Am I Being Unreasonable?

[Bartmanhomer]

Ok yesterday my DM talk about the certain role of my character that I'm playing in my undead campaign. So I told him that I'm playing a vampire spawn human male bard for debuffing and spell caster. And he tell me that playing a bard is no good in this campaign. I told him that is the class that I feel most comfortable because I just don't want to go power crazy with a very high class (Tier 1 class) that I didn't choose. Plus I want to play a bard because it a tier 3 class. Then he recommends me to choose a spellthief. I didn't even want to argue with him so I choose that class plus I have great plans for the bard. Am I being unreasonable? :confused:

[heavyfuel]

Why is he so against Bards? I don't think a DM being against a particular class is a red flag, but Bard seems like a strange choice here.

Anyway, push for extra information on why "bard is no good in this campaign". See if there's a reasonable explanation. If he's dead set on not allowing Bards, maybe find a different class with similar feel, like the Beguiler

[grarrrg]

Why is he so against Bards?
...
Anyway, push for extra information on why "bard is no good in this campaign". See if there's a reasonable explanation.

^This^
also <this>

[Bartmanhomer]

Why is he so against Bards? I don't think a DM being against a particular class is a red flag, but Bard seems like a strange choice here.

Anyway, push for extra information on why "bard is no good in this campaign". See if there's a reasonable explanation. If he's dead set on not allowing Bards, maybe find a different class with similar feel, like the BeguilerAs I mentioned before he said that Bards aren't as good and would lower as a tier 5. Also he also mentioned that Bards not as good as Warlocks, Wizards, Clerics and Druids.

[heavyfuel]

As I mentioned before he said that Bards aren't as good and would lower as a tier 5. Also he also mentioned that Bards not as good as Warlocks, Wizards, Clerics and Druids.

So he doesn't like Bards because they're too weak, and then he recommends an even weaker class? This is making no sense.

[Bartmanhomer]

Trust me when I say ditch the DM.

A DM who thinks he's top dawg when he doesn't know **** is gonna railroad you hard with wrongness and get all pissy when you correct him and you will end up hating the game. No gaming is better than bad gaming.

This isn't the only thing he will do to you so leave him. A lot of people think they're smarter than you and have better system mastery than you just because they're the DM. This is one such DM. Trust me. I've ignored this red flag too many times.
Ok. I just want to see how this play out. Thanks. :smile:

Update: I check the tier of spellthief and it a tier 4. I'm dropping this game.

[Powerdork]

Ask if it's about the undead immunity to mind-affecting effects, but after digging up the bard's answer to that immunity.

[Bartmanhomer]

Ask if it's about the undead immunity to mind-affecting effects, but after digging up the bard's answer to that immunity.

I drop out of the game. No need to ask that now.

[CharonsHelper]

So he doesn't like Bards because they're too weak, and then he recommends an even weaker class? This is making no sense.

Spellthieves are solid enough if you've got other spellcasters in the group who will play along and let you borrow spells (especially sorcerers and/or battle clerics since they both tend to have spell slots to burn), but I'll agree that bard is a very solid class as well. (Bard is probably my favorite.)

Though actually - with Master Spellthief, there is little reason not to multiclass out of Spellthief into another arcane casting class - even into Bard.

Maybe the DM wrongly thought that the bard's morale bonus wouldn't affect undead?

[Alucard 109]

Hi, the DM he's complaining about here to clarify some things.
I have no trouble with bard. It's actually one of, maybe even my favorite class. The problem I had was that his character was a VERY poorly built bard and it had a noticable effect on how well he could participate. I offered the spellthief (edit: after he asked for a recommendation) because it's abilities were much better suited to the role he wanted to play. I didn't make the choice mandatory either. I offered (not required) to let him change class (in the middle of the quest), and offered spellthief as a possible choice.

Edit: also, morale bonuses/penalties are considered mind effecting, and actually DO NOT effect undead. There is a feat that allows bard song to effect undead, but you can't take it until lvl 6, and it's still not as effective as the bard song would be on a living target

[Falontani]

Hi, the DM he's complaining about here to clarify some things.
I have no trouble with bard. It's actually one of, maybe even my favorite class. The problem I had was that his character was a VERY poorly built bard and it had a noticable effect on how well he could participate. I offered the spellthief because it's abilities were much better suited to the role he wanted to play. I didn't make the choice mandatory either. I offered (not required) to let him change class (in the middle of the quest), and offered spellthief as a possible choice.
This is so so reasoning. I can't judge because I don't know what exactly he was intending to do. Bards are a very versatile class and if built correctly (which imo is part of the dm's job to assist players with build help if they need it) could very well do great even of their main thing is nerfed slightly. However, spellthief could be what he was trying to build without knowledge of spellthief.

Edit: also, morale bonuses/penalties are considered mind effecting, and actually DO NOT effect undead. There is a feat that allows bard song to effect undead, but you can't take it until lvl 6, and it's still not as effective as the bard song would be on a living target

1. A bard without access to bardic music is still a great skill monkey and spellcaster.

2. There are enough alternate class features for bard to give up the majority of their bardic music and get things in return for them.

3. Dirgesinger while not great is a undead central bard prestige class. Coupled with good spell selection and good feats could open up a good necromantic bard that is still better than base spellthief.

4. I have read that elves can lower their immunity to sleep, liches can lower their immunity to polymorph, I'm certain that there is a sect of vampires that voluntarily lower their mind affecting immunity to enjoy spells like good hope, crushing despair, rage, and more like the cattle do.

[Alucard 109]

This is so so reasoning. I can't judge because I don't know what exactly he was intending to do. Bards are a very versatile class and if built correctly (which imo is part of the dm's job to assist players with build help if they need it) could very well do great even of their main thing is nerfed slightly. However, spellthief could be what he was trying to build without knowledge of spellthief.


1. A bard without access to bardic music is still a great skill monkey and spellcaster.

2. There are enough alternate class features for bard to give up the majority of their bardic music and get things in return for them.

3. Dirgesinger while not great is a undead central bard prestige class. Coupled with good spell selection and good feats could open up a good necromantic bard that is still better than base spellthief.

4. I have read that elves can lower their immunity to sleep, liches can lower their immunity to polymorph, I'm certain that there is a sect of vampires that voluntarily lower their mind affecting immunity to enjoy spells like good hope, crushing despair, rage, and more like the cattle do.

I had to ask what his character was supposed to be good at, and was surprised by the answer. That's all you should need to know, but if it's not I can offer links.

The bit about morale bonuses was merely academic, because he had already traded away his bard song for Bardic Knack (admittedly, at my recommendation, because I had assumed he was going to build a skill monkey due to his class skill choices)

To everyone saying I'm a terrible DM based off a couple of paragraphs from a very biased perspective, try not to jump to conclusions so quickly. Especially when links to what actually happened are easy to come by. I'll be the first to say I'm far from perfect, but I put a lot of time, effort, and thought into trying to make sure everyone is having fun.

Edit: someone asked for his build, so here it is
voice color
Race: vampire spawn (human)
Alignment: CE
class: Bard 1/ vampire spawn 1
HP: 19 (2hd)
Initiative: +1
Speed: 30 ft
AC: 15 (+4 armor, +1 dex) flat footed: 14, touch:11
Base attack/grapple: +0/+1
Attacks: slam ( +1 to hit, 1d4+1 damage, x2 crit, bludgeoning), or rapier (+1 to hit, 1d6+1 damage, 18-20 crit threat, x2 crit, piercing), or MW heavy crossbow (+2 to hit, 1d10, 19-20 crit threat, x2 crit, piercing, range increment 120ft, 40 MW arrows)
Size: medium
Special attacks: blood drain (a vampire spawn may suck the blood from the veins of a living victim by making a successful grapple check. if it pins its foe, it drains blood, dealing 1d4 Con drain each round the pin is maintained. on each successful grapple, the vampire spawn gains 5 temp HP that last up to 1 hour.)
Special qualities: No Constitution score.
Darkvision out to 60 feet.
Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects).
Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, and death effects.
Not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain. Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), as well as to fatigue and exhaustion effects.
Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless).
Uses its Charisma modifier for Concentration checks.
Not at risk of death from massive damage, but when reduced to 0 hit points or less, it is immediately destroyed.
Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.
do not breathe, eat, or sleep.
Vampires cannot tolerate the strong odor of garlic and will not enter an area laced with it. Similarly, they recoil from a mirror or a strongly presented holy symbol. These things don’t harm the vampire—they merely keep it at bay. A recoiling vampire must stay at least 5 feet away from a creature holding the mirror or holy symbol and cannot touch or make melee attacks against the creature holding the item for the rest of the encounter. Holding a vampire at bay takes a standard action.
Vampires are also unable to cross running water, although they can be carried over it while resting in their coffins or aboard a ship.
They are utterly unable to enter a home or other building unless invited in by someone with the authority to do so. They may freely enter public places, since these are by definition open to all.
Exposing any vampire to direct sunlight disorients it: It can take only a single move action or attack action and is destroyed utterly in the next round if it cannot escape.
Similarly, immersing a vampire in running water robs it of one-third of its hit points each round until it is destroyed at the end of the third round of immersion.
diet requirement: blood- must drink blood at least once every 3 days. If he does not, he must make a dc 15 will save or take 2d4 wisdom damage. this damage cannot be healed by any other means than by drinking blood, but is instantaneously healed the moment he does so.
inescapable craving: life force- must drain Con points from a living creature at least once a day. if he does not, he must make a dc 25 will save or take 1d6 wisdom damage. this damage cannot be healed by any other means than by draining Con points from a living creature, but is instantaneously healed the moment he does so.
+2 turn resistance
bardic knowledge, bardic knack
(can cast 3 lvl 0 spells per day)
Spells known: read magic, detect magic, lullaby, flare.
save dc of lvl 0 spells is 13
Saves: fort+0, ref+3, will+5
Abilities: Str 12, Dex 13, Con -, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 17
bluff+ 10 (+5 ranks, +3 Cha,+2 racial bonus)
concentration +8 (+5 ranks, +3 cha)
diplomacy +5 (+3 cha, +2 synergy bonus)
hide +7 (+5 ranks, +1 Dex, +2 racial bonus, -1 Armor check penalty)
knowledge arcana +3 (+1 rank, +2 Int)
listen +8 (+5 ranks, +1 Wis, +2 racial)
move silently +7(+5 ranks, +1 Dex, +2 racial bonus, -1 Armor check penalty)
perform sing +8 (+5 ranks, +3 Cha)
search +8 (+4 ranks, +2 Int, +2 racial bonus)
sense motive +7 (+4 ranks, +1 Wis, +2 racial bonus)
spellcraft +6 (+4 ranks, +2 Int)
spot+3 (+1 Wis, +2 racial bonus)
Feats: point blank shot, precise shot
MW chain shirt (250gp, 25lbs)
MW heavy crossbow (350gp, 8lbs)
36 MW bolts (220gp, 4lbs)
rapier (15gp, 2lbs), silk rope (10gp, 5lbs)
grappling hook (1gp 4lbs)
winter blanket (5sp, 3lbs)
bedroll (1sp, 5lbs)
25 GP
Blackout single person tent (10gp 10lbs)
Sack of rats (0gp, 3lbs) contains 3 live rats
languages:common, abyssal, infernal
Daniel Pleasant is a cheater. He have a long time affair with one of the vampire Servants, Kaylynn. He wife Mary-Sue Pleasant caught both Daniel and Kaylynn in the act. Daniel murdered his wife and married Kaylynn. He have been a long time worshipping Nerull and he realized that Nerull common enemy is Vecna an undead sorcerer who been at war with Nerull for the beginning of time. Now Daniel is on an adventure to defeat the followers of Vecna in the name of Nerul

The black out tent and bag of rats had to be provided by me (for free) at the beginning of the session, because he had forgotten basic survival necessities and the background is word for word how he wrote it. He said he wanted his character to specialize in debuffing and spellcasting
Also, he had used some bolts during the session, so that's why there's an odd amount

[Crake]

This much is true. If an elf can intentionally fall asleep despite being immune to sleep, i don't see why intelligent creatures immune to morale effects can't intentionally receive those effects. AFAIK it's not like spell resistance where lowering spell resistance costs a standard action.

I've thought about this myself, but you need to draw a line somewhere. For example, can an undead drop their immunity to poison? I would say not, since they lack a metabolic system to process the poison in the first place. As a DM, I rule that any type based immunities (but not subtype based ones, like Tanar'ri or Baatezu) are natural, physical properties of the creature that cannot be changed or dropped, so undead cannot even be willingly affected by mind affecting, nor can plants or mindless beings that are somehow ordered to "drop their immunity" by some means.

This is of course my own personal ruling, but think about it this way: If an undead could willingly drop their immunity to morale effects, why would you even need the bard feat to affect undead with positive effects in the first place?


The bit about morale bonuses was merely academic, because he had already traded away his bard song for Bardic Knack (admittedly, at my recommendation, because I had assumed he was going to build a skill monkey due to his class skill choices)

Uhh, isn't bardic knack a trade for bardic knowledge, not any of the bardic musics?

[Alucard 109]

Uhh, isn't bardic knack a trade for bardic knowledge, not any of the bardic musics?

Normally, yes. But I made an exception, and allowed it to be traded for Bardic Music instead, since Bardic knowledge would actually be useful as an undead, in an undead party, fighting primarily undead

[Crake]

Normally, yes. But I made an exception, and allowed it to be traded for Bardic Music instead, since Bardic knowledge would actually be useful as an undead, in an undead party, fighting primarily undead

Were you also going to make exception for the fact that you need to take all the levels in an undead monster class before progressing any further with class levels, so he'd be level 10 before getting his second bard level?

[Alucard 109]

Were you also going to make exception for the fact that you need to take all the levels in an undead monster class before progressing any further with class levels, so he'd be level 10 before getting his second bard level?

Yes, that was an exception everyone got due to this being a campaign where everyone was undead. You could take levels in a monster class as if they were any other class, with the exception that you can't have multiple monster classes at once, and monster classes had no multiclassing XP penalty

Edit: I also allowed Necropolitan as a LA+0 template, and didn't even require players to be undead (but did warn that It would likely have role-playing and strategic concequences if they didn't)

[Buufreak]

This might sound bias, but in a thread of an alleged bad dm vs the epitome of misunderstanding for rules, communication, information, and optimization that bart has proven over the past few years he is, I'm really thinking I know which side of the argument I'd lean towards.

I followed the original recruitment thread, and it was your standard run of the mill train wreck that he usually produces. I've seen the sheets he makes and the endless list of critiques he usually gets. Every step of the way was painful, to say the least.

[Alucard 109]

This might sound bias, but in a thread of an alleged bad dm vs the epitome of misunderstanding for rules, communication, information, and optimization that bart has proven over the past few years he is, I'm really thinking I know which side of the argument I'd lean towards.

I followed the original recruitment thread, and it was your standard run of the mill train wreck that he usually produces. I've seen the sheets he makes and the endless list of critiques he usually gets. Every step of the way was painful, to say the least.

Thanks.

By the way, the campaign is currently down at least one, maybe as many as three (waiting to hear back from people) players at the moment, if any of you guys are interested in an Undead centric war campaign. you all seem pretty reasonable and non-anurism inducing

[Psyren]

This might sound bias, but in a thread of an alleged bad dm vs the epitome of misunderstanding for rules, communication, information, and optimization that bart has proven over the past few years he is, I'm really thinking I know which side of the argument I'd lean towards.

I followed the original recruitment thread, and it was your standard run of the mill train wreck that he usually produces. I've seen the sheets he makes and the endless list of critiques he usually gets. Every step of the way was painful, to say the least.

I try to avoid painting with a broad brush but... yeah, this. I think the GM dodged a bullet here. Especially since OP's first instinct was to create an open complaint thread on the very forum that his game is taking place on rather than do... I dunno, literally anything else.

[Crake]

Thanks.

By the way, the campaign is currently down at least one, maybe as many as three (waiting to hear back from people) players at the moment, if any of you guys are interested in an Undead centric war campaign. you all seem pretty reasonable and non-anurism inducing

Unfortunately I strictly avoid play by post as a principle :smalltongue: Roll20 text only is my bare minimum, I like games to happen in at least pseudo-real time

[Alucard 109]

Once a week takes 1-2 years for one 1-20 campaign. How long does a play by post take?

It took about ten days to get 80% of the way through the first quest ( I always try to make it so players get just over the XP needed to lvl up during each mission) then things kinda stalled for a while (I'm currently trying to kick things back into gear, and am hoping people who aren't in 7 different rps at once will be able to post more consistently), so I'd say it varies on how dedicated the players/DM are

Edit: in a perfect world, I would estimate it could go as quickly as a bit under six months, but in a more realistic world, it's probably comparable to normal

[magic9mushroom]

liches can lower their immunity to polymorph

Eh, this is a bit more complicated. Lich immunity to mind-affecting* and polymorph only affects attacks. Buffing the lich isn't an attack, so they're not immune to it. There's nothing to lower.

*Note that their undead immunity to mind-affecting is not restricted to attacks. Basically, this means that if you hit a lich with a mind-affecting buff and have the feats to make it ignore the undead immunity, it goes through - but regardless of those feats, you're not getting a Dominate Person or Power Word Kill through.

[Crake]

Eh, this is a bit more complicated. Lich immunity to mind-affecting* and polymorph only affects attacks. Buffing the lich isn't an attack, so they're not immune to it. There's nothing to lower.

This becomes questionable when you have a spell that can be used to both buff and attack at the same time, for example polymorph any object. You could cast it and turn someone into a chicken, or cast it and turn someone into a hydra (admittedly regular polymorph has the same options, but regular polymorph is willing only and a (harmless) spell, wheras PAO is not). Does this mean that the lich is immune to PAO since it CAN be used as an attack? Likewise, calm emotions can be considered an attack to a raging barbarian, but it's also a buff to a person fleeing with fear, is the lich immune? (bad example since liches would already be immune to any attacks that calm emotions would suppress, but the point still stands)

[Zanos]

I try to avoid painting with a broad brush but... yeah, this. I think the GM dodged a bullet here. Especially since OP's first instinct was to create an open complaint thread on the very forum that his game is taking place on rather than do... I dunno, literally anything else.

I only know OP from the threads he makes on this forum, which usually are titled "I want to play a [gender] [alignment] [race] [class]" with little other informaton about what he actually wants to do, and getting more information with any method other than seeing what ideas he doesnt like is impossible.

[Rynjin]

Once a week takes 1-2 years for one 1-20 campaign. How long does a play by post take?

Generally accepted posting speed (at least on Paizo, where I do most of my PbP, it seems to be SIGNIFICANTLY slower on this site from the 3 games I've tried) is a minimum of one post per 24 hours from each participant.

I am currently participating in one of the longest running/highest volume PbPs on that site (second All Time total posts), and we're making our way Through Age of Worms. We've been playing consistently for 5 years (21, 550 posts; 551 once I make mine later today) as of earlier this week, and are level 13.

Without the significant slowdown of the last year (GM and the rest of us have been busy. We used to manage several posts a day apiece) we'd probably be a fair bit further, but c'est la vie.

[Rynjin]

Yeah, even once a week is too slow for me. I'd rather play d&d solo or host my own game with a DMPC (I know, terrible idea) than go PbP!

Once a week posting is generally where I consider dropping a game. Once a day isn't too hard to keep up, once very 1-3 days is easy. As long as everyone posts consistently PbP is a very rewarding experience. Players are more often in character and have deeper RP than my experience with live games which, while fun, are mostly fun because of the company shared and laughs had rather than the game itself, which is often about as fun as playing video games together, and are fairly interchangeable and one can swap to the other in an instant with our live groups.

[Razade]

Ok, so I gave the build a read, and what's the problem exactly? I expected to see sort of a longer term build because, 1st or 2nd level, all builds are virtually the same.

I called you a "bad DM" because it sounded like you were preventing the OP from playing what he wanted because of your lack of system mastery of the game, but if everything you said were just suggestions and not mandatory I don't see a problem on your side. If the OP said "i know what I'm doing so don't worry" and your reply was "Ok, alright, go ahead" then there's no problem here. If your reply was "No, I think you're gonna fail so go spellthief, no bard" then that's a problem with you but it seems like that's not what happened here.

I toyed around with bards when I was trying to optimize downward (same OP thing wizards do with lower tier classes) like Malconvoker Bards binding Mariliths with Infernal Bargainer, or Bard entry into Fiendbinder and the like. Or Assume Supernatural Ability:Animate Objects Illumian Bard for Gargantuan Animated Objects at a stupidly low level. So I know that Bards can be pretty epic even if you ditch everything they have except their spellcasting. So my thinking is judging his build at super low level might not have been a good idea, but again, it seemed like you said if he really wanted to you wouldn't stop him so there isn't any problems I'm seeing?

You could read the exchange instead of just calling someone a bad DM without any evidence.

[frogglesmash]

You could read the exchange instead of just calling someone a bad DM without any evidence.

There was no exchange to be read when RoboEmperor made their initial accusation. Ironically enough, you'd have known that if you'd read the thread

[Razade]

There was no exchange to be read when RoboEmperor made their initial accusation. Ironically enough, you'd have known that if you'd read the thread

That's impossible considering that the exchange happened on the 25th of this month and the accusation made a day later, the 26th. The issue began before the accusation made. The DM also pointed out where the thread was made. It seems that Robo still, now near two days later, hasn't actually gone to see what actually transpired. There wasn't just a conversation. The conversation had concluded.

It was only after Bartman saw that Spellthief was "Tier 4" that this whole thread became a thing. So ya know. I did read the threads. The timestamps on the posts too. Here and in the thread in question. Even Bartman mentioned that the discussion happened a day prior to them posting this thread.

[frogglesmash]

That's impossible considering that the exchange happened on the 25th of this month and the accusation made a day later, the 26th. The issue began before the accusation made. The DM also pointed out where the thread was made. It seems that Robo still, now near two days later, hasn't actually gone to see what actually transpired. There wasn't just a conversation. The conversation had concluded.

It was only after Bartman saw that Spellthief was "Tier 4" that this whole thread became a thing. So ya know. I did read the threads. The timestamps on the posts too. Here and in the thread in question.

Was there some factor that I'm unaware of that should have made RoboEmperor aware of this information before they made their comment, or am I correct in assuming that this was all made clear after the fact?

[Razade]

So my accusation was post #6, the DM's first post is #11. There was no mention about where the game was at for posts #1-10. Am I supposed to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the gitp's database to know of this exchange when i didn't even expect the DM to be a playgrounder too?

:smallannoyed:

You could have done it after? Apologized to Alucard instead of qualifying if Bartman wasn't accurate. A quick look at the thread in question would have shown that Alucard did in fact merely suggest. Not demand.


Was there some factor that I'm unaware of that should have made RoboEmperor aware of this information before they made their comment, or am I correct in assuming that this was all made clear after the fact?

If by factor you mean the entire problem that Bartman came here to bring up? Yep. Combined with the above..ya know...apologizing for making assumptions...yep again.

[frogglesmash]

You could have done it after? Apologized to Alucard instead of qualifying if Bartman wasn't accurate. A quick look at the thread in question would have shown that Alucard did in fact merely suggest. Not demand.

Those goalposts sure know how to move.



If by factor you mean the entire problem that Bartman came here to bring up? Yep. Combined with the above..ya know...apologizing for making assumptions...yep again.

Sooo "no" is what you're saying.

[Razade]

So you're saying I should've been able to predict that Bartman's DM was Alucard based on the first 5 posts of this thread, known there was a PbP game between the two of them here instead of it being some kind of table at a shop or online on roll20 or the like, and wait for Alucard to show his side of the fight before I comment because I knew he'd respond to Bartman's post.

You shouldn't accuse someone of being bad off biased information, especially at the level that Bartman provides in these fairly typical threads of his. It doesn't matter if you had the exchange or not. It's only worse from there when other information does start coming in to double down.

[frogglesmash]

You shouldn't accuse someone of being bad off biased information, especially at the level that Bartman provides in these fairly typical threads of his. It doesn't matter if you had the exchange or not. It's only worse from there when other information does start coming in to double down.

1. If we waited for all sides of the story to come in these kinds of advice threads would never get off the ground, and that doesn't help anybody.

2. It's unreasonable to expect people to be aware of every user's personality, and post history.

3. Qualifying a statement is not the same as doubling down on a statement.

[Mordaedil]

Back on topic people, before the sheriff comes to clean up this town.

[Crake]

If the OP said "i know what I'm doing so don't worry" and your reply was "Ok, alright, go ahead" then there's no problem here. If your reply was "No, I think you're gonna fail so go spellthief, no bard" then that's a problem with you but it seems like that's not what happened here.

As a long term DM, I'm going to have to strongly disagree with this. I think being able to anticipate problems and have them fixed before they become an issue as a very valuable DMing skill, as if you just let players play whatever, and they make something that's generally terrible, or out of line with the rest of the party's power level, or just generally too conflicting (I don't mind inter party conflict, but playing a neutral sorcerer who plans to go into malconvoker and summon demons, alongside a paladin... yeah, that's gonna cause issues, someone's going to need to adjust), then being able to anticipate that and fix it ahead of time by talking to the player, before it ruins the game, and it can ruin the game for everyone involved when the player suddenly realises their character (not the player) is ostracised from the group for some reason, or they get mopey because their character is woefully ineffective, etc etc, and it leads to that player's mood souring the atmosphere, potentially quitting, which means you're a player down, it might be later in the game, so rerolling could be very jarring to suddenly have a new person randomly introduced.

Point being, anticipating a problem, like a generally mind affecting bard character who won't be able to properly use half his class features until potentally halfway through the game (level 6, if the game is going to span 12 levels, could be even worse if it's only going till like, level 9 or something), and suggesting the player play something else to match his vision for his character is not a bad thing to do as a DM.

[ShurikVch]

bluff+ 10 (+5 ranks, +3 Cha,+2 racial bonus)
concentration +8 (+5 ranks, +3 cha)
diplomacy +5 (+3 cha, +2 synergy bonus)
hide +7 (+5 ranks, +1 Dex, +2 racial bonus, -1 Armor check penalty)
knowledge arcana +3 (+1 rank, +2 Int)
listen +8 (+5 ranks, +1 Wis, +2 racial)
move silently +7(+5 ranks, +1 Dex, +2 racial bonus, -1 Armor check penalty)
perform sing +8 (+5 ranks, +3 Cha)
search +8 (+4 ranks, +2 Int, +2 racial bonus)
sense motive +7 (+4 ranks, +1 Wis, +2 racial bonus)
spellcraft +6 (+4 ranks, +2 Int)
spot+3 (+1 Wis, +2 racial bonus)
Feats: point blank shot, precise shotNumber of listed skill ranks is incorrect: while, indeed, Daniel Pleasant will get 43 skill points as a Human Bard 1/Vampire Spawn 1 with Int 14, neither Concentration nor Perform (sing) are on the Vampire Spawn's class skill list - thus, should cost double (no Able Learner feat)


bag of rats had to be provided by me (for free) at the beginning of the sessionWouldn't Wight Rats a bit too OP on this level?

[Crake]

This depends on whether the DM is right or not. If the DM is right you're right. If the DM is wrong then you're wrong because the player would've been fine but because of your lack of system mastery you forbade what would've been fine.

If an optimizer says he knows his character will be fine then you just trust him and if he fails to deliver then you know where the blame goes. The opposite is true too. If you think the optimizer is too strong for the party but he tells you it'll be fine because he knows how to pull his punches to the party's level then you let the player do what he wants and if he breaks the game despite all the warnings you gave him then, again, you know where 100% of the blame goes.

I'm an example of this. All of my builds can range from normal OP to TO just based on which buff spells I cast on my minions. A 0 buff minion is worse than a mundane, while a full buffed minion is superior to uberchargers, so when i tell a DM don't worry about it, he should trust my ability and let me do my thing. Which they do, which is why I've broken only 1 game out of... like... 10.

If you let the player do his thing when you're unsure, you're risking everyone else's fun at the table. It's not as simple as "I can do it, trust me" it's up to the player to convince them DM of that fact. I would rather not let a player play something and have one person be disappointed only during character creation, rather than let a player do something only to have it ruin the game for potentially multiple sessions, if not cause the game to collapse. As a DM, we can't always just "wait and see", and then assign blame post issue. I would say, if the DM saw an issue, and just let the player do it, the blame is equally on the problem player and the DM for not doing anything about it, because it's not just that one player's issue, it's the whole table's issue.

Also, attributing it to system mastery is a bit of a false premise, it may well in fact be the DM's system mastery that LETS him identify the problem beforehand, and sometimes players themselves are fine with being absolute deadweight, while the rest of the party and the DM aren't happy with that idea, so in this case, the bard may have been happy to be completely useless for many levels, so in his mind "it's fine", but the rest of the party resents him for being dead weight, and the DM hates himself for having to pull punches in encounters that the party SHOULD have been able to take on.

If the player really wants to play this thing that the DM has identified as being a problem, then I say it's on the player to demonstrate to the DM how he plans to go about that, rather than the DM just letting it happen and hoping for the best.


Wouldn't Wight Rats a bit too OP on this level?

Only humanoids become wights.

[Alucard 109]

Number of listed skill ranks is incorrect: while, indeed, Daniel Pleasant will get 43 skill points as a Human Bard 1/Vampire Spawn 1 with Int 14, neither Concentration nor Perform (sing) are on the Vampire Spawn's class skill list - thus, should cost double (no Able Learner feat)

Wouldn't Wight Rats a bit too OP on this level?

After having to correct his skill choices 5 times (I didn't actually count, but it's probably not an exaggeration) and his other classes features another 10 (seriously, I had to tell him how much health he would have, twice), I decided to pick my battles. His skills were close enough that the headache of trying to get him to fix them for another hour (I had literally spent 8 hour straight correcting his character at that point) wouldn't be worth it, and all of the other factors he didn't include in his character sheet were easy to fix myself. That was the copy of the character sheet I made, by the way.

This was also what gave me the feeling that bartman wasn't secretly a pro optimizer, and most likely DIDN'T know what he was doing for his build

The rats were meant for blood draining (the equivalent of rations) how would they become wights? Also, when given the rats bartman made his character bite one's head off thus killing it, without draining blood/Constitution, and thus receiving no benefit

Edit: I found the original recruitment thread. Turns out it was a minor exaggeration, I only had to correct his skills 4 times, and his character sheet in general 9 times. it was only 7 hours of work, not 8, but did end up going until 2 am local time

[Crake]

The rats were meant for blood draining (the equivalent of rations) how would they become wights? Also, when given the rats bartman made his character bite one's head off thus killing it, without draining blood/Constitution, and thus receiving no benefit

I imagine ShurikVch assumed he had energy drain, without realising that vampire spawn don't get it until level 8 in the undead monster class.

[Crake]

Every case is different. Sometimes the DM is ******ed, sometimes the player is ******ed. So sometimes the DM putting his foot down is the right thing to do, and sometimes it's the wrong thing to do. But if the player is competent then I'm saying that you give him the benefit of the doubt because he's the expert of his own build, not the DM who is seeing it for the first time. If the DM shared all of his concerns and the players addressed all those concerns but the DM is still unsure/unconvinced, judge the player's skill and if he's competent you trust him, especially if he played his build before at another table which proves it is a viable playable build. Banning a build because you are unsure about it because of your lack of system mastery is wrong.

I think you're coming from a very biased perspective. Not everyone pre-builds their character from 1-20 before bringing it to a game you know. They may have just a vague concept in mind, but ultimately, as I said, the onus is on the player to convince the DM, if they can achieve that, good on them, but I think, if the DM sees an issue, default stance should be "no unless you can convince me". On top of that, it's not always about the build's general viability, as I said, the issue with a sorcerer going into malconvoker with a paladin in the party. The sorcerer's build is totally fine, great even, but it's going to clash hard with the paladin to the point where one of them is going to have to leave. Obviously that's a discussion that probably needs to be had with the rest of the players as well, unless the paladin is already in play and the sorcerer is a newcomer, but the point is, "issues" that a DM might see go beyond simply build power and system mastery.

[ShurikVch]

I imagine ShurikVch assumed he had energy drain, without realising that vampire spawn don't get it until level 8 in the undead monster class.:smalleek:
True!
I'm sorry!
Posted it in a hurry because some stuff - thus, didn't checked the class beyond the skill list...
I thank you for correcting it.

[Cygnia]

I only know OP from the threads he makes on this forum, which usually are titled "I want to play a [gender] [alignment] [race] [class]" with little other informaton about what he actually wants to do, and getting more information with any method other than seeing what ideas he doesnt like is impossible.

If it's any consolation (or concern), he does it on other RP forums elsewhere too...:smalleek:

[Crake]

If it's any consolation (or concern), he does it on other RP forums elsewhere too...:smalleek:

Huh, in an attempt to find said other forums that he posts on, I googled his username, and I think I stumbled upon his deviant art and twitter which were the top two results.

[Alucard 109]

Huh, in an attempt to find said other forums that he posts on, I googled his username, and I think I stumbled upon his deviant art and twitter which were the top two results.

Just googled the username, and found WAY more information than I want to about him. It did explanation quite a lot though

[Segev]

It seems the DM and player parted ways, which is probably for the best; it seems there is incompatibility in expectations or a large communications gap betwixt the twain. No need to harp on anybody for anything.

If people wnat to discuss that bard build, that's one thing, but trying to justify past-expressed opinions isn't really contributing much to D&D discussion.

I don't see anything glaringly wrong with the bard build, though the fact that it will take multiple levels before the ability to take the feat for affecting undead with bardic music would be a weakness. Trading music for knack is weird; knack largely is better than Bardic Knowledge, anyway, so keeping both is...redundant, I think? Not entirely, but for most practical purposes.

If he wants debuffs, Bard definitely has them in its spell selection.

[Buufreak]

Just googled the username, and found WAY more information than I want to about him. It did explanation quite a lot though

Did you find his character that was the harshest of gay stereotypes named Richard Rainbow? That was the hard clincher for me months back.

[Crake]

Did you find his character that was the harshest of gay stereotypes named Richard Rainbow? That was the hard clincher for me months back.

Ah yeah, I vaguely remember that thread, he's been through so many they've all just kinda blurred together.

[Cygnia]

Did he ask about that here in GITP too? 'Cause that's the first thing that I remembered him from when I recognized his name here...

[zergling.exe]

Let's remember to leave our baggage at the door guys.

[Alucard 109]

Did you find his character that was the harshest of gay stereotypes named Richard Rainbow? That was the hard clincher for me months back.

No. I found his Twitter account.

[Gallowglass]

Only humanoids become wights.

step one: vivisect the rat into a humanoid form
step two: wight the rats

WIGHT RATS!

[YossarianLives]

Look, I'm just gonna say straight up. I've DMed for Bartman for over two years now. He's not a bad player but definitely not the type to have a secret optimized build up his sleeve.

[haplot]

just a quick thought my other half put into my head ...

Don't bards just get heal spells, and not inflict spells?

Im all for people playing what they want, but if the char doesn't fit in with the campaign going as is, theres bound to be problems

[The Insanity]

Just so everybody knows. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23541696&postcount=0)

[Deadline]

Let's remember to leave our baggage at the door guys.

But ... what if you've optimized your "Jump to Conclusions" skill? Sure, the easiest way to do that is to take a negative modifier to your "Civility" and "Human Decency" attributes, but those only seem to matter in-person, not on the internet.

[zergling.exe]

But ... what if you've optimized your "Jump to Conclusions" skill? Sure, the easiest way to do that is to take a negative modifier to your "Civility" and "Human Decency" attributes, but those only seem to matter in-person, not on the internet.

YOU can make the connection, but bringing it up in the thread isn't kosher here, especially if you're making disparaging remarks with it. But that's already saying too much.

[Crake]

I'm not disagreeing here, but you need to recognize that the DM can be the noob here instead of the player, which is why the DM should trust the player if he insists none of the issues he raised will be a problem. Tons of things that seems OP/weak on paper turns out to be subpar/OP in practice, so the DM needs to trust the guy with more practical experience regarding the class or build. Again, aforementioned original (incorrect) scenario, a DM who thinks a bard is tier 5 and tells a player to play spellthief to not fall behind despite the player's insistence that he is wrong is in the wrong.

You went a little off-topic regarding lawful stupid and malconvoker since that's not what we're talking about here, and I'm not disagreeing that the DM should point out such incompatibilities. And if the malconvoker player insists that the lawful stupid paladin won't be a problem because he's going malconvoker solely for the unrestricted conjuration class feature and there will be no evil creature summoning on his side and he promises his character is gonna kick ass instead of be deadweight, you trust him. The player should disclose 100% of his build and plan to the DM but even when doing so there's a good chance the DM will overestimate/underestimate something so you trust the player. What you don't do is say malconvokers are impossible to play good without evil summons and give the player an ultimatum.

While you're right that the DM can be a noob too, a noob DM won't have the instinct to predict a problem before it occurs, and the malconvoker/paladin situation isn't off topic, because problems can occur beyond the mechanics of a character. It's not lawful stupid for a paladin to refuse to work with a malconvoker, since it's right in the paladin's code, they do not associate with evil, so, if a malconvoker summons evil creatures, that is associating with evil. You may not be binding evil creatures, but you're still summoning them. It has absolutely nothing to do with being deadweight at all. Obviously a malconvoker can absolutely just not summon evil creatures, but then literally all of their class features revolve around being better at summoning evil creatures, which you're not going to do, so the malconvoker lost a caster level for absolutely nothing. That doesn't make the character deadweight by any means, but it does make the malconvoker choice completely wasteful.

You keep saying to trust the player, trust the player, but trust has to be earned, so while I trust my long time players when they insist they want to play something and will make it work (though sometimes they end up failing horribly which reduces my faith in their capabilities and makes me just flat say no next time), to a completely new player to the table, which is technically the context of this thread, since OP presumably hasn't played with this DM before, if I sense there's going to be an issue, I'm going to address it up front, and if the player can't reasonably convince me, I'm going to stick to my position, whether it be because of mechanics, clashing with other party members, or a setting based issue that clashes with the lore.

[Crake]

A chaotic cleric would totally go malconvoker solely for unrestricted conjuration to cast lawful conjuration spells if he needs that lawful conjuration spell to enable his shtick, and grab the rest of the malconvoker levels because there is literally no downside to finishing it. Are you going to say "malconvokers are subpar without summoning evil creatures so I'm not gonna let you go malconvoker if you don't summon evil creatures and since we have a paladin you can't summon evil creatures so you can't go malconvoker"? Even when the player expressed that he has 0 interested in summoning creatures even if the paladin wasn't there?

If that was the cleric's reasoning, fine, though I don't imagine too many clerics would want to lose a caster level just to be able to summon that one lawful creature, though I'm pretty sure there are better options for achieving that that that don't cost a caster level.


To clarify, I'm not disagreeing that the player should convince you. I'm saying the reasons I gave should be enough to convince you, because, again the original example, we have a DM who doesn't know what Bards are capable of and has railroaded the player into playing something weaker instead of trusting the player to pull off a bard. The player telling the DM that Bards can totally bring his weight to an all undead party even without morale bonuses should've been enough to convince him.

As I said, this is a skill that DMs need to acquire, a bad DM saying "you can't play that because it's weak" isn't a DM forseeing an issue, because forseeing an issue takes experience, so a DM without experience lacks the foresight to see an issue arising, they're just haphazardly guessing. In this particular case, I'd want to see what the bard has planned for his character, just saying "I can bring my weight" wouldn't be enough. I would however, also work with the player to try and find a compromise that lets the player achieve what they want in a way that wouldn't cause an issue. Marshal for example can provide circumstance buffs with his auras, rather than morale bonuses, which undead would benefit from, or in my particular case, since I allow pathfinder content, the dirge bard archetype would solve the issue nicely.

[Crake]

It's hard to argue this with you because you're not unreasonable nor inexperienced so I most likely would not find any problem with your conduct and you probably won't find any problem with my conduct and I doubt that you can't comprehend any build/plan a player gives you so this whole scenario/argument doesn't apply to you. It only applies to noob DMs who can't understand or doesn't know what the player is trying to pull, which is why I keep bringing up a DM who thinks bards are tier 5. The scenario we are discussing will never happen to you because you will most likely talk with the player until you fully understand what he plans on doing instead of jumping to conclusions or fail to understand what the player is talking about.

And that's part of the skill I'm describing, if the DM can't do that then he hasn't actually acquired the skill I'm refering to. Knee jerk reactions by bad DMs don't fall under what I'm describing, but if a DM tells you to re-think what you're bringing to the table, a knee-jerk reaction in the opposite direction is equally indicative of a bad player.

As for the circumstance of a DM claiming bard is tier 5, it sounded like, if Alucard 109 did even say this, he was saying that in this circumstance where half their class features don't work they are tier 5. I'm not honestly convinced Alucard said any such thing, and generally I always take any threads doing any sort of complaining with a giant boulder of salt.

[weckar]

Please, you two have been agreeing for a page now. Can you stop trying to be the one to agree harder?

[Crake]

Please, you two have been agreeing for a page now. Can you stop trying to be the one to agree harder?

I'm not entirely convinced we do agree, but ok.