PDA

View Full Version : You know what I really hate?



AstralFire
2008-08-13, 07:49 PM
Racial prerequisite classes and feats that don't actually require anything the race can do innately, it's just "we only teach this to elves/dwarves." I can understand something being themed around a race, sure, that's cool and flavorful. But to bar everything bugs me.

(This topic could also be called "Why I never get to take the Dwarven Defender or Arcane Archer and yes I know how horribly unoptimal they are." Whenever I play Dwarves, I'm not in the mood for a DD.)

Stycotl
2008-08-13, 08:07 PM
most new prc descriptions give 'adaptation' info toward the end. so you can make a human defender with similar, but unique fluff, and the same (or as similar as you want them to be) mechanics.

Chronos
2008-08-13, 08:13 PM
Dwarven Defender at least makes some sense, because the only time it's useful is when fighting in narrow tunnels, and the only PHB race who live in tunnels are the dwarves.

Arcane Archer, though, I'm just not seeing it.

AstralFire
2008-08-13, 08:15 PM
most new prc descriptions give 'adaptation' info toward the end. so you can make a human defender with similar, but unique fluff, and the same (or as similar as you want them to be) mechanics.

Oh, I know. But I've had some DMs who just will not allow that sort of thing, too. Some who will (*hugs his Kobold Outrider*) but others who won't.


Dwarven Defender at least makes some sense, because the only time it's useful is when fighting in narrow tunnels, and the only PHB race who live in tunnels are the dwarves.

Arcane Archer, though, I'm just not seeing it.

It's that Elves = Magic and Forest thing. Thematically, it makes sense, but yeah.

Andras
2008-08-13, 08:18 PM
Dwarven Defender at least makes some sense, because the only time it's useful is when fighting in narrow tunnels, and the only PHB race who live in tunnels are the dwarves.

Arcane Archer, though, I'm just not seeing it.

Elves have free proficiency in bows and wizard as their favored class. The concept behind the arcane archer is magic combined with bow-work - two things they're slightly better at, together.

Not an amazing reason (and not an amazing PrC either), but there it is.

Edit: beaten. :smalltongue:

Crow
2008-08-13, 08:19 PM
Maybe it's one of those things where they don't teach "the way" to "outsiders"?

AstralFire
2008-08-13, 08:22 PM
Maybe it's one of those things where they don't teach "the way" to "outsiders"?

Yeah, but then that's a fluff restriction on crunch which might not even be applicable to a different setting.

I just have an axe to grind about flavor restrictions that don't feel that intricately tied to the class. Blood Magus' requirement that you have died? Sure. "You must be this short to shoot a flaming arrow?" Meh.

(Woah I'm a Barbarian now.)

FMArthur
2008-08-13, 08:29 PM
Racial favored classes piss me off even more. There doesn't seem to be any point to it except to restrict players more than necessary. It's not restricting them from being too powerful or anything, it's just limiting player freedom. I think it's just a throwback to the days when races and classes weren't separate.

Lemur
2008-08-13, 08:31 PM
Yeah, but then that's a fluff restriction on crunch which might not even be applicable to a different setting.

I just have an axe to grind about flavor restrictions that don't feel that intricately tied to the class. Blood Magus' requirement that you have died? Sure. "You must be this short to shoot a flaming arrow?" Meh.

(Woah I'm a Barbarian now.)

So you're capable of crafting your own settings, but unable to change fluff prerequisites on existing prestige classes?

Knaight
2008-08-13, 08:48 PM
Maybe it's one of those things where they don't teach "the way" to "outsiders"?

On the otherhand, if an outsider were to observe multiple arcane archers being taught without the elves knowing, they could probably pick it up. Weak argument at best. Also disguise checks.

Crow
2008-08-13, 08:50 PM
On the otherhand, if an outsider were to observe multiple arcane archers being taught without the elves knowing, they could probably pick it up. Weak argument at best. Also disguise checks.

Yeah and it also doesn't take into account the guys who are going to teach it to outsiders anyways (there's always some of those).

monty
2008-08-13, 08:56 PM
Tell that to my changeling Shadowcraft Mage. It's only a matter of time before even he can't tell who he is.

Tormsskull
2008-08-13, 08:58 PM
Racial favored classes piss me off even more. There doesn't seem to be any point to it except to restrict players more than necessary. It's not restricting them from being too powerful or anything, it's just limiting player freedom. I think it's just a throwback to the days when races and classes weren't separate.

I think it is done more to try and reinforce the theme or fluff of the setting. If you want a race to be perceived as a certain way, a racial prestige class that exemplifies the specific attributes you want to showcase would work well.

If every race can take that prestige class, then it gets really watered down, and becomes generic.

In addition (I'm not saying you are suggesting or acting this FYI), most of the time I hear people complain about this type of a restriction it comes down to "But I want that ability! I want it, I want it!" Which gives me a real bad knee-jerk reaction.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-13, 09:00 PM
I think it is done more to try and reinforce the theme or fluff of the setting. If you want a race to be perceived as a certain way, a racial prestige class that exemplifies the specific attributes you want to showcase would work well.
This is NOT OKAY for non-setting-specific books like, oh, the generic Player's Handbook.


If every race can take that prestige class, then it gets really watered down, and becomes generic.
On the upside, people who like it can play it.


In addition (I'm not saying you are suggesting or acting this FYI), most of the time I hear people complain about this type of a restriction it comes down to "But I want that ability! I want it, I want it!" Which gives me a real bad knee-jerk reaction.
Oh, no! Players wanting something! Clearly the system should stop them?

Crow
2008-08-13, 09:30 PM
This is NOT OKAY for non-setting-specific books like, oh, the generic Player's Handbook.

Well the Prestige Classes in the DMG were originally in there as examples. They weren't actually in the realm of the player (hence they were in the DMG and not the PHB) The DMG actually encouraged the DM to come up with his own PrC's for their campaigns.


On the upside, people who like it can play it.

I can see the case for alignment restrictions in most cases, but I agree that race restrictions are a bit silly.


Oh, no! Players wanting something! Clearly the system should stop them?

The roots of this conversation go back to the days when the magic items were the DM's realm. Wealth by level became an entitlement rather than a game balance mechanic. I want it, I want it, I want it. In either case, there are times when giving the players everything they want may not be good for the game. I remember a while back some guy wanted to pick up the Assassin PrC for his Paladin/Rogue for whatever reason. Optimization issues aside, the paragon of virtue and justice who kills people for money is probably something the DM should step in and head off.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-08-13, 09:33 PM
I remember a while back some guy wanted to pick up the Assassin PrC for his Paladin/Rogue for whatever reason. Optimization issues aside, the paragon of virtue and justice who kills people for money is probably something the DM should step in and head off.See, I could easily see that as "The noble warrior who kills those who deserve nothing but death, and is shunned by his peers because he doesn't give the enemies a chance, but is only in it to save lives, and his god apparently approves". See what happens when you eliminate the standard fluff?

AstralFire
2008-08-13, 09:38 PM
So you're capable of crafting your own settings, but unable to change fluff prerequisites on existing prestige classes?

I'm not always the DM, and I often can only get away with that by getting one of the PCs less jaded towards the concept doing it. They tend to prefer ruling everything 'by-the-book'. And to speak more generally, I am usually the DM and I see player's fencing off options for themselves sometimes because they assume such things are barred to them. I dislike restricting people when unnecessary.


I think it is done more to try and reinforce the theme or fluff of the setting. If you want a race to be perceived as a certain way, a racial prestige class that exemplifies the specific attributes you want to showcase would work well.

If every race can take that prestige class, then it gets really watered down, and becomes generic.

That's fine on a per-setting restriction. It bugs me when I see it in a non-campaign specific environment. I am a gigantic proponent of not allowing things if it breaks a campaign's flavor.


I remember a while back some guy wanted to pick up the Assassin PrC for his Paladin/Rogue for whatever reason. Optimization issues aside, the paragon of virtue and justice who kills people for money is probably something the DM should step in and head off.

Shadowbane Inquisitor?

Crow
2008-08-13, 09:42 PM
Shadowbane Inquisitor?

...and that's probably why that class exists.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-13, 09:43 PM
Well the Prestige Classes in the DMG were originally in there as examples. They weren't actually in the realm of the player (hence they were in the DMG and not the PHB) The DMG actually encouraged the DM to come up with his own PrC's for their campaigns.
This was not a particularly good model. They didn't even have guidelines for doing so, much less rules (and the existing PrCs are all over the place, abilities- and balance-wise).


I can see the case for alignment restrictions in most cases, but I agree that race restrictions are a bit silly.
The "Avenger" on the WotC site (the Assassin with no changes, refluffed to be non-lawful rather than evil) shows pretty well that alignment restrictions are pretty silly too.



The roots of this conversation go back to the days when the magic items were the DM's realm. Wealth by level became an entitlement rather than a game balance mechanic. I want it, I want it, I want it. In either case, there are times when giving the players everything they want may not be good for the game. I remember a while back some guy wanted to pick up the Assassin PrC for his Paladin/Rogue for whatever reason. Optimization issues aside, the paragon of virtue and justice who kills people for money is probably something the DM should step in and head off.
Then maybe the Assassin PrC doesn't represent him killing people for money.

I play Spirit of the Century, in which spending a fate point lets a player narrate something about the scene. I've played Wushu, where the dice are for conflict resolution--you can describe yourself casually dodging the BBEG's attacks and stabbing him through the leg, as long as doing so doesn't win you the conflict the dice said you lost (the conflict not necessarily being "who beats whom in a fight").
As a result, I'm really unimpressed with systems and people that sneer at players, "you're not responsible enough to pick your own magic items/prestige classes/whatever".

Crow
2008-08-13, 10:23 PM
Then maybe the Assassin PrC doesn't represent him killing people for money.

The one as written in the DMG quite obviously assumes he isn't doing it for wholesome reasons, which is why the Avenger was released.


As a result, I'm really unimpressed with systems and people that sneer at players, "you're not responsible enough to pick your own magic items/prestige classes/whatever".

A quick run down to the WotC forums back in 3.x days clearly showed that yes, some players are not.

Neon Knight
2008-08-13, 10:27 PM
The one as written in the DMG quite obviously assumes he isn't doing it for wholesome reasons, which is why the Avenger was released.

I thought that was an April Fool's joke.


A quick run down to the WotC forums back in 3.x days clearly showed that yes, some players are not.

But does that give them permission to penalize all players because some cannot handle it?

And if you're referring to the Char Op boards, you just lost some respect from me. That stuff was nearly 100% theoretical, and not intended for actual gameplay.

Crow
2008-08-13, 10:42 PM
I thought that was an April Fool's joke.

I think it was, but I don't remember. Cases like the one I mentioned were coming up all the time on their boards.


But does that give them permission to penalize all players because some cannot handle it?

No, but it hasn't stopped them from doing it. Just look at the sometimes heavy-handed mechanics they've been using lately to stifle player abuse. Hell, look at the latest rituals supplement.


And if you're referring to the Char Op boards, you just lost some respect from me. That stuff was nearly 100% theoretical, and not intended for actual gameplay.

No, I was referring the DMing Help section. The CharOp boards are more about finding poorly-worded rules and distorting and abusing them :smallwink:.

Falrin
2008-08-13, 10:44 PM
It's Restricting Vs Fluff.

Some DM's spend amazing amounts of money to get their hands on any setting related sources. In return they get a preset world with feats & PrC's to match it.
Being a Spellguard of Silverymoon is so setting specific it's allowed.

In the more Generic ground we have PrC's like the Eldritch Knight and the Archmage. These are very broad PrCs. You want to be a diviner wizard taking Archmage? No problem.

Then we have the problemchilds: Assassin, Dwarven Defender, Radiant server of Pelor. They all restrict players choices to alignment, race or god. But why? Yes, I like the fluff on some of these (say radiant server), but in general I like my PrC broader, then the DM slaps on some fluff and in you go.

I as a DM tend to be very lenient in this. Your playing a wizard specializing in Cloud Spells, then one day you will run into a wandering Druid willing to teach you the secrets of this forgotten cloudcult. Enter a Very Fluff specific PrC. I love to give players a complete specialized, specific class/ability/feat to complete their style, but in a book I like to see the broad, generic PrC’s that I can adapt in any way.

Jade_Tarem
2008-08-13, 10:46 PM
As a result, I'm really unimpressed with systems and people that sneer at players, "you're not responsible enough to pick your own magic items/prestige classes/whatever".

They're, um, not. Not usually. My players would be miserable if I gave them everything they wanted. It's like telling a five year old that yes, it's ok to play with fire as long as he thinks it would look cool - it would be flashy and amusing for about five seconds before everything burned to the ground.

Also, I'm really unimpressed with systems and people that sneer at players, "we are so much better than you. Hey! Hey! Stop having fun with your inferior system, dammit!"

Neon Knight
2008-08-13, 10:47 PM
No, but it hasn't stopped them from doing it. Just look at the sometimes heavy-handed mechanics they've been using lately to stifle player abuse. Hell, look at the latest rituals supplement.



No, I was referring the DMing Help section. The CharOp boards are more about finding poorly-worded rules and distorting and abusing them :smallwink:.

I stand corrected. Touche.

Although I'm not too familiar with the tales from the DM help section. Are there any particular horror stories, or was it more of a general phenomenon?

Covered In Bees
2008-08-13, 10:48 PM
The one as written in the DMG quite obviously assumes he isn't doing it for wholesome reasons, which is why the Avenger was released.

And it's good to stick with the printed fluff no matter what... why?



A quick run down to the WotC forums back in 3.x days clearly showed that yes, some players are not.
And I'm sure these players can be perfectly trusted with those prestige classes that *aren't* restricted by alignment, right?

PROTIP: alignment/race restrictions are not a balancing factor.



They're, um, not. Not usually. My players would be miserable if I gave them everything they wanted. It's like telling a five year old that yes, it's ok to play with fire as long as he thinks it would look cool - it would be flashy and amusing for about five seconds before everything burned to the ground.
And yet, those SotC and Wushu games managed to work out fine.

I think you should clarify how refluffing PrCs or disregarding alignment restrictions is "like telling a five year old that, yes, it's ok to play with fire".


Also, I'm really unimpressed with systems and people that sneer at players, "we are so much better than you. Hey! Hey! Stop having fun with your inferior system, dammit!"
That's nice. I'm not doing anything of the sort.

Chronos
2008-08-13, 10:53 PM
Just curious... If racial favored classes are too "fluffy" for the generic PHB, what about, say, the dwarvish bonus to Constitution? What if I want to run a homebrewed setting where the dwarves are fragile albinos, stunted from their long absence from sunlight? OK, so in my homebrewed setting, then, dwarves get a Con penalty... Does that mean that the PHB shouldn't assign racial ability score modifiers?

monty
2008-08-13, 10:55 PM
Just curious... If racial favored classes are too "fluffy" for the generic PHB, what about, say, the dwarvish bonus to Constitution? What if I want to run a homebrewed setting where the dwarves are fragile albinos, stunted from their long absence from sunlight? OK, so in my homebrewed setting, then, dwarves get a Con penalty... Does that mean that the PHB shouldn't assign racial ability score modifiers?

A lot of the racial modifiers don't make sense anyway. I mean, -2 Charisma for goblins? Come on. They're much prettier than that.

AstralFire
2008-08-13, 10:59 PM
Just curious... If racial favored classes are too "fluffy" for the generic PHB, what about, say, the dwarvish bonus to Constitution? What if I want to run a homebrewed setting where the dwarves are fragile albinos, stunted from their long absence from sunlight? OK, so in my homebrewed setting, then, dwarves get a Con penalty... Does that mean that the PHB shouldn't assign racial ability score modifiers?

That's entirely different, I would say. Races are taken as a given, a basis with which to work from. You have to begin the anchoring of fluff to mechanics somewhere, and that's a fine place to do it. If a PrC requires and logically uses, say, Darkvision and a stability bonus and a high Con, it's pretty obviously tilted towards dwarves. But if it makes use of them in a way that makes sense, sure, I can see it. It's not a seemingly arbitrary qualifier. Do you get what I am saying?

Vexxation
2008-08-13, 10:59 PM
A lot of the racial modifiers don't make sense anyway. I mean, -2 Charisma for goblins? Come on. They're much prettier than that.

Right, but they also either lack the will to stand up for themselves, are brutish, or feel like outcasts.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-13, 11:00 PM
Just curious... If racial favored classes are too "fluffy" for the generic PHB, what about, say, the dwarvish bonus to Constitution? What if I want to run a homebrewed setting where the dwarves are fragile albinos, stunted from their long absence from sunlight? OK, so in my homebrewed setting, then, dwarves get a Con penalty... Does that mean that the PHB shouldn't assign racial ability score modifiers?

Racially restricted prestige classes are too fluffy. Races aren't.

Of course, I'd have no real objections to letting players pick their own stat mods and fluff the race how they like.

AstralFire
2008-08-13, 11:02 PM
Racially restricted prestige classes are too fluffy. Races aren't.

Of course, I'd have no real objections to letting players pick their own stat mods and fluff the race how they like.

I have thought about running a game like this before, never remember to do it when I'm in the mood to start a new campaign. My friend Gorth has done it, a lot. Esp. as some of his campaign worlds are humans only as far as PC-races go.

Crow
2008-08-13, 11:02 PM
And it's good to stick with the printed fluff no matter what... why?

I said it was?


And I'm sure these players can be perfectly trusted with those prestige classes that *aren't* restricted by alignment, right?

PROTIP: alignment/race restrictions are not a balancing factor.

No but it can be useful to prevent players from taking classes or abilities that will almost always cause arguments between players and DM's. Unfortunately, WotC didn't figure out that the best way to fix that problem is to change the classes and abilities rather than slap restrictions on them.


And yet, those SotC and Wushu games managed to work out fine.

Completely different case. In your examples every player has the ability to control the scene at some point. In D&D, it is possible for one player to control the scene at the expense of other characters' ability to do so. Apples to Oranges comparison.


That's nice. I'm not doing anything of the sort.

You're one of the biggest agitators on this forum, frequently finding opposition where none exists, and insults where none were intended. Another poster went so far as to call you "The New EE". Maybe you are.

Jade_Tarem
2008-08-13, 11:06 PM
And yet, those SotC and Wushu games managed to work out fine.

I think you should clarify how refluffing PrCs or disregarding alignment restrictions is "like telling a five year old that, yes, it's ok to play with fire."

I'm not. I was actually reacting to the concept of the SotC and Wushu games described, and the possible ramifications of trying to run a DnD game like that, which may not have been what you were getting at.


That's nice. I'm not doing anything of the sort.

Oh, please. I've read a lot of your posts. You are more than intelligent enough to know and realize that the words someone posts on the forum carry meanings and connotations beyond the literal value of the text on the screen. When a person posts something like "I'm really unimpressed with systems that do X, sucketh the big one, and are [derogatory term]," and then reference the players and people involved in using those systems, the *clear* implication is that anyone who favors, in this case, DnD is also involved in or condones the listed activities, such as sneering at players and being generally immature. That's a borderline shot at the majority of the posters here. But it's also a very safe shot, because if anyone calls you on it you can respond that that isn't what you meant and that they're reading too much into it. If this is news to you (and I sincerely doubt that it is) then so be it, but it *is* one way that your posts can be percieved - and very easily so.

Neon Knight
2008-08-13, 11:17 PM
Right, but they also either lack the will to stand up for themselves, are brutish, or feel like outcasts.

So is a high charisma balor an impossibility? They're walking incarnations of brutish.

Charisma is a stat I've never liked. I understand the necessity for its existence and grudgingly accept it, but I tend to try to ignore it at all other times. For me, it exists and affects only the mechanics.

Vexxation
2008-08-13, 11:21 PM
So is a high charisma balor an impossibility? They're walking incarnations of brutish.

Charisma is a stat I've never liked. I understand the necessity for its existence and grudgingly accept it, but I tend to try to ignore it at all other times. For me, it exists and affects only the mechanics.

Well, given that an out-of-the-box Balor has a 26 charisma, it's not impossible.

They're brutish, but they also appear... mighty, and powerful in spirit. Like, if you looked at one on a hilltop, he'd exude a sort of... aura of awesome...

Crow
2008-08-13, 11:22 PM
Although I'm not too familiar with the tales from the DM help section. Are there any particular horror stories, or was it more of a general phenomenon?

There were a lot of them, but it was a while ago that I frequented that board, so I don't remember a lot of them. One of the worst I do remember was some guy's chaotic-neutral Paladin full spellcaster who was sleeping with his silver dragon cohort or something like that wreaking havoc on the DM's campaign.

Neon Knight
2008-08-13, 11:24 PM
There were a lot of them, but it was a while ago that I frequented that board, so I don't remember a lot of them. One of the worst I do remember was some guy's chaotic-neutral Paladin full spellcaster who was sleeping with his silver dragon cohort or something like that wreaking havoc on the DM's campaign.

...

Really, the dot-dot-dot sums up my response quite adequately.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-08-13, 11:25 PM
Well, given that an out-of-the-box Balor has a 26 charisma, it's not impossible.

They're brutish, but they also appear... mighty, and powerful in spirit. Like, if you looked at one on a hilltop, he'd exude a sort of... aura of awesome...

That's the thing: Charisma should never be regarded as a stat that governs how pretty you are. It's only force of personality, which is why some pretty horrendously ugly creatures have large Charisma bonuses.

Conversely, you could have a physically gorgeous person who's incredibly shy, stand-offish, quiet ... and, in fact, has a low Charisma.

Neon Knight
2008-08-13, 11:26 PM
That's the thing: Charisma should never be regarded as a stat that governs how pretty you are. It's only force of personality, which is why some pretty horrendously ugly creatures have large Charisma bonuses.

Conversely, you could have a physically gorgeous person who's incredibly shy, stand-offish, quiet ... and, in fact, has a low Charisma.

That was in response to my question about brutish balors. I meant brutish in a "rough, nasty personality" type way.

AstralFire
2008-08-13, 11:31 PM
Charisma is probably my -favorite- stat. I have only run a few characters that were not Charisma primary, and I've never run below a 12 in Cha. Even on my Swordsage Half-Orc. High Cha + High other mental stat = fun!

monty
2008-08-13, 11:33 PM
Don't deny the glory of the turning-focused goblin cleric!

Jade_Tarem
2008-08-13, 11:33 PM
Charisma is probably my -favorite- stat. I have only run a few characters that were not Charisma primary, and I've never run below a 12 in Cha. Even on my Swordsage Half-Orc. High Cha + High other mental stat = fun!

I know what you mean. I'm just now playing a character with an outright charisma penalty, although I've found that you can have some fun with being brash and crude, too...

AstralFire
2008-08-13, 11:36 PM
I know what you mean. I'm just now playing a character with an outright charisma penalty, although I've found that you can have some fun with being brash and crude, too...

Oh, I've played Brash and Crude - I attribute attempting diplomacy to either Wis (reactively) or Int (when thinking ahead). Charisma is force of personality, so the higher the Cha, the more self-absorbed and passionate the character. (Going by that standard? I'm probably like a 16 Cha, 11 Int, 11 Wis person. No wonder I like Cha so much.)

Tormsskull
2008-08-14, 06:18 AM
Just curious... If racial favored classes are too "fluffy" for the generic PHB, what about, say, the dwarvish bonus to Constitution?

I was going to ask the same question. Certain PrCs with race restrictions are there to reinforce the stereotype. Dwarves are known for being solid and resilient, therefore they have a PrC that exemplifies those qualities.

This really goes back to the mindset of "Mechanics are the rules, descriptions are not important". Some people read "Dwarf" as +2 Con, -2 Cha, Medium Sized, etc, while other read the description of the Dwarf race & the mechanics.



Do you get what I am saying?


Basically sounds like you prefer mechanical restrictions rather than setting, theme, of descriptive restrictions. To each their own, really.



You're one of the biggest agitators on this forum, frequently finding opposition where none exists, and insults where none were intended. Another poster went so far as to call you "The New EE". Maybe you are.


Don't feed him :smalltongue:. It will just be a matter of time before this incarnation of him gets the boot as well.

kamikasei
2008-08-14, 06:26 AM
I was going to ask the same question. Certain PrCs with race restrictions are there to reinforce the stereotype. Dwarves are known for being solid and resilient, therefore they have a PrC that exemplifies those qualities.

Look at it this way. Dwarves are known for being solid and resilient: check. We have a PrC which exemplifies that: check. So if both are mechanically well-designed, a Dwarf without the PrC will be solid and resilient as per his race, a human who takes the PrC will be solid and resilient for reasons not related to his race, and ideally a Dwarf with the PrC will be a paragon of solidity and resilience due to synergy between his race and class.

The only compelling reason I can see to restrict the PrC to Dwarves only is if letting other races take it will let them be better at it than Dwarves, which would break fluff. I see that as a failing on the part of the designers, not a good reason in itself.


Don't feed him :smalltongue:. It will just be a matter of time before this incarnation of him gets the boot as well.

Ehm.

Isn't that getting pretty flamey on you guys' part?

Covered In Bees
2008-08-14, 06:40 AM
I said it was?
Your response to what amounts to "maybe the PrC shouldn't always represent this" was "but the RAW says it does". I'd say that implies it pretty strongly


No but it can be useful to prevent players from taking classes or abilities that will almost always cause arguments between players and DM's. Unfortunately, WotC didn't figure out that the best way to fix that problem is to change the classes and abilities rather than slap restrictions on them.
Not really, it can't. Someone who wants to play a Paladin (perhaps *the* most argument-causing class) can just be Lawful Good. The restrictions aren't actually good for much of anything.


Completely different case. In your examples every player has the ability to control the scene at some point. In D&D, it is possible for one player to control the scene at the expense of other characters' ability to do so. Apples to Oranges comparison.
Alignment and racial restrictions have nothing to do with power. They do not let a player control the scene at the expense of other characters. And the Druid class does far more of this than letting players pick their own loot.


You're one of the biggest agitators on this forum, frequently finding opposition where none exists, and insults where none were intended. Another poster went so far as to call you "The New EE". Maybe you are.
You gonna claim that's not intended as an insult, either?
I play D&D. If you read what I said to be me sneering at people who play D&D, I was sneering at myself.



I'm not. I was actually reacting to the concept of the SotC and Wushu games described, and the possible ramifications of trying to run a DnD game like that, which may not have been what you were getting at.


[quote]Oh, please. I've read a lot of your posts. You are more than intelligent enough to know and realize that the words someone posts on the forum carry meanings and connotations beyond the literal value of the text on the screen. When a person posts something like "I'm really unimpressed with systems that do X, sucketh the big one, and are [derogatory term]," and then reference the players and people involved in using those systems, the *clear* implication is that anyone who favors, in this case, DnD is also involved in or condones the listed activities, such as sneering at players and being generally immature.
What? No, that's not at ALL a clear implication. I play D&D, remember? Why would I imply that about myself?
I don't approve of the listed activities, but PLENTY of people can and do play D&D without them. "Want to play a Jade Phoenix Mage but don't like the given fluff? Sure, make your own." "You've been wanting Gloves of the Starry Sky? You can buy some soon/I'll add some to the loot/whatever."


That's a borderline shot at the majority of the posters here. But it's also a very safe shot, because if anyone calls you on it you can respond that that isn't what you meant and that they're reading too much into it. If this is news to you (and I sincerely doubt that it is) then so be it, but it *is* one way that your posts can be percieved - and very easily so. I'll stop short of calling it "stealth-flaming," but only just.
And you guys claim I imagine insults.
I said that I'm not impressed by people who do X. HOW, how on earth, are you reading that to apply to people who do NOT do X?

Saying what you're stopping just short of means you're not stopping at all. Isn't there something called a "mea culpa offense" around here?



Don't feed him
I don't call you a troll for saying things I disagree with. I don't think you should be doing the same, and I'm pretty sure it's against the rules.

Jade_Tarem
2008-08-14, 07:17 AM
What? No, that's not at ALL a clear implication. I play D&D, remember? Why would I imply that about myself?
I don't approve of the listed activities, but PLENTY of people can and do play D&D without them. "Want to play a Jade Phoenix Mage but don't like the given fluff? Sure, make your own." "You've been wanting Gloves of the Starry Sky? You can buy some soon/I'll add some to the loot/whatever."


And you guys claim I imagine insults.
I said that I'm not impressed by people who do X. HOW, how on earth, are you reading that to apply to people who do NOT do X?

Saying what you're stopping just short of means you're not stopping at all. Isn't there something called a "mea culpa offense" around here?


I don't call you a troll for saying things I disagree with. I don't think you should be doing the same, and I'm pretty sure it's against the rules.

...of course. How silly of me. Your posts are constructed entirely from rainbows and candy, and it's just the rest of us mean ol' punks that keep picking on you. I should have seen it before!

But seriously, if you won't even consider the possiblity that writing in that fashion might bother people, then you're going to keep getting backlash from the other posters.

Also, being a member of a group does not mean that you're incapable of offending other members of that group.

And finally, it's a mea culpa offense if I said something like "I would call you a flaming *** ***** **** troll, but it's against the rules." I said I would stop short of calling it stealth flaming not because I wanted to dodge the moderators, but because I honestly don't think your posts are quite that bad. Still, if it ticks you off that badly I'll go back and change it.

kamikasei
2008-08-14, 07:33 AM
Part of me feels I should just avoid this whole dust-up since it looks like there's serious baggage involved from other discussions, but to be honest, I can't see where Jade is getting his reading of Bees' original comment. I read it as, "I've played a couple of systems where players are given a whole lot of control over what happens in the game, and they seem to work out fine. Given this, I see it is a point against a system if it or its designers seem to imply its players can't be trusted with even enough control to build or equip their characters."

How does that turn into "players of the system I'm criticizing are idiots and shouldn't be allowed to enjoy their sucky game"?


Also, being a member of a group does not mean that you're incapable of offending other members of that group.

Being a member of a group not always, but often, means that you're not likely to flame other members by implying all members of the group are idiots.

Sebastian
2008-08-14, 07:59 AM
This really goes back to the mindset of "Mechanics are the rules, descriptions are not important". Some people read "Dwarf" as +2 Con, -2 Cha, Medium Sized, etc, while other read the description of the Dwarf race & the mechanics.

Mechanics and description should work together, not separetly, or even worse, one against the other. I liked Eberron because was able to merge fluff and crunch so well, but is when crunch say one thing and fluff say a different one that things go bad.

Tormsskull
2008-08-14, 08:16 AM
Part of me feels I should just avoid this whole dust-up since it looks like there's serious baggage involved from other discussions

You are 100% correct. It is about respect, maturity, and the ability to communicate with other in a way that does not insult them. Sometimes bits of this creep into all of our posts unintentionally as we get fired up about a specific topic. But for other posters this is a matter of course.

Your above quote is why I was (snarkily so) suggesting not to respond to such posts.

Mushroom Ninja
2008-08-14, 10:15 AM
Back on topic.... I don't like racial and fluff requirements for PrCs in non-Campaign-setting books. I like the PHB and DMG to be as unfluffy as possible because I like making up my own settings where the stereotypes don't necessicarily apply.

Edit: I've seen far too many people base their character's "personality" on the stereotypes and the stereotypes alone.

hamishspence
2008-08-14, 10:23 AM
Wizards recommended fluff-heavy prerequisites names etc for people making up their own prestige classes, suggesting they would be more memorable.

4th ed, it looks like, may go a similar route with racial prerequisites, with Warforged Juggernaught paragon path, etc. I wonder what we will see further down the line?

Mushroom Ninja
2008-08-14, 10:28 AM
Don't get me wrong, I like having fluff as a prerequisite. Just not in core. I think fluff should be a setting-specific thing rather than a core mechanic.

AstralFire
2008-08-14, 10:30 AM
And similarly, racial developments that make sense are fine by me; Warforged Juggernaut requires an element of the base race that quite simply can not be emulated by any other PC race, and an alteration would require a significant mechanical retool. Now, Sky-Lord on the other hand...

hamishspence
2008-08-14, 10:32 AM
What about the POL setting specific organizations with paths?: the Wolves in Dragon magazine, paragon Warlords, must be Good.

Tormsskull
2008-08-14, 10:33 AM
Don't get me wrong, I like having fluff as a prerequisite. Just not in core. I think fluff should be a setting-specific thing rather than a core mechanic.

That leads back into the question of the actual mechanics of the race though as well. Should the core books feature Dwarves with bonus Con, and negative Cha (In other words, saying "This is how dwarves are").

In my opinion in makes more sense for them to create the races in a world, even if that world is quite generic, and then create their descriptive text and mechanics so that they playout as intended.

Then if a DM decides to create their whole own world and wants to retailor the races, they are free to do so. And keep in mind there is nothing particularly special about mechanics. If in your world dwarves are hulking brutes you could decide to give them a +2 Strength instead of Con.

Telonius
2008-08-14, 10:34 AM
Right, but they also either lack the will to stand up for themselves, are brutish, or feel like outcasts.

Cue "nasty brutish and short" joke.

Mushroom Ninja
2008-08-14, 10:36 AM
That leads back into the question of the actual mechanics of the race though as well. Should the core books feature Dwarves with bonus Con, and negative Cha (In other words, saying "This is how dwarves are").

In my opinion in makes more sense for them to create the races in a world, even if that world is quite generic, and then create their descriptive text and mechanics so that they playout as intended.

Then if a DM decides to create their whole own world and wants to retailor the races, they are free to do so. And keep in mind there is nothing particularly special about mechanics. If in your world dwarves are hulking brutes you could decide to give them a +2 Strength instead of Con.

That makes enought sense to me. I see the PHB races as samples, templates for how to make your own races to fit your campaign. That being said, I end up using them more often than not because it takes work to homebrew up a ton of new races. :smallwink:

AstralFire
2008-08-14, 10:38 AM
What about the POL setting specific organizations with paths?: the Wolves in Dragon magazine, paragon Warlords, must be Good.

I have no issue with setting-specific organization PrCs. No complaints, for example, of the Dragonmarked House Agent or Purple Dragon Knight.


In my opinion in makes more sense for them to create the races in a world, even if that world is quite generic, and then create their descriptive text and mechanics so that they playout as intended.

We are agreed. The races are a baseline. But classes (and eventually, Prestige Classes got subsumed into this) are mechanically required to express different character concepts, and should not be so similarly limited. You have to begin anchoring mechanics and fluff somewhere, what I dislike is how far they carry it at times.

hamishspence
2008-08-14, 10:41 AM
thing is, PoL is closest thing to Core that 4th ed has. In effect, there is a baseline setting, rather than no setting but tools for players to create their own. In effect, your are fleshing out a setting, not creating one.

I would say Dragon is a better place for organizations, to start with. Though maybe something like PHB2 or Complete Champion will come eventually: Book of Organizations (with paths)

Mushroom Ninja
2008-08-14, 10:42 AM
I have no issue with setting-specific organization PrCs. No complaints, for example, of the Dragonmarked House Agent or Purple Dragon Knight.



We are agreed. The races are a baseline. But classes (and eventually, Prestige Classes got subsumed into this) are mechanically required to express different character concepts, and should not be so similarly limited. You have to begin anchoring mechanics and fluff somewhere, what I dislike is how far they carry it at times.

Out of curiosity, what are your views on classes that have codes they have to uphold (ie paladin, knight, to a lesser degree monk and druid)?

Tormsskull
2008-08-14, 10:44 AM
You have to begin anchoring mechanics and fluff somewhere, what I dislike is how far they carry it at times.

I understand what you mean, and it has a lot of value especially in the design phase. When you create a class that has a lot of options to it, you can realize several different types (or concepts if you will) with that single class.

I have to admit to really liking ultra-exclusive PrCs though. I've never viewed classes simply as a collection of skills and abilities, so organizational PrCs always made a lot of sense. Rather than having 1 generic PrC (like Eldritch Knight f/x), I'd rather have several PrCs that are focused on that same concept (fighting + arcane magic). Each PrC would have come about dependent on the organization, possibly the culture of the people, etc, etc.

In this way, Prestige Classes are really prestigious, not just slightly better base classes. Again, all in my preferences (and, if I am not mistaking, somewhere WotC specifically said there was nothing special about PrCs and that their name was kind of misleading).

hamishspence
2008-08-14, 10:47 AM
Codes, depending on how stringent they are, can be a source of interesting roleplay. They can also lead to much squabbling.

And does the druid have much of a code, beside Don't chnage alignment to the extremes? By rules, you could have druid devastate huge areas of forest with no penalty, or even have a host of Undead cohorts and followers.

Mushroom Ninja
2008-08-14, 10:54 AM
Codes, depending on how stringent they are, can be a source of interesting roleplay. They can also lead to much squabbling.

And does the druid have much of a code, beside Don't chnage alignment to the extremes? By rules, you could have druid devastate huge areas of forest with no penalty, or even have a host of Undead cohorts and followers.

I find it funny that druids can go on a forest burning expedition without any class drawbacks, but if they put on metal armor, they can't cast spells for a day. Lol.

hamishspence
2008-08-14, 10:56 AM
Not sure how 4th ed will do it, but going by precedent metal armour won't be problem. Not proficent, sure. but if wizards can cast in full plate, so should druids.

AstralFire
2008-08-14, 10:58 AM
Out of curiosity, what are your views on classes that have codes they have to uphold (ie paladin, knight, to a lesser degree monk and druid)?

My campaigns always generalize Paladins so PCs can play any of the nine alignments. They're a faith's shock troopers and personal agents. They also do not lose their power for straying. However, in most of the settings I've DMed, if a Paladin strays too far from the code they accepted when they entered the class and their organization hears about it, they're going to have Inquistors and Harriers on their tail pretty fast.

I've never had a PC play Knight nor have I ever wanted to play it.

Monk I've always freed of its alignment restrictions entirely, as monasteries can espouse a number of different world views. Never saw how being lawful stopped a Bard from singing or a Barbarian from getting angry, either - number of famous Barbarians in fiction had strict personal codes. But this is sliding into my dislike for the vaguely defined notion of Law versus Chaos, one of the things of 3.x I didn't care for compared to 2E or 4E.

Druids are like paladins. Any alignment but if they start pissing off people up top, they're in deep water.

I believe in flavor restrictions being enforced with more RP, basically.

hamishspence
2008-08-14, 11:03 AM
very 4th ed: start off alignment, no spellcasting penalties for changing, but roleplaying penalties.

Not sure whats in store for bard and barbarian. Personally I think Unearthed Arcana 1 went down the wrong path when it made them variant fighters: it should be a variant culture, maybe with a Berserker paragon path. Still, that decision was made a long time ago. In 3rd ed, unlike before, we get rages as well. And 4th, by R&C, with have even "angrier" barbarians. Hmm.

Mushroom Ninja
2008-08-14, 11:26 AM
That's one thing I really like about 4e. The 3.x alignment system is just silly.

Crow
2008-08-14, 01:18 PM
Your response to what amounts to "maybe the PrC shouldn't always represent this" was "but the RAW says it does". I'd say that implies it pretty strongly

A lot of groups play by RAW. Some DM's prefer it that way. The ones that want to change it can do so, but in the end it's still up to the DM. If the DM doesn't want to allow the class, he doesn't have to. If the DM will allow it, but you have to fulfill the RAW prereqs, then oh well. Talk to your DM about it. The Assassin was an example PrC. I think the intention was that the DM come up with his own PrC's, but then Generation Me and the idea of player entitlement popped in and started saying "But it's in the core books! It must be for every player if they want it!"

Either way, for the Assassin as written, who must kill someone for no other reason than to become an assassin, the evil restriction makes perfect sense. Don't like it, homebrew your own class. Don't complain about the prereqs on a PrC which wasn't intended for every player's use in the first place.


Not really, it can't. Someone who wants to play a Paladin (perhaps *the* most argument-causing class) can just be Lawful Good. The restrictions aren't actually good for much of anything.

So then it basically comes back to "I want that ability, I want it, I want it I want it."


Alignment and racial restrictions have nothing to do with power. They do not let a player control the scene at the expense of other characters. And the Druid class does far more of this than letting players pick their own loot.

I wasn't talking about race/alignment restrictions, as you had at this point switched to the "give players whatever they want" argument in a more general sense, which is what I was referring to. If you were talking about race/alignment restrictions at that time, then yor comparison to Wushu and SotC is even more off-base. In D&D, always giving players what they want can end up being One-Winged Last Survivors and Chaotic-Neutral Paladin Full-Casters who are sleeping with their Dragon Cohort ruining everyone else's fun. If that's great in your game, then fine, to each his own.

hamishspence
2008-08-14, 01:35 PM
Personally I like alignment, but Detect spells I like less. Some books have a mix of Great ideas, and less great ideas, or ideas obsoleted by later material: Vile Darkness: Killing Fiends is always Good, allowing them to live is Evil. (doesn't apply to fiends themselves, and became obsolete when WoTC made it clear that Good creatures with the Evil subtype could exist. Add in Accepting environments like Sigil or Union and its clear that bit was not well thought out)

Similarly, book writer may do something inconsistant with other book: Exalted Deeds: lie used as example in "Evil act to save the World" since Vile Darkness say Lying wasn't always evil (but was risky)

I have less trouble with some things other people have trouble with: people insisting that since Alhandra the Paladin is Merciless, Mercy cannot be good: (No, its a personality flaw of hers. Not enough to move her out of LG, or paladinhood, but that doesn't affect the fact that Mercy is Good)

Duke of URL
2008-08-14, 01:57 PM
Racial prerequisite classes and feats that don't actually require anything the race can do innately, it's just "we only teach this to elves/dwarves." I can understand something being themed around a race, sure, that's cool and flavorful. But to bar everything bugs me.

(This topic could also be called "Why I never get to take the Dwarven Defender or Arcane Archer and yes I know how horribly unoptimal they are." Whenever I play Dwarves, I'm not in the mood for a DD.)

This is why I've always maintained that "fluff" and "crunch" have to be separated (yes, I'm looking at you, 4e!) from each other. The mechanic must make sense on its own, without reference to the "fluff" of the setting. You can then adapt the mechanic to a particular setting by adding "fluff" requirements that make sense for your setting -- it's OK to provide a default "fluff", but it needs to be clearly indicated as something that applies only to the generic/default setting.

And yes, Arcane Archer is most certainly the most easily identified culprit. Which is nowhere near the biggest of its flaws, but that's beside the point.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-14, 02:39 PM
...of course. How silly of me. Your posts are constructed entirely from rainbows and candy, and it's just the rest of us mean ol' punks that keep picking on you. I should have seen it before!
Of course they're not. Neither are yours. But that post in no way implied anything like what you're getting out of it.


But seriously, if you won't even consider the possiblity that writing in that fashion might bother people, then you're going to keep getting backlash from the other posters.
I'm going to rub some people the wrong way. That's OK--some posters rub me the wrong way, too. But if the backlash is this irrational, there's not much I can do about it: you turned "I don't think too highly of people who do X" into "I don't think too highly of both people who do X and people who DON'T do X". What you read into my post has nothing to do with what's actually there, and I'm not the only one who sees this, apparently. You made a mistake. And yet, you can't stop insisting "no, I was right! You were insulting me, you were you were you were!"


Also, being a member of a group does not mean that you're incapable of offending other members of that group.
But it does mean I'm probably not going to suggest that everyone in that group is an idiot.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-14, 02:49 PM
A lot of groups play by RAW. Some DM's prefer it that way. The ones that want to change it can do so, but in the end it's still up to the DM. If the DM doesn't want to allow the class, he doesn't have to. If the DM will allow it, but you have to fulfill the RAW prereqs, then oh well. Talk to your DM about it. The Assassin was an example PrC. I think the intention was that the DM come up with his own PrC's, but then Generation Me and the idea of player entitlement popped in and started saying "But it's in the core books! It must be for every player if they want it!"
So in other words you're arguing what I said you were arguing all along, and the little detour about how you weren't actually saying that a non-evil person taking Assassin was bad because it wasn't RAW was... what, a smokescreen? I don't know why you'd first deny you were saying something and then go right out and say it, except just for the sake of arguing.

No group plays entirely by RAW. That way Candles of Invocation and drowning-back-to-zero lie. "Some DMs prefer it that way", but they're being pointlessly restrictive. Adhering to RAW fluff requirements and refusing to refluff is facepalm-worthy... especially when you consider that most people play in homebrewed settings (that is, ones that aren't using the RAW flavor given in the book).


Either way, for the Assassin as written, who must kill someone for no other reason than to become an assassin, the evil restriction makes perfect sense. Don't like it, homebrew your own class. Don't complain about the prereqs on a PrC which wasn't intended for every player's use in the first place.
Or "don't like it, reflavor the class, since what really matters are its abilities."


So then it basically comes back to "I want that ability, I want it, I want it I want it."
Oh, no, people getting to build what they want mechanically! It's not that this should never be restricted--in 3.5, it should, pretty viciously: Incantatrix? No. Planar Sheherd? OH U--but restricting it just because of the PrC's existing fluff is ridiculous.


I wasn't talking about race/alignment restrictions, as you had at this point switched to the "give players whatever they want" argument in a more general sense, which is what I was referring to. If you were talking about race/alignment restrictions at that time, then yor comparison to Wushu and SotC is even more off-base. In D&D, always giving players what they want can end up being One-Winged Last Survivors and Chaotic-Neutral Paladin Full-Casters who are sleeping with their Dragon Cohort ruining everyone else's fun. If that's great in your game, then fine, to each his own.
Except I didn't say that you should always give players 100% of what they want. What I actually/I] said was that I'm not impressed by people who act like players aren't responsible enough to [I]pick their own classes/items/etc--and, to clarify, within the options that are otherwise acceptable. If the Assassin would be availible to any character, it's clearly OK for your game; preventing a good-aligned character from taking it because of the RAW fluff is mindbogglingly pointless.

I think, however, that you'll find that a lot of players--most mature players--do not want to auto-win everything, be one-winged last survivors, and sleep with their dragon cohort. And I think that if you treat your players like they do, you're doing them a disservice.
If they all do, well, personally I just wouldn't play D&D with those guys, because I can't imagine them being very good players regardless of how much of what they want is given to them.

hamishspence
2008-08-14, 02:52 PM
I think WoTC put out a non-evil Assassin prestige class late in 3.5, online only. Exalted deeds gave us the Slayer of Domiel (assassin type but with goodness turned way up)

While plain assassin is still evil, Wizards appear to think good versions can be drawn as well.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-14, 03:03 PM
I think WoTC put out a non-evil Assassin prestige class late in 3.5, online only. Exalted deeds gave us the Slayer of Domiel (assassin type but with goodness turned way up)


The Avenger online, yes. Which was partially an April Fools' joke, but also a way of saying "look, nothing about these mechanics is inherently evil. You can fluff things however you want."

hamishspence
2008-08-14, 03:07 PM
Some things do need changing some. Deathwatch. Neutral in 3.0, Recommendation to change to Evil in Vile Darkness, changed to Evil in 3.5.

Except- immediately afterwards Miniatures Handbook healer (must be good) and Slayer of Domiel (must be exalted Lawful good) get it on their spell lists.

Conclusion: Somebody made a poor decision. Personally with 2 Good classes that get it, i'd say change it back to Neutral

AstralFire
2008-08-14, 03:09 PM
I never got that. It's such a useful spell for keeping your party alive.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-14, 03:09 PM
I'm pretty sure that was a misprint and Death Knell, right below it, was meant to have that tag.

Crow
2008-08-14, 03:11 PM
Covered In Bees: Dude, chill. You're drawing conclusions from my post that are way off base. The Assassin is an example PrC. Please explain to me why having fluff restrictions in a PrC that is used as an example is bad. I don't think it says anywhere in the DMG that you can't reflavor it. D&D assumes a certain amount of fluff even without a specific setting. It is inevitable that there will be some fluff restrictions somewhere, and in some cases alignment (which is actually a mechanic in 3.x) is a decent mechanic to use as a restriction because as written, the Assassin is a killer, not an avenger. If the DM and group is playing by the RAW fluff, which some do, then the restrictions aren't pointless.

Don't like it. Reflavor it.

Oh and please don't stretch my statements. When I said some groups play by RAW, I was excluding the obviously broken aspects like the drowning to zero thing. You're far too intelligent to think I was being that black and white.

hamishspence
2008-08-14, 03:15 PM
Its not in the errata. Or the FAQ. Call it an error by WoTC.

Same with some other things. Text trumps table may be a good rule mostly, but when it comes to Complete divine it leads to problems. Sage Advices has gone with Table trumped text, for the rainbow servant and Radiant servant PrCs at least.

and RAW isn't just things that look like rules bugs. sometimes mechanic may not be directly buggy, but is alarmingly powerful.

AstralFire
2008-08-14, 03:18 PM
Its not in the errata. Or the FAQ. Call it an error by WoTC.

Same with some other things. Text trumps table may be a good rule mostly, but when it comes to Complete divine it leads to problems. Sage Advices has gone with Table trumped text, for the rainbow servant and Radiant servant PrCs at least.

and RAW isn't just things that look like rules bugs. sometimes mechanic may not be directly buggy, but is alarmingly powerful.

See: Warmage PrCing into anything that increases spell list size.

hamishspence
2008-08-14, 03:21 PM
epic spells being lowereed to spellcraft DC0, and numerous other things. when D&Dverse evolves into Tippyverse, wincing happens.

Generally, leads to things being disallowed, or gentleman's agreements not to abuse infinitely abusable rules. Said agreements may stretch over time.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-14, 03:27 PM
Covered In Bees: Dude, chill. You're drawing conclusions from my post that are way off base. The Assassin is an example PrC. Please explain to me why having fluff restrictions in a PrC that is used as an example is bad.
Because it adds a mechanical restriction rather than just leaving it at flavor. Please explain to me why having a blurb about how assassins who kill for money are evil, but assassins that hunt down and kill even monsters might not be, instead of "MUST BE EVIL, LOL" wouldn't be better.


Don't like it. Reflavor it.
Yes, "reflavor it" is what I was saying. I'm glad you agree, but I don'tknow why you did it through argument.


Oh and please don't stretch my statements. When I said some groups play by RAW, I was excluding the obviously broken aspects like the drowning to zero thing. You're far too intelligent to think I was being that black and white.
My whole point was that if they're playing by RAW "except for X, Y, and Z", which all of them are, then they might as well also reflavor prestige classes, for example.

hamishspence
2008-08-14, 03:31 PM
For example, in 4th ed, might reflavour Wiz of Spiral tower as Wiz of the Moon, swapping longsword for scimitar.

Little reflavours and rule adjustments are OK, as long as it doesn't lead to power creep.

Crow
2008-08-14, 04:01 PM
Because it adds a mechanical restriction rather than just leaving it at flavor. Please explain to me why having a blurb about how assassins who kill for money are evil, but assassins that hunt down and kill even monsters might not be, instead of "MUST BE EVIL, LOL" wouldn't be better.

Because in that example, the PrC is just an example for DM's to base their own creations off of (which it says the DM should do). The example given is clearly for an evil assassin. If a DM wants to reflavor it, fine. But for the Assassin as written, the requirements are perfectly reasonable. Neither play style is any more right than the other. The PrC was an example. It was not intended for general use in everyone's game to begin with anyways.


Yes, "reflavor it" is what I was saying. I'm glad you agree, but I don'tknow why you did it through argument.

Because a DM who chooses to play the PrC as written is no more wrong than the Dm who chooses to reflavor it. You seem to be saying that any DM who uses the default fluff is "wrong".


My whole point was that if they're playing by RAW "except for X, Y, and Z", which all of them are, then they might as well also reflavor prestige classes, for example.

Which is entirely reasonable. But it's also no less reasonable to not reflavor it. As I said, both are entirely valid playstyles.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-14, 04:11 PM
Because in that example, the PrC is just an example for DM's to base their own creations off of (which it says the DM should do). The example given is clearly for an evil assassin. If a DM wants to reflavor it, fine. But for the Assassin as written, the requirements are perfectly reasonable. Neither play style is any more right than the other. The PrC was an example. It was not intended for general use in everyone's game to begin with anyways.
And it's a bad example because it tells people "restrict your prestige classes by alignment, kids! It's great!"
Yes, it WAS intended for general use. That's why it was published. It was expected that every group with a DMG at least could use the given classes.
Reflavoring it is inherently superior to refusing to reflavor it and sticking with the RAW.


Because a DM who chooses to play the PrC as written is no more wrong than the Dm who chooses to reflavor it. You seem to be saying that any DM who uses the default fluff is "wrong".
Not any DM who uses the default fluff--just any DM who refuses to change the default fluff. It's saying "no" for absolutely no good reason. Your player wants to be a Jade Phoenix Mage but doesn't want to be the reincarnated soul of an etc etc etc? Maybe he wants to be the servant of a powerful evil spirit? Great. Change the "you can sense other Jade Phoenix Mages" bit, rename it the Ebon Phoenix Mage, done. What's good about a DM refusing to do this? It's just denying a perfectly reasonable request for no good reason. There's a reason good RPG books encourage you to say 'Yes' or 'Yes, but...' rather than 'No'.

If a DM would be willing to let the Evil guy in the group take Assassin, but refuses to reflavor it so that the Chaotic Good guy can take it, too, he's basically being a jerk. Reflavoring is not bad, it's good.



Which is entirely reasonable. But it's also no less reasonable to not reflavor it. As I said, both are entirely valid playstyles.
No, it's not reasonable to refuse to reflavor a prestige class that would otherwise be acceptable for your game. Reflavoring is not hard. It doesn't take a long time. It doesn't impact your game in any negative way. There is literally no downside. That means that if you refuse to do it, you're denying the player the ability to do what he wants for no good reason, and that's just plain being a jerk. Not letting someone play a Druid without using the PHB II variant is reasonable. Not letting someone learn overpowered spell X is reasonable. Not letting someone reflavor a PrC? That's just spiting them for kicks.

Crow
2008-08-14, 04:23 PM
Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign. The example prestige classes are certainly not all encompassing or definitive. They might not even be appropriate for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor or make yourself.

{Scrubbed}

Treguard
2008-08-14, 04:23 PM
I'm not sure how far this thread has evolved but I can sympathise with the OP's grumble. Take the PrC Whisperknife, it looked like it'd be great for my whisper gnome build but then I look at the pre-reqs and see halfling as the only eligible race. A shame because by the flavour of both whisper gnomes, with halflings being the most accepting of the misunderstood race, often allowing them to travel with their caravans, and Whisperknives often being caravan protectors, the character seemed solid. :smallannoyed:

Covered In Bees
2008-08-14, 04:37 PM
As I said, neither playstyle is any less valid than the other.
Yes, it is. Just because the DMG says something, that doesn't mean it's good to actually do it. And WotC realized what a bad bit of advice--a remnant of the AD&D mentality, really, like the one-off line about "don't mix bags of holding and extradimensional spaces, lol"--that was.

Refusing to reflavor an acceptable prestige class for a player is being a jerk. I have outlined, in detail, why this is being a jerk. So far, all I'm getting from you in response is "nope, just as valid" and "I'm going to imply that people who would want prestige classes reflavored are like children whining about how they want it."


But I want it. I want it. I want it.
You know, for someone who made a fuss about feeling insulted, you sure are being awfully condescending to anyone who's ever wanted to refluff a prestige class. Yes, someone might want to take a certain PrC, because they like the mechanics. It looks fun, or the abilities fit their character, or they think the abilities are cool. Why do you need to pretend that this is some sort of childish "waaah, I want everything" impulse?

You have yet to provide me with a SINGLE reason why it might be good to not refluff an otherwise acceptable prestige class for a player. Yes, the player wants it. It's not exactly an unreasonable want. Do you have some paranoid fear of actually giving players what they want, occasionally? Does what your players want from the game really not matter to you? And how on earth is that good GMing?



I'm not sure how far this thread has evolved but I can sympathise with the OP's grumble. Take the PrC Whisperknife, it looked like it'd be great for my whisper gnome build but then I look at the pre-reqs and see halfling as the only eligible race. A shame because by the flavour of both whisper gnomes, with halflings being the most accepting of the misunderstood race, often allowing them to travel with their caravans, and Whisperknives often being caravan protectors, the character seemed solid. :smallannoyed:
Exactly. It fits mechanically, it fits flavor-wise... a DM who wouldn't let you take it because the book says "halflings only, lol" is being a jerk. There is absolutely no good rason to do so.

Crow
2008-08-14, 04:51 PM
I'm done. The only convincing argument that you have given for anything is that if you don't get exactly what you want, the DM is a jerk.

You seem to think I'm saying it's wrong to reflavor a class, which I'm not. Furthermore you seem to be saying that any DM who wants to play using the fluff already provided is an idiot, which they are not. If a player wants to play something really badly, then they can talk to their DM about reflavoring it. But if the DM doesn't want to, it doesn't automatically mean he's a jerk.

Devin
2008-08-14, 04:51 PM
I agree 100% with Covered in Bees. So what if a player wants to change some fluff to play a weaker than average class? At best, preventing them from doing so is silly and needlessly restrictive, at worst, it's simply spiteful and mean-spirited. {Scrubbed}

Edit:Yes, in most cases it does make them a jerk. I'm sure there's some theoretical case where that's not true, but in practical application, it's just being a petty, childish, inflexible jerk.

Crow
2008-08-14, 04:55 PM
{scrubbed}

Devin
2008-08-14, 04:57 PM
Pardon? I don't even play D&D. Don't assume that people only object to your statements because you personally hurt them. Most people are going to object to your statements because they're just wrong.

Tormsskull
2008-08-14, 05:02 PM
So what if a player wants to change some fluff to play a weaker than average class?

You're beating around the bush. As a general rule, should a player be allowed to refluff a class how they want? If so, what exactly does refluffing entail?

Is an alignment restriction (Example: Alignment: Any good) considered fluff?

Is a racial restriction (Example: Race: Non-human only) considered fluff?

Is a skill requirement considered fluff (Example: Move Silently, 6 ranks)?


My argument would be that all of the three above are mechanics. If you follow along the path that some do, you would say alignment and racial restrictions are not because they do not reference any numerical values. If that's how you play D&D (i.e. numerical values are the most important), that's completely fine. You'll have fun, etc, etc.

But, if some people think that alignment restrictions and racial restrictions are important to the class, I don't think anyone has the right to call them stupid, senseless, whatever else for not just ignoring those said requirements.

If someone were to make those statements (i.e. "You're a big stupid face for not letting me make this class into what I want"), then I think the "I want it, I want it" label is very apt.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-14, 05:03 PM
I'm done. The only convincing argument that you have given for anything is that if you don't get exactly what you want, the DM is a jerk.
If a prestige class is otherwise acceptable--that is, it's not going to break the game, it doesn't give abilities that don't fit (e.g. one that lets you Cure Disease in a homebrew setting where Cure Disease doesn't exist and major plagues are a setting thing, or something), etc--then refusing to refluff it for a player, because it's so easy. There's no reason NOT to do it. If you're denying someone something they want FOR NO REASON, you are being a jerk.

Seriously. Think about. A player would like to take a prestige class. Denying him because of the fluff in the book (even when you're deviating from the book in other places, like in your homebrewed setting) is being pointlessly bound by the text on the page.
YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN A REASON WHY NOT REFLUFFING MIGHT BE GOOD. You have not given a reason for a DM to want to "stick with the fluff in the book" instead of reflavoring the class.


You seem to think I'm saying it's wrong to reflavor a class, which I'm not. Furthermore you seem to be saying that any DM who wants to play using the fluff already provided is an idiot, which they are not.
No, I'm saying that any DM who refuses to change any of the fluff provided. It's OK to use the fluff as printed--if someone is evil and wants to take Assassin by killing someone to join an Assassins' Guild, that's fine. But it's also good to refluff it if someone wants a different flavor on it (and because doing so is so easy, and there aren't any reasons not to do it, not doing it is bad).


If a player wants to play something really badly, then they can talk to their DM about reflavoring it. But if the DM doesn't want to, it doesn't automatically mean he's a jerk.
If there's no reason not to? Yes, it does. He is denying the player what the player wants FOR. NO. REASON.

"Well, I know you liked the idea of your character blending magic and archery into one discipline, ever since your ranger developed sorcerous abilities... but Arcane Archer says "elves only", so you can't take it."
"What? Why not?!"
"I want to use the fluff in the book."
"What? It makes perfect sense for my character. The abilities and feel make sense. The class sure isn't overpowered. So everything should be fine, right?"
"Well, yeah, but I want to use the fluff in the book."
"Nobody else is even using the damn prestige class!"
"Well, yeah, but... I don't want to do something that contradicts the fluff in the book."
"In your setting orcs don't exist and the few halflings that remain are the brainwashed servants of an assassination-happy!"
"Well, yeah, but... I don't want to do something that contradicts the fluff in the book when it comes to this specific prestige class you want to take."
"So, basically you're just screwing me over for absolutely no good reason?"
"Yuuuuuuuup."

Devin
2008-08-14, 05:10 PM
Tormsskull, I'm sure there are some cases where it's actually stupid and senseless to allow certain prestiges classes regardless of fluff. However, in most cases, rewriting class abilities is harmless and useful. Even if you end up with something different from what the class originally was, that's okay. I think DM's should be open to homebrew and reflavoring, as long as it doesn't damage the game. I also think it won't damage the game in most cases.

AstralFire
2008-08-14, 05:19 PM
When you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one you hurt.

Assuming that is correct (and actually, all the dogs would yelp and/or get defensive, actually, if they're a real pack) that doesn't mean that the dog was lame and or oversensitive. All you did was throw a rock at it, informing you little about the dog.

I've been staying out of the argument between you and Vespa-Blanketed Batman because he can certainly be abrasive, but the "I want I want I want" statements continually are pretty condescending in their own right; it's a reductio ad absurdum argument.

Everyone chill out please, I'm afraid to come into my own topic right now.

Tormsskull
2008-08-14, 05:20 PM
However, in most cases, rewriting class abilities is harmless and useful.

Oh, I agree. I write a lot of my own abilities for classes all the time. A player says "I think it would be cool if I could be a PrC that is like x, and y, and z." Then I try to design a class like that, often times with a lot of input from them, and then go ahead.

But if I create a PrC specifically for, let's say Dwarves, and the reasoning for their restrictions is based upon Dwarven culture, or perhaps Dwarven special training or something, and then a human PC sees this and say "I want that PrC", I am going to tell them no. And if they then say "But I want it, I want it!" I'm still going to tell them no, and probably tell them to grow up.

If mature people are involved, the conversation will probably go:

Player: "Oh, that dwarf guy was cool. Can I train to be like him?"
DM: "Actually, he is a member of the Dwarven Legion of National Defense, and they only allow dwarves into their organization, so you can't be that PrC."
Player: "Darn. Ok."

End of conversation.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-14, 05:22 PM
...Because nobody but dwarves can learn to take up a defensive stance and HOLD YOUR GROUND, MEN!...?

Devin
2008-08-14, 05:29 PM
But what if they manage to rewrite the entire thing in a way that makes perfect sense and has nothing to do with dwarves? What if they changed, say, some kind of enemy movement abilities taught by the Dwarven Military Academy into some kind of telekinesis instead, retaining all the mechanical effects?

I think I understand, though, why you wouldn't want to give a human an ability that says "as a paragon of dwarfliness, you give all dwarves within 30 feet of you a plus 2 morale bonus on saves against fear." Even so, why couldn't they just take that out completely? It's not like making a class a little weaker is any kind of entitlement-whoring(like Crow repeatedly suggested).

Chronicled
2008-08-14, 05:30 PM
If mature people are involved, the conversation will probably go:

Player: "Oh, that dwarf guy was cool. Can I train to be like him?"
DM: "Actually, he is a member of the Dwarven Legion of National Defense, and they only allow dwarves into their organization, so you can't be that PrC."
Player: "Darn. Ok."

End of conversation.

If a good DM is involved, the conversation will probably go:

Player: "Oh, that dwarf guy was cool. Can I train to be like him?"
DM: (Aha! A plot hook!) "Yes, but... he was using fighting techniques that are known only to the members of the dwarf elite Legion of National Defense. Normally, only dwarves are allowed to train with them, but exceptions have been made in the past..."
Player: "What does my guy need to do to get in, then?"
DM: "Well..."

Beginning of cool story arc.

Saph
2008-08-14, 05:39 PM
If a good DM is involved, the conversation will probably go:

Player: "Oh, that dwarf guy was cool. Can I train to be like him?"
DM: (Aha! A plot hook!) "Yes, but... he was using fighting techniques that are known only to the members of the dwarf elite Legion of National Defense. Normally, only dwarves are allowed to train with them, but exceptions have been made in the past..."
Player: "What does my guy need to do to get in, then?"
DM: "Well..."

Beginning of cool story arc.

I don't know, I think a good DM could run it either way.

I'd probably go with the "yes, but" approach, but I don't think there's anything conceptually wrong with ruling that a PrC designed to be a paragon of dwarfiness is available only to dwarves.

- Saph

AstralFire
2008-08-14, 05:43 PM
I would feel comfortable going either way. In general, as a DM, I try to allow my players as much freedom to make a concept as possible.

The issue of allowing versus disallowing in a specific campaign is far too broad to widely paint either option as "Bad/Good DM" or "Self-Entitlement Issue Players." So I wish we'd stop painting it like that. All my original gripe was, was about seemingly arbitrary flavor requirements in non-setting-specific supplements (aka everything not part of a campaign setting, particularly core and one or two other things.)

Tormsskull
2008-08-14, 05:47 PM
I don't know, I think a good DM could run it either way.


Exactly, and I wouldn't fault a DM for bending over backwards to accomodate the player if that's what they wanted to do.



I would feel comfortable going either way. In general, as a DM, I try to allow my players as much freedom to make a concept as possible.


And that's a completely rational and logical explanation.


Now that we have determined that no one is dumb or stupid for ruling one way or the other, maybe we can address more general aspects of this issue.

Devin
2008-08-14, 05:47 PM
As another example(I can't really resist doing this because I feel like I'm on a roll), let's take a hypothetical class called the "Magical Elf." Elves who take this class can, as a result of their natural elven connection to magic, choose from a variety of interesting at-will abilities every time they get a level. The trademark ability, though, is the "Magical Elf Beam," which does ranged damage to a single enemy; there are even several abilities that change the nature of the Magical Elf Beam, since it's the main focus of the class.

Now what if a human wants to take it? Obviously, a human can't be a Magical Elf without some serious transmutation magic. But you can still say they recieved some kind of power from some other source(say, a devil) reflavor all the abilities to take a darker, fiendish tone, and call the class... say, a Warlock. What's wrong with that?

AstralFire
2008-08-14, 05:49 PM
As another example(I can't really resist doing this because I feel like I'm on a roll), let's take a hypothetical class called the "Magical Elf." Elves who take this class can, as a result of their natural elven connection to magic, choose from a variety of interesting at-will abilities every time they get a level. The trademark ability, though, is the "Magical Elf Beam," which does ranged damage to a single enemy; there are even several abilities that change the nature of the Magical Elf Beam, since it's the main focus of the class.

Now what if a human wants to take it? Obviously, a human can't be a Magical Elf without some serious transmutation magic.

I'm going to ignore everything else you said and boggle at the fact that you just introduced Magical Action Shoujo to D&D.

('Cuz Elf = Girl, right?)

Chronicled
2008-08-14, 05:50 PM
I'm going to ignore everything else you said and boggle at the fact that you just introduced Magical Action Shoujo to D&D.

('Cuz Elf = Girl, right?)

What? You've never played a warlock with butterfly wings that shot rainbows at enemies? :smalltongue:

AstralFire
2008-08-14, 05:51 PM
What? You've never played a warlock with butterfly wings that shot rainbows at enemies? :smalltongue:

I've played Warlocks with wings of light (that holy version from C. Champion) that shot fire. That's about it.

Devin
2008-08-14, 05:52 PM
I'm going to ignore everything else you said and boggle at the fact that you just introduced Magical Action Shoujo to D&D.

('Cuz Elf = Girl, right?)

Actually, I was thinking of the typical blonde-haired pretty-boy in green, but that's(the Magical Action Shoujo) a really good example of reflavoring a class to fit a different character. Warlocks are really made for reflavoring, there's no reason you can't have a fey warlock or a Magical Heart warlock or a warforged warlock who flies with jet-wings and shoots energy beams out of his hands.


Edit: My favorite character that I'll never get to play(because I don't really know how to get into this game) is a fey warlock who gets her power from a distant ancestor. I turned that one move where you get to turn into a cloud of fire or something(I can't remember the name) into bursting into a swarm of hundreds of prismatic butterflies.

Saph
2008-08-14, 05:52 PM
Now what if a human wants to take it? Obviously, a human can't be a Magical Elf without some serious transmutation magic. But you can still say they recieved some kind of power from some other source(say, a devil) reflavor all the abilities to take a darker, fiendish tone, and call the class... say, a Warlock. What's wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with rewriting spell descriptions, either, or altering the special abilities of a class, or altering everything for that matter. Innocent kittens are not going to die if you reflavour a class.

But there's also nothing wrong with the DM saying "I don't really want to houserule this particular area, sorry. Try (RAW alternative X) instead."

- Saph

kamikasei
2008-08-14, 05:53 PM
What? You've never played a warlock with butterfly wings that shot rainbows at enemies? :smalltongue:

In the name of Asmodeus, I must punish you!

Covered In Bees
2008-08-14, 06:05 PM
Exactly, and I wouldn't fault a DM for bending over backwards to accomodate the player if that's what they wanted to do.

95% of the time there is no "bending over backwards" involved. Refluffing the Assassin into the "Avenger", or into a chaotic good "hunter of evil", takes all of two or three minutes. A DM who isn't willing to go to the effort it takes to spend two or three minutes glancing over the player's fluff probably isn't a good DM.


If your PrC has iconic-dwarfly-abilities that will all need to be excised, that's one thing, but there's nothing inherently dwarfly about "+4 STR, +2 AC when you don't move more than a 5-foot step". I could reflavor the Dwarven Defender to be an earth-themed nature-y class in no time flat. And my character's "Stance of Stone" ability would have the same effects as the DD's Defensive Stance, but they wouldn't be the same thing. One is a defensive technique taught by the Dwarven Legion of Beerandgrumbling Mountain, one is my character drawing power from the very earth.

There are no mechanical changes involved. The whole thing took me about a minute, and most of that was scanning over the class to make sure there were no "+2 to diplomacy vs. dwarves 'cause they like you so much" abilities (which are pretty stupid in the first place).

If the PrC is Elothar, Warrior of Bladereach (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=9483504&postcount=4) or something else stupidly specific, refluffing it might take a lot of effort, meaning it's too effort-intensive or not worthwhile at all. Not doing that is perfectly okay. But the Assassin, the Dwarven Defender, the Arcane Archer ("elves like magic and bows, so ONLY ELVES can mix magic and bows!")? These things take like two minutes, and any DM not willing to spend that much time on a player probably shouldn't be DMing.

If in your setting, channeling spells into arrows is an Ancient Elven Technique, a secret only ever known by them, then fine, whatever, no Arcane Archer for the human ranger/sorcerer. The flavor of the ability itself is, in your game, tied to an elven tradition. But odds are, that's not the case. If you turn down the human ranger/sorcerer's request to refluff Arcane Archer to "anyone can learn to do this not just elves" when that's not the case, you've got no reason for it and we've gone back to jerkhood.

Saph
2008-08-14, 06:12 PM
Sorry, Bees, but I think you're way off base on this one. Choosing whether or not to allow houserules/reflavouring is always the DM's call.

I've frequently asked DMs to change requirements on classes, or include optional rules, or just about anything else. Sometimes the DM says yes, sometimes the DM says no. When he says no, though, I do not call him a jerk and accuse him of being a bad DM and not caring about me. That's a bad reaction for a whole bunch of reasons.

- Saph

Covered In Bees
2008-08-14, 06:20 PM
Sorry, Bees, but I think you're way off base on this one. Choosing whether or not to allow houserules/reflavouring is always the DM's call.
Choosing whether or not to allow Candles of Invocation is also the DM's call. Not every call is equally good.


I've frequently asked DMs to change requirements on classes, or include optional rules, or just about anything else. Sometimes the DM says yes, sometimes the DM says no. When he says no, though, I do not call him a jerk and accuse him of being a bad DM and not caring about me. That's a bad reaction for a whole bunch of reasons.

- Saph
I wouldn't, either. But if he made a habit of that sort of thing ("no, you can't be an Arcane Archer, THE BOOK SAYS IT'S ELF ONLY") I don't think he'd be likely to be a very good DM, so I probably wouldn't stay in the game too long. If he's a good DM with one jerky quirk, he's a good DM with one jerky quirk, but saying "no! THE BOOK SAYS X" when your player wants to take a PrC whose abilities fit their flavor or something is fundamentally pretty jerky.

Jayabalard
2008-08-14, 06:40 PM
When you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one you hurt.you know, I agree with most of your post, but I still think that you're being rude and misrepresenting the people disagreeing with you.


But if he made a habit of that sort of thing If he's making a habit out of that sort of thing, then your arguing against a straw man (because noone I see is arguing that).


If in your setting, channeling spells into arrows is an Ancient Elven Technique, a secret only ever known by them, then fine, whatever, no Arcane Archer for the human ranger/sorcerer. The flavor of the ability itself is, in your game, tied to an elven tradition. But odds are, that's not the case. If you turn down the human ranger/sorcerer's request to refluff Arcane Archer to "anyone can learn to do this not just elves" when that's not the case, you've got no reason for it and we've gone back to jerkhood.Not true in the slightest; if I'm disallowing a re-flavoring then odds are not unlikely in the slightest.

Crow
2008-08-14, 06:47 PM
you know, I agree with your post 100%, but I still think that being condescendingly rude and misrepresenting the people disagreeing with you.

My apologies, my patience was running short.

Jayabalard
2008-08-14, 07:04 PM
Yeah, but then that's a fluff restriction on crunch which might not even be applicable to a different setting.When you change the setting away from the default, you're responsible for changing these sort of things as well. Otherwise you're just doing a half-ass job of world-building.


What's wrong with that?If it's used a lot you can (not will) wind up with a homogenized, bland game world. I prefer a world where the various races have their own, interesting niches and secret societies. If nearly every town you go to has a secret society that teaches <renamed elf magic blast> then being a member of that Prestige class is no more special than being a blacksmith.

That's not to say that you can't do it from time to time, but it's definitely not something that you want to do too much.

Really, if someone wants a re-flavored prestige class I'm much more likely to go full out and take a few days to hombrew something completely different; I'll almost never do a 2-minute-fake-it-reflavor-job.

Roland St. Jude
2008-08-14, 07:16 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: This thread is getting a bit heated. Please treat others with respect and follow the Forum Rules. Please report offending posts, but don't attack back or attempt to moderate other posters.

Grey Paladin
2008-08-14, 07:40 PM
CiN: What if the fluff is a balancing factor?

Covered In Bees
2008-08-14, 09:32 PM
CiN: What if the fluff is a balancing factor?

It isn't.


.

kjones
2008-08-14, 11:56 PM
More to the point, fluff doesn't make for a very good balancing factor - in my experience munchkins will ignore it, mostly (how often have you seen a build with the caveat, "You must be chaotic evil for this build"? They don't care, it doesn't affect their ability to munchkin around). Actual roleplayers don't need artificial restrictions created by the rules - they just make their own.

No, the real problem is when you try to re-fluff things by changing the mechanics, and end up with something unbalanced. Someone previously in this thread suggested swapping the Con bonus for dwarves to Str - reasonable enough fluff-wise, but then half-orcs go from kind of sucky to incredibly sucky.

Anyway, back on topic, fluff-based requirements only make sense within the context of your campaign - so only use PrCs that actually make sense within your world. If you're a kind DM, you will make it so that most PrCs that people would want to take fit within the world, but you're under no obligation to. (Sorry, Covered In Bees, gotta disagree with you there - while a good DM will modify fluff to make players happy, not doing so doesn't automatically make you a bad DM.)

Grey Paladin
2008-08-15, 05:40 AM
It isn't.


.

What about BoED and its ilk?

A game does no takes place in a generic void, fluff effects the world (and thus game) just as much as that +1 Shortsword you found- if a class without fluff requirements had a Class Feature that stated the character could request up to 10,000 GP worth of supplies a week on demand it would be broken, if the same class required the character to be an acsetic warrior of pure good who swore to donate all his wealth to the church and the poor then suddenly it would seem much more reasonable.

Jayabalard
2008-08-15, 06:18 AM
It isn't.Sometimes it isn't and sometime is it.

In some cases this is done with classes that fluff restrictions on their behavior that force them into doing things the hard way instead of the easy way.

A halfling only class is balanced, in part, because you have to be playing a halfling to play the class... that's a major downside right there :smallbiggrin:

Kami2awa
2008-08-15, 07:16 AM
Its the easiest thing in the world to change. Change the PrC name, remove the race restriction, re-write the background a bit. You should do this sort of thing anyway if you are building your own setting. It's actually lot easier than designing, say, a new magic item or spell since you don't actually have to write any new rules.

Tormsskull
2008-08-15, 08:49 AM
Its the easiest thing in the world to change.

The Point must have a really high armor class, because you just totally missed it :smalltongue:

Obviously, changing rules is very easy. You simply say "Ok, now it is this way." Done.

The question is, SHOULD you do this, specifically at the request of a player. If you have created a PrC in your campaign that has some special trick or whatever that it does, and a player sees that trick and wants to be able to do it, but his character doesn't meet the requirements of the PrC, should you change the requirements of the PrC too accomodate the player.

Some people said yes, some people said no, some people said it depends, and one person said you're a mean-spirited jerk if you don't.

Dausuul
2008-08-15, 08:59 AM
It isn't.


.

It frequently is. But it shouldn't be.

kamikasei
2008-08-15, 09:08 AM
The Point must have a really high armor class, because you just totally missed it :smalltongue:

Obviously, changing rules is very easy. You simply say "Ok, now it is this way." Done.

The question is, SHOULD you do this, specifically at the request of a player. If you have created a PrC in your campaign that has some special trick or whatever that it does, and a player sees that trick and wants to be able to do it, but his character doesn't meet the requirements of the PrC, should you change the requirements of the PrC too accomodate the player.

Some people said yes, some people said no, some people said it depends, and one person said you're a mean-spirited jerk if you don't.

I think Kami2awa was addressing the OP more than the discussion that's sprung up since. The OP wasn't talking about whether you should change fluff restrictions, but whether fluff restrictions should be in the rules at all. Saying that they're so easily changed that they're little hindrance is not missing the point.

Hzurr
2008-08-15, 02:59 PM
Just a quick comment to several people who have made the claim that a DM who won't re-tool is a lazy/bad DM. I, for one, am a horrible World-Builder / designer, and have the utmost respect for people who are talented in this area. While I am willing to work with my players on requirements and change things around, I'm always very hesitant to do so, because (in general) the people who designed the classes/PrCs are much more talented than I am, and I default to their judgement.

But as many people have said, DMs need to be flexible, they need to work with their players. Just don't be so quick to judge hesitant DMs.


The question is, SHOULD you do this, specifically at the request of a player. If you have created a PrC in your campaign that has some special trick or whatever that it does, and a player sees that trick and wants to be able to do it, but his character doesn't meet the requirements of the PrC, should you change the requirements of the PrC too accomodate the player.

Err...this should definately be taken with a grain of moderation (which I'm sure you're assuming, but I figure I should spell it out just in case). If a barbarian comes up to me and wants me to design a PrC that helps him/her get some of the "tricks" that an IotSV gets, I'm going to say no.

Dausuul
2008-08-15, 03:02 PM
Err...this should definately be taken with a grain of moderation (which I'm sure you're assuming, but I figure I should spell it out just in case). If a barbarian comes up to me and wants me to design a PrC that helps him/her get some of the "tricks" that an IotSV gets, I'm going to say no.

Actually, I'd be inclined to say yes. Give IotSV to barbarians and deny it to casters. That might actually help balance things a bit.

Aquillion
2008-08-15, 09:09 PM
Also... if it's just a matter of "we only teach this to race XYZ", well...

Disguising yourself as another race carries a mere -2 penalty. And that's without using any sort of magic to assist in it, even.

"Why yes, sir, I am an elf. The beard? Fake. Can I have my bow now?"

Jade_Tarem
2008-08-16, 12:23 AM
What about BoED and its ilk?

BoED was a terrible book. For, well, exactly the reasons we're arguing about. You have a bunch of incredibly powerful moves, classes, and abilities - I don't even have to try to crank out a character that would likely be more powerful than anyone else in the group - but it's limited to the point of absurdity by the fluff restrictions. How absurd? There's a point (I'm cut off from my books right now) where the book talks about moral issues, and what happens to exalted characters who have to face them - turns out that choosing the best course of action is not good enough. That's right, stupidity is the only option, and even then, no matter if you chose a course of action that saved a billion innocent virgin lives for the cost of one minor, insignificantly evil act (compared to the good done) you lose all of your exalted abilities and can never have them back again no matter what, because to hell with interesting atonement quests, to hell with character growth, and to hell with your character if your DM's campaign has anything more complicated than black and white morality. Massively overpowered abilities are balanced with massively retarded fluff restrictions, and it doesn't work at all. The only use I ever found for anything in that book was a morality-free dungeon run and a PvP match.

Starbuck_II
2008-08-16, 12:50 AM
...of course. How silly of me. Your posts are constructed entirely from rainbows and candy,


Can we all agree that rainbows and candy would be good,l at least?
I'd love to have some.

kamikasei says:


In the name of Asmodeus, I must punish you!

Now I'm going to think of an Asmodues worshipping Sailor Moon.

hamishspence
2008-08-16, 02:41 AM
it says in paragraph not too long afterward that fallen exalted characters can atone, can get powers back, etc.

Some of the feats are actually versions of real-world vows, especially Vow of Purity (no touch dead bodies). Maybe it was a mistake for doing it that way.

kamikasei
2008-08-16, 04:12 AM
BoED was a terrible book.

Your rant confused the hell out of me until I realized I'd misread the GP as talking about the BoEF.

Jade_Tarem
2008-08-16, 06:59 AM
it says in paragraph not too long afterward that fallen exalted characters can atone, can get powers back, etc.

Some of the feats are actually versions of real-world vows, especially Vow of Purity (no touch dead bodies). Maybe it was a mistake for doing it that way.

Sometimes. In some cases. But usually they're permanently gone. And the fact remains that doing the most good for the most people 100% of the time can (and will!) still land you in Fallsville. This is not good writing.

Also, I would love to see the real-world ascetic that never has to eat, sleep, drink, or breathe. :smallamused: This line is a joke. Please don't respond with "I'd love to see the real world criminal that can dodge a nuclear blast at least five percent of the time, taking no damage.

Kami2awa
2008-08-16, 07:06 AM
The Point must have a really high armor class, because you just totally missed it :smalltongue:

Obviously, changing rules is very easy. You simply say "Ok, now it is this way." Done.

The question is, SHOULD you do this, specifically at the request of a player. If you have created a PrC in your campaign that has some special trick or whatever that it does, and a player sees that trick and wants to be able to do it, but his character doesn't meet the requirements of the PrC, should you change the requirements of the PrC too accomodate the player.

Some people said yes, some people said no, some people said it depends, and one person said you're a mean-spirited jerk if you don't.

Sorry, yes I did miss your point. In answer to the above, I'd say that no, if I'm using a PrC in game as GM, and I choose to keep the race restriction because it fits the game setting, then the players can't ignore it unless they can come up with a really good reason. It's a rule.

Turcano
2008-08-16, 08:38 AM
That's right, stupidity is the only option, and even then, no matter if you chose a course of action that saved a billion innocent virgin lives for the cost of one minor, insignificantly evil act (compared to the good done) you lose all of your exalted abilities and can never have them back again no matter what, because to hell with interesting atonement quests, to hell with character growth, and to hell with your character if your DM's campaign has anything more complicated than black and white morality.

Actually, I believe that exalted feats can be revived with an atonement spell (if I remember correctly, it doesn't even require an XP burn and you can cast it on yourself if you know it), with the exception of intentionally breaking a Sacred Vow. Still, that doesn't stop the book from being an absolute nightmare fluffwise, especially in that it reinforces the worst interpretations of alignment (which I keep meaning to write about at some point).

hamishspence
2008-08-17, 09:36 AM
The notion that an evil act is an evil act no matter the circumstances is a bit tricky, but it is also consistant.

In a way, Exalted and 3.5 are the first systems to really support fallen paladins who want to "un-fall" From 2nd ed to 3rd ed, paldins who fell, fell permanently. Only in 3.5 did the notion that a pladin who intentionally committed an evil act could atone for it came into being.

Exalted Deeds mixes modern and old-style morality in unusual ways. It says that:

Forgiveness
Mercy
Bringing Hope
Charity

and the like are Good. Very traditional. It also says that:

Torture
Attacking non-combatants
Use of poison/disease

etc are evil. Very modern Geneva Convertion in style.

As nods to more tradition adveturing styles, it says it is ok to use violence against evil, in a just cause, and in self defense as well. It also states very firmly that execution does not count as evil.

In a sense, it tried to be all things to all people. While you may be saying its to severe, I have seen people on other D&D forums saying killing, even in self defense, or war against aggressors, etc, is evil, in effect, that BoED did not go far enough.