PDA

View Full Version : I could use some advice here.



Aurix Norgoosa
2007-02-08, 01:25 PM
First off, I want to extend a greeting to all my d20 brothers.

Now, with that out of the way I was wondering if someone would lend me their opinions on something.

Since I started D&D (some 3 years ago), myself and a really close friend (who started with me) have constantly butted heads over every topic. He believes the DM should be allowed to restrict everything that PC's can/cannot use. I believe that the DM should openly allow players to do what they want, because I believe it falls on the DM to compensate for what the players should be allowed to do.

Lately, this has been doubly so. His turn to DM came around and he's literally banned everything from any noncore books. He's also banning several dozen races from the MM, and all of the PrC's from the DMG. I'm the only one in our group (of 8; 7 players, 1 DM) who really has a problem with this, because I'm the one of the people who has about $400 in supplemental books. I've been making my character with them for ages (monkey grip has been a constant since my very first character and even that's been taken away).

I just feel that he's targeting me specifically with his limitations. What's everyone's opinion?
Should I make a character?
Or should I pass on this game?
And since the mods don't really like one line responses, why exactly do you think that?

My thanks to you all.

Swordguy
2007-02-08, 01:35 PM
While your GM may in fact be targeting you, I would point you in the general direction of Rule 0.

It is his game, and your option is not either play and accept his rules, or find another game. It also seems that you have been getting to play your way for the last "long time", and perhaps this guy has wanted to try D&D a different way. Maybe he has a good reason in-game for restricting things, or maybe he's just not comfortable with so many availible options for PCs to take (it can be a little overwhelming, especially for a newish DM, as he seems to be). Why not give his way a shot?

silentknight
2007-02-08, 01:44 PM
Well, if you all are taking turns being DM, conform to your friend's rules if playing in his campaign is something you want to do.

You like using all of those non-core splat books, PrCs, alternate classes, and house rules? Then use them when it is time for YOU to DM.

Problem solved.
Unless you take turns DMing the same game.

Anyway, I feel it is the DM's right to limit (or not) anything he will allow his players to use when making characters and playing the game. The DM should let his players know by what rules the game will be played beforehand though.

It is up to the DM to deal with everything in the game (except for the individual PCs), which can be quite alot. Having to worry about obscure class abilities, balancing issues, and information from books he doesn't own...it makes sense for some DMs to limit what kind of character he will allow in the game. Think of playing in your friend's game as a challenge and see what kind of cool character you can make based on the limitations he has set.

In summary, you and your friend are both right. Give his game a chance, maybe you will like what he brings to the table.

Wereling
2007-02-08, 01:45 PM
I actually run a game very much like this (I don't allow anything from outside the core books unless it's been run by me first), largely because with the splatbooks it is very easy for someone to "break" the game, and ruin it for everyone else. I think your DM has gone a bit too far (by banning the MM races, most of which aren't that good, and the PrC in the DMG, most of which are good, but not broken), but I can understand where he's coming from.

My advice? Go along with the game anyhow. It's entirely possible to build a good character using only the stuff in the core books. If he starts getting wierd about banning stuff (I have a GM who banned the spell "fly" for some odd reason), then speak to him about it before leaving the game.

Oh, and you shouldn't be using Monkey Grip anyhow. It's a bad feat.

Aurix Norgoosa
2007-02-08, 01:55 PM
I thank you all for your feedback and I'd like more still.

But on the monkey grip subject, I think it fits an Orc Barbarian/Eye or Gruumsh very nicely to have a large Orc double axe.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-08, 01:58 PM
So have a big axe. It doesn't need to be Large size-category. Seriously, using Monkey Grip actively makes a character *worse*.

If you don't think you'll have fun playing, don't play. It's pretty much that simple.

Aurix Norgoosa
2007-02-08, 02:00 PM
I know what my choices in this matter are. I'm just trying to find out if people think that he's going overboard with the banning.

And please, enlighten me as to why monkey grip makes a character that's meant to be a frontline warrior worse. I'm hearing people saying that, but not justifying their point.

Piccamo
2007-02-08, 02:02 PM
Monkey grip is a poor feat and you should ask him if he'd make an exception. Show him that a constant -2 penalty to attack is worse than if you 2-handed a regular double axe and power attacked for 2.

He may be targeting you, but it is his game to do what he wants. My opinion is that the DM should approve or deny what he thinks fits into his game. For example: in my next campaign I'll be running there will only be pact magic which means no clerics, druids, wizards, sorcerers, etc.

Quietus
2007-02-08, 02:02 PM
I thank you all for your feedback and I'd like more still.

But on the monkey grip subject, I think it fits an Orc Barbarian/Eye or Gruumsh very nicely to have a large Orc double axe.

Except that you can't play an Eye of Gruumsh, since it isn't a core class?

If you feel your DM is targetting you specifically, speak to him privately about it. Let him know you think you're being targetted - and anyway, what MM races is he banning? I personally tend to start most/all of my campaigns at level 1, so there's a huge number of 'potential' races in the MM that simply wouldn't fit.

If your DM has personal access only to the three core books, then as noted above, it makes a lot of sense for him to limit it. Perhaps if you're interested in other things, you can speak to him separately - I don't know why he would ban monkey grip, since going up one size of weapon isn't a big jump - it doesn't add reach, and in general only adds 1 average damage or so, which at the cost of a feat, won't break anything. But it's the DM's game, and goes by his rules. As a player, if you don't like something, speak to him about it privately. If you can't come to an agreement, don't play.

Wereling
2007-02-08, 02:04 PM
I knew I shouldn't have said anything about Monkey Grip. If you're taking it as a flavor feat, bully for you. Just be aware that it is mechanically less efficient.

I did want to make one other note: If there is something specific to the game that you'd like to bring in from outside the core books, I'd ask for it anyhow. The worst he can say is "no", and if it's nto game-breakingly cheesy it might end up being allowed. It never hurts to ask, especially if you can find out the reasoning for the blanket ban.

Aurix Norgoosa
2007-02-08, 02:07 PM
So the monkey grip bashing is based around the fact that you do more consistant damage with power attack. While I agree that power attack is another good feat, this argument comes down to solely how you roll and attack. I'm not really here to debate on chance.

Raum
2007-02-08, 02:08 PM
He believes the DM should be allowed to restrict everything that PC's can/cannot use. I believe that the DM should openly allow players to do what they want, because I believe it falls on the DM to compensate for what the players should be allowed to do.D&D is a group game. No single person, DM or player, should unilaterally decide on content. However, the DM does create the setting. If he decides there are no "widget X" classes, items, or races in his setting and then asks the group (as a whole) if the setting he's leaning towards is acceptable; the majority opinion should be followed.

It's fairly common to see homebrew worlds with non-standard races or classes. I like the idea of an all human world myself...the standard fantasy races are becoming too passee in many ways. However, if he's denying resources to players which he is using himself, I'd be a bit leery.

Basically, if your friend is removing those books from his campaign entirely, I think you're being unreasonable. If he's just denying their use to players (or you in particular), I think he's being unreasonable.

Fax Celestis
2007-02-08, 02:09 PM
And please, enlighten me as to why monkey grip makes a character that's meant to be a frontline warrior worse. I'm hearing people saying that, but not justifying their point.

I would suggest asking that question elsewhere, unless you want your thread hijacked. In essence, you're trading -2 AB for ~2 damage on average. You might as well take Power Attack (which you can turn off against hard to hit opponents) and get the same result.

Piccamo
2007-02-08, 02:13 PM
So the monkey grip bashing is based around the fact that you do more consistant damage with power attack. While I agree that power attack is another good feat, this argument comes down to solely how you roll and attack. I'm not really here to debate on chance.

You're not debating chance at all. 4 damage as often as you'd like versus 2 damage always with a -2 penalty to hit for both. Thats consistent for both, not chance at all.

Anyway, as has been said talk to your DM about it...or just describe your weapon however you'd like.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-08, 02:18 PM
I know what my choices in this matter are. I'm just trying to find out if people think that he's going overboard with the banning.
There's no objective standard. I'd find it way too restrictive, but the rest of your group is fine with it, so he's not going overboard for your group.


And please, enlighten me as to why monkey grip makes a character that's meant to be a frontline warrior worse. I'm hearing people saying that, but not justifying their point.
Because you can't turn the -2 penalty off without losing time and actions to draw a worse weapon than your main one. Most of the time, the average damage lost due to Monkey Grip's AB penalty is more than the average damage gained from Monkey Grip--therefore, you're doing less damage with the feat than you would if you didn't use it!

Aurix Norgoosa
2007-02-08, 02:20 PM
I should have mentioned the fact that I have talked with him about this and on several occasions.
And my last opinion on moneky grip is this: It depends on the weapon you use. Power attack works better with some but I believe monkey grip works better with others.

Telonius
2007-02-08, 02:20 PM
Something tells me that it's not just the fact that you have $400 in splatbooks that's making you upset about not having access to anything outside of the PHB.

The worst case scenario is you showing up to every game session mad because you can't play the character you want. So, either figure out a way for you to make it work, or leave the group. Whatever you do, make it your choice, and don't blame the group for "forcing" you to do something.

silentknight
2007-02-08, 02:22 PM
Based on what you described, it doesn't seem unusually strict to place the limitations your friend has on his game. My current game is core only, and I allowed only the PH to make characters. And one of my friends, a 10 year gaming veteran, says that his human rogue (starting from 1st level) is his favorite character ever.

You like monkey grip? Great! But now you have a chance to try something different.

Ebonwoulfe
2007-02-08, 02:22 PM
So the monkey grip bashing is based around the fact that you do more consistant damage with power attack. While I agree that power attack is another good feat, this argument comes down to solely how you roll and attack. I'm not really here to debate on chance.

The good thing is, your chance to hit with monkey grip and your chance to hit with a 2-point power attack is exactly the same, so the "odds" all come out in a wash.

With monkey grip, you always have to take -2 to attack.
With power attack, you can choose to take -2 to the attack.
That's reason #1 to consider not taking monkey grip. Monkey grip is always on, PA is something you choose.

With monkey grip, you gain an extra die size, for an average of 1 or 2 damage more
With power attack, you gain exactly 4 more damage every time you power attack and use 2 points from your bab.
That's reason #2 to consider not taking monkey grip. The damage output is better.

Roderick_BR
2007-02-08, 02:24 PM
Overboard? Not really. It's his game. The problem is that you two doesn't have the same gaming style.
Just tell him how you want to use non-core rules, and try to get to an agreement. Other than this, you can just not play on his game.
Or you could make a CodZilla using only core books >:) Look around the forum and you may find good suggestions.

Fax is right about Monkey Grip not being useful at all. You want a double weapon that deals 1d10/1d10 instead of 1d8/1d8, right?
Better go with Power Attack. And remember, a double weapon is already big looking by definition.

Aurix Norgoosa
2007-02-08, 02:24 PM
I never blame my group for anything. You're right, part of the reason IS that I cannot play what I want. No one else in the group has this same problem because they aren't as into this as I am. But that's because I'm the only one willing to spend the money to get a better character.

And I'm done with the moneky grip argument. I could go into several different weapons that it benefits from, but I'm not here to debate it. I'm here to get opinions.

Rahdjan
2007-02-08, 02:28 PM
I feel compelled to back the OP up here. I've bought most of the supplement books to the tune of around 80% of what's printed. I would be a little bit vexed if I spent all that money and I couldn't use them. I've got books that I haven't gotten around to using with liberal groups, let alone restrictive ones.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-08, 02:32 PM
No, no, trust me--Monkey Grip is just plain bad. At best, it adds 1d6 (3.5) damage, for that -2 penalty you can't turn off. The math's been done. It's a terrible feat. Live with it.

Piccamo
2007-02-08, 02:35 PM
I never blame my group for anything. You're right, part of the reason IS that I cannot play what I want. No one else in the group has this same problem because they aren't as into this as I am. But that's because I'm the only one willing to spend the money to get a better character.

And I'm done with the moneky grip argument. I could go into several different weapons that it benefits from, but I'm not here to debate it. I'm here to get opinions.


You've gotten opinions. I would like to see any of these several different weapons it benefits from.

Gamebird
2007-02-08, 02:43 PM
First off, I want to extend a greeting to all my d20 brothers.

And sisters too?


Should I make a character?
Or should I pass on this game?

Ultimately it depends on whether you can get past your "I want to play a game you're not running" and play what he's running. It's fine and dandy that you've spent a lot of money on other books and want to play something that uses them. I have a huge library of Vampire/White Wolf books. Being upset I can't use them on my Barbarian 1 makes as much sense as what you're saying. Everyone else has pointed out the essence of "taking turns". Just suck it up. Sharing and learning to play with others is something they teach in kindergarten and first grade (though to be fair, not everyone absorbs the lesson).


And since the mods don't really like one line responses, why exactly do you think that?

I think this because it is inherently unfair for you to play in a more liberal game with/against other players who have not spent $400 on books. Look at it from their point of view - due to their finances, they are stuck with relatively bland core classes and choices from perhaps one supplement they've been able to buy. They can't min/max or optimize their character like you can. They don't have the opportunity to peruse books at their leisure and pick out the perfect fit for them. So whenever a more liberal game comes up and you get to use many of your books, it's unfair to anyone who hasn't made the same investment.

Here's a clearer analogy:
You pay $400 to buy loaded dice. These dice are really cool and they let you "win" much more often than someone who uses plain dice.
Your friend the new DM declares that because not everyone owns loaded dice, that he's not going to allow loaded dice in his game, despite how much you enjoy getting multiple 20s.
Now you're angry about it. :smallsigh:

Does it make sense now? I'm not saying you're cheating, but being upset about not getting to use all your books in a game where the group is taking turns, with each DM getting to use their own style and preferences... seems awful immature.

wormwood
2007-02-08, 02:44 PM
The amount of money you've spent on splatbooks is a horrible argument for making a DM loosen up his game. That's not the issue. You likely would've spent the money on the books whether you were playing his particular game or not.

That being said, I think your DM is way too tight. I've been playing D&D for a long, long time and I've gotten pretty bored with the core PHB stuff. One of the main reasons to play D&D is the vast amount of material that's published for it.

Of course, if you feel your DM is doing this just to restrict you then maybe you should try not being such a munchkin. :) just kidding.

Swordguy
2007-02-08, 02:44 PM
I feel compelled to back the OP up here. I've bought most of the supplement books to the tune of around 80% of what's printed. I would be a little bit vexed if I spent all that money and I couldn't use them. I've got books that I haven't gotten around to using with liberal groups, let alone restrictive ones.

Although there is the small matter that they've been playing with said books up to this point. It's one guy's turn to DM, and he can run the game how he wants. *shrug* It sounds like they rotate DM-ship often, so when it's his turn again (or, conversely, when it's not THIS guys's turn), the OP can make a case to use everything again.

It's not a collectible game here. Just cause you spent money on something doesn't give you the right to bring it into my game...

Elliot Kane
2007-02-08, 02:59 PM
Every GM sets the rules for their own game, and the choice for players is to either play or not play. That's it.

I've done a lot of GMing myself, and I very much prefer an open rule system - so much so that I have stats created for around 60-ish playable races, and I'd be more than happy to allow anything I could stat that wasn't too powerful for the game at the time.

But, with all that said, my own personal preferences and GMing experience do not in any way allow me to dictate to other GMs what is and is not allowable in their own campaigns. If I'm a player, I play by the rules set down by the GM, and that's that.

I try to treat any GM I am playing with the way I would like to be treated if I were the GM myself. It seems only fair.

Edit: and also:


But that's because I'm the only one willing to spend the money to get a better character.

You can't spend money to get a better character. You can only get more stuff with money. A character is only good if they are role played well. Just sayin' :)

axraelshelm
2007-02-08, 02:59 PM
well lets be down to earth here shall we?
Why do we game? to have fun right?
Now with the original poster i feel for you want to use some of the resource you manage to gather in the last 3 years well i have been roleplaying for close to 5 so loads of books.
Being restrictive can be a get time to redevelope the love of the old classic class's play something that you have never played before or read some fantasy novels and see if there are any characters you would've liked to play if they were your characters that helps me to create other characters.

Telonius
2007-02-08, 03:04 PM
Hm, thinking about it a little more ... I really don't know what the DM in question's financial situation might be, but it's possible he doesn't feel that he has the money to spend on all of the splatbooks. Put yourself in his shoes. Would it seem fair to you that somebody could just buy (with real-world money) a better character, while you're stuck with the leftovers?

I was in this situation a while back with a previous group. I was in college, and I'd had to take a work-study job to help pay tuition; so no way of increasing my income. Some of the other players were pretty well-off, but I wasn't. They let me borrow whatever it was I wanted, but it still made me mad that I had to borrow it. We were all pretty mature about the situation, though, so that smoothed things over quite a bit. And when I got in a better money situation, I bought my own books. That might not be applicable to your situation, but I can understand where the other players might be coming from, if it's got something economic behind it.

To your situation, though ... would you find it difficult to make an interesting character concept from just the core races? It's possible to come up with the fluff - what you want the character to be, and be able to do - and then mold the character's build around that. It sounds like you're used to doing it the other way around; coming up with the build first, then making the fluff around it.

So you want to Monkey Grip something with Core? No problem. Just describe your axe as really big, but use the regular size and damage for the mechanics. The fluff is the same; the character doesn't change. It's just the numbers that would shift slightly. You want to be a Psycho Ninja of Doom? Sure! Just take levels in Rogue, and call your Rapier a Katana. Swashbuckler? Ranger with TWF, Favored Enemy: humanoid, and leave the dog at home. It's not as mechanically satisfying, but you'll be playing nearly exactly the character you want to play. (It's not my preferred style, either; I think that the classes should support your choices mechanically. But it's also not impossible to do with core).

clericwithnogod
2007-02-08, 03:06 PM
If you aren't going to enjoy the game, play with another group until the DM rotation changes again. I've left a campaign that was built on a playstyle and house rules that I didn't enjoy run by a DM whose campaigns I enjoyed prior to and after.

Personally, in a game that rotates DMs like that, banning large chunks of material that was fine in play for all the other DMs seems a little weird. It's one thing to ban things for mechanical issues, because they don't fit with your campaign or completely negate certain plots, themes or obstacles, but the idea that somehow everything that is core fits your campaign and everything that isn't core doesn't is crap.

A DM's role is to create a game that the players enjoy playing in. There has to be give and take during a DM transition like that within a rotating group for it to work. Unilaterally changing the game in a group like that to what you believe is the one, true, way to play DND without consideration of whether it makes a player unhappy or happy is abusing the DMs role.

Jayabalard
2007-02-08, 03:22 PM
He's not going overboard; it's quite reasonable to ban all of those, especially at character creation, in order to keep the game simple.

You can get the same fluff with just core; you lose is increased power of those splatbooks, but playing a character that you enjoy isn't just being able to leaping powerattack with an oversized weapon, is it?

Matthew
2007-02-08, 04:00 PM
He is not being unreasonable, as far as I can see. It's his DMing style. I say, keep an open mind and turn up to the game. If you don't like it, then explain to your friend that you won't be playing any further sessions, it's nothing against him, but you prefer a more open approach to the game with regard to supplemental material.

Personally, I can't really understand why you would care whether you can or can't use Race / Class / Feat X in the game he's running. Use the supplemental books to build NPCs for the next game you run, it's hardly wasted money.

axraelshelm
2007-02-08, 04:11 PM
You can get the same fluff with just core; you lose is increased power of those splatbooks, but playing a character that you enjoy isn't just being able to leaping powerattack with an oversized weapon, is it?[/quote]

And why is there oversized weapons in this world? considering most of the larger races seem quite happy waving tree trunks about with 10" in reach and have attack of opportunity and be able to hold a sheild in the other hand.

Anyway the original poster wanted to play a eye of grumesh right? so how about a cleric of grumesh just take great axe as a feat or take 1 level in babarian and as a plot point ask the gm if losing your eye would grant you more abilities because of your devotion work it into the story and i get your gm won't mind.

Aurix Norgoosa
2007-02-08, 06:38 PM
*Explitive Deleted* *Explitive Deleted* *Explitive Deleted*
I needed that venting...bloody wretched net decided to crash....

LotharBot
2007-02-08, 06:43 PM
I'm the only one willing to spend the money to get a better character.

Spending money doesn't get you a better character. It might get you a more effective combat character, but how "good" your character is depends entirely on how well you roleplay whatever you put together, whether it's core or not. You might be surprised at how good of a character you can create using only PHB material. (If you're interested at having the "best" character rather than in fitting in with the group, as a DM I'd consider that a problem.)

If that's not acceptable to you, you may want to chat with your DM. Ask him WHY he doesn't want to allow all that extra material. Maybe he's targetting you... or maybe he just wants to play something different (would you be pissed if he wanted to play a Star Wars game and you'd spent hundreds on non-Star Wars books?) Maybe he's just not experienced enough at DM'ing to want to deal with all of those questions.

In the game I'm currently running, I explicitly allow everything from core... and then I allow other things piece by piece, if I judge them to be balanced.

clericwithnogod
2007-02-08, 07:22 PM
Anyway the original poster wanted to play a eye of grumesh right? so how about a cleric of grumesh just take great axe as a feat or take 1 level in babarian and as a plot point ask the gm if losing your eye would grant you more abilities because of your devotion work it into the story and i get your gm won't mind.

The Eye of Gruumsh uses the orc double axe. Combined with the monkey grip feat, this isn't exactly a complex or game breaking character (the rage bonus from the PrC offsets this making it not completely suck). Half-orcs don't have weapon familiarity, so he has to burn a feat on the orc double axe as well. It's not terribly logical for a DM to ban something from a supplement that fits a character concept and isn't unbalanced then agree to houserule abilities to do the same thing. I'd be bothered by the one-dimensional nature of the character though.

The DMG states that the DM is final arbiter of decisions regarding game rules and campaign standards. It also states that those decisions should be well reasoned and well explained and made with consideration as to whether the decisions will make players happy or unhappy.

"- Rule 0: The concept that the DM or GM of a game has final say in rules disputes, and has the authority to change game rules. Sometimes used to defend unfair behavior on the part of a DM. Originally specific to 3e D&D, which explicitely identified this concept by name in the DMG, but has since expanded to be used for any game, though still primarily brought up in discussions of d20 games."

We're only hearing one side of it, the DM may have reasons for the limitations beyond, "because I can," but if not, that's bad DMing.



As an aside...

The orc thing is kind of funky (as is the favored weapon of Gruumsh being a spear and Eyes of Gruumsh using the funky axe). An orc barbarian/eye of Gruumsh gets a bonus to strength and receives penalties in daylight of -1 to hit (offsetting the hit portion of the STR bonus, but not damage) and -1 to spot and search in daylight (neither of which are class skills) along with a -2 to Wisdom (which affects WILL saves - which aren't great to begin with and get a bit of a bonus back when raging - and Listen and Survival, which are class skills, as well as Spot.

In a head-to-head encounter, an orc with that combination is pretty much always better than a half-orc, which kind of bites as that's the kind of thing that the half-orc is supposed excel at. I hate monster with class levels that are better in encounters than characters of the same level, particularly when they're pretty much the same thing.

Folie
2007-02-08, 07:48 PM
(If you're interested at having the "best" character rather than in fitting in with the group, as a DM I'd consider that a problem.)

Even though I agree with the basic point that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," I want to point out that powergaming isn't necessarily "wrong" from a role-playing standpoint. Many real-life people strive for excellence in their chosen fields or careers, often sacrificing their health and their social/family lives in doing so. Is it so implausible that a role-playing character would do the same thing? Even though Aurix's attitude towards splatbooks is evidently not shared by the rest of his group, that doesn't mean that it's not perfectly valid.

Of course, that doesn't mean that he shouldn't either a) suck it up and respect Rule 0 or b) leave the group. Sorry, Aurix, but to quote the great philosopher: "You can't always get what you want."

Kyrsis
2007-02-08, 08:00 PM
As far as the book banning, as already mentioned, your DM may have reasons.
I've DM'd a lot and this is how I approach every game I start up - I set the startin level (usually 1). Depending on how much adjusting I feel like doing in the beginning I will set a max racial adjustment. As I have a huge library of source books, I allow my players to use them if they wish BUT anything not corebooks WILL be run by me. I have been known to start core-only games and later open up other options. If a player finds something in a book I do not own, they can show me and I'll consider it, but it is their responisibility to bring the book to all the games in case.
My old DM flat out used to refuse to buy source books, as it does end up costing a lot, but again if the player brought the book he'd consider whatever they want.
Like everyone else said, try asking. Talk to your DM one on one, I'm sure you'll work something out. You really can make some decent characters with the core books; perhaps try it out? Really though, the DM should have the final say on what extra material is allowed in the game. They're the ones setting up the campaign, maybe your DM just doesn't want any surprises from a source book he's never heard of.
I say give it a try.

Arbitrarity
2007-02-08, 08:52 PM
I'm a relatively new DM, and apparently a bit too liberal ;). See that leadership incident 0.o.

I generally allow most anything that's in a book (if I can see it, it's WOTC), and some homebrewed classes (though as I've learned, watch out for those).

Lesson: DM'ing for a month makes for some issues in judgement...

Zincorium
2007-02-08, 11:18 PM
On a side note, you can't use monkey grip with a double weapon (right there in the description), so an eye of Gruumsh shouldn't be taking monkey grip anyway. I

axraelshelm
2007-02-08, 11:36 PM
TO CLERICWITHNOGOD

Is that what a eye of gruumsh have?!?
It kinda sucks arent they supposed to be like followers or the ideal of Gruumsh? and they learn the orc double axe? while their gods favored weapon is a spear? thats not very coherent.... hmmm maybe a email to woc?

You see thats why i like playing spellcasters you can get power without the need to have prc.

Fawsto
2007-02-09, 12:04 AM
I must agree with the guys who are saying that your DM went a bit too far...

My actual team (DM + 9 Players) believe's that not all splatbooks are OK for the campaing. We tend to bane the Quintessencials. But we stick to the mostly core books possible. We like playing with the "Complete..." Series, Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness and the Sword and Fist/Tomes and Bloodlines/etc books (rebalancing them to 3.5). For us this books are pretty enough.

Our view is that the options given by the 3 corebooks are too limited. Pehaps this is the same point of view of yours. Only the PrC on DMs book are far from beeing enought for me.

My advice would be this one: Talk to your DM, explain to him that you feel imprisoned by using only the corebooks. Try to explain him that there are good options in other books both for DMs and Players alike. Tell him to at least take a look at the books you want to use. Pehaps he will get some good Ideas from the new sources.

If nothing happens... Wait... When is your turn to DM, use the books in a way that will make him impressed by the new possiblities, so then, pehaps one day he will allow you to use the other books you want.

The other option is quiting the game. But this one wouldn't be good either for you or your friends.

Thomas
2007-02-09, 12:16 AM
While your GM may in fact be targeting you, I would point you in the general direction of Rule 0.

It is his game, and your option is not either play and accept his rules, or find another game.

No, it's their game. Being GM doesn't place you above the others, make you a better person, or give you any authority outside of interpreting rules and relating how the world reacts to PCs.

It certainly doesn't give anyone the right to be an inconsiderate ******* who doesn't listen to, acknowledge, and try to address the concerns and opinions of the other people involved.

That said, if an agreement cannot be reached, there's no point in playing, is there?


I'd offer the opinion, though, that the person with $400 in books is probably the one who should be DMing... :smallamused:

Also, what sort of game group doesn't share books? :smalleek: I must say I wouldn't allow a player to use sources the other players (or the DM, most especially) can't use. Could that be the issue?

Swordguy
2007-02-09, 09:54 AM
No, it's their game. Being GM doesn't place you above the others, make you a better person, or give you any authority outside of interpreting rules and relating how the world reacts to PCs.


This would include choosing which rules you wish to use in your game. If my setting doesn't include elves, and you want to run an elf...well...sucks to be you. Try something different for a change. If I don't want my setting to involve stuff from the Draconomicon, then by Ghu you don't get to use it during character creation.




It certainly doesn't give anyone the right to be an inconsiderate ******* who doesn't listen to, acknowledge, and try to address the concerns and opinions of the other people involved.


I think you're reading stuff into the motives of somebody who's not here to defend him/her/itself. We have a biased (I don't mean that in an offensive way, BTW) opinion from the OP, and nothing else. What if it's a newish DM who is intimidated by all the stuff that's available? What if there's a valid plot reason why he doesn't want all the stuff allowed at chargen?

And I reiterate: just because you spent money on something doesn't mean I am morally obligated to let you use it in my game.

clericwithnogod
2007-02-09, 12:11 PM
TO CLERICWITHNOGOD

Is that what a eye of gruumsh have?!?
It kinda sucks arent they supposed to be like followers or the ideal of Gruumsh? and they learn the orc double axe? while their gods favored weapon is a spear? thats not very coherent.... hmmm maybe a email to woc?


Yeah, the big disadavantage of creating your god 20 years before you introduce racial weapons...

EDIT: If I were the house ruling type, I'd consider creating something like:

Orcish War Spear: 1d10 damage, 2-handed, 20/x4 crit Exotic Weapon (Martial Weapon for Orcs and Half-Orcs)

Problem being, x4 crit is problematic for enemies, since a good roll will kill players a lot. But x3 doesn't bring it up to the other front line weapons... And piercing is generally the least effective of the three types already...so 1d12, 20/x3 Piercing is generally worse than a greataxe or greatsword.

Gryndle
2007-02-09, 01:19 PM
The ultimate goal is to have fun. If you have fun with this group in general, I'd say give the game a shot. Even if the character concept or campaign concept may not be exactly to your taste, you still may have fun with your friends. If you don't think you will, then give it a pass. Just try not to burn any bridges when you do, as youmay want to play with the same group under a different DM down the road.

I do have to take issue with the Rule 0 approach that the DM is always right.
A DM that that sticks to Rule 0 as gospel and doesn't listen to their players, simply sucks. That's nothing more than table-top tyranny. And I for one cannot stand tyrants of any kind.

Dm's make, control, and to some extent may own the game world. But your character is just that, YOURS. That character does need to fit in the overall context of the DM's world, but its still yours.

I currently play in tow different gaming groups, with very different styles.

In one, I am the primary DM. As in, I designed the game world, chose the available races and set the overall rules and tone. However, I also stated from the begining that if someone had a character concept that Ihad allowed for, I'd consider it and try to accomodate then as long as it didn't unbalance things. I also stated that as we bought additional sourcebooks, some rules may change, and I'd even allow the player's to make adjustments to their characters based on the new rules, as long as it didn't totally change the nature of the existing character or the balance of the campaign.

We also rotate DMing in that campaign between a few of us. Each Dm has a different style, but we make it work by listening to each other.

In the other gaming group, we have only one DM. She had a very specific tone in mind for the campaign, and based most of it off of core. However, from the begining she has been willing to listen to her players and their requests.

Each campaign runs differenlty but fairly smoothly. The key to both is good DM-Player communication and input.

Rule 0 is not "the DM is always right." Rule 0 is "We all play to have fun."

In short, if you can have fun and can come to some mutually beneficail understanding with this DM, then play and enjoy. If you are not going to have fun, don't punish yourself. Simply state that this type of game may not be for you, but to keep you in mind when the campaign changes.

LotharBot
2007-02-09, 05:52 PM
I want to point out that powergaming isn't necessarily "wrong" from a role-playing standpoint.

Of course not. But if you're powergaming using $400 worth of splatbooks, and everyone else in your group is roleplaying using only the PHB, it's unlikely you'll have very good group cohesion.

You can have fun whether you're limited to core only or you have a dozen extra books that let you customize to the extreme. If you have a DM who's running a core-only game, most adults and a good percentage of teens can find a way to have fun with it. If you can't, sit out the game (but don't get upset about your DM's choices.)

My advice to the OP is simple: play the game that's in front of you. It's probably still more fun playing core with your friends than playing anything else by yourself.

Folie
2007-02-09, 06:02 PM
Of course not. But if you're powergaming using $400 worth of splatbooks, and everyone else in your group is roleplaying using only the PHB, it's unlikely you'll have very good group cohesion.
Did I mention that I'm a devil's advocate? :smallbiggrin:

Zincorium
2007-02-09, 06:09 PM
My advice to the OP is simple: play the game that's in front of you. It's probably still more fun playing core with your friends than playing anything else by yourself.

I'm gonna have to agree with this. You always have the right to vote with your feet, but before you do just think about whether or not you really need to. If you're being specifically singled out and punished in game, or the DM is killing you left and right out of a sick sense of control, or even that the railroading has gone well beyond 'helping move the game along' all the way to "Stop doing things! You're ruining my story!", well...you should leave immediately.

But this seems like something that's A. Temporary, after this DM is finished the group can move to a different playstyle. Of course, they may not want to. B. Helping someone else in the group a chance to do things in a way that seems fun to them.