PDA

View Full Version : Am I right about this? (please respond)



Vaynor
2007-03-10, 11:28 PM
Me (DM): In our new campaign sorcerers get Eschew Materials for free at 1st level, k?
My Players: No way that's stupid, it makes sorcerers too powerful.
Me: ...seriously?
MP: Yah! That makes sorcerers way too good!
Me: But I don't even keep track of components that cost less than a gold!
MP: Doesn't matter, it's still an extra feat!
Me: ONE THAT DOES NOT MATTER, IT'S JUST FLAVOR! [/yell]
(this is a summarized argument by the way, real thing was 10+ minutes...)
MP: It lets them get metamagic earlier!
Me: ...what?
MP: Yah! They don't have to waste the feat on Eschew Materials, so they don't have to wait for 3rd level for metamagic!
Me: Who said ALL sorcerers had to get Eschew Materials at level one? They're free to get a metamagic feat if they want.
MP: Still, it's stupid! *realizes he's wrong and gets on my case about not tracking materials* You should track materials! It can make a difference!
Me: :smallfrown:



They keep realizing they're losing the argument then decide to bug me about something else. He's now complaining that changing the classes at all is stupid and they're good as they are. Even when I tell him, no, they aren't for my campaign, because I want things to work like that in MY world, he doesn't listen...



Now he's saying because Wizard's put it there you HAVE to use it that way, and if I'm changing it at all then it's stupid...

I pointed out polymorph as an example of when Wizard's was wrong, he didn't care.

I pointed out Wizard's makes D&D to be adaptable, and used UA as an example.

I would just kick him from the game if he keeps it up, problem is he'll just sway the rest of the players too and then I can't DM...


ALL because I gave sorcerers eschew materials for free at first level. I don't even keep track of components under 1gp, all they need to do is buy the pouch. It's just for flavor.

But TWo of my players are completely pissed off at me for the above reasons, and I need to know if I'm being horribly mean or it IS just them.

Thanks in advance,

Vaynor

ishi
2007-03-10, 11:34 PM
Eschew Materials: you don't have to spend 5gp on a component pouch that exists in game for flavor purposes only.

That's all it does. If he thinks it overpowers sorcerers, than give him a free pair of socks or something to compensate.

That said, you may want to consider requiring a character to actually take Eschew Materials if they want to take a feat or PrC with Eschew Materials as a requirement.

Vaynor
2007-03-10, 11:37 PM
Eschew Materials: you don't have to spend 5gp on a component pouch that exists in game for flavor purposes only.

That's all it does. If he thinks it overpowers sorcerers, than give him a free pair of socks or something to compensate.

That said, you may want to consider requiring a character to actually take Eschew Materials if they want to take a feat or PrC with Eschew Materials as a requirement.

They do still have to invest a feat to get a PrC with that prereq.

I even offered to give everyone a free 5gp except sorcerers.

His argument is that I'm changing the rules.

Apparently when a DM changes the rules slightly to fit his campaign world, its punishable by loud yelling and getting mad at said DM.

Zincorium
2007-03-10, 11:42 PM
90% of arguments go differently depending on how the side is phrased. Although I think you're right, as presented, we do not have their side, and they may well be thinking your proposal is different in nature.

Are any of them playing sorcerors? Was this ruling made known before they decided to do so, or after? If no to the first, they really shouldn't argue unless you have a habit of making BBEGs sorcerors.

Possibly the problem is they feel you're yanking the rug out from under them, so to speak. I have seen many times where DMs make houserules, and then keep on doing it until somebody manages to convince them to stop or the game is almost unrecognizable as D&D. They may be afraid you're about to go down that path, and that you won't listen to them when something important happens.

Vaynor
2007-03-10, 11:45 PM
90% of arguments go differently depending on how the side is phrased. Although I think you're right, as presented, we do not have their side, and they may well be thinking your proposal is different in nature.

Are any of them playing sorcerors? Was this ruling made known before they decided to do so, or after? If no to the first, they really shouldn't argue unless you have a habit of making BBEGs sorcerors.

Possibly the problem is they feel you're yanking the rug out from under them, so to speak. I have seen many times where DMs make houserules, and then keep on doing it until somebody manages to convince them to stop or the game is almost unrecognizable as D&D. They may be afraid you're about to go down that path, and that you won't listen to them when something important happens.

None are sorcerers. I summarized the argument fairly well. All I'm doing is giving sorcerers some flavor...

EDIT: That is his argument. All of his points, and mine.

serow
2007-03-10, 11:48 PM
You can also just ignore the cheap components without actually bothering with the Eschew Materials feat...

Vaynor
2007-03-10, 11:49 PM
You can also just ignore the cheap components without actually bothering with the Eschew Materials feat...

That's what I do anyway! Which is why I don't get why he's complaining.

RandomNPC
2007-03-10, 11:56 PM
i alter things all the time. try this one, change the alignments to work best for you.

my group likes doing the evil thing, so we played an anything goes game, followed by an evil game, and everyone enjoyed it. so we're a few games from the BBEG in the evil game and i tell everyone:

"Ok, we're getting to the end of the evil game, i've got some story to finish up with the characters from the last game" much rejoicing "then we're going on to something new, the story will be in a city, and its loosely based on the end of the tale our old characters tell."

so everyones fine with that then i say

"By the way, this story is going to be a no evil, and im asking people to sray from chaos, you can be chaotic, but your characters life will be difficult. you can retire a character and make a new one, but if you have your character blatantly go evil, i will inflict you with a new character."

everyone's actually getting pumped up over the idea.

Magnus_Samma
2007-03-10, 11:58 PM
Seems to me the real issue here isn't the free feat, it's that your player doesn't accept that DMs should be able to alter the rules if they want to. Show him the parts in the DMG where it says DMs are prefectly within their rights to change the rules if they feel so inclined.

Hallavast
2007-03-10, 11:58 PM
That's what I do anyway! Which is why I don't get why he's complaining.
Well, have you made sure the players know why you're making changes? I personally am opposed to DMs arbitrarily making changes to the rules. Why do you want to give sorcerers the feat if it doesn't mean anything, anyway?

Vaynor
2007-03-11, 12:00 AM
Well, have you made sure the players know why you're making changes? I personally am opposed to DMs arbitrarily making changes to the rules. Why do you want to give sorcerers the feat if it doesn't mean anything, anyway?

It's flavor. As wizards learn their power by study, and use certain objects to help them attain this. Sorcerers have their magic as an innate ability, and it seems stupid to me that it costs them bat guano to use an "innate" ability.

Anyways, I can't back down, I'd have lost.

Zincorium
2007-03-11, 12:03 AM
Anyways, I can't back down, I'd have lost.

Methinks that the players might feel the same way. It's obviously meaningless in game terms, but nobody feels like admitting they are wrong.

Begle1
2007-03-11, 12:04 AM
Eschew Materials isn't just for flavor, is it?

How are material components covered by RAW? The way we've always done it, material had to be held in hand during casting. Meaning that a hand had to be free. Eschew Materials let's you not worry about holding bat guano.

I don't know if the rules say that you need to be holding the material, though. Nor do I know how many spells without somatic components have material components...

ray53208
2007-03-11, 12:10 AM
all it takes to disable an arcane spellcaster is to take his components. its limits the spells he can cast to those with only somatic and verbal components. its an achilles heel built into the mechanics. youve just removed it for sorcerers.

its an easily compensated for weakness. 5 gold and youve got the pouch, assuming you have access to a shop.

so now you have sorcerers out in the wilderness or deep in a dungeon, they lose their pouch... but, now, who cares? the only spells affected by the loss of that pouch are spells that actually list a GP cost for components.

it is a slight advantage, it is a bit unfair.

Assassinfox
2007-03-11, 12:13 AM
so now you have sorcerers out in the wilderness or deep in a dungeon, they lose their pouch... but, now, who cares? the only spells affected by the loss of that pouch are spells that actually list a GP cost for components.

Honestly, have you ever had that happen to you, or seen it happen?

Hallavast
2007-03-11, 12:13 AM
Eschew Materials isn't just for flavor, is it?

How are material components covered by RAW? The way we've always done it, material had to be held in hand during casting. Meaning that a hand had to be free. Eschew Materials let's you not worry about holding bat guano.

I don't know if the rules say that you need to be holding the material, though. Nor do I know how many spells without somatic components have material components...
Well, there's also the fact that if you're captured and your stuff is taken, you don't have to worry about finding new materials. But yeah, giving sorcerers the feat is perfectly fine. Just make sure you tell them why you're doing it. If they still argue then you'll likely not ever convince them otherwise. Some people will ignore evidence if it proves their idea wrong.

Bouldering Jove
2007-03-11, 12:14 AM
The sum mechanical effect of getting Eschew Materials for free is that targeting and destroying the spell component pouch doesn't eliminate someone's arcane spellcasting potential.

Which might sound significant, until you try to remember the last time someone targeted a spell component pouch in-game.

Vaynor
2007-03-11, 12:15 AM
all it takes to disable an arcane spellcaster is to take his components. its limits the spells he can cast to those with only somatic and verbal components. its an achilles heel built into the mechanics. youve just removed it for sorcerers.

its an easily compensated for weakness. 5 gold and youve got the pouch, assuming you have access to a shop.

so now you have sorcerers out in the wilderness or deep in a dungeon, they lose their pouch... but, now, who cares? the only spells affected by the loss of that pouch are spells that actually list a GP cost for components.

it is a slight advantage, it is a bit unfair.

My point is I am the DM. I'm allowed to do that, if I feel it justified.

If he keeps this up I'll take it away and enforce components on a copper by copper basis. :smallwink:

@^ Exactly.

TheDarkOne
2007-03-11, 12:21 AM
Honestly, have you ever had that happen to you, or seen it happen?

Not very often, but honestly, it should. No one should be able to play a class with an obviously exploitable flaw and not be even a little afriad about having it exploited.

Vaynor
2007-03-11, 12:23 AM
Not very often, but honestly, it should. No one should be able to play a class with an obviously exploitable flaw and not be even a little afriad about having it exploited.

What kind of thing would target and completely destroy a spell pouch, and if so, how would they identify it?

Also, I wonder what AC a spell component pouch has...

Bouldering Jove
2007-03-11, 12:26 AM
Not very often, but honestly, it should. No one should be able to play a class with an obviously exploitable flaw and not be even a little afriad about having it exploited.
No one should have to be afraid that the entire strength of their class will be stripped away on a moment's notice, either. Weaknesses that can be exploited and force the player to think strategically are good, but if people enjoyed playing crippled characters, we wouldn't have all the character balance discussions that we do.

Roderick_BR
2007-03-11, 12:28 AM
If you don't keep track for components that costs less than 5 gp, you can houserule that all spellcasters have it, or just say that you don't need to keep track at all for everyone.

Hallavast
2007-03-11, 12:30 AM
No one should have to be afraid that the entire strength of their class will be stripped away on a moment's notice, either. Weaknesses that can be exploited and force the player to think strategically are good, but if people enjoyed playing crippled characters, we wouldn't have all the character balance discussions that we do.
Take away a fighter's weapons and the same thing happens. It's a part of the game. It's not so bad. The fighter can fight with improvised weapons or pick up those of slain enemies and the like, and wizards can grab slain enemy wizards' pouches or just use spells that don't require materials (there are quite a few). They aren't completely powerless without that little bag, you know.

SeekerInTheNight
2007-03-11, 12:31 AM
Actually, this is one of my favorite tricks as a DM. You don't target the spell pouch itself, you just light em on fire or use spells that destroy cloth or non-metal non-living matter. ^_^ They never see it coming.

Bouldering Jove
2007-03-11, 12:44 AM
Take away a fighter's weapons and the same thing happens. It's a part of the game. It's not so bad. The fighter can fight with improvised weapons or pick up those of slain enemies and the like, and wizards can grab slain enemy wizards' pouches or just use spells that don't require materials (there are quite a few). They aren't completely powerless without that little bag, you know.
When a fighter has to improvise, their damage output suffers, but they're still fundamentally serving the same role. A spellcaster losing some of their spell repertoire, particularly a sorceror who doesn't get to prepare a new spell selection every day, will have their role altered. If that's a significant loss, it's not a fun situation for that player. If it isn't a significant loss, there's no reason to have material components in the first place.

Hallavast
2007-03-11, 12:47 AM
When a fighter has to improvise, their damage output suffers, but they're still fundamentally serving the same role. A spellcaster losing some of their spell repertoire, particularly a sorceror who doesn't get to prepare a new spell selection every day, will have their role altered. If that's a significant loss, it's not a fun situation for that player. If it isn't a significant loss, there's no reason to have material components in the first place.
It IS fun, though. It's just an added degree of difficulty to the challenge at hand. Again, there are LOADS of spells without any material components. You could technically design an entire known list from them. You're not as crippled as you might think.

Lemur
2007-03-11, 01:09 AM
If you'll accept some advice from the amoral crowd:

It doesn't really matter who's right and wrong here. No one in the party is playing a sorceror, so it's not important.

Thus, if you have no moral compunctions about it, lie to your players. Suck it up, and tell them that you're going to go with normal D&D rules, and remove your houserule.

Only, don't actually remove the houserule. Just give every sorceror NPC the feat for free. Since your PCs shouldn't be looking at DM info, then they'll never find out, and it's well within your power as DM to withold information like this from your players. If one of them somehow works out that the sorceror has an extra feat (I can't imagine how) then they're metagaming way too much.

If a PC plays a sorceror at a later point, he doesn't get Eschew Materials for free. The players shouldn't have any problem with this, since at least one of them would be against it otherwise, and in any case, they don't know that other sorcerors get the feat for free. If you want to justify it with your world, just assume that said PC sorceror needs material components as psychological reinforcement. For some reason, the PC has associated bat guano with explosions, and needs to hold some in order to cast the spell.

If you're worried about losing face by admitting you were wrong (which is silly, imho), you can always console yourself that you were able to tactfully deal with the situation and outsmart your players with your superior intellect.

Ahhh, evil. Is there anything you can't do?

Vaynor
2007-03-11, 01:14 AM
If you're worried about losing face by admitting you were wrong (which is silly, imho), you can always console yourself that you were able to tactfully deal with the situation and outsmart your players with your superior intellect.

That's not what I'm worried about. It's just I believe strongly that this should be in there and am not going to back down.

Hallavast
2007-03-11, 01:24 AM
That's not what I'm worried about. It's just I believe strongly that this should be in there and am not going to back down.
I'm sure they feel the same way. They won't back down either. You've got to remember that the argument at hand has evolved into whether or not you have the right to change what's in the book. You said that they don't care that you've broken the rules before, so there really is no reasoning with them... unless there is something you're not telling us... I don't doubt your honesty. It's just that it's hard to believe your players could be so vehement about a silly rule like this one unless there was something more to it that you might have forgotten or something...

Vaynor
2007-03-11, 01:31 AM
I'm sure they feel the same way. They won't back down either. You've got to remember that the argument at hand has evolved into whether or not you have the right to change what's in the book. You said that they don't care that you've broken the rules before, so there really is no reasoning with them... unless there is something you're not telling us... I don't doubt your honesty. It's just that it's hard to believe your players could be so vehement about a silly rule like this one unless there was something more to it that you might have forgotten or something...

That's why I made this thread. To see if there was some unknown reason for them being so tough on me for it. You know, to see why they were thinking like that.

And believe me, they're mad, and I'm just as clueless as you.

Hallavast
2007-03-11, 01:36 AM
That's why I made this thread. To see if there was some unknown reason for them being so tough on me for it. You know, to see why they were thinking like that.

And believe me, they're mad, and I'm just as clueless as you.
Really? I was under the impression that you made this thread in order to show your players that the boards agree with you? You've even gone to the extent in a separate thread that those who dissagree with you shouldn't vote on your poll. :smallwink:

TheElfLord
2007-03-11, 01:47 AM
Well why he's coming from a position that you don't have the right to change something as the DM, that could just be a screen for his real reason.

The fact is, if no one is playing a sorcerer, and you told them that sorcerer's get the feat after they made characters, then the only people who benifit from the house rule are NPCs, most likely hostle ones. He might be upset because you are giving certain enemies an extra feat under the heading of flavor. I don't know if you described it more to him, but just telling me you are doing something "for flavor" tends to sound weak.

As for innate magic usering having to use spell components, take a look at Mage: The Acenction. In there basically all the magic users have innate talent but they still require outside materials to make magic work.

In the end though, it is your right to make changes as the DM, but I would caution against using this power arbitrailly or heavy handedly. The gentler you are with its usage the better.

P.S. Holding onto a position because you won't back down is never a good reason. I'm tempted to vote that you are wrong based simply on that.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-03-11, 01:48 AM
I agree with you, but I'm not voting, since I don't see why you need to bring a bunch of strangers on the internet into a pissing match between yourself and your players. They're in the wrong. They won't admit it. They're jerks. What are we supposed to do about it that you, their friend, can't?

Hallavast
2007-03-11, 01:50 AM
I agree with you, but I'm not voting, since I don't see why you need to bring a bunch of strangers on the internet into a pissing match between yourself and your players. They're in the wrong. They won't admit it. They're jerks. What are we supposed to do about it that you, their friend, can't?
If you agree with him, you're supposed to vote so that his argument will look stronger, duh. You're supposedly an objective party. However, if you dissagree with him, you're not supposed to say anything. Think of it as propaganda - dirty, dishonest propaganda...

Nerd-o-rama
2007-03-11, 01:53 AM
But see, I don't care about his argument. His players don't care about my opinion. I don't see why the thoughts of any number of greasy internet nerds (no offense) would succeed where reason, logic, common sense, and basic respect for your fellow human beings have already failed.

Hallavast
2007-03-11, 01:59 AM
But see, I don't care about his argument. His players don't care about my opinion. I don't see why the thoughts of any number of greasy internet nerds (no offense) would succeed where reason, logic, common sense, and basic respect for your fellow human beings have already failed.
Good for you. I really don't care about the argument either anymore. I just care about letting people know that they are being duped.

Vaynor
2007-03-11, 02:00 AM
Really? I was under the impression that you made this thread in order to show your players that the boards agree with you? You've even gone to the extent in a separate thread that those who dissagree with you shouldn't vote on your poll. :smallwink:

Joking of course. :smallbiggrin:


P.S. Holding onto a position because you won't back down is never a good reason. I'm tempted to vote that you are wrong based simply on that.

I'm holding my position because I know I'm right, and refuse to back down simply because they may try and force me to. I'm one to stand up for what he believes in.


I agree with you, but I'm not voting, since I don't see why you need to bring a bunch of strangers on the internet into a pissing match between yourself and your players. They're in the wrong. They won't admit it. They're jerks. What are we supposed to do about it that you, their friend, can't?

I mostly just wanted to make sure I wasn't wrong. Like I wasn't seeing some big, obvious thing that my players were. Also, I hoped that showing them that most of the greasy internet nerds agreed with me might sway them. :smallwink:

Nerd-o-rama
2007-03-11, 02:05 AM
Oh. Well, wasn't the chorus of agreement in the thread where this topic was inspired enough for the first part? As for the second part...yeah. Good wombatin' luck with that. If they're not going to listen to their friend, who has the very basic ideals of cooperative roleplaying games on his side, they aren't going to listen to anyone.

Fawsto
2007-03-11, 02:09 AM
In my DM vision of Sorcerers (before I met the Warlock) I always said that their magic is natural, spontanous, not bound to alchemical components. In the way I DM, Sorcerers use materials only when they have a significant cost. Btw... I don't even consider low price materials even for the other casters! I belive taht if a Wizard can pay like 5 gp to get a material, this material is so easy to find that he always has a small ammount with him. I always say to my Players who want to take any casters: "Don't buy that feat... I don't even consider those materials as pre-reqs in the game..."

That's the way I DM... Bringing those small costs to game makes the game boring...

If they insist on that, do the following: Any time the group's caster use a magic with a material pre-req (mostly the sheap materials ones) ask: "Do you have the material? Oh you do? Hmmm so why your money wasn't changed when you bought it? Well... If your money is the same, you have no components... Sry, Buddies, you chose this way."

If they bug you with this annoiying subject, rule like they wan't. If they want to pay for sulfur and bat's crap each time they want to cast a fireball, make they pay every single gold coin on it... And no, there are no bat caves around neither are sulfur pits.


Anoying players whom don't respect a DMs housewules should be treated as they deserve. Sound's mean? Well, acting like that they are being mean with you!

Hallavast
2007-03-11, 02:11 AM
Oh. Well, wasn't the chorus of agreement in the thread where this topic was inspired enough for the first part? As for the second part...yeah. Good wombatin' luck with that. If they're not going to listen to their friend, who has the very basic ideals of cooperative roleplaying games on his side, they aren't going to listen to anyone.

Between you and I, I think there's something about the argument that he's left out. :smallwink:

LotharBot
2007-03-11, 02:29 AM
Vaynor, if everything is as you say, I don't see any reason for your players to be upset.

This suggests to me three possibilities:
1) Your players are jerks, just trying to bully you
2) You haven't told us the whole truth, and they have good reason
3) The dispute between you and the players isn't about Eschew Materials at all; somebody has some other beef with you and they're using this as a proxy argument

Think about possibility #3. Was some other player wanting to be DM? Did you deny somebody a rules change they wanted?

Bender
2007-03-11, 02:39 AM
We have an agreement in our group: DM = supreme übergod
anything the DM says (or doesn't say) goes, end of argument.
players: "hey, are you allowed to do that"
DM: "without me, this universe doesn't even exist..."
(not an actual conversation, just to show my point)

I don't use this often though, and mostly for ad hoc ruling, I wouldn't bother with the feat, I don't use it anyway, as already mentioned before, they won't notice anyway...

You might make an argument that all sorcerers need to have dragon blood (I wonder: do dragons need a spell component pouch?) or something like that. You might also give every class a silly feat that barely affects the game.

Kyrsis
2007-03-11, 02:45 AM
Well, I didn't vote because I can understand both sides. But the way I've always done house rules is to vote on them. If the players want to or don't want to use a rule, I let them decide. You'll not always make everyone happy, but allowing them to decide amongst themselves lets them influence the world they are a part of. Yes, the DM has final say, but there has to be compromise somewhere.

joe
2007-03-11, 02:45 AM
Personally I don't see too much wrong with a free Eschew Materials feat, except for at Epic levels, as I believe this feat is a prerequisite for the Feat "Ignore Material Components" meaning that Sorcerors would automatically qualify at level 21 for it.

Otherwise I don't think it would make too much a difference.

Vaynor
2007-03-11, 03:02 AM
Between you and I, I think there's something about the argument that he's left out. :smallwink:

Really, there's not.


Vaynor, if everything is as you say, I don't see any reason for your players to be upset.

This suggests to me three possibilities:
1) Your players are jerks, just trying to bully you
2) You haven't told us the whole truth, and they have good reason
3) The dispute between you and the players isn't about Eschew Materials at all; somebody has some other beef with you and they're using this as a proxy argument

Think about possibility #3. Was some other player wanting to be DM? Did you deny somebody a rules change they wanted?

I was forced to be DM because no one else wanted to do it. I did not deny a rules change, I even buffed the paladins mount (guy who is arguing).

And for the three possibilities, for some reason, they see it as completely unfair. I have no clue why.

Jannex
2007-03-11, 04:58 AM
Is it the "extra feat" aspect that's troubling the guy? If so, approach it from a different angle. Don't give sorcerers Eschew Materials as a bonus feat; simply make it a class feature of sorcerors that their spells simply do not require material components unless said component has a gp cost of more than X. Sorcerers' magic is fundamentally different from wizards' magic. I think that's even more in line with what you're envisioning for your world setting, and it avoids the "feat" complaint entirely.

For the record, I think you're right, conceptually, about sorcerers and material components. Sorcerous powers are supposed to be innate, inherent in the blood of the sorcerer. They don't require the intensive and hermetic study that wizards put into their magic. They also don't require bat crap. It just makes sense.

Vaynor
2007-03-11, 05:01 AM
Is it the "extra feat" aspect that's troubling the guy? If so, approach it from a different angle. Don't give sorcerers Eschew Materials as a bonus feat; simply make it a class feature of sorcerors that their spells simply do not require material components unless said component has a gp cost of more than X. Sorcerers' magic is fundamentally different from wizards' magic. I think that's even more in line with what you're envisioning for your world setting, and it avoids the "feat" complaint entirely.

For the record, I think you're right, conceptually, about sorcerers and material components. Sorcerous powers are supposed to be innate, inherent in the blood of the sorcerer. They don't require the intensive and hermetic study that wizards put into their magic. They also don't require bat crap. It just makes sense.

No, he's angry that I'm changing the classes too much. (this is pretty much all I did, except some minor details like on paladin mounts)

I believe someone on another thread used the title "Captain RAW is Sacrosanct".

its_all_ogre
2007-03-11, 05:34 AM
ok well the simple answer is do not give sorcerers the bonus feat.
then take away the minor buff on his paladins mount, after all HE wants to play by the RAW.
and then make sure every NPC spellcaster has a component pouch as part of his treasure. make sure they face lots of low level sorcerers.
the point of that bit? you get half the gold worth of the gear they loot of dead enemies, so after a fight with 30 level 1 sorcerers they will get 75gp less treasure(they wanted it this way remember) even give a horde of treasure, which is all spell component pouches(hence worth half)...
all the above was just silly was to annoy players, just take away any buffs you have given them that are away from RAW and it'll be fine.
or the immortal line: i am dm, this is my rule. whinge all you like i am not changing it. you want that rule changed? you dm...i'm fed up of doing it anyway.

CASTLEMIKE
2007-03-11, 06:34 AM
I don't see a problem unless there are bunches and bunches of other home rules.

Almost anyone who reads the boards will find the most common sorcerer home rules are generally along the lines of D6, 4 SPs and Eschew Materials and plenty of people post more.

DMing is usually a lot more work than playing. If a few home rules make you happy you should go for it.

I think Home Rules should be written down so there is no confusion and should Not take up more than a page normally (possibly two if requiring long descriptions clarifying).

It could be as simple as Campaign Home Rules:

#1 Sorcerers get free Eschew Materials Feat.

#2 All level 1PCs get a Freebie Bonus Feat. (For low level leveling up games which usually finish up around levels 5 - 10 I like the Freebie First Level Bonus Feat to all PCs that might make all your players happy giving them each a bone for this campaign).

#3 If you think that is to powerful give them each a Freebie Champions of Valor style Feat like Bastard of Azoun, Bardic Protege, Celestial Attended Birth, Church Acolyte, Enlightened Student, Knight Squire (allowing the PC the minor title of ESQUIRE an Unknighted Gentlemen at the bottom of the gentry in a Minor Order but superior to the majority of the populace) or Monastary Orphan. Some provided an extra skill or a MW Weapon or Armor (Up to Chain Mail) or Scroll or Potion (s) usually in the 150 - 300 GP range with a few with something like a Harper or Religious Token 300 GP providing a Skill Bonus or 2 Cantrips a Day or a Single Level 1 Spell a Day, Bonus Language and Regional Feat Options .

If your players think a Freebie Eschew Materials is empowering your game give them the Option for a a Free DM Character Pyschic Sorcerer Reformation.

According to DMG demographics 90% of the people live in Thorps, Hamlets or Villages.

It's your world so "Most" sorcerers can go to the Sorcerer's College or Academy at the nearest Town, City or Metropolis when their magic begins awakening (Think Poltergeist). With a high charisma the PC should have been sticking out noticeably already in the community and now with strange and weird magical effects going off around them word should quickly get around and public peer pressure should result in sending the child away for training. Either becoming a short term apprentice or protege of an older local Master of some sort for several months to get their power under control or to the nearest sorcerer college.

This normally results in taking the Collegiate Sorcerer Feat which provides some education and training which translate to a few in game bennies:

The UA Battle Sorcerer Variant D8, No ASF in light armor, ight armor proficiency, 3SPs, one less known spell a level min of 1 and one less daily casting of a spell, choice of a hand held weapon or Beguiler weapons one which is also a variant "Eschew Materials" Focus with a Draconic Spell Heritage Feat from Dragon #315 basically a single so so extra spell leveling up.

The Precocious Sorcerous Apprentice Feat provides the following:

The general home rule default fixes: D6, 4 SPs, Eschew Materials and I'd throw in Known Spells as a FS instead of a Draconic Heritage Feat with a bonus Known and Daily Casting of a Cantrip and a First Level Spell from the Bard Spell lists or Mage Craft from ECS along with a Craft Skill Focus of some sort.

Graduates of the College can learn an Arcane Variant of the level 3 Spell Domain AnySpell or level 6 AnySpell Greater as a Known Spell. The College PRC could be your variant of MotAO or GWoW or Blood Magus.

No player has to take your Home Rule Fix they can play a standard sorcerer or another character class.

Hope that helps.

Hypothetical
2007-03-11, 06:42 AM
A simple phrase for you.

"House Rules."

Any DM worth his salt, unless he is a strict "By The Rules!" runner, modifies certain rules to fit within his personal framework. If the players don't like it, they really have 2 choices. 1 ) Deal with it, 2) Don't play. That's the advantage of being a DM/GM. Your word is the Law.

As long as you don't take this fact to silly lengths ( no, a Red Dragon is not a one hit Kill Monster, and Goblins tend not to deal 8d6 damage per round) then your players will learn to appriciate your flexability. Especially if you realize that you have set up a nearly impossible task for the Party-Level and dumb the situation down a bit during the battle. ( Just remember to adjust the XP/Treasure as you go.)

clericwithnogod
2007-03-11, 07:40 AM
The DMG provides some pretty good guidance on this...

"Consider the following questions when you want to change a rule.
Why am I changing this rule?
Am I clear on how the rule that I’m going to change really works?
Have I considered why the rule existed as it did in the first place?
How will the change impact other rules or situations?
Will the change favor one class, race, skill, or feat more than the others?
Overall, is this change going to make more players happy or unhappy? (If the answer is “happy,” make sure the change isn’t unbalancing. If the answer is “unhappy,” make sure the change is worth it.)"

Note that for me this in combination with your listed reasons for the change added up to a "no" vote on whether you're right. Your change favors one class more than others. Your players don't like it. And, it doesn't seem worth the effort.


"Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical justification so that the players don’t rebel (more on that later)."

This also leads to a "no" vote. There's just not enough "flavor" in this change to logically justify changing a rule.

Matthew
2007-03-11, 09:16 AM
How do these arguments even come about? Are these guys your friends? Seriously, this is something you need to talk about outside of the game environment.

Ranis
2007-03-11, 09:46 AM
Kick his ass out of the game if he has problems with a minor change like this, he's just whining for attention.

Vaynor
2007-03-11, 11:27 AM
I don't see a problem unless there are bunches and bunches of other home rules.

Three pages. Small font. :smallbiggrin:


How do these arguments even come about? Are these guys your friends? Seriously, this is something you need to talk about outside of the game environment.

I showed him the list of house rules for the new game, and he pointed out some he didn't agree with. Then we started talking about it and it evolved into an argument. Yes, they are my friends. We haven't started the game yet.

Stagger Lee
2007-03-11, 11:34 AM
You're completely right. Hell, even with Eschew Materials, sorcerers are still nowhere near as good as wizards. Not that they aren't the second best core class.

Matthew
2007-03-11, 11:40 AM
I showed him the list of house rules for the new game, and he pointed out some he didn't agree with. Then we started talking about it and it evolved into an argument. Yes, they are my friends. We haven't started the game yet.

If you are friends, then he should respect your right to run that game the way you please. You proposed some House Rules. He pointed out which ones he didn't agree with. You listened to his reasons. You made a decision. End of story... but it's not.
It's just seems that after you have made your ruling your friend should respect it. Does he often contest your rulings within the game? This could turn into a systemic problem and you really need to nip it in the bud.

Nahal
2007-03-11, 11:49 AM
The only time that Eschew Materials for free makes a difference is if you plan on going epic and taking ignore material components, which by that point is probably essentially just flavour anyway.

clericwithnogod
2007-03-11, 12:03 PM
I would just kick him from the game if he keeps it up, problem is he'll just sway the rest of the players too and then I can't DM...

But TWo of my players are completely pissed off at me for the above reasons, and I need to know if I'm being horribly mean or it IS just them.

It's not just one friend, it's two, and the potential is there for everyone to walk... There is nothing wrong with compromise or retracting a house rule that players hate. It's not like if you make the game more fun for them they'll take it as a sign of weakness and start raping and pillaging through your house or something. Wipe the house rules, play by the RAW and have fun. If you can't manage that, then recruit a group of players that want to play with your house rules.

DMs are supposed to make the game fun for players. If being told you're right and having your word be law is more important to you than that, maybe not DMing isn't a bad thing...

Vaynor
2007-03-11, 12:55 PM
It's not just one friend, it's two, and the potential is there for everyone to walk... There is nothing wrong with compromise or retracting a house rule that players hate. It's not like if you make the game more fun for them they'll take it as a sign of weakness and start raping and pillaging through your house or something. Wipe the house rules, play by the RAW and have fun. If you can't manage that, then recruit a group of players that want to play with your house rules.

DMs are supposed to make the game fun for players. If being told you're right and having your word be law is more important to you than that, maybe not DMing isn't a bad thing...

The thing is if they asked for it instead of demanding I changed it I might be more lenient. Now they're just questioning my decision as a DM, after I made it final. One of the two friends always challenges my authority, and I feel that this is necessary to try and hold my position as an authoritative figure in my games.

I think I'll retract the rule, and then make all components be taken care of to the copper piece and make all of their opponents chokers who like small pouches. :smallwink:

shaddy_24
2007-03-11, 01:53 PM
I personally don't see why they are having so many problems with such a small rule. I just started my first game and had a few major changes, one for monks (unarmed combat styles, such as boxing or ju-jit-su) and one for the entire world (no res magic). None of the players had a problem and the monk player actually enjoyed it.

Logic
2007-03-11, 01:54 PM
My simple solution to this problem would be "If the house rule bugs you that much, then don't play. I am done arguing my point."

Is it overpowering? Hell no. Wizards Have Scribe Scroll at first level, but a tad fewer spells per day. And that Scribe Scroll is going to be useful for every single spell they know, unlike Eschew Materials, which is only going to affect spells with components of a value less than 1 GP.

Vaynor
2007-03-11, 02:20 PM
My simple solution to this problem would be "If the house rule bugs you that much, then don't play. I am done arguing my point."

The problem with that is is that they're my only IRL players, and I wouldn't even have a game without them.

...it's like blackmail...

Variable Arcana
2007-03-11, 02:51 PM
Question:

What were the other house rules your friend objected to?

Vaynor
2007-03-11, 03:07 PM
Question:

What were the other house rules your friend objected to?

Not important, I just had to tell him why and he understood for those. Just simple ones he didn't see why had to be there.

Anyways, I just revoked the eschew materials thing, but I am now reinforcing material components by the copper piece, and I also took away his mount buff. I let him tell the casters. :smallwink:

ssjKammak
2007-03-11, 03:27 PM
Gday,

Just a thought, if someone else has made this point i appologise, i read the first page and found some posters were getting off the topic due to personal issues about winning arguments (whihc i think is the real centre of your particualr predicament). I agree with you whole heartedly fundamentally if you are DMing players have to be willing ot be flexible to your particular style of play and rules. Personally you made a very simple and valid point with a fair and reasonable supporting argument. i.e. im DMing I don't care about materials worth less than a gold, I feel that level of roleplaying slows the game down, also you laid down a very clear and concise reason for why you feel scorcerers and not wizards deserve the bonus feat.

In the end players who don't agree, need to make up there mind do they want to play and have fun, or argue about somethign that honestly doesnt effect there party and if anythign can only help them should they play a scorcerer. If they want to argue, i would suggest they think hard about why they play teh game, is it to be right or to roel some dice and have some fun with your mates.

Cheers
Just an aussies 2 cents

Vaynor
2007-03-11, 05:16 PM
That's how I feel too. :smallwink: