DM doesn't get it. 3.5

[DementedFellow]

Okay, so for a while this one guy I've known for a while has been talking about starting up a campaign.

I have talked him into letting me start out at level 1 as a Truenamer. My main reason for this was, "It's not going to break the game." I told him that basically at level 1 the DC for attacking a CR appropriate creature was doable, and when the DC gets too high, there is no rule stating that I just can't go in and swing a club.

Tonight I jokingly asked him if I could play a Anthropomorphic Bear Werebear Bear Totem Barbarian Bear Warrior Bearlord (Thanks The_Glyphstone). He promptly shot it down.

Then I asked him about something more outlandish. The build for the grapple wizard. This is when he flipped his lid.

He said that a wizard wouldn't ever enter a grapple because it would take away their ability to cast spells. I told him that one could indeed cast a spell in a grapple. We agreed that spells with somatic components were out.

Then he said that a wizard entering a grapple would endanger breaking his fingers and thus be unable to cast spells (assuming with somatic components) until they heal. I told him to cite his sources, where grappling can break fingers. Also, if a character has a strength of 14, then I don't think it would be a worry to endanger ones fingers in a grapple. Am I wrong?

He was unable to cite his sources, and finally said that it goes against the way he sees the class being played. Is my DM being unfair or is it just me?

[FishAreWet]

DM is being unfair. He's forcing his personal taste on his players that has no basis in the rules.

[Zaq]

Sounds like your GM is a bit of a control freak, who gets really unhappy when things aren't going the One True Way he expects them to go. This is, while not a get-out-now style red flag, definitely a warning sign. Never surprise this guy. Always tell him ahead of time what you're going to do, or you'll find yourself on the sharp end of some impromptu (and poorly thought out, from the sound of it) nerfs.

Also,

I have talked him into letting me start out at level 1 as a Truenamer.

...Do you plan on drinking heavily? That might make it more interesting. Remember that you will have ONE utterance, which you can use on ONE creature at a time... when you make a check that is far from easy. Expect to be using that club a fair bit.

[Jade_Tarem]

I agree. He's just making that up. Truth be told, it does go against the way the class was "meant to be played" - since it was "meant to be played" as an extremely suboptimal distance blaster, and not as any truly effective wizard build in existance - but if he declares that you're going around breaking bones it's a houserule specific to his game, not anything from the rules.

Zaq is also correct that this is a Bad Sign from a prospective DM/GM. Try to convince him that outright banning is better than clumsy and spontaneous nerfing attempts. Also let him know that if he intends to continue the hobby, and the practice of DMing, to get used to the idea that players are going to do things that he hasn't thought of, from perspectives that he's not used to - including during character building. If he doesn't like or understand that, he has no business running a game.

[DementedFellow]

I think I'm going to build a Cleric-zilla. Just to show him what playing a class can -really- mean. Any advice?

[Koury]

Also let him know that if he intends to continue the hobby, and the practice of DMing, to get used to the idea that players are going to do things that he hasn't thought of, from perspectives that he's not used to

Like when you have one of your PCs held hostage by a mimic who just wants some food and they go and grab some goblin corpses from earlier in the dungeon to barter with?

Sure, its logical as hell in hindsight. I was gonna make them pay a bunch of rations.

[Sliver]

So, did he say that only the wizard is in such risk? Because a wizard could still cast spells with broken fingers, even if he is inconvenienced, (still spell, no somatic component spells..) but is there such a risk for anyone else? Broken fingers can hurt a fighter just as well, and if he can still hold on a weapon with a penalty, maybe a wizard should be able to cast spells with somatic components but with a spell failure chance or something?

First thing though, make him admit he is houseruling here and it is is own opinion and nothing that is supported by the game.

[Rixx]

Ultimately the DM is God. If you can't convince him, you can't do it, no matter what the rules do or do not say.

[Toliudar]

I think I'm going to build a Cleric-zilla. Just to show him what playing a class can -really- mean. Any advice?

First, ask yourself what the desired result is? If you build a very powerful cleric who isn't the healbot that your DM might be expecting, what do you think will happen?

Aside from him having a fairly restrictive vision of what a wizard "is", I'm not getting a good sense of this DM's play style. Did he shoot down the Truenamer? Did he give a reason?

My advice would be, if you actually want to play a cleric, talk to your DM about the character and how you see him/her contributing to the group. So that he isn't confused when you whip out your uber-archer/melee god/primary caster/whatever you want to do with it.

[frogspawner]

Well, to me it sounds like he's being perfectly reasonable - and you're not.

[Thurbane]

DM is perfectly within his rights to veto something, or to have house rules...but a reasonable DM will work with his players and try to find a way to accommodate their character concepts. Likewise, a reasonable player might chose to curb his more outrageous character concepts, if they don't fit in with the DMs campaign. It's a two way street.

[Mongoose87]

Tell him a Fighter shouldn't enter melee combat, because his sword hand could be severed.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Neither you nor the DM are wrong - though I'm leaning towards you being a bit less serious than your DM wants... or even deliberately a bit of a lighthearted jerk.

You're asking for builds that you know to be silly, and getting upset when the DM says no. Okay, so his reasoning isn't totally sound, but you're trying to provoke him.

You need to negotiate, or just stop being daft.

[DMfromTheAbyss]

I don't think it's as bad as some people are suggesting.

The DM may not be familiar with optimization, but he is offering what is in essence an "in game/in character" rationalization. This is not neccessarily a bad thing. Now whereas the rules don't have any rules for finger or other body part breaking, coming to grips with large thugly men or monsters could indeed be detrimental to a wizards health. Though honestly I'd be less worried about the
"finger breaking"="lack of somatic gesture ability"
than the
"fist in mouth = "No Verbal Components".

Still the real in game worry would legitamately be a lot of HP of damage, which simulates both the breaking of fingers and jaws and sundry other body parts. (and being at 0 HP does indeed stop all spellcasting)

Sounds to me like the DM doesn't want to deal with that kind of optimization and some of the stranger builds possible, and possibly wants to avoid playing with classes and issues he's unfamiliar with.

Which frankly sounds fairly reasonable.

Now if you want to get the DM around to your point of view, share some build ideas and get him involved in the optimization game. Discuss, be open and frank about what you know, don't try to be disruptive or munchkinish and immeadiately try to break the game on him. I realize how easy it is, but resist that temptation if you want a happy GM and a game that might actually be fun and last awhile.

Otherwise, perhaps you or one of the more experienced players should be running.

[Vaynor]

Let me get this straight. The reason he's giving for you not being able to grapple with your wizard is that you might break your fingers, rendering you unable to cast spells with a somatic component. You could make a wizard that only grappled with no hands and it wouldn't matter, no somatic component means exactly that. Not only are there no rules for breaking fingers in a grapple, it wouldn't even affect your proposed wizard.

[Bavarian itP]

Okay, so for a while this one guy I've known for a while has been talking about starting up a campaign.

I have talked him into letting me start out at level 1 as a Truenamer. My main reason for this was, "It's not going to break the game." I told him that basically at level 1 the DC for attacking a CR appropriate creature was doable, and when the DC gets too high, there is no rule stating that I just can't go in and swing a club.

Tonight I jokingly asked him if I could play a Anthropomorphic Bear Werebear Bear Totem Barbarian Bear Warrior Bearlord (Thanks The_Glyphstone). He promptly shot it down.

Then I asked him about something more outlandish. The build for the grapple wizard. This is when he flipped his lid.

He said that a wizard wouldn't ever enter a grapple because it would take away their ability to cast spells. I told him that one could indeed cast a spell in a grapple. We agreed that spells with somatic components were out.

Then he said that a wizard entering a grapple would endanger breaking his fingers and thus be unable to cast spells (assuming with somatic components) until they heal. I told him to cite his sources, where grappling can break fingers. Also, if a character has a strength of 14, then I don't think it would be a worry to endanger ones fingers in a grapple. Am I wrong?

He was unable to cite his sources, and finally said that it goes against the way he sees the class being played. Is my DM being unfair or is it just me?

Well, first things first: Yes, it's just you.

The DM does not need to cite his source. The DM is the source. You jokingly asked him about a built, he wouldn't allow this built, and now you want to engage in an arms race against the DM just to piss him off.

Don't.

[Satyr]

Then he said that a wizard entering a grapple would endanger breaking his fingers and thus be unable to cast spells (assuming with somatic components) until they heal. I told him to cite his sources, where grappling can break fingers. Also, if a character has a strength of 14, then I don't think it would be a worry to endanger ones fingers in a grapple. Am I wrong?

The argumentation here is weak, but the intention is not.
If he is the DM, it is his campaign, and he has the task to give a form and a function; if any character concept doesn't this idea of a campaign any DM should make sure that it either is adjusted to the campaign, or rejected.
Campaign stuff always beats mere rules. And if not, house rules are easily made.

[lord_khaine]

Ultimately the DM is God. If you can't convince him, you can't do it, no matter what the rules do or do not say.

But every god can be killed, if it annoyes enough people to lose all its worshippers.

[TheCountAlucard]

But every god can be killed, if it annoyes enough people to lose all its worshippers.

Unless, as the chief deity, you have the authority to tax all the other gods for 10% of their prayers... Gotta love the Unconquered Sun, baby!

And yeah, OP, while your DM is being a little heavy-handed, you probably shouldn't be baiting him with these absurd builds in the first place. I mean c'mon, a truenamer? Really?

[BrainFreeze]

Depends on the DM, if it were some people I know it would cause me to make another character specialized in grappling and then procede to break the fingers of all of the NPC's in grapples.

Though only in cases where the DM in question would understand the joke.

[oxinabox]

I think I'm going to build a Cleric-zilla. Just to show him what playing a class can -really- mean. Any advice?

any advice: Don't.

Seriosly this will help no one.
You will make the figher or what ever the combat tank is cry.
You will make the DM realise there is no balance in the game.

Thats kinda like (but worse) than throwing a fleshraker druid, with flesh raker animal companion, and flesh raker wild cohort, both of who have the wild cohort feat for flesh rakers.
You don't want to do that you your game, no one learns anything good from it.

Don't punished your DM, for not wanting a wizard to grapple (dumb as that is), rehabilitationg a bad dm... we need a thread on that, we really do.
It must be possible.

If you want to show him how a class can be played outside of its steriotype:
try the Wizard Cleric: (CLeric of Aureon, Force and Magic Domain)
You can cast a fare few wizard spells - mage armour, indentify, magic missile.

or the Rogue Cleric: Sin Arvice, and trickery domain:
Say: Olidammara
Alot of rogue weapons are simple too.
With Olidaqmmara: Most of his


for some more good, grab contemplative for the extra domain, say fire. (for fireball)
even you could go cloister'd cleric, and then you would free no pressure to wear heavy armour.

The great thign about this approch, is you are both breaking free of the sterotypical cleric.
And you have RAW to back you up:
With Olidaqmmara: Most of his Clerics are theives.
His temples are usually converterd pubs, or still active theives guilds.

Heck, a Kender of Olidaqmmara (played correctly) could reck you game more than clericzilla

[kamikasei]

OP: "showing him what 'playing a class' can really mean" would be completely pointless here and simply end with you out of the game with bad feeling all around.

DM is perfectly within his rights to veto something, or to have house rules...

I think we could all agree that the DM is within his rights to introduce a grappling-might-break-bones rule with associated penalties (and his players are within their rights to decide that's a bad rule they don't want to play under, of course). The problem(s) I see here are:

- Not acknowledegeing that this is a houserule. The DM can't be wrong about what the rules are at his table, but he certainly can be wrong about whether those are the base rules or his own modifications.

- Apparently (now, this is just my impression from the OP, which of course may be subject to distortion via bias or misreading), not actually introducing rules at all but declaring that one class would be subject to the fear of penalties for which there are no rules, to the point that they would never take a particular action - skirting rather close to telling the player how his character should act (well outside the reasonable bounds of "isn't this one action a little inconsistent with your past and stated goals?").

To others: I don't get the impression the OP is upset that he wasn't allowed to play the suggestions he made in jest. Rather I see his concern as being about what the DM's response suggests about his playstyle.

That said, it seems likely the DM was mostly just responding poorly to a joke that fell flat than that he's actually the bastard offspring of Cruella de Ville and Sauron.

[Riffington]

He wants a character to match a mental archetype. You are showing him "builds", which is not helpful.

If you want to play a nonstandard archetype, show him that archetype, not that number. Say, "I want to play a sorcerer who gets his power from the bear totem of his tribe, instead of from dragon blood. He'll have powers related to bears, and will be much stronger than the average sorcerer". Then if it turns out you grapple sometimes, he'd have accepted it much more than just showing him numbers and asking him about a weird/silly tactic.

Of course, if your numbers are broken and are too powerful for the campaign, it's still a bad thing. A cool concept doesn't fix everything, just some things.

[potatocubed]

Apropos of nothing, that bear-totem sorcerer is a cool idea. *steals*

[Oslecamo]

So you want to play some super silly build wich you know it's a super silly build, and you complain when your DM axes you back to the campaign power level?

Glad to see there are other DMs out there who don't let themselves just be treated as puppets by the player.

If anything, it's you, OP, who doesn't get it. It's your DM's campaign. He can houserule that a wizard trying to grapple would break his fingers. And let's be honest, wizards may be able to grapple with enough buffs, but it definetely doesn't fit most wizard archetypes, be it blaster or controler or batman or incantrix of the 7veils of DOOM or Tippy or whatever.

Trying to play a clericzilla will probably result in rocks falling from nowhere in your character.

[kamikasei]

So you want to play some super silly build wich you know it's a super silly build,

He didn't say he wanted to play the build. He said he joked about it.

and you complain when your DM axes you back to the campaign power level?

He didn't complain about being told "no". He complained about the DM attempting a rather silly nerf of the concept while acting like that's just how the rules are already.

If anything, it's you, OP, who doesn't get it. It's your DM's campaign. He can houserule that a wizard trying to grapple would break his fingers.

He can! It didn't sound like he realized he was houseruling, though.

[Killer Angel]

So you want to play some super silly build wich you know it's a super silly build, and you complain when your DM axes you back to the campaign power level?

Glad to see there are other DMs out there who don't let themselves just be treated as puppets by the player.

Aren't you a little bit too harsh with the OP?
The only serious character was the truenamer, which was negated (i don't wanna enter in the merit of this choice).
The "super silly build" (werebear), accordingly to the OP, was a joke, so the grapple wizard.
The OP is upset with the DM's justifications, regarding broken fingers and so on...
As Kamikasei put out very well, a break-bone house rule is a thing, while a not-so-subtle threat, finalized to telling the player how his character should act, is another thing.

[Terazul]

Edit: Ninja-deded.

Why do these threads always turn into "ZOMG OP YOU ARE A JERK"? It seems he's more miffed about his DM's kneejerk reactions to his randomness, and his pulling out random rules (that don't exist by RAW) to inhibit a character he doesn't understand in the first place (lulz grapple wizard), as opposed to the OP actively trying to degrade the campaign with massive numbers or anything[1]. Which admittedly, does provide possible foresight for what the campaign ride might be like.

[1] His Cleric-Zilla thing seemed more of the classic retaliatory, "no let me show you that which is broken". Which isn't necessarily the best idea, but let's cut the guy some slack and focus on the initial discussion, rather than pointing fingers or whatever.

[Kiren]

Your Truenamer should shout curse words at the enemy instead of actually truenaming. That will sure piss him off, just don't tell him until the game begins.

[Raendyn]

I'll go with Altair.. you provoked your dm too much.

We all had 1 or 2 simillar situations some time,but i've learned 1 thing.
Firstly i go talk to him,"what books do you allow?" "What setting are we playing?" ...
Stuff like that then i know where i can search for w/e. also dont forget to ask him any other restrictions.
Last time it was me & 3 1st-time-playing newcommers to the dnd,my DM crearly stated (you wont takemore than 2 prestige,you chill out & dont make anything too complicated for the others to understand or too powerfull for the others to stay calm)
I totally understood that & he was right.

Also,just think about making something that has 10 different classes 1 lvl of each... I know you can do it because you just can & it's nice(for me at least) to see clever/powerfull builds.
But,what are you?what's your story?how did you unlocked such potency?
Your DM has a world in his mind,his world & things go pretty much as he wants or at least,as they would make sense.
Last time a friend of mine lvled-up his ranger our dm removed half favored enemy options.why?Because the last month(game time) he was only killing orc & cobolds,how did he became better at killing humans,since he did not attack not even 1?

What i mean is that some ppl prefer to combine the crunch with the favor.

Optimaized is good,but you can always take a grp of experienced ppl with a DM that can go through a campaign where all books/combos/whatever is allowed & there you can do your "magic tricks"

If i had to answer in few words i'd say "Dm is right,but you guys can also talk insteadof mocking each other"
&as my personal opinion.. i would never allow something that needs more than 6 words just to name it.