coven of ex-Hartrans who agree with her that women should be able to make magic items.

If I was the DM this is how I'd swing it as well. Right before I offed myself for DMing a FR campaign.

[eggynack]

I can see both sides of this one. I mean, her character is clearly completely ridiculous and against the rules. In particular, the prerequisite, "she may not possess any item creation feats other than Scribe Scroll." So she's, ya know, wrong. Like, she's wrong a whole bunch, and probably in deep ways beyond those I've mentioned, because I haven't done any in depth study into the flavor of all this stuff. She is incorrect about being able to enter. You can just tell her that, if you want. If this happens, it's not happening in accordance with the RAW.

However, as you mentioned, her character seems oddly suboptimal, particularly for someone who at first glance seems to have some munchkin tendencies. I've always felt that there should be some leeway given if the player isn't using that leeway to break the game. I don't think that's a justification in this case though. Normally, that leeway would be given in order to make a character more flavorful, and it would involve a direct talk about houserules. This seems different, though. The changes she wants to make come in direct opposition with the flavor of the classes she's taking. If she wants to be some odd character going against the culture of her people, it makes no sense to let her into a group reliant PrC. There's just a whole lotta problems with this thing, and my initial instinct is a flat no. Maybe help her rebuild her character to be actually powerful, in keeping with her flavor goals, and in keeping with the rules. However, this thing is not a thing that should be happening.

[CRtwenty]

I think the most important thing we're missing is why she wants to get a level in this class so badly. Honestly it's a pretty terrible class unless your campaign is taking place entirely within Rashemen. Even somebody poor at optimizing should be able to notice that almost all the class abilities require you to either be inside Rashemen or interacting with characters who are themselves from Rashemen.

[gooddragon1]

Personally, I'd say watch for any cheese that could be coming up but if it's just for fun then let it play. I'd let someone play a blackguard PRC without meeting the prereqs if they could make even a little fluff excuse just for fun. I also don't believe in a lot of alignment restrictions though. Rule of fun is important to me.

[DeltaEmil]

Being in Rashemen just makes the Hathran far more powerful than normal. It's still a full caster. And there seems to be a trick about how to count as being in Rashemen all the time with some kind of Acorn spell found as a web enhancement somewhere on the WotC-site.

Although, the OP did say that the player character isn't being that optimized, and the player might not know about that trick (if it's really legal in the first place), so power-wise, it probably really wouldn't unhinge the game.

[Walkwalk]

Thanks for the prompt advice everyone.

I think I'm going to go with trying to convince her to rebuild her character in to being a bit more optimal. If she really wants to be a Hathran, then we'll just have to work out some fluff reason that she's allowed to ignore the traditions that are supposed to actively smite her down whenever she builds anything more complex than a scroll.

I mean, I'm playing a far more traditional caster (This game is very caster heavy) with a Male Wizard 10/Fatespinner 4/IoTSV 3 from Waterdeep.

Which partly why I'm hesitant to stop her, as from my perspective I'm using a far more powerful(even cheesy) build, while she's just ignoring the rules.

That said, I'm pretty sure she knows about the trick, given that she's already got the Acorn spell.

But, hey, at least neither of us took Incantatrix (Incantator/Incantatar in my case?) levels!

[eggynack]

I think the most important thing we're missing is why she wants to get a level in this class so badly. Honestly it's a pretty terrible class unless your campaign is taking place entirely within Rashemen. Even somebody poor at optimizing should be able to notice that almost all the class abilities require you to either be inside Rashemen or interacting with characters who are themselves from Rashemen.
It's really not all that bad. It's obviously not the best class in the world, but it has full casting progression, so you're extremely powerful as long as you don't take five levels of artificer on your wizard. Unfortunately, she did do that. She was already extremely suboptimal before she started wanted hathran, so by that point, the power of the prestige class is rather irrelevant. Really, what we're missing is why she wants to do anything she's done so badly. She wants a whole bunch of asynergystic classes, and the flavor of what she's doing doesn't even match up. As I mentioned, the insistence on blatantly false rules implies some degree of munchkinism, but the things she's doing with that munchkinism isn't very munchkiny at all. It's an odd affair, when all is said and done. Also, if the campaign does take place in Rashemen, this class seems crazy powerful. Rashemi spirit magic alone seems like it could break stuff to some extent.

[Walkwalk]

It's really not all that bad. It's obviously not the best class in the world, but it has full casting progression, so you're extremely powerful as long as you don't take five levels of artificer on your wizard. Unfortunately, she did do that. She was already extremely suboptimal before she started wanted hathran, so by that point, the power of the prestige class is rather irrelevant. Really, what we're missing is why she wants to do anything she's done so badly. She wants a whole bunch of asynergystic classes, and the flavor of what she's doing doesn't even match up. As I mentioned, the insistence on blatantly false rules implies some degree of munchkinism, but the things she's doing with that munchkinism isn't very munchkiny at all. It's an odd affair, when all is said and done. Also, if the campaign does take place in Rashemen, this class seems crazy powerful. Rashemi spirit magic alone seems like it could break stuff to some extent.

The DM intends to take the campaign to high epic levels (30-ish), where item crafting can get sort of insane.

I'm not sure how Hathran and Artificer interlink to create something monstrous, but I'm worried it's there.

This kind of powergaming is why I stick to 2nd edition whenever possible :smallbiggrin:

[eggynack]

Being in Rashemen just makes the Hathran far more powerful than normal. It's still a full caster. And there seems to be a trick about how to count as being in Rashemen all the time with some kind of Acorn spell found as a web enhancement somewhere on the WotC-site.
You'd be thinking of the acorn of far travel (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040710a). That spell is an odd thing.

[CRtwenty]

You'd be thinking of the acorn of far travel (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040710a). That spell is an odd thing.

Gah. Yeah that changes things a bit. Find some friendly person to create an Acorn for her and suddenly she's a Wizard who can effectively spontaneously cast any spell in her Spellbook.

[mattie_p]

Gah. Yeah that changes things a bit. Find some friendly person to create an Acorn for her and suddenly she's a Wizard who can effectively spontaneously cast any spell in her Spellbook.

She doesn't need a friend. She is an artificer and can make a scrollher self.

[Alienist]

Why do you even care?

Another way of putting it, why are you setting yourself up to be the fun police?

You already know she's not going to outshine you. If she's happy, just leave it alone.

As an aside, I have found that trying to 'help' female gamers by making their characters a bit more optimised usually leads to them becoming confused and upset. It is often interpreted as an attack on their character concept, and since they have a strong emotional connection with the character it can then be perceived as a personal attack.

As a male gamer I can also say that having other male gamers put their two cents in gets very tiresome very quickly.

Most recent example: a 2 handed weapon barbarian orc dealing an average of 20 points of damage a round (at a low level), whinging about how my Magus casting Arcane Mark was cheating and/or bending the rules and/or munchkin. Yeah ... because that takes me to two d8s of damage, which means I'm doing roughly half the damage you are ... remind me, who's the munchkin?

After a while it gets so tedious trying to make interesting characters and having other players whinge about them. Oh, your Monk dipped into a couple of levels of Wizard to get teleport as an interrupt? No!!! You're a horrible munchkin!!! My reply: DDDDDUUUUUUDDDDEEEEE .... it's a friggin' MMMMMOOOONNNNNNKKKKKK!!!!!

For bonus points, spend a long time levelling up until you finally get the combo you're after (not overpowering, just thematic and cool) and then have them argue that it doesn't work (even though it's fine by the rules), and then when you ask why they're pissing in your porridge they blandly say 'oh, just don't use that combo'. **facepalm**

[Alienist]

How's she meeting the divine caster requirement?

Artificer won't do it, since Artificer never casts divine spells. (They also don't cast Arcane spells, but that's another matter, well, another side of the same coin, but not related)

[Coidzor]

I'm not sure how Hathran and Artificer interlink to create something monstrous, but I'm worried it's there.

They don't really. They work at cross-purposes. Artificer cuts down on your caster level and spell progression which slows down your ability to craft as a wizard and wizard slows down your progression as an artificer, so that it isn't as useful at crafting and using items as it could be.

At best it lets her make scrolls and wands from other spell lists that she can't get access to, but, as said, gimped because not full artificer.

[eggynack]

As an aside, I have found that trying to 'help' female gamers by making their characters a bit more optimised usually leads to them becoming confused and upset. It is often interpreted as an attack on their character concept, and since they have a strong emotional connection with the character it can then be perceived as a personal attack.

As a male gamer I can also say that having other male gamers put their two cents in gets very tiresome very quickly.
I dunno why there has to be a component of gender to this point. There are tons of people, of all potential genders, who are absolutely terrible at optimization. There are also bunches of people, also of all potential genders, that are really good at it. The dichotomy doesn't really have to extend past the degree of optimization on a person by person basis. This particular person seems like she'd be rather annoying to play with, because she uses a spurious understanding of the rules, and a lax view of flavor, in order to fuel a build that's not even very powerful. I mean, I'd get it if she were putting together something world destroying, or if she didn't care that much about her suboptimal build, but she seems to be using munchkinism without really doing anything with it. It all just seems rather weird. It's like, she only cares about the nifty mechanical gains she's getting from her classes, and is willing to do anything to access them, but the nifty mechanical gains are terrible.

[Vaz]

What about a Rival Cabal of exiled female crafters hunted and exiled from the order? It could give new roleplay ideas, a new link for a quest (i.e, yes, you can take a level in the class, but only whennyou've met this rival cabalite. You have heard of this in Taproom gossip, and now you need to locate them, how do you go about it?), and could include usual tropes, the suspicious one who suspects them of spying, and the friendly one who is actually a political power player looking for allies in the exiles who could boost her presence).

[Randomguy]

As other people said, I'd allow it as long as there was some good fluff reason for it.

[Karnith]

Rashemi spirit magic alone seems like it could break stuff to some extent.
Hathran also get access to Circle Magic, which is really, really stupid.

How's she meeting the divine caster requirement?She doesn't need to; Hathran was updated to 3.5 in PGtF, and requires the ability to cast 4th-level arcane or divine spells now, rather than 2nd-level arcane and divine spells.

To the OP: Is the player aware of or could she join the Durthan (detailed in Unapproachable East)? I know that Hathran are not allowed to craft items, but Durthan are under no such restriction (that I'm aware of). Granted that joining them may not exactly be the smartest idea, but fluff-wise it sort of works. Refluff the Hathran levels as Durthan levels, maybe replace the Awe of the Wychlaran and Circle Magic class features with some of the Durthan class features, and she should be good to go.

[buttcyst]

a low-op build that needs a lot of story line and fluff to even happen? as a DM, I'd allow it if given good enough in-game reason. And as far as possibly breaking the game, it can't be broken if the DM knows how to handle the capabilities of the PCs at their table... admittedly by reaction only at times (you just cast what? hold on, I need a few minutes...)

[Raineh Daze]

As an aside, I have found that trying to 'help' female gamers by making their characters a bit more optimised usually leads to them becoming confused and upset. It is often interpreted as an attack on their character concept, and since they have a strong emotional connection with the character it can then be perceived as a personal attack.

As a male gamer I can also say that having other male gamers put their two cents in gets very tiresome very quickly.

:annoyed:

Stereotyping. Is. Bad.

Lots of people in general don't like having others offer advice to optimise characters, with any number of reasons, from not wanting the help to being quite happy with suboptimal decisions. Rubbish about interpreting it as a personal attack and dragging in stereotypes is exactly that: Rubbish.

[Spuddles]

Who the hell even cares.

Also, all the girls I've played with have been power gamers who had an unquenchable lust for blowing **** up.

[eggynack]

Who the hell even cares.

I'm pretty sure that there's a decent portion of the population that cares about stereotyping and prejudice. I'd count myself as a member of that group.

[Raineh Daze]

Who the hell even cares.

I care. I care a lot. :|

[Walkwalk]

Why do you even care?

*SNIP*



Oh hey. Wow. I sure do appreciate you telling me how to react to someone you've never met, in a group you've never played with. I'm sure you're an expert on them.

It's great that people fit into easily classed stereotypes, towards whom there is only ever one correct path of action that works 100% of the time, right?

Sarcasm aside, we chatted it out tonight. She eventually admitted that Hathran wasn't the best choice given her character's background, but that it was the only one that was even close to what she wanted (she had something against Durthans in-character).

So we got the DM to approve a rogue Hathran homebrew class. It's a lot more limited than a Hathran in raw spellcasting (No Rashemi Spirit Magic for one thing) but it gives her some neat tricks with magical items and their creation, while still giving full Wizard progression, so it's more true to her original vision of her character.

[Raineh Daze]

Sarcasm aside, we chatted it out tonight. She eventually admitted that Hathran wasn't the best choice given her character's background, but that it was the only one that was even close to what she wanted (she had something against Durthans in-character).

So we got the DM to approve a rogue Hathran homebrew class. It's a lot more limited than a Hathran in raw spellcasting (No Rashemi Spirit Magic for one thing) but it gives her some neat tricks with magical items and their creation, while still giving full Wizard progression, so it's more true to her original vision of her character.

Seems that you got an outcome everyone's happy with from all of this, which is the best thing. :smallsmile:

[Piggy Knowles]

If I were a DM, I probably would not allow it. Some kinds of fluff DO matter to me, and at the top of my list of "fluff matters" are abilities, feats and prestige classes that have ties to organizations. I might be willing to work with the player to come up with a solution that did work, whether that meant rebuilding a more appropriate prestige class, or what, but I wouldn't just allow it carte blanche based on what sound like somewhat shaky justifications.

That being said... as a player? I probably wouldn't say anything. I don't see it as my job to be the police of the game, especially if it's a group that I'm new to. My current group is chock full of stuff I don't like and even some blatantly illegal characters, but as one of the newest players, I'm not going to be the one to tell them they're doing it wrong. They've obviously got something that works for them.

Glad you folks chatted it out, though. I've found that almost all problems or issues in a game can be resolved that way.

[Walkwalk]

Seems that you got an outcome everyone's happy with from all of this, which is the best thing. :smallsmile:

Yeah. The thing was, she had the same doubts as me. Hathran didn't make any sense for her character fluffwise. It's just that she wanted a Rashemi caster Prestige class to tie her character together and it was that or Durthan, which wasn't going to work either.

So, homebrew.

[Alienist]

:annoyed:

Stereotyping. Is. Bad.


So is over-reacting, especially when it's based not on what someone wrote, but what you think they wrote.



Lots of people in general don't like having others offer advice to optimise characters, with any number of reasons, from not wanting the help to being quite happy with suboptimal decisions.


Thanks for exactly repeating my point without adding anything new.



Rubbish about interpreting it as a personal attack and dragging in stereotypes is exactly that: Rubbish.

I'm sorry you're offended by what you think I wrote.

[eggynack]

Thanks for exactly repeating my point without adding anything new.

That's not what you said. That's what you should have said. For some reason, beyond my fathoming as you are someone I do not know, you decided to connect the resistance to optimization to being female. Had you not put in the gender component, your comments would have been perfectly reasonable. As is, they're rather prejudicial. So, for future reference, you probably shouldn't assert that female gamers become confused and upset when male gamers show them optimization tips. You should just say that low optimization players often become confused and upset when high optimization players show them optimization tips. Well, you should if you don't want to be insulting and sexist, anyways.

[Alienist]

Oh hey. Wow. I sure do appreciate you telling me how to react to someone you've never met, in a group you've never played with. I'm sure you're an expert on them.

It's great that people fit into easily classed stereotypes, towards whom there is only ever one correct path of action that works 100% of the time, right?

Sarcasm aside, we chatted it out tonight. She eventually admitted that Hathran wasn't the best choice given her character's background, but that it was the only one that was even close to what she wanted (she had something against Durthans in-character).

So we got the DM to approve a rogue Hathran homebrew class. It's a lot more limited than a Hathran in raw spellcasting (No Rashemi Spirit Magic for one thing) but it gives her some neat tricks with magical items and their creation, while still giving full Wizard progression, so it's more true to her original vision of her character.

I'm glad you worked things out to your satisfaction by talking to the other player and DM.

However, I think it bears repeating that by interfering with someone else's character you're setting yourself up as the 'fun police'.

In all my years of gaming (that I can recall) I've never once seen a woman set herself up as the 'fun police'. I do, however, have numerous anecdotes where males have done that.

[eggynack]

In all my years of gaming (that I can recall) I've never once seen a woman set herself up as the 'fun police'. I do, however, have numerous anecdotes where males have done that.
Truly, it is in this moment that I have seen the light. Your anecdotal experiences with the opposite gender obviously give you carte blanche to make vast generalizations about the intrinsic nature of an entire half of the human race. Your stereotyping is now justified in my eyes, and I shall convert to your position, where all female gamers are in it purely for the roleplaying, and fear the very idea of optimization, and male gamers are constantly trying to police the actions of those female gamers in order to cordon them off into their hyper-optimized state. I am the truly ignorant one, hiding from obvious fact like a vampire in the nude who hides from the night. Thank you, brave hero. I was freed from gaming jail, but my new prison is shame. My new prison is shame!

[Coidzor]

There are potentially useful or at least amusing anecdotes, and then there's ones that don't really serve to do anything other than get people's dander up.

[Raineh Daze]

So is over-reacting, especially when it's based not on what someone wrote, but what you think they wrote.

That's not an overreaction. An overreaction would be swearing an eternal vendetta upon you and your family.


Thanks for exactly repeating my point without adding anything new.

As other people have pointed out, I didn't drag gender stereotypes into it.

Also, you're kind of wrong about them. I wouldn't get annoyed or affronted at optimisation advice. Might not use it, if it's minor enough or the optimisation level isn't so high, but I wouldn't get affronted.

I can also point out that my erratic perfectionism would lead to sometimes being the fun police if you ever gave me a pre-existing setting. :smalltongue:

[Ceaon]

In all my years of gaming (that I can recall) I've never once seen a woman set herself up as the 'fun police'. I do, however, have numerous anecdotes where males have done that.

Why mention gender unless you think it is a causal component of acting like the fun police?

Anyway, glad to hear you were able to talk things out OoC, OP. That would've been my advice as well. What did the DM have to say about this?

[Spuddles]

I'm pretty sure that there's a decent portion of the population that cares about stereotyping and prejudice. I'd count myself as a member of that group.


I care. I care a lot. :|

Nah, I meant OP having a problems with another character. Why care? It's just an exercise in tedium. I wasn't talking about Alienist's sexism.

[Gwendol]

In all my years of gaming (that I can recall) I've never once seen a woman set herself up as the 'fun police'. I do, however, have numerous anecdotes where males have done that.

This is the strangest observation. I really don't see how gender has to do anything with being a fun police. Ever.

It looks like you are assigning various qualities to gender that in all likelyhood are dependent on completely different, individual, qualities and experiences.

[Gwazi Magnum]

So I recently moved, and fell in with a new group. To be entirely blunt, I'm not entirely happy with them.

Case in point, our latest campaign.

One of the players is playing a Female Wizard/Artificer from Rashemen. Her argument is that she's a cultural rebel against the 'only men can create magical artifacts' rule. Which is fine, I suppose. The build isn't that optimised, given that she's split caster levels. But now, at level 17, she wants to take a level in Hathran, which specifically says that you aren't allowed to take Item Creation feats.

Feats which, naturally, her 5 levels in Artificer provided her. Her argument is that since she took them beforehand, they shouldn't affect the class at all. The DM seems on the fence right now.

Is it just me, or is that a load of Grade A bull****? At the very least, using any off her feats should result in immediate expulsion from the Hathran order. The same order that her backstory has her explicitly defying to become an artificer. The two classes just seem mutually exclusive.

A part of me feels like I'm overreacting though, simply because she's not very optimized right now.

Any thoughts?

Reading below I know this has been resolved already.
But I still feel like posting a response to this, so here it goes.

Note though you're speaking on a class I have no experience with.
As in the one she's going into, I'm familiar with both Wizards and Artificers.

If the restriction was gender based? I'd find it completely fine with it, any sort of gender description/stereotyping bugs the hell out of me and I would hate to see a concept killed due to their gender. Hell I even have some issues with racial restrictions, like Arcane Archer and Elf. Why? Why can only Elves do that and no Human no matter how talented?

Though from reading below her case seems to be more the artificers functions conflict completely with the other classes. In which case I'd probably look at what it is in the class she wanted and trying to find a way for her to gain it another way. And having read below it seems like that's exactly what you guys ended up doing so congrats. :)

As a general rule of thumb though I like to follow: Character Concepts and Ideas > Realism and Mechanic Restrictions

When players aren't allowed to do something because of how something works in real life (In a fantasy game meant to escape real life mind you), or because of one rule in a book somewhere it does nothing but kill creativity and try to force players into pre-set class stereotypes and roles. I understand reasonable limits to prevent game breaking but normally players should be rewarded for going outside the norm and looking at new concepts.

Me and a number of my friends just had to quit a DM who would kill the fun and creativity out of their players in order to be more realistic and more in his image. So really: Players > DM > Mechanics

Mechanics only serve to run the game and make it fun, people should full rights to house rule around it if it aids the game and the enjoyment of the group. The DM is nothing without their players. With that being said, you should respect your DM for the DM is not your door mat. The DM is the person who is working their ass off to make the game and campaign for you guys. But at the same time the DM shouldn't be taking advantage of players, or killing the enjoyment of the players for their own enjoyment for some sense of realism. The DM although working hard on their job is still doing a bad job if making it feel more like a chore for the players, and is an even worse DM if they continue after being made aware of it.

This is what happened with my groups last DM causing us to leave. Remember it is the group effort between DM and Players to make a story, adventure and fun/memorable characters. The DM although should have respect for what they do, the players should be able to explore and be creative with their ideas without having to feel punished or guilty about it.


As an aside, I have found that trying to 'help' female gamers by making their characters a bit more optimised usually leads to them becoming confused and upset. It is often interpreted as an attack on their character concept, and since they have a strong emotional connection with the character it can then be perceived as a personal attack.

As a male gamer I can also say that having other male gamers put their two cents in gets very tiresome very quickly.


"ALL ABOARD!!!!! NEXT STOP SEXISM!"

"Oh no! I'm on the wrong train! I thought I was on the way to d&d talk!".

Honestly dude, if someone get's confused or upset from optimization advice it's not because of they're gender, it's because of the individual.

In the group I mentioned above, our player whose a female is actually one of the players whose now taking a stronger interest in looking into other materials to optimize her character. While we have one male DM who relies on fiat to do things rather than mechanic know how, one male player who just goes blank with character creation period and one player who although happy to take one or two out of core feats or acfs generally stays away from optimizing himself.

That leaves... me and one other male player. So let's look, our female player is a bigger optimizer than 60% of the men.

Yup, she's defelently getting confused and upset at optimization being a girl and all.


Oh hey. Wow. I sure do appreciate you telling me how to react to someone you've never met, in a group you've never played with. I'm sure you're an expert on them.

It's great that people fit into easily classed stereotypes, towards whom there is only ever one correct path of action that works 100% of the time, right?

Sarcasm aside, we chatted it out tonight. She eventually admitted that Hathran wasn't the best choice given her character's background, but that it was the only one that was even close to what she wanted (she had something against Durthans in-character).

So we got the DM to approve a rogue Hathran homebrew class. It's a lot more limited than a Hathran in raw spellcasting (No Rashemi Spirit Magic for one thing) but it gives her some neat tricks with magical items and their creation, while still giving full Wizard progression, so it's more true to her original vision of her character.

Some advice, when you want to be sarcastic on the forums highlight the text in blue like I did above and some others did earlier.

But glad to see everything worked out for you guys. :)

[CRtwenty]

When players aren't allowed to do something because of how something works in real life (In a fantasy game meant to escape real life mind you), or because of one rule in a book somewhere it does nothing but kill creativity and try to force players into pre-set class stereotypes and roles. I understand reasonable limits to prevent game breaking but normally players should be rewarded for going outside the norm and looking at new concepts.


I disagree. In this case we had a player who was explicitly defying her own character backstory. The character in question is from Rashemen in the Forgotten Realms, a country that is ruled by a cabal of female casters. These casters have as one of their laws the rule that female casters don't create magic items, that job is reserved for male casters.

The PC in question decided to be an Artificer, defying this rule as part of her backstory. However later decided she wanted to take a Prestige Class that is exclusively for members of that Cabal, a group she was not a part of due to the fact that she was violating one of their central tenets. That is the larger problem here, not the fact that the PRC explicitly has "cannot have item creation abilities" as a prerequesite and "cannot gain item creation abilities" as an actual class feature (though those are problems as well).

In the end everything turned out well, with the PC in question getting a homebrewed PRC variant from the DM that will fit her personal fluff. The Player gets the abilities she wants without having to completely redo her characters personality and the DM gets to continue having a consistent world.

[Gwazi Magnum]

I disagree. In this case we had a player who was explicitly defying her own character backstory. The character in question is from Rashemen in the Forgotten Realms, a country that is ruled by a cabal of female casters. These casters have as one of their laws the rule that female casters don't create magic items, that job is reserved for male casters.

The PC in question decided to be an Artificer, defying this rule as part of her backstory. However later decided she wanted to take a Prestige Class that is exclusively for members of that Cabal, a group she was not a part of due to the fact that she was violating one of their central tenets. That is the larger problem here, not the fact that the PRC explicitly has "cannot have item creation abilities" as a prerequesite and "cannot gain item creation abilities" as an actual class feature (though those are problems as well).

In the end everything turned out well, with the PC in question getting a homebrewed PRC variant from the DM that will fit her personal fluff. The Player gets the abilities she wants without having to completely redo her characters personality and the DM gets to continue having a consistent world.

An Artificer from that I would be fine with, just cause you came from/were born in a culture doesn't mean you're character should be expected to follow the culture she was raised in.

That's even worse than the time I was playing a chaotic evil character and my DM said according to my alignment I 'should have' lit a random house on fire for no reason and started questioning my RP ability for not being a random pyromaniac, but moving on.

The part where she then wants to join the same order than bans her from doing item crafting I can understand not allowing though.
But also like I said, find it is what she likes about the class try to see if there's a way she can get that without taking that class specifically and causing conflictions, which is what they're group had ended up doing anyways.

[CRtwenty]

An Artificer from that I would be fine with, just cause you came from/were born in a culture doesn't mean you're character should be expected to follow the culture she was raised in.

That's even worse than the time I was playing a chaotic evil character and my DM said according to my alignment I 'should have' lit a random house on fire for no reason and started questioning my RP ability for not being a random pyromaniac, but moving on.

I've got no problem with her playing an Artificer, in fact playing an Artificer from a country that forbids women from crafting magical items is a great source of plot hook fodder for the DM. I personally love when my players do things like that since it makes my job a whole lot easier.

And yeah, your DM sounds pretty bad if that example is any indication. Unless you had "Pyromaniac" as a character trait or something his ruling was pretty silly.

[ahenobarbi]

Actually I'd be rather interested in what decision - and why - DM makes. Because I'd expect the DM to rule similarly when I want to take PrC.


That said this is something better left between her and the DM. I wouldn't make that big of a deal out of it if the DM decides to go with it anyway. It's not a very powerful prestige class so she's still going to be under-optimized, but as long as she's having fun it shouldn't be that big of a deal unless she's actually hurting the party in some significant way.

Actually the class is fairly potent. Because circle magic.

Spontaneous casting is nice if you follow x/day limitation.
If you can abuse Acorn of Far Travel (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040710a) to make fully-spontaneous wizard it's sickening (or if you simply play in Rashamen).

And if you are allowed x/day spontaneous casting to qualify for Ultimate Magus to double-progress your wizard...

[Gwazi Magnum]

I've got no problem with her playing an Artificer, in fact playing an Artificer from a country that forbids women from crafting magical items is a great source of plot hook fodder for the DM. I personally love when my players do things like that since it makes my job a whole lot easier.

And yeah, your DM sounds pretty bad if that example is any indication. Unless you had "Pyromaniac" as a character trait or something his ruling was pretty silly.

There wasn't anything like that.
Though we all did recently quit his group because we kept high lighting the issues to him and refused to change anything about it.


Actually I'd be rather interested in what decision - and why - DM makes. Because I'd expect the DM to rule similarly when I want to take PrC.



Actually the class is fairly potent. Because circle magic.

Spontaneous casting is nice if you follow x/day limitation.
If you can abuse Acorn of Far Travel (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040710a) to make fully-spontaneous wizard it's sickening (or if you simply play in Rashamen).

And if you are allowed x/day spontaneous casting to qualify for Ultimate Magus to double-progress your wizard...

This is making me curious now, I read over the spell and I see no way how this can make a spontaneous wizard. What is it about that spell that can be abused like that?

[ahenobarbi]

This is making me curious now, I read over the spell and I see no way how this can make a spontaneous wizard. What is it about that spell that can be abused like that?

Get Acorn of Far Travel from Rashemi Oak. Now you are considered standing under the tree, that is in Rashamen. Harthan casts spontaneously in Rashamen.

[CRtwenty]

This is making me curious now, I read over the spell and I see no way how this can make a spontaneous wizard. What is it about that spell that can be abused like that?

Hathran get an ability called "Rashemi Spirit Magic" that allows them to spontaneously cast any spell they know in place of another spell of the same level they have prepared while they are within the boundaries of Rasheman. Essentially they become Spontaneous Casters like a Sorceror only their spells known is their entire Spellbook. The Acorn can be keyed to a tree within Rasheman so as long as they carry it they act as if they are within Rasheman itself allowing them to use this ability anywhere.

You can see why this would be considered broken.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Get Acorn of Far Travel from Rashemi Oak. Now you are considered standing under the tree, that is in Rashamen. Harthan casts spontaneously in Rashamen.


Hathran get an ability called "Rashemi Spirit Magic" that allows them to spontaneously cast any spell they know in place of another spell of the same level they have prepared while they are within the boundaries of Rasheman. Essentially they become Spontaneous Casters like a Sorceror only their spells known is their entire Spellbook. The Acorn can be keyed to a tree within Rasheman so as long as they carry it they act as if they are within Rasheman itself allowing them to use this ability anywhere.

You can see why this would be considered broken.

Ah I see, if anything that gives me a reason to bother playing a Wizard now.
I probably wouldn't take advantage of this, but I always liked the sorcerer more due to the flexibility it gave with spontaneous casting.

[Raineh Daze]

Ah I see, if anything that gives me a reason to bother playing a Wizard now.
I probably wouldn't take advantage of this, but I always liked the sorcerer more due to the flexibility it gave with spontaneous casting.

Wizards have more flexibility anyway.

... admittedly, I prefer Sorcerers because pyromania. :smallbiggrin:

[Walkwalk]

I disagree. In this case we had a player who was explicitly defying her own character backstory. The character in question is from Rashemen in the Forgotten Realms, a country that is ruled by a cabal of female casters. These casters have as one of their laws the rule that female casters don't create magic items, that job is reserved for male casters.

The PC in question decided to be an Artificer, defying this rule as part of her backstory. However later decided she wanted to take a Prestige Class that is exclusively for members of that Cabal, a group she was not a part of due to the fact that she was violating one of their central tenets. That is the larger problem here, not the fact that the PRC explicitly has "cannot have item creation abilities" as a prerequesite and "cannot gain item creation abilities" as an actual class feature (though those are problems as well).

In the end everything turned out well, with the PC in question getting a homebrewed PRC variant from the DM that will fit her personal fluff. The Player gets the abilities she wants without having to completely redo her characters personality and the DM gets to continue having a consistent world.

This was pretty much my problem. I have no problem with a character joining prestige classes that they normally shouldn't qualify for due to race or gender. Half Orc Arcane Archer? With a decent backstory, I can dig it. Male Hathran? I can see it happening. A Human Moonspeaker? Free magic, man!

It's just that she went explicitly against her own fluff. That was my problem, and it was a problem for her too, just one that she wasn't sure how to work around.


Ah I see, if anything that gives me a reason to bother playing a Wizard now.
I probably wouldn't take advantage of this, but I always liked the sorcerer more due to the flexibility it gave with spontaneous casting.

To be fair, any sane DM would declare that it wouldn't work if the character was even halfway optimised, much like they'd ban Incantatrix and Planar Shepherd. Maybe even if the character wasn't optimised. It's an incredibly dangerous ability that can only reasonably be countered by slapping her with a disjunction (which is also commonly banned) or by nuking Rashemen into dust. Either of which is perfectly possible in high level play of course.

[Boci]

The PC in question decided to be an Artificer, defying this rule as part of her backstory. However later decided she wanted to take a Prestige Class that is exclusively for members of that Cabal, a group she was not a part of due to the fact that she was violating one of their central tenets.

That's not necessarily bad roleplay though, you could just be playing a hypocrite, i.e. someone who has little but contempt for her culture when it restricts her, but will freely attempt to take advantage of any benefits offered. Then its just the role play challenge of getting that passed your elders.

[killem2]

I personally don't have an issue with this.

What I would have an issue with, is if you as a player wanted to take a prestige class that had equally as clear R.A.W to allow it and the DM started to question it.


Like, if you take your situation here and then you decided you wanted to take Knockback as a Goliath and your DM ruled against it, even if the rules say its ok, I would be upset about that.

[eggynack]

Nah, I meant OP having a problems with another character. Why care? It's just an exercise in tedium. I wasn't talking about Alienist's sexism.
Ah. Sorry about that. The comment's placement made it look like it was in response to the other discussion.