PDA

View Full Version : DM doesn't get it. 3.5



Pages : [1] 2

DementedFellow
2010-02-04, 02:22 AM
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
2010-02-04, 02:25 AM
DM is being unfair. He's forcing his personal taste on his players that has no basis in the rules.

Zaq
2010-02-04, 02:27 AM
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
2010-02-04, 02:31 AM
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
2010-02-04, 02:41 AM
I think I'm going to build a Cleric-zilla. Just to show him what playing a class can -really- mean. Any advice?

Koury
2010-02-04, 02:41 AM
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?:smallbiggrin:

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

Sliver
2010-02-04, 02:44 AM
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
2010-02-04, 02:48 AM
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
2010-02-04, 02:53 AM
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
2010-02-04, 02:54 AM
Well, to me it sounds like he's being perfectly reasonable - and you're not.

Thurbane
2010-02-04, 02:56 AM
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
2010-02-04, 03:06 AM
Tell him a Fighter shouldn't enter melee combat, because his sword hand could be severed.

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-02-04, 03:11 AM
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
2010-02-04, 03:15 AM
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
2010-02-04, 03:16 AM
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
2010-02-04, 03:18 AM
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
2010-02-04, 03:22 AM
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
2010-02-04, 03:27 AM
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
2010-02-04, 03:38 AM
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
2010-02-04, 03:42 AM
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
2010-02-04, 04:14 AM
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 (http://www.imarvintpa.com/dndlive/DeityIndex.php?Deity_ID=238), 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 (http://www.imarvintpa.com/dndlive/DeityIndex.php?Deity_ID=87)
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
2010-02-04, 04:35 AM
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
2010-02-04, 05:08 AM
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
2010-02-04, 05:29 AM
Apropos of nothing, that bear-totem sorcerer is a cool idea. *steals*

Oslecamo
2010-02-04, 05:38 AM
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
2010-02-04, 05:54 AM
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
2010-02-04, 05:57 AM
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
2010-02-04, 06:02 AM
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
2010-02-04, 06:07 AM
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
2010-02-04, 06:20 AM
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. :smallbiggrin:

Bavarian itP
2010-02-04, 06:24 AM
Aren't you a little bit too harsh with the OP?
The only serious character was the truenamer, which was negated

My grasp on the english language is not particularly firm: Where was it stated that he wasn't allowed to play the truenamer?


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

seems to indicate the opposite.

DementedFellow
2010-02-04, 06:25 AM
Fell asleep last night guys. Thanks for the replies. Part of the reason why the whole exchange bothered me last night is because he was denying an entire style of play, which as a player, I don't see as fair.

On a grappler's wizard character sheet, there would be nothing really out of the ordinary. Two human feats (Improved Unarmed Strike and Improved Grapple) and a familiar (an octopus), odd as they may be, are both core and legal options available to the character. The one thing that may seem out of place would be the 14 strength, but that is entirely possible with a 32 point buy.

Nothing about the build is stuff that "shouldn't be", except if this was a desert setting. But the DM didn't use that as part of the justification. He actually told me later on, "no grappling wizards". Here is a gem of the conversation from last night.


ME: why have a familiar that would grant a bonus to grapple if the creators of the game didn't want players to take advantage of that?
HIM: the folks that made the 3rd version and **** were NOT gamers, they were ****ing money whores looking for cash. Wizards didnt grapple in the original versions, and you know im a 2nd Ed lover.
ME: but we would be playing 3e when we play right?
HIM: yes, but that does not change ME.

I don't really see how a DM could say, "No grappling for you, Wizard. But you, monk, you can do that, even though the wizard can do it better." What I really don't understand is how a DM can nix a whole concept because in his mind, a character shouldn't be able to do that because the blasty wizard archetype is the one he adheres to. I even tried to cite precedent saying that Conan the Barbarian could actually read and knew about magic enough (read spellcraft and/or knowledge arcana/the planes) that he wasn't the typical hurly burly barbarian. To which he replied that his dwarf tank had a 15 int because he was a tactician, which totally makes it legal.

This is why I wanted to pull out a cleric-zilla who could out-melee his tank. Not because I like silly builds (which I totally do) or because I like giving him a hard time (which I totally do, but mostly all in fun), but because his reasons are arbitrary to me. If you can have a military genius, why not have a wizard who can punch someone when he runs out of spells? Oh that's right. If they do, they will break a pinky and be S.O.L. when it comes to spells with Somatic components.

faceroll
2010-02-04, 06:27 AM
I think I'm going to build a Cleric-zilla. Just to show him what playing a class can -really- mean. Any advice?

Play a druid instead. Cleric is too gear & perma-buff dependent. Druids are insanely good, even if you picked toughness & VoP as your feats.

DementedFellow
2010-02-04, 06:28 AM
Play a druid instead. Cleric is too gear & perma-buff dependent. Druids are insanely good, even if you picked toughness & VoP as your feats.

I actually thought about that, but he wanted to cherry pick which spells were usable via Natural Spell. This is why I am opting for the totally core Cleric-zilla idea.

kamikasei
2010-02-04, 06:32 AM
Yeah, I'm gonna say you should probably just walk away from this one. This sounds like a game where you won't be able to count on anything about your character or the world around him working as you'd expect. If he wants to play 2e in 3e but only by disallowing things on the spot where they don't line up with his preconceptions, it'll be a frustrating experience. (If he has a full manual of houserules to turn 3e in to a 2e update, that's different, of course. I doubt I'd play in such a game due to the sheer tedium of playing with so many changes, but if you know in advance how things will work you can make an informed decision about whether it'll suit you.)

potatocubed
2010-02-04, 06:35 AM
That looks like a holdover from AD&D to me, where some classes just could not do certain things. (Multiple attacks/round, for example.) Say what you like about 3.5, it does at least give you the freedom to do whatever comes into your head.

Actually... ask him what happens if the wizard is grappled by someone else. Is it just an automatic failure? (In which case I would recommend playing a grappling monk and showing him how silly this houserule is by inflicting it on his NPC casters at every opportunity.)

frogspawner
2010-02-04, 06:41 AM
...he was denying an entire style of play, which as a player, I don't see as fair.
"Deny. Deny. DENY! Deny the psychopathic egomaniac!"

Your DM is absolutely correct.

kamikasei
2010-02-04, 06:46 AM
Part of the reason why the whole exchange bothered me last night is because he was denying an entire style of play, which as a player, I don't see as fair.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? I'm not sure how fairness enters in to it.

I mean, if the DM doesn't want his game to contain certain sorts of characters, and you want to play such a character, that's not a question of fairness but of compatibility. And if the DM is just being a jerk about it ("no, wizards can't grapple because that's not how Real Wizards work and anyone who says different is a WOTC MONEYGRUBBING WHORE AALLAALKDHFLDKHFLAH!!!1!") that's an issue of him being a jerk - again, not fairness.

Raendyn
2010-02-04, 06:47 AM
"Deny. Deny. DENY! Deny the psychopathic egomaniac!"

Your DM is absolutely correct.

I bow before you frog! :smallbiggrin:

Optimystik
2010-02-04, 06:59 AM
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.

Please, listen to this man.


Your Truenamer should shout curse words at the enemy instead of actually truenaming.

This might actually end up being more effective

Starbuck_II
2010-02-04, 07:06 AM
Listen to him:
Be a Grapple Wizard/Monk. You just took 1 level of Wizard for octopus and rest monk. You'll be a better grappler.
Who cares if break fingers.

oxinabox
2010-02-04, 07:28 AM
Listen to him:
Be a Grapple Wizard/Monk. You just took 1 level of Wizard for octopus and rest monk. You'll be a better grappler.
Who cares if break fingers.

Hey: You could totally backstory it:
"I started out, as a wizard, a bare year into my apprenticeship i was out drinking in a pub.
So this guy he challanged me to a friendly greek-roman wrestleing match, I accepted I always used to tumble about with my brothers as a younger, good times.
anyway it all want wrong, as soon as i went to grab hold of him, my fingers - they all broke.
He was really sorry, and bought my drinks for the rest of the night... I had to drink through a straw, couldn't pick up mug, could i?
So the next day i went back to my master same as usual.
I try do explain, "Idiot! did you never listen when I told you: 'us wizards we can't grapple, even wrapping our arms around someone - it breaks all our fingers. Well you can't cast spells with your hands like that - go away and come back in 6 months when your hands have propperly healled"
So I went off, moped about awhile. travels town to town, just me and my octopus.
Eventally I came to a realisation: My hands might never get the dexteriuty i needed for spellcasting back, and if they did, well in 6 months i'ld have probably forgotten most of what i knew. the thought of read reading all those books chilled me.
(i'll admit it, the other restiction of never being able to wrap my arms around someone without breaking my fingers, put me off as well:smallsigh: - no wonder i've never seen a wizard with a wife, let alone a kid)

It was then that i realised 0- I never wanted to be a a wizard anyway. I'm goign to become a Martial artist, a guy who can fightr with his bare hands. and oneday, just maybe, oneday i can establish a school, where i can teach wizards how to grapple without breaking their fingers"

Oslecamo
2010-02-04, 07:31 AM
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.

Provoking the DM just for the sake of provoking isn't the brightest of ideas either. Why can the player do silly talk, and the DM can't? Who said the DM wasn't being serious at all and the OP just failed to notice it? Not everybody has your sense of humor. I once presented the shrinkage combo to one of my DMs, to wich he answered that the sudden change of mass would create a super vacuum and kill me. He sounded pretty serious, but it ended up being just he was just joking in answer to my joke, wich I failed to get.


Starbuck_II:that's actualy an even worst idea than straight monk. With just 1 level of wizard, your familiar is extra squishy, and you don't have the means to protect it. Any kind of area damage would take it down and make you lose exp.

oxinabox
2010-02-04, 07:39 AM
wait, isn't there a feat to let any character get a familiar?
... or am i thinking of the ACF that lets druids swap the awesomens of the animal compainon for the not-so-awesomeness of the familiar

kamikasei
2010-02-04, 07:48 AM
Why can the player do silly talk, and the DM can't? Who said the DM wasn't being serious at all and the OP just failed to notice it? Not everybody has your sense of humor.

No one said the DM can't joke just as much as the player. But all we have to go off of is the OP's account, and he certainly seems to be under the impression that the DM was quite serious. Of course it's possible he's mistaken, but I see nothing to suggest it's likely.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2010-02-04, 07:49 AM
Speaking as a PC

The DM in this story is actually being unfair. If you want to play a grapply-wizard, or a Truenamer, then you should be allowed to. It's your build, your character, your idea. That's what the game is about. He should not be telling you that you can't play something because "it'll break your wizards fingers". Which by the way is a stupid reason.

You and your co-PCs may want to ask for a listing of materials that you can build characters from and go from there.

If you want to grapple, go with a lockdown fighter or (gasp!) a monk. The Batman wizard may be a good idea in this situation, because you will be *problem solving*, which to me is the essence of the Wiz class. There is also the Psion, if he allows Psionics (which he should, based on the fact that he allowed the Truneamer :smallconfused: ...). Psion gets access to Telekinetic Maneuver, which is fantastic and will be exponentially better than the lockdown fighter or monk.

Speaking as a DM

We have methods to our madness. Some DMs, not I, like to put our campaigns on rails and see how the PCs react to it.
I enjoy a sandbox DND game; the players make their own adventures, all I do is set the seeds and work on the fly. That to me is wicked fun. He probably has a specific plan in mind for you, and got upset when something could alter that plan. A good DM is able to adjust his plans and the campaign for the fun of the players.

The Wizard class is not expected to be grappling, and the Truenamer is not expected to be any good, which is probably why he shot down your ideas. DruidZilla or ClericZilla is the worst thing you could play in this situation, because they would be the ultimate in taking his game off the rails.

Oslecamo
2010-02-04, 07:53 AM
No one said the DM can't joke just as much as the player. But all we have to go off of is the OP's account, and he certainly seems to be under the impression that the DM was quite serious. Of course it's possible he's mistaken, but I see nothing to suggest it's likely.

Considering that his idea of "joke" is to make the DM waste time throwing silly builds he doesn't intend to use in the first place when the DM is busy preparing the campaign and reviewing actual sheets, no, I wouldn't be suprised if he missed a sarcastic answer.

Quirinus_Obsidian:In case you didn't notice, the DM allowed the truenamer. It's the OP who kept throwing silly build after silly build at the DM untill he had to take measures to stop the silly build flood.

kamikasei
2010-02-04, 07:54 AM
I find it strange you didn't voice this opinion in your first response.


The DM in this story is actually being unfair. If you want to play a grapply-wizard, or a Truenamer, then you should be allowed to. It's your build, your character, your idea. That's what the game is about.

I disagree.


He should not be telling you that you can't play something because "it'll break your wizards fingers". Which by the way is a stupid reason.

I agree.

The fact that (in my view) the DM is being unreasonable here does not mean he's obliged to let any character whatsoever presented to him in to his campaign.

Oslecamo
2010-02-04, 07:58 AM
I find it strange you didn't voice this opinion in your first response.


Because when I first readed the thread it seemed from the other posters like the OP actualy wanted to play something really silly.

kamikasei
2010-02-04, 08:04 AM
Quirinus_Obsidian:In case you didn't notice, the DM allowed the truenamer. It's the OP who kept throwing silly build after silly build at the DM untill he had to take measures to stop the silly build flood.

And what a great job he did. The terrible "flood" of two silly suggestions sure was effectively staunched by jumping to absurd justifications for ruling the build illegitimate rather than whipping out his uniform and British accent.

In any case, the question of whether the DM was just joking is entirely separate from whether his response, if serious, was appropriate. And since we can't very well know the former whereas we were having a (perhaps) productive discussion on the latter, I don't see much point in dwelling on the possibility that the OP's just missing a joke beyond acknowledging that it is a possibility.

Jayabalard
2010-02-04, 08:08 AM
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?Example pictures of fingers broken as a result of grappling (http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/article/photos-samoa-joes-broken-fingers-shown-up-close-78149). I'm pretty sure this individual has a strength greater than 14.

My intuition is that his objection is based on breaking verisimilitude, rather than the rules itself.

Killer Angel
2010-02-04, 08:18 AM
My grasp on the english language is not particularly firm: Where was it stated that he wasn't allowed to play the truenamer?


well, this is unrelated to the discussion, but worth an answer.
My grasp on english isn't certainly firm (see my sig.); I've read that the OP talked with the DM about playing a truenamer, then the OP listed the "builds" of the Anthropomorphic Bear and the Grapple Wizard. I've read it as "cannot play the Truenamer, let's try something else, starting with some joke". My bad. [/side note]

That said, if the DM said this:
DM: the folks that made the 3rd version and **** were NOT gamers, they were ****ing money whores looking for cash. Wizards didnt grapple in the original versions, and you know im a 2nd Ed lover.
Well, I can hardly agree.


Provoking the DM just for the sake of provoking isn't the brightest of ideas either. Why can the player do silly talk, and the DM can't? Who said the DM wasn't being serious at all and the OP just failed to notice it? Not everybody has your sense of humor. I once presented the shrinkage combo to one of my DMs, to wich he answered that the sudden change of mass would create a super vacuum and kill me. He sounded pretty serious, but it ended up being just he was just joking in answer to my joke, wich I failed to get.

I totally agree on the provoking part.
In this specific case, given the reported dialogue between the OP and the DM, I doubt it's the case of a joking DM.
A DM has the right to nerf the use of grapple. He has no right to nerf it, only for a specific class, without balance motivations, but only because this don't suits his tastes and his own PoV of wizards.

Zom B
2010-02-04, 08:35 AM
I know exactly about DMs that have their view of how things should work. I once gamed under a DM that stated that fighters are not archers, that they should not be anywhere but in melee, and if you want to be an archer you'll play a ranger. Also, Skills and Powers (this was 2nd ed) was outright banned. Sure, I can see the min-maxing of stats part to be broken, but the rest of the book contained nice character options on proficiencies and skills.

You know what we did? We ultimately just lived with it. The Grapplizard is just one build out of many hundreds. Not being able to play it won't be the end of the world.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-02-04, 08:40 AM
Ultimately the DM is God.

{Scrubbed}

Jayabalard
2010-02-04, 08:42 AM
A DM has the right to nerf the use of grapple. He has no right to nerf it, only for a specific class, without balance motivations, but only because this don't suits his tastes and his own PoV of wizards.No, he absolutely does, especially if he makes it clear ahead of time rather than blindsiding the player in an actual game.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-02-04, 08:44 AM
No, he absolutely does, especially if he makes it clear ahead of time rather than blindsiding the player in an actual game.

No, he absolutely doesn't, especially if his primary concern is being fair and balanced.

kamikasei
2010-02-04, 08:48 AM
Of course the DM has the right. It's just likely a bad idea.

Sliver
2010-02-04, 08:50 AM
Example pictures of fingers broken as a result of grappling (http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/article/photos-samoa-joes-broken-fingers-shown-up-close-78149). I'm pretty sure this individual has a strength greater than 14.

My intuition is that his objection is based on breaking verisimilitude, rather than the rules itself.

He said the wizard can't grapple because he might break his fingers and they shouldn't be able to grapple because they didn't grapple before and it doesn't fit his definition of wizard. If anyone can break their fingers in a grapple, he can add a houserule that addresses that, then the player can look at that and decide if the risk of his wizard's fingers is worth that.

Jayabalard
2010-02-04, 08:56 AM
Because when I first readed the thread it seemed from the other posters like the OP actualy wanted to play something really silly.That's pretty much what I got as well. The conflict here appears to be strictly a matter of having a player who wants to play in a far less serious campaign than the one that GM wants to run.


No, he absolutely doesn't.Yes he does; if he chooses to add dangers to a particular type of combat that impact a particular class more than others (ie, nerf grapple for wizards) in order to play in a certain style game world, that's perfectly reasonable. A player that is blindsided by this kind of ruling during play might have a valid argument, depending on how clearly the GM set out that this particular game is srs bsns.


I think I'm going to build a Cleric-zilla. Just to show him what playing a class can -really- mean. Any advice?Yes. it sounds like you're going out of your way to be a disruptive player because of a disagreement over play style. Don't do it.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-02-04, 09:00 AM
That's pretty much what I got as well. The conflict here appears to be strictly a matter of having a player who wants to play in a far less serious campaign than the one that GM wants to run.
That's but one way to interpret it.



Yes he does; if he chooses to add dangers to a particular type of combat that impact a particular class more than others (ie, nerf grapple for wizards) in order to play in a certain style game world, that's perfectly reasonable. A player that is blindsided by this kind of ruling during play might have a valid argument, depending on how clearly the GM set out that this particular game is srs bsns.
No he doesn't; if he chooses to be unfair to certain classes for no rational basis other than to satisfy his desire for how things must be, it is a sign of many things, few of which are positive.

9mm
2010-02-04, 09:04 AM
Yeah, walk away and tell him to call you when he's ready to play 3e, as the game is COMPLETELY different than 2e and unless he's ready to move on, your not willing to go back.

yes it's his game, but it's also the PLAYERS game as well, and if your not comfortable of constantly having 2e mechanics, tropes, and conventions constantly throwing a monkey wrench into your character, you won't have fun. If a game isn't fun, then it isn't a game, its a chore.

Killer Angel
2010-02-04, 09:07 AM
Yes he does; if he chooses to add dangers to a particular type of combat that impact a particular class more than others (ie, nerf grapple for wizards) in order to play in a certain style game world, that's perfectly reasonable.

You can be unfair even if you have the right to do a thing.

(example: Let's play 4.0. Fighters cannot use healing surges, because, you know, I like 3.5 style: fighters cannot heal themselves, healing is for magic users)

kamikasei
2010-02-04, 09:07 AM
No he doesn't; if he chooses to be unfair to certain classes for no rational basis other than to satisfy his desire for how things must be, it is a sign of many things, few of which are positive.

Yes? So? It may be a bad sign, but it's still his right.

Jayabalard
2010-02-04, 09:09 AM
He said the wizard can't grapple because he might break his fingers Actually I think he initially said "wouldn't" rather than "can't" ... at least according to the first post. He then talks about imposing real world risks that impact wizards in a very specific way as a justification.


That's but one way to interpret it.If you say so; feel free to offer a different interpretation. the Player offered 2 fairly silly character ideas, that were strictly built around game mechanics; the GM had objections based on "that's not realistic". This player later hints about being intentionally disruptive in order to teach the gm a lesson.

Sounds like a clear case of a silly player vs a serious DM to me.


No he doesn't; if he chooses to be unfair to certain classes for no rational basis other than to satisfy his desire for how things must be, it is a sign of many things, few of which are positive.That's not the situation that has been presented; the DM's first objection was based on real world risk of a particular activity, and seems based strictly on being rational to me.

Even then, rational or not, the GM has the right to make these changes to the game. There's even a section of the book that says so.

oxinabox
2010-02-04, 09:11 AM
Dm's have the right to impose what ever houserules (and to call them houserules or not) they want. DM's have the right to veto any player's build.

Players have the right walk away, telling the dm to give them a call when he decides if he want to play 3rd ed or 2nd ed (and gets out the old books)

Starbuck_II
2010-02-04, 09:12 AM
Hey: You could totally backstory it:
"I started out, as a wizard, a bare year into my apprenticeship i was out drinking in a pub.
So this guy he challanged me to a friendly greek-roman wrestleing match, I accepted I always used to tumble about with my brothers as a younger, good times.
anyway it all want wrong, as soon as i went to grab hold of him, my fingers - they all broke.
He was really sorry, and bought my drinks for the rest of the night... I had to drink through a straw, couldn't pick up mug, could i?
So the next day i went back to my master same as usual.
I try do explain, "Idiot! did you never listen when I told you: 'us wizards we can't grapple, even wrapping our arms around someone - it breaks all our fingers. Well you can't cast spells with your hands like that - go away and come back in 6 months when your hands have propperly healled"
So I went off, moped about awhile. travels town to town, just me and my octopus.
Eventally I came to a realisation: My hands might never get the dexteriuty i needed for spellcasting back, and if they did, well in 6 months i'ld have probably forgotten most of what i knew. the thought of read reading all those books chilled me.
(i'll admit it, the other restiction of never being able to wrap my arms around someone without breaking my fingers, put me off as well:smallsigh: - no wonder i've never seen a wizard with a wife, let alone a kid)

It was then that i realised 0- I never wanted to be a a wizard anyway. I'm goign to become a Martial artist, a guy who can fightr with his bare hands. and oneday, just maybe, oneday i can establish a school, where i can teach wizards how to grapple without breaking their fingers"

Nice backstory really. You can still use Wands so you don't even need UMD for the cool spells.

Oslecamo: I disagree, sure you will have to hide the octopus in your backpack (why are you showing to everyone anyway?), but you will have a better grapple than a normal Monk.
Kung-Fu Genuis lets you use Int instead of Wisdom for AC so they designed D&D around grapple Wonks to be used.

Jayabalard
2010-02-04, 09:14 AM
You can be unfair even if you have the right to do a thing.Well, if you look back, the statement I initially disagreed with was "He has no right to nerf it yadda yadda yadd"


(example: Let's play 4.0. Fighters cannot use healing surges, because, you know, I like 3.5 style: fighters cannot heal themselves, healing is for magic users)I disagree: this is perfectly fair, as long as you know it in advance.

I personally feel that things like this are fair even when ruled on the fly, as long as the players clearly know in advance that these sorts of things will be ruled on the fly.

Riffington
2010-02-04, 09:23 AM
the octopus in your backpack

How are you oxygenating his tank?

Killer Angel
2010-02-04, 09:25 AM
Well, if you look back, the statement I disagreed with was "He has no right to nerf it yadda yadda yadd"


Yes, indeed, the DM has the right to do it. I cannot contest you on the "righteousness". I shoudn't have used that term.
But, for what matters, the DM has also the right to nerf a character on the fly, during the campaign, appealing to rule 0 ("If only I saw this spell combo before, I would never allowed it" or "why your wizard tried to grapple? it's obvious the risk of a broken finger for a weak melee class!").


I disagree: this is perfectly fair, as long as you know it in advance.


On my specific example, i think we must agree to disagree. :smallwink:

Reinboom
2010-02-04, 09:32 AM
This is a difficult case to figure out without having the story presented by the DM's line of typing. My instinct would be to try to grapple the DM, then move away and go "Sorry, I shouldn't do that. Wrong class." and just keep up the teasing.

However, my groups tend to be quite a bit more friendly with each other.


COMPLETELY different than 2e
Got a 2E PHB? Open it. Flip to... say... True Sight. Open your 3.0 or 3.5 PHB. Flip to True Sight. Read.

Starbuck_II
2010-02-04, 09:43 AM
How are you oxygenating his tank?

Well, there are several ways:
1) a pump system (like fish tanks have)
2) the 1st level spell Air breathing in Stormwrack
And so on.

Yes, Stormwreck means aquatic creatures can breath air now.

Jayabalard
2010-02-04, 09:46 AM
On my specific example, i think we must agree to disagree. :smallwink:If you say so; it was a really commonly discussed houserule when 4e was released, since that was a major sticking point for many of the people who dislike that edition. Your example is pretty close to the consensus "fix" that came out of those edition wars, suggested by the people who like 4e for the people who disliked it because of the way healing surges work.

Really, if you know it in advance, and you aren't being forced into picking it, I don't see why anything could be considered unfair.

9mm
2010-02-04, 09:55 AM
Got a 2E PHB? Open it. Flip to... say... True Sight. Open your 3.0 or 3.5 PHB. Flip to True Sight. Read.

whoops, so carry-over includes dice and true sight, got it. They changed the freaking BELL CURVE between editions, they're similar in name only.

Jayabalard
2010-02-04, 09:59 AM
whoops, so carry-over includes dice and true sight, got it.There's quite a bit of carry over beyond that.


They changed the freaking BELL CURVE between editions, how so?

9mm
2010-02-04, 10:04 AM
There's quite a bit of carry over beyond that.

how so?

2e's bell curve is based off rolls of 2-5,6-10,11-15,16-20. 3e? Variable depending on mechanic, with some bell curves starting at -20.

Jayabalard
2010-02-04, 10:11 AM
2e's bell curve is based off rolls of 2-5,6-10,11-15,16-20. 3e? Variable depending on mechanic, with some bell curves starting at -20. I really have no idea what you are talking about.

The only bell curves I'm aware of in either game come from rolling multiple dice; whenever you do that, the probabilities are based on the number and type of dice, and these probabilities can be represented by a bell curve. These probabilities/bell curve has nothing to do with the edition, only on the number and type of dice. So I have no idea what you mean by "they changed the bell curve"

Killer Angel
2010-02-04, 10:16 AM
If you say so; it was a really commonly discussed houserule when 4e was released, since that was a major sticking point for many of the people who dislike that edition. Your example is pretty close to the consensus "fix" that came out of those edition wars, suggested by the people who like 4e for the people who disliked it because of the way healing surges work.


Really? Wow, didn't knew it.


Really, if you know it in advance, and you aren't being forced into picking it, I don't see why anything could be considered unfair.

It depends.

If the DM don't give limitations, then, when the players start developing characters, in front of the idea of a grappling wizard, negate the possibility for his personal idea of wizardry, I would call this "unfair", even if the game isn't jet started. A reasonable DM should find a middle agreement with the player, if the thing is not game-breaking.

If the DM says, even before the players start thinking to characters: "in my campaign, the orcs are united and are forming a true nation, developing new skills. But the job is long and hard, and for them is the beginning: orc wizards cannot have spells higher then 5rd level, but they are higly regarded in the society and have positions of power." I would call it fair.

Probably, I'm considering "fair" and "unfair", in a very personal PoV, which kinda weakens my position... :smallredface:

Tyndmyr
2010-02-04, 10:19 AM
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?


This is the part where you grin gleefully, and tell him you love this house rule. Start talking about how you'll be able to destroy casters with nothing more than a grapple check.

Speculate on the ability of melee people to hold a weapon with broken fingers.

Either one of two things will happen:

1. He'll realize it's a broken idea that makes grapple monsters MORE powerful, and back down.

2. He'll blindly go ahead with it. You'll pump your grapple check to stupid amounts, and have an unsavable SoS in every grapple check.

Reinboom
2010-02-04, 10:24 AM
whoops, so carry-over includes dice and true sight, got it. They changed the freaking BELL CURVE between editions, they're similar in name only.

You said "COMPLETELY". The greater portion of many spells, random optional rules, a significant portion of class write ups, a hefty amount of the game structure...
Really, the two systems are very very similar, especially in the grand scheme of things and what "COMPLETELY" means.


This is the part where you grin gleefully, and tell him you love this house rule. Start talking about how you'll be able to destroy casters with nothing more than a grapple check.

Speculate on the ability of melee people to hold a weapon with broken fingers.

I also agree with this sentiment. This is the kind of teasing I approve of (and use effectively!)

DragoonWraith
2010-02-04, 10:29 AM
I think some people give the DM faaar too many rights here. As much as the DM controls things, he is DMing for the players. If he doesn't want to do that, he should be writing a novel or something. If there are differences between what the players want and the DM wants, they should compromise, or find a new game/new players. Or switch who is DMing. A DM should not get unilateral rights to determine what kind of game is being played.

The big thing is sitting at a table and PbP. PbP, there's tons of games; DMs are free to set the rules they want, and players who are interested will find the game, and players are free to find another game they like more. But if you're a live group, sitting around a table... you need to compromise.

And never, ever, should a DM be allowed to say "Nope, that's not my personal taste, so you can't do it".

Jayabalard
2010-02-04, 10:38 AM
This is the part where you grin gleefully, and tell him you love this house rule. Start talking about how you'll be able to destroy casters with nothing more than a grapple check.

Speculate on the ability of melee people to hold a weapon with broken fingers.

Either one of two things will happen:

1. He'll realize it's a broken idea that makes grapple monsters MORE powerful, and back down.

2. He'll blindly go ahead with it. You'll pump your grapple check to stupid amounts, and have an unsavable SoS in every grapple check.I don't think this works.


meleers are generally going to be wearing armor on their hands; this makes them far less susceptible to broken fingers than the dress wearing wizard.
Meleers don't necessarily need the same sort of fine control over individual fingers that a wizard needs: it's quite possible that a single broken finger = cannot cast spells , but that same single broken finger just makes the meleer slightly less effective until that finger gets taped up properly.
His ruling may only apply to people who are grappling, not necessarily to people who are being grappled.
The DM said "endanger breaking his fingers" which implies that it's not unsavable (though it may not be a strict saving throw that prevents it from happening). So unsavable SoS seems inaccurate, even if the previous speculation isn't the case.
If you start talking to him the holes that you're seeing, he's likely going to try and fix the system until it holds together a little better. Given that he's playing with a fairly old school mentality, I wouldn't be surprised to see him to do this sort of fixing on the fly when he feels it is necessary.



The big thing is sitting at a table and PbP. PbP, there's tons of games; DMs are free to set the rules they want, and players who are interested will find the game, and players are free to find another game they like more. But if you're a live group, sitting around a table... you need to compromise.Tyranny of the player is just as bad as tyranny of the DM.

Meaning that, sure, if multiple players have a problem with the game the DM is trying to run, then either the DM should compromise or someone else should DM.

But if it's just a single player, then that player should either suck it up, or find a different group to play with.


his personal idea of wizardry, I don't think that any of this is really about his personal idea of wizardry... that really just sounds like the final argument of someone who is frustrated with dealing with a player that is trying to not fit into the game the the DM is running.

The rulings he's talking about seem biased by what the DM thinks is realistic, and how realistic he wants the game that they're running to be. The nerfing of non-magical healing surges stems from the same desire. It fits in really well with someone who is a fan of AD&D over 3e or 4e D&D.


Really? Wow, didn't knew it.That's not really surprising... those discussions were borderline flame wars (as edition discussions tend to be). But healing surges for non-magical folks was one of the real sticking points in those discussion, and some folks were trying to find a middle ground to offer people who didn't like them.

Britter
2010-02-04, 10:49 AM
Although it isn't necessarily relevant at this point in the thread, just a couple of thoughts from a guy who has been doing martial arts, involving grappling, wrestling, and joint-locking for over a decade.

1) Yes, you will inevitably break a finger at some point over a lifetime of martial arts practice. It happens.

2) And it is hardly entirely incapacitating. You just tape the busted finger to the closest unbusted one, and go about your business. Yes, it hurts. Yes, it is frustrating. But really, imo it is only worth 5% or 10% ASF chance, at best.

Restricting an entire class from grappling because of the possibility of broken fingers is a rather silly ruling. I would actually like to see a guy play a burly grappling wizard, the kind of dude who is willing to roll up the sleezes of his robe and go in to bust some heads. Cool concept.

DragoonWraith
2010-02-04, 11:03 AM
Tyranny of the player is just as bad as tyranny of the DM.

Meaning that, sure, if multiple players have a problem with the game the DM is trying to run, then either the DM should compromise or someone else should DM.

But if it's just a single player, then that player should either suck it up, or find a different group to play with.
Absolutely - do you think I was suggesting otherwise? "Compromise" does not mean "do everything my way," after all.

On the other hand, a DM who refuses to work with a player who wants to try to do something different is a sign of a DM I would never want to play with. Someone's idea of what a Wizard "should be" should never prevent me from doing it differently. A grapple-wizard sounds interesting and creative to me. It does not sound childish, immature, out of place, or not serious. It just seems that the DM cannot imagine any Wizard who doesn't stand around in robes flinging flamable bat poo at things.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-04, 11:10 AM
I don't think this works.


meleers are generally going to be wearing armor on their hands; this makes them far less susceptible to broken fingers than the dress wearing wizard.

Unless they are wearing gauntlets or similar, there is no reason to assume this. And in general, any armor that would reliably prevent breakages would be very hindering in any actual grapple.


Meleers don't necessarily need the same sort of fine control over individual fingers that a wizard needs: it's quite possible that a single broken finger = cannot cast spells , but that same single broken finger just makes the meleer slightly less effective until that finger gets taped up properly.

My experience of a coupla years in martial arts is that no...a single finger is not that big of a deal. There is no reason to expect it's any bigger of a deal for spellcasting. Multiple fingers may be, and this will depend a lot on the weapon involved. Pretty easy to hold a shield that you have strapped to your arm, fingers broken or no.


His ruling may only apply to people who are grappling, not necessarily to people who are being grappled.

Which ENTIRELY breaks the realism bit his DM is trying to bring up.


The DM said "endanger breaking his fingers" which implies that it's not unsavable (though it may not be a strict saving throw that prevents it from happening). So unsavable SoS seems inaccurate, even if the previous speculation isn't the case.

Depends on the crunch. The point is, any crunch allowing grappling to incapacitate others in any way makes being a specialized grappler better. His "fix" is only making the build that concerns him more powerful.


If you start talking to him the holes that you're seeing, he's likely going to try and fix the system until it holds together a little better. Given that he's playing with a fairly old school mentality, I wouldn't be surprised to see him to do this sort of fixing on the fly when he feels it is necessary.


Well, make him lay out the rules, then work with those. Hypothetical "a wizard wouldn't do that" is merely him telling you how to play your character. Modifications to the actual grapple rules may or may not make sense, but you can't really evaluate them till you see them yknow?

The point is to show that his reaction is...bad for the game.


Tyranny of the player is just as bad as tyranny of the DM.

Meaning that, sure, if multiple players have a problem with the game the DM is trying to run, then either the DM should compromise or someone else should DM.

But if it's just a single player, then that player should either suck it up, or find a different group to play with.

Compromise is not tyranny. There is no real difference between only a DM have a problem with something or only one player having a problem with something. Discussion and possible compromise to fix this problem is not tyranny.

Ignoring the 4e stuff on the basis that another edition flamewar is probably not desirable.

Britter
2010-02-04, 11:22 AM
Unless they are wearing gauntlets or similar, there is no reason to assume this. And in general, any armor that would reliably prevent breakages would be very hindering in any actual grapple.


I agree with all your points Tyndmyr, except this. It is possible to grapple effectively even with some pretty restrictive hand protection. You don't really use the fingers to grapple, in my experience. As an example, look at the gloves worn by MMA fighters, which restrict movement in the fingers and wrists. This doesn't stop those guys from grappling very effectively. Mind you, the gloves do restrict technique, making some things harder to achieve, but that is taking the grappling rules down to a level of realism that, imo, DnD can not support.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-04, 11:35 AM
I agree with all your points Tyndmyr, except this. It is possible to grapple effectively even with some pretty restrictive hand protection. You don't really use the fingers to grapple, in my experience. As an example, look at the gloves worn by MMA fighters, which restrict movement in the fingers and wrists. This doesn't stop those guys from grappling very effectively. Mind you, the gloves do restrict technique, making some things harder to achieve, but that is taking the grappling rules down to a level of realism that, imo, DnD can not support.

Well, I had a bit of an assumption there, in that D&D-styled armor tends to be comprehensive, rather than hands only, and thus, any set of armor that would reasonably protect the fingers would also make grappling difficult.

But yes, in the end, D&D is just not this granular...and it's probably one of the best reasons to avoid location specific damage. It opens up a whole can of worms and added complexity/time for combat that probably isn't desirable.

Britter
2010-02-04, 11:38 AM
Yeah, I agree. Trying to make some aspects of the combat system "realistic" while leaving the rest of the system abstract just ends up negatively impacting playability.

As an aside, regarding grappling in full armor, there are extant texts showing techniques for grappling and wrestling in full armor from various European martial arts. There are also systems of armored grappling still being practiced in Japan. Armor may influence what you can do in a grapple, but you can throw or pin someone regardless of what you are wearing, assuming you are properly trained.

Iceforge
2010-02-04, 11:46 AM
If the DM don't give limitations, then, when the players start developing characters, in front of the idea of a grappling wizard, negate the possibility for his personal idea of wizardry, I would call this "unfair", even if the game isn't jet started. A reasonable DM should find a middle agreement with the player, if the thing is not game-breaking.


Sorry, but I must strongly disagree with you there.

By that, you are expression and expectation that the GM has to, prior to letting people think about creating characters, think of every single possible combination of races, classes, feats, skills, abilities and actions that are possible within the rule system and rule on every single one of the possible builds out there, to warn the players if those builds are going to be allowed or not.

You cannot expect the GM to react to your build idea prior to you presenting it to him; If you think it is unfair that a GM rule against any build after being presented with the idea, but he has to rule against it BEFORE being presented with the idea, then you have an unfair expectation of your GM.

The GM already is the one with the largest workload in the group without having to meet ridiculous expectations like that

Tyndmyr
2010-02-04, 11:48 AM
Yeah, I agree. Trying to make some aspects of the combat system "realistic" while leaving the rest of the system abstract just ends up negatively impacting playability.

As an aside, regarding grappling in full armor, there are extant texts showing techniques for grappling and wrestling in full armor from various European martial arts. There are also systems of armored grappling still being practiced in Japan. Armor may influence what you can do in a grapple, but you can throw or pin someone regardless of what you are wearing, assuming you are properly trained.

I think a system like 7th Sea, in which you have different fighting styles and different specific skills in each one models this much more accurately.

I mean, I guess we could apply all this to D&D, but building a competent fighter is already complicated/hard enough. No point making it crazy.

Raptor2213
2010-02-04, 12:02 PM
Us: Mr DM, we've found Errata on the spell, Arcane Sight that says you DO see magical auras, including invisibility at all times WITHOUT having to make any checks.

DM: No! It says in the DMG that the DM can override any rules if he feels like it, and I feel like it! Arcane Sight will only give you a vague glowly splotch in the square it's in.


(Note that I paraphrased this conversation)

Ormagoden
2010-02-04, 12:06 PM
Wait you mean I can't play X class?

Well then how about I play Y class? (Y= completely absurd and outlandish)

No? Ha ha ha I was just kidding anyway!

How about I play Z, but I want Z to be a grappler. (Grappling is not what a Z normally does.)

Sounds to me like you're just trying to tweak your DM :(

I'm sure there are a large number of things you can play and meet him half way.

A few posts later.

Oh I can't play Z either so I'm just going to play an over optimized build to teach him a lesson.

Come one man! Dnd isn't about teaching people lessons it's about having fun! If you're idea of having fun is playing something absurd try not to make your DM blow a gasket.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-04, 12:09 PM
Us: Mr DM, we've found Errata on the spell, Arcane Sight that says you DO see magical auras, including invisibility at all times WITHOUT having to make any checks.

DM: No! It says in the DMG that the DM can override any rules if he feels like it, and I feel like it! Arcane Sight will only give you a vague glowly splotch in the square it's in.


(Note that I paraphrased this conversation)

This would result in me using invisibility a lot.

Jayabalard
2010-02-04, 12:10 PM
Absolutely - do you think I was suggesting otherwise? "Compromise" does not mean "do everything my way," after all.No, just clarifying. There are certainly people who seem to think "compromise with the players" means that you need to always let player X do what he wants, regardless of game design, world design, or anything else, but I didn't mean to imply that you were one of them.


My experience of a coupla years in martial arts is that no...a single finger is not that big of a deal. There is no reason to expect it's any bigger of a deal for spellcasting. I dunno, the fluff is generally that you're making intricate gestures with your hands. "wriggling your fingers" is almost synonymous with casting a spell. The general perception I've gotten is that wizards gestures make complicated gang signs look simply by comparison. That's why illusionists in 1e AD&D needed a high dexterity. If you look at some of the art depicting wizards casting spells you'll see some pretty absurd looking stuff. Even a single broken finger is going to have a big effect.


Which ENTIRELY breaks the realism bit his DM is trying to bring up.Not really; if you try to grab someone, you're risking broken fingers, because that's what you're doing the grabbing with. If you are trying to avoid being grabbed, you aren't necessarily taking that risk, because you aren't necessarily trying to grab someone. So there's a fairly logical set of reasons that would allow being grappled by someone to not be treated as the same risk as grappling someone, without breaking realism.


Depends on the crunch. It also depends on if there is any crunch; remember, 2e DM, seems to prefer old school gaming, so you're likely to see systems that are heavily based on dm rulings.


The point is to show that his reaction is...bad for the game. I'm not particularly convinced that his reaction is bad for the game; bad for this particular player perhaps, but we're only getting his side of the story, and he's not including enough info to let us know how the rest of the players feel about it.


Compromise is not tyranny.Demanding that the DM always change from his plans, design, or rulings for one person is though.


Ignoring the 4e stuff on the basis that another edition flamewar is probably not desirable.Was there something objectionable in what I posted? I tried to keep it as neutral as possible.


Wait you mean I can't play X class?

Well then how about I play Y class? (Y= completely absurd and outlandish)

No? Ha ha ha I was just kidding anyway!

How about I play Z, but I want Z to be a grappler. (Grappling is not what a Z normally does.)

...

Oh I can't play Z either so I'm just going to play an over optimized build to teach him a lesson.Yeah, that's pretty much how I read it too; I don't really blame any DM for reacting negatively to this.

Killer Angel
2010-02-04, 12:18 PM
Sorry, but I must strongly disagree with you there.


You certainly can, no offense taken. :smallwink:


You cannot expect the GM to react to your build idea prior to you presenting it to him; If you think it is unfair that a GM rule against any build after being presented with the idea, but he has to rule against it BEFORE being presented with the idea, then you have an unfair expectation of your GM.


Let me try to explain better.
I as a DM), before starting a campaign, usually give some indications, in regard to some builds / combo /etc. unallowed. I'm not covering all, of course I cannot think to all, but, usually, I let the players know what's a no-no.
All the other things, are open... more or less.
At that point, if a player came out with an idea that i don't like so much, I don't ban it, but I work with the player, to find a solution acceptable to both of us.
If something surprising reveals itself during the game, and it's gamebreaking, the same applies: we find together an acceptable solution.
The key is: cooperation.
This is why I find "unfair" any unilateral decision by the DM on these matters, even if is his right.

And I also think there's a difference, between nerfing a couple of overpowered spell, for the sake of balance, and nerfing a combat manoveur, for a specific class, not for balance, but because it doesn't match the way you would play that class: you, as a DM, are dictating how another player "should" play his character.

EDIT: the clock is ticking, for me it's the end of discussion, for today... have a nice debate. :smallsmile:

Tyndmyr
2010-02-04, 12:20 PM
No, just clarifying.

I dunno, the fluff is generally that you're making intricate gestures with your hands. "wriggling your fingers" is almost synonymous with casting a spell.

Well, since quicken is core, and it doesn't still spells, then the amount of finger wriggling necessary is relatively minimal. Perhaps a seconds worth. They can't be all that obscenely complex in a round. And broken /= can't use. I walked a mile and a half on a broken leg once. Obviously not reccomended, and probably pretty painful, but in a short, life or death situation, you can keep using something broken unless it's really a ridiculous break(ie, compound open fracture or the like).


Not really; if you try to grab someone, you're risking broken fingers, because that's what you're doing the grabbing with. If you are trying to avoid being grabbed, you aren't necessarily taking that risk, because you aren't necessarily trying to grab someone. So there's a fairly logical set of reasons that would allow being grappled by someone to not be treated as the same risk as grappling someone, without breaking realism.

Wait...I have to use my fingers to grapple someone now? What's a headlock? Or any sort of pin, many of which are done without using fingers. All of those end up being grapple checks. Likewise, freeing yourself from a grapple or countering a grapple attempt may or may not use your fingers.


It also depends on if there is any crunch; remember, 2e DM, seems to prefer old school gaming, so you're likely to see systems that are heavily based on dm rulings.

Old school need not equate to arbitrary rulings.


I'm not particularly convinced that his reaction is bad for the game; bad for this particular player perhaps, but we're only getting his side of the story, and he's not including enough info to let us know how the rest of the players feel about it.

It's a huge warning flag. Grapple rule modifications may or may not be a problem, but a DM willing to make arbitrary rule changes to force people to play classes like how he envisions them? Yeah, thats worrying.


Demanding that the DM always change from his stance for one person is though.

This response thread was in response to a quote about compromising. Compromise is NOT saying that the DM must always change...any more than it's saying anyone else must always change.

Jayabalard
2010-02-04, 12:29 PM
Wait...I have to use my fingers to grapple someone now? What's a headlock? Or any sort of pin, many of which are done without using fingers. All of those end up being grapple checks.Headlock, that's where you take your arm (those things that have hands and fingers on the end of them), and wrap it around their head right? I'm pretty sure that involves a risk to your hands as you reach for them and get them to where you can put them in a headlock, and as you move you arm around their head. I think you've also wind up grasping something in order to keep that grip held, even if you are kind of holding on to your other arm.

I can't think of any of those that are completely hands free.

whereas there avoiding being grappled can often be done without the same sort of risk to your hands.

So grappling seems inherently carry more risk to your fingers than being grappled.


Old school need not equate to arbitrary rulings. Likewise, DM fiat doesn't necessarily mean arbitrary either.


It's a huge warning flag. Grapple rule modifications may or may not be a problem, but a DM willing to make arbitrary rule changes to force people to play classes like how he envisions them? It didn't sound very arbitrary to me; it sounds like it was probably given in a rather frustrated fashion, but that should not really be surprising.

Glyde
2010-02-04, 12:57 PM
I played a grappler wizard once. Well, it was a Wu Jen and he grabbed people then blasted them with Still Fire Wings, but... Okay yeah I'll leave you folks to it.

AtwasAwamps
2010-02-04, 01:10 PM
I dunno, the fluff is generally that you're making intricate gestures with your hands. "wriggling your fingers" is almost synonymous with casting a spell. The general perception I've gotten is that wizards gestures make complicated gang signs look simply by comparison. That's why illusionists in 1e AD&D needed a high dexterity. If you look at some of the art depicting wizards casting spells you'll see some pretty absurd looking stuff. Even a single broken finger is going to have a big effect.


Don't you generally only need one hand, though?

How else would you hold your nifty staff?

Amphetryon
2010-02-04, 01:25 PM
Headlock, that's where you take your arm (those things that have hands and fingers on the end of them), and wrap it around their head right? I'm pretty sure that involves a risk to your hands as you reach for them and get them to where you can put them in a headlock, and as you move you arm around their head. I think you've also wind up grasping something in order to keep that grip held, even if you are kind of holding on to your other arm.

I can't think of any of those that are completely hands free.

Figure 4 comes pretty close (http://cdn-write.demandstudios.com/upload//9000/200/60/8/19268.jpg). It even leaves the hands free to cast spells while grappling. This isn't recommended, of course, but if the DM is being realism-retentive, it's a point to remember.

Sinfire Titan
2010-02-04, 01:28 PM
Headlock, that's where you take your arm (those things that have hands and fingers on the end of them), and wrap it around their head right? I'm pretty sure that involves a risk to your hands as you reach for them and get them to where you can put them in a headlock, and as you move you arm around their head. I think you've also wind up grasping something in order to keep that grip held, even if you are kind of holding on to your other arm.

I can't think of any of those that are completely hands free.

You've never seen a Wizard Polymorph into a Mind Flayer, have you? Why risk your hands when you can grow tentacles?

Jayabalard
2010-02-04, 01:38 PM
Figure 4 comes pretty close (http://cdn-write.demandstudios.com/upload//9000/200/60/8/19268.jpg). It even leaves the hands free to cast spells while grappling. This isn't recommended, of course, but if the DM is being realism-retentive, it's a point to remember.2 thoughts on that:

The first is that I'm pretty sure you need to use your hands in order to get into that position in the first place so it's really not a hands free grapple until you get into that position.

The second is: this particular pin doesn't control the opponents hands at all, so doesn't stop the person from whacking the snot out of your hands, especially if they're holding any sort of weapon, which are splayed out away from your body in order to give you leverage.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-04, 02:13 PM
Headlock, that's where you take your arm (those things that have hands and fingers on the end of them), and wrap it around their head right? I'm pretty sure that involves a risk to your hands as you reach for them and get them to where you can put them in a headlock, and as you move you arm around their head. I think you've also wind up grasping something in order to keep that grip held, even if you are kind of holding on to your other arm.

I can't think of any of those that are completely hands free.

whereas there avoiding being grappled can often be done without the same sort of risk to your hands.

So grappling seems inherently carry more risk to your fingers than being grappled.

Congrats on fixating on the one example most likely to use an arm. Note that using your arm is not the same as using your fingers...yes, they are attached, but you're not grappling with your fingers or striking with them, so odds of injury to them is quite low. Likewise, how do you break out of this grapple? Grabbing the other person and pulling on them in some fashion is one such way, and would likely involve use of fingers directly. Other methods, such as throws, might not. There is no particular reason you must use fingers to grapple, but cannot to counter a grapple.

Additionally, as already said, you only need one hand free to cast spells, so clearly, a single broken finger is not going to prevent casting.


Likewise, DM fiat doesn't necessarily mean arbitrary either.

fiat
arbitrary order or decree (Source: The American Heritage Dictionary, 1983)

There are other definitions, with regard to money and such, but they're not really relevant here.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-02-04, 02:15 PM
I played a grappler wizard once. Well, it was a Wu Jen and he grabbed people then blasted them with Still Fire Wings, but... Okay yeah I'll leave you folks to it.

FAAAAAALCON..... PAWNCH!

Zom B
2010-02-04, 02:20 PM
Every time I read this thread title, I think:


So to you other players all across the land,
There's no need to argue,
DMs just don't understand.

Raptor2213
2010-02-04, 02:38 PM
Us: Mr DM, we've found Errata on the spell, Arcane Sight that says you DO see magical auras, including invisibility at all times WITHOUT having to make any checks.

DM: No! It says in the DMG that the DM can override any rules if he feels like it, and I feel like it! Arcane Sight will only give you a vague glowly splotch in the square it's in.


(Note that I paraphrased this conversation)

This would result in me using invisibility a lot.


Thus far, it's only been used to detect magical traps, detect presence of illusions, and the big one that set this off; to see a party member who is invisible 24/7 pointing at something.

Zom B
2010-02-04, 02:49 PM
I can attest that this particular incident involved some shouting and slamming of books from said DM.

The same DM who once, as a player, ventured off alone in the icy waste with a rope tied around him that he handed to the party, and ended up getting eaten by a Purple Worm and got mad about it.

Jayabalard
2010-02-04, 03:03 PM
Congrats on fixating on the one example most likely to use an arm.You gave 2 examples; a headlock and "any sort of pins" ... pins is pretty unspecific, so I wrote the most on the more specific example. If you have more specific examples, feel fee to suggest them; it would be especially useful if you could note when and how they are used with little to no hand involvement.


Note that using your arm is not the same as using your fingers...yes, they are attached, but you're not grappling with your fingers or striking with them, so odds of injury to them is quite low. I dunno, you're still waving your hands and fingers around in really tight quarters; for a head lock, they're right around your opponent's face, so that seems pretty risky. I personally can't think of any of the examples that people have given that can be gotten into without using your hands pretty extensively, but I can think of lots of ways to avoid such grapples without the use of hands, or with far less use of hands (especially if you have a staff, rod, or dagger in one of those hands).

And in any case, I never suggested that being grappled would hold no risk, just that it would make sense if it was less risk than being the grappler.


Additionally, as already said, you only need one hand free to cast spells, so clearly, a single broken finger is not going to prevent casting.I didn't say that it would, though it might an issue if that was your only hand free for some reason.


fiat
arbitrary order or decree (Source: The American Heritage Dictionary, 1983)I don't really see what that particular dictionary definition has to do with what gamers mean when they talk about DM fiat; it's about as accurate in this context as those financial definitions.

merriam-webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiat) has 3 definitions for the term, and I think that the 2nd comes the closest "an authoritative determination", especially if you follow the synonym for that term to Dicate and look at transitive verb 2.b "to impose, pronounce, or specify authoritatively"

DM Fiat encompasses a lot of things, but generally just means "ruling or determination by the DM in absence of (or in place of) the rules". It has nothing to do with being arbitrary or not being arbitrary. In general, I've found that most DM Fiat solutions for games I've played in have not been arbitrary at all, they tend to be well thought out and logical but YMMV.

Kish
2010-02-04, 03:12 PM
I don't really see how a DM could say, "No grappling for you, Wizard. But you, monk, you can do that, even though the wizard can do it better."

I think the broken fingers thing is silly, and I doubt I'd like this DM much, but I'm all in favor of treating monks not being the best grapplers as a problem to be fixed.

If you have incompatible playstyles you should just stop playing with him. Playing a "clericzilla" will just reinforce his opinion of 3.xed and cause much conflict and aggravation for both of you.

DragoonWraith
2010-02-04, 03:14 PM
I don't really see what that particular dictionary definition has to do with what gamers mean when they talk about DM fiat
I disagree with you. Normal rulings by the DM that are based on some reasoning of the DM's are not called fiat. DM fiat is specifically a negative term for rulings by the DM that are "just because". So yes, by definition and how the word is used, it must be arbitrary. Or it's not fiat, it's just normal houseruling.

Saying "there are no wizards in the setting" or "the incantatrix is broken" are fine rulings. Saying "wizards don't grapple" is an arbitrary DM fiat for no good reason.

Sinfire Titan
2010-02-04, 03:15 PM
And in any case, I never suggested that being grappled would hold no risk, just that it would make sense if it was less risk than being the grappler.


The problem is that you are actually safer from the person you are grappling. It's very rare to injure one of your fingers unless you grapple the opponent improperly. A Full Nelson, for example, keeps them from harming your hands almost entirely. In an actual headlock its very difficult to move your neck, thus biting their fingers is nearly impossible unless they put their hands too close to your mouth. Actually breaking their fingers only while in a headlock is damn near impossible unless you can swing their entire body around or have an object near your head that is hard enough to crack their bones when you move around.

I'm speaking from experience here. My best friend specialized in grappling during his martial arts training, and I didn't. I could never get a strong attack in when he got me in any lock or hold, simply because he knew how to keep the hold. The best I could to was hit his shins or ribs (depending on the hold), or thrash about and force his body into a wall. And I can assure you it hurts to do that last one. More me than him, surprisingly enough.

The point is, a proper hold or grapple has next to no serious risks for the grappler, but the victim is going to be getting screwed.

Optimystik
2010-02-04, 03:16 PM
In the Cleric Quintet, Cadderly prevents the captured evil wizard Dorigen from casting spells by breaking her fingers with a rock.

I wouldn't let it happen in a game - nobody's going around ruling 3rd degree burns from fireball and blindness from lightning bolt - but it is one source of "broken fingers = no casting" in D&D.

Sinfire Titan
2010-02-04, 03:26 PM
In the Cleric Quintet, Cadderly prevents the captured evil wizard Dorigen from casting spells by breaking her fingers with a rock.

I wouldn't let it happen in a game - nobody's going around ruling 3rd degree burns from fireball and blindness from lightning bolt - but it is one source of "broken fingers = no casting" in D&D.

And it's clearly a house rule. There are no rules for breaking bones in 3.5, and there shouldn't be because it unbalances encounters against the PCs (don't get me wrong; nerfing casters is fine, but nerfing everyone else at the same time is not).

Matthew
2010-02-04, 03:27 PM
This is one of the crazier threads I have seen here. This is not an edition problem, it is an issue between the expectations of the game master and a player. The former just wants to play basic old D&D, where the fighters fight and the casters cast, whilst the latter wants to mess around with various internet strategies for building oddball characters. Sort it out between yourselves, stop making such a fuss about it, and worrying about who is right and wrong.

Optimystik
2010-02-04, 03:27 PM
And it's clearly a house rule. There are no rules for breaking bones in 3.5, and there shouldn't be because it unbalances encounters against the PCs (don't get me wrong; nerfing casters is fine, but nerfing everyone else at the same time is not).

I know all that, hence my second sentence. Sheesh!

hamishspence
2010-02-04, 03:32 PM
There are a few Stone Dragon maneuvers in ToB that are described as "breaking bones"- but this is more flavour text to explain the mechanical penalties.

Mountain Tombstone Strike

You slam into your foe, turning bones to dust and muscle into bloody pulp. Your foe's body is left a crippled mockery.

Bonesplitting Strike

Your attack slams home with a ferocious crack of shattered bones and pulped flesh. Your target reels backward, still alive but severely crippled.

Both inflict CON damage.

Sinfire Titan
2010-02-04, 03:32 PM
I know all that, hence my second sentence. Sheesh!

I wasn't saying that at you, my bad for not clarifying that. It was for the ones who say the DM is right to nerf the Wizard grappler.


This is one of the crazier threads I have seen here. This is not an edition problem, it is an issue between the expectations of the game master and a player. The former just wants to play basic old D&D, where the fighters fight and the casters cast, whilst the latter wants to mess around with various internet strategies for building oddball characters. Sort it out between yourselves, stop making such a fuss about it, and worrying about who is right and wrong.

He [the DM] really shouldn't be playing 3.5 with that mindset. 3.5 is a creation engine, where the players can build literally any idea they want and make it work without completely screwing themselves over. If he wants a game where Fighters fight and Casters cast, he should be playing either the older editions or 4E.

Jade_Tarem
2010-02-04, 03:34 PM
I confess that I'm having a bit of difficulty seeing the OP as the villain of the thread.

He almost is. But not quite. See, the DM didn't nix the grappler wizard idea properly. He started out with a BS reason unsupported by the rules, and only then moved on to stuff like personal preferences or game balance, which is more legitimate.

Speaking as a DM, this sets a bad precedent; spontaneous rules generation to support your likes/dislikes is almost always a bad idea, because someone is going to turn it around on you. Indeed, several players have already suggested using a monk grappler build to auto-spank enemy wizards! The fact that the DM suddenly said that he was going to try to make 3.x as much like 2e as possible is also bad form - while the DM is not required to think of how he'll respond to every race/class build in the game in advance, that kind of sweeping stylistic ruling is something he should have told the players ahead of time.

Also unfair is the DM's proclamation that certain classes can defy their stereotypes while others can't - once again, that's the kind of thing he should have announced in advance. All of this on-the-fly stuff from the DM would have me seriously worried if I were a player - I would constantly be wondering if the action I was about to take in the game would fail horribly due to some brand new, made-up rule because the DM didn't like what I was doing.

Player: "So I'm going to use Lay on Hands for..."
DM: "You can't."
Player: "What? Why not?"
DM: "Because you're an elf."
Player: "What does that have to do with anything?"
DM: "Humans have the greatest connection to the divine forces. Everyone knows that. You're lucky I let you be a paladin at all - only Humans could be paladins in older editions. But to better match the way I see paladins being played, every other race loses class features when they take paladin levels."
Player: "That... would have been handy to know before I tried it."
DM: "Well, that's what you get for placing your faith in the money grubbing whore-bags who made 3.5."

Also, the cries of outrage at the OP's 'provocation' ring a little hollow to me as well. My friends and I come up with joke builds all the time and petition the DM to let us play them - it's practically a ritual during character generation by now, and everyone is willing to accept that the DM can nix whatever he wants because he's the DM, and his balance/style preferences take precedence over what the players want. What we don't accept is goofy justifications based on nonexistant rules.

I do, however, agree that the OP should not play a super-optimal build just to 'teach the DM a lesson.' Putting aside the casual arrogance behind that decision, the only lesson the DM will learn is that he was right all along not to let you play what you wanted, and to be more strict with your options in the future.

Jayabalard
2010-02-04, 03:34 PM
I disagree with you. That's fine, feel free to disagree. But it's fairly common for people use it to mean all ad-hoc rulings by the DM, not just bad rulings by the DM. And since I'm the one that used the term "DM fiat", and that's the way I meant the term, I kind of feel like we should really be using my definition... Otherwise you're just arguing semantics, which is fairly pointless.

Saying "there are no wizards in the setting" or "wizards wouldn't grapple because of the risk of losing thier spell casting" are both DM fiat; neither of them is inherently worse than the other. "the incantatrix is broken" is not dm fiat, since it's not a ruling.


The problem is that you are actually safer from the person you are grappling. Sure, once you have a hold on someone you are in control; it's the getting that hold set up initially that's the dangerous part, where you have to grab hold of them and get them into that position.


I'm speaking from experience here. My best friend specialized in grappling during his martial arts training, and I didn't. I could never get a strong attack in when he got me in any lock or hold, simply because he knew how to keep the hold. I'm not sure how applicable that experience really is; my guess is that you did this under fairly controlled circumstances compared to a real combat situation, though I'm sure it's possible that this isn't the case.

I mean, really, how many times did he try to put you in a hold while you had a knife on your belt? I'd imagine it's kind of hard to keep someone in a headlock when they're stabbing you in the crotch, and that particular escape mechanism seems like it doesn't really pose all that much risk to your fingers compared to grabbing someone and putting them in that head lock initially.

Matthew
2010-02-04, 03:35 PM
He [the DM] really shouldn't be playing 3.5 with that mindset. 3.5 is a creation engine, where the players can build literally any idea they want and make it work without completely screwing themselves over. If he wants a game where Fighters fight and Casters cast, he should be playing either the older editions or 4E.

D20/3e is what you make of it. It can be played any number of ways, your version is just one. All of which is besides the point, since the issue is a clash between expectations of play styles, not editions.

Optimystik
2010-02-04, 03:36 PM
*snip*

In my eyes, you've won this one.


He [the DM] really shouldn't be playing 3.5 with that mindset. 3.5 is a creation engine, where the players can build literally any idea they want and make it work without completely screwing themselves over. If he wants a game where Fighters fight and Casters cast, he should be playing either the older editions or 4E.

In 4e, everybody casts.

Jayabalard
2010-02-04, 03:37 PM
Speaking as a DM, this sets a bad precedent; spontaneous rules generation to support your likes/dislikes is almost always a bad idea, because someone is going to turn it around on you. I'm to just flatly disagree; there are a lot of people who like to play that way. Since he's clearly a AD&D fan, it's not surprising that he's going to DM that way.

Nor is your on the fly ruling example very relevant; the OP is complaining about rulings made before he creates a character, which is a very different situation to stripping a core ability off of a class during play.

Matthew
2010-02-04, 03:39 PM
In my eyes, you've won this one.

Indeed; astute observations all.

hamishspence
2010-02-04, 03:40 PM
Making stuff up on the fly can be fun- as long as it doesn't come across as unfair.

Breaking fingers in a grapple, might be a good example of a Called Shots rule coming into play "Called shot to the fingers"

But IMO it shouldn't make life impossible for the caster- maybe something more like "-1 to caster level for all spells with a somatic component" rather than making it completely impossible to use spells with somatic components.

Jayabalard
2010-02-04, 03:40 PM
D20/3e is what you make of it. It can be played any number of ways, your version is just one. All of which is besides the point, since the issue is a clash between expectations of play styles, not editions.hmmm, well, it looks like there's also an edition clash to me (2e vs 3.5e)

Sinfire Titan
2010-02-04, 03:40 PM
Sure, once you have a hold on someone you are in control; it's the getting that hold set up initially that's the dangerous part, where you have to grab hold of them and get them into that position.

Hence the AoO provoked when initiating a grapple check! That's where the risk is. The majority of that risk is removed by a feat.


I'm not sure how applicable that experience really is; my guess is that you did this under fairly controlled circumstances compared to a real combat situation, though I'm sure it's possible that this isn't the case.

I mean, really, how many times did he try to put you in a hold while you had a knife on your belt? I'd imagine it's kind of hard to keep someone in a headlock when they're stabbing you in the crotch, and that particular escape mechanism seems like it doesn't really pose all that much risk to your fingers compared to grabbing someone and putting them in that head lock initially.

During an actual match, he's managed to get me pinned several times. The only reason I can even stand up to him is sheer stamina, as I can literally wriggle him into exhaustion (but I have never actually escaped any of his grabs the proper way, even once shown how to do it). We've participated in several competitions prior to me withdrawing from my lessons for financial reasons.

JoshuaZ
2010-02-04, 03:41 PM
I actually thought about that, but he wanted to cherry pick which spells were usable via Natural Spell. This is why I am opting for the totally core Cleric-zilla idea.

This actually worries me a lot more than anything in your first post. Unless he's using some sort of blanket rule (like you can't cast spells of your highest level using Natural Spell or breaking Natural Spell up into multiple feats) then this sounds like the DM is just unilaterally forcing out certain character options with no logic other than his own "I don't like that." This seems very micromanaging.

That's not by itself a definite problem, but it is a cause for worry.

Matthew
2010-02-04, 03:42 PM
I'm to just flatly disagree; there are a lot of people who like to play that way. Since he's clearly a AD&D fan, it's not surprising that he's going to DM that way.

Nor is your on the fly ruling example very relevant; the OP is complaining about rulings made before he creates a character, which is a very different situation to stripping a core ability off of a class during play.

That is true, but the issue of making up the rules as you go along runs against the basic expectations of a highly codified game. Without considerable skill and understanding of D20 (this GM definitely does not posses these) it is going to be hard to make things spontaneously without it ending up in a mess, if you see what I mean. He could just ignore the system, I suppose.



hmmm, well, it looks like there's also an edition clash to me (2e vs 3.5e)

Nah, it is play style. One version of the game may be more suited than another, but not everybody plays AD&D in a free form manner, or D20 by the book.

Jayabalard
2010-02-04, 03:44 PM
But IMO it shouldn't make life impossible for the caster- maybe something more like "-1 to caster level for all spells with a somatic component" rather than making it completely impossible to use spells with somatic components.Indeed; I think that the GURPS magic system would apply a penalty along those lines if you have a damaged limb and need to be making complicated gestures; probably a skill penalty based on the amount and type of damage. If I were building a system for this into D&D I would probably yoink some of that and apply it to caster level like that.


Nah, it is play style. One version of the game may be more suited than another, but not everybody plays AD&D in a free form manner, or D20 by the book.I don't just mean the free form rulings; there seems to be a bit of a clash based strictly on the expectations formed by those editions. Namely that wizards worked like X in 2e, so they should work that way in 3e.

Matthew
2010-02-04, 03:49 PM
I don't just mean the free form rulings; there seems to be a bit of a clash based strictly on the expectations formed by those editions. Namely that wizards worked like X in 2e, so they should work that way in 3e.

They can work that way in D20/3e, and they can work many different ways in AD&D/2e. Sure, the edition may inform the perceptions of the participants to some degree, but that is not really the issue. It is not play X if you want to play in Y style, but that one guy wants to play in Y style and another in Z style.

hamishspence
2010-02-04, 03:49 PM
I'm not sure if I saw something in the DMG or one of the splatbooks, on "unusual injuries" something like a trap smashing the character's fingers and thus them having a penalty to Dex checks.

Maybe I'm thinking of one of the splatbooks.

Matthew
2010-02-04, 03:51 PM
I'm not sure if I saw something in the DMG or one of the splatbooks, on "unusual injuries" something like a trap smashing the character's fingers and thus them having a penalty to Dex checks.

Maybe I'm thinking of one of the splatbooks.

It is an optional rule in the DMG, definitely 3.0 (p. 67), not sure about 3.5. [edit] Page 27 of the 3.5 DMG.

Jayabalard
2010-02-04, 03:51 PM
This actually worries me a lot more than anything in your first post. Unless he's using some sort of blanket rule (like you can't cast spells of your highest level using Natural Spell or breaking Natural Spell up into multiple feats) then this sounds like the DM is just unilaterally forcing out certain character options with no logic other than his own "I don't like that." This seems very micromanaging.

That's not by itself a definite problem, but it is a cause for worry.It's possible that he's drawing this from something like WoW, where druids can use certain abilities in certain forms.

And if it's done well, it might be a nice way to balance out natural spell.


During an actual match, he's managed to get me pinned several times. The only reason I can even stand up to him is sheer stamina, as I can literally wriggle him into exhaustion (but I have never actually escaped any of his grabs the proper way, even once shown how to do it). We've participated in several competitions prior to me withdrawing from my lessons for financial reasons.Yeah, I mean, that experience is a great tool to draw on, and I'm sure it applies in a lot of situations, but there's a real disconnect between competitions with no weapons and a referee and real combat where putting someone in a headlock is likely to get you gutted.


one guy wants to play in Y style and another in Z style.Oh yeah, I totally agree that this is the primary problem (I said so several pages ago). I just think the DM is hung up on edition (the whole "WAAAAGH, 3e D&D SUCKS!!!!!1!!!eleven!" bit)

JoshuaZ
2010-02-04, 03:58 PM
It's possible that he's drawing this from something like WoW, where druids can use certain abilities in certain forms.

And if it's done well, it might be a nice way to balance out natural spell.



Possibly, that's why I described it more as a warning sign than a definite problem. But if that's what they intend they should have them worked out in general and at least have some vague ideas. It doesn't sound from the (admittedly short) descriptor we got that that's what is going on.

Sinfire Titan
2010-02-04, 04:01 PM
Yeah, I mean, that experience is a great tool to draw on, and I'm sure it applies in a lot of situations, but there's a real disconnect between competitions with no weapons and a referee and real combat where putting someone in a headlock is likely to get you gutted.


Ok, now you're just defying common effing sense. You and I would both know better than to use a headlock when the opponent is using a handheld weapon. There's more than one way to grapple a person, and anyone trained to grapple someone will know which grabs and pins to use to avoid weaponry. Alternatively, disarming the target before a grab is always an option.

Kish
2010-02-04, 04:05 PM
This actually worries me a lot more than anything in your first post. Unless he's using some sort of blanket rule (like you can't cast spells of your highest level using Natural Spell or breaking Natural Spell up into multiple feats) then this sounds like the DM is just unilaterally forcing out certain character options with no logic other than his own "I don't like that." This seems very micromanaging.

That's not by itself a definite problem, but it is a cause for worry.
Whereas I would say "the DM said he would, not disallow, but weaken, a feat which is commonly regarded as taking the class from extremely powerful to god mode, and that killed my interest in the class" is a cause for worry, m'self.

Jayabalard
2010-02-04, 04:12 PM
Ok, now you're just defying common effing sense. You and I would both know better than to use a headlock when the opponent is using a handheld weapon. Hey, I'm just working with what I've been given; headlock is pretty much the only specific grappling maneuver that's been suggested (other than the 4 leaf clover). I've asked for other examples, since I'm having trouble thinking of stuff that doesn't risk your hands, especially when dealing with armed opponents.

And they don't even necessarily need to be using a hand held weapon... What about one that he has on his belt? It seems like this would be incredibly common in most medieval-ish worlds; I can't think of many fantasy RPG characters that I've created over the years, regardless of system, that didn't have a belt knife (or a holdout knife somewhere else).

It just seems to me, that if you're seeking out a grapple, you're putting your hands in much worse risk than if you're trying to avoid a grapple.


Whereas I would say "the DM said he would, not disallow, but weaken, a feat which is commonly regarded as taking the class from extremely powerful to god mode, and that killed my interest in the class" is a cause for worry, m'self.Yeah, that does kind of seem a little suspect, especially based on the next step which was to go full out clericzilla in response.

Gametime
2010-02-04, 04:39 PM
Hey, I'm just working with what I've been given; headlock is pretty much the only specific grappling maneuver that's been suggested (other than the 4 leaf clover). I've asked for other examples, since I'm having trouble thinking of stuff that doesn't risk your hands, especially when dealing with armed opponents.

And they don't even necessarily need to be using a hand held weapon... What about one that he has on his belt? It seems like this would be incredibly common in most medieval-ish worlds; I can't think of many fantasy RPG characters that I've created over the years, regardless of system, that didn't have a belt knife (or a holdout knife somewhere else).

It just seems to me, that if you're seeking out a grapple, you're putting your hands in much worse risk than if you're trying to avoid a grapple.



I think most players would be willing to accept a detailed and thought-out chart, listing the complications arising from a grapple and the ways they impact play.

It might turn even more players off grappling, since it would increase the complexity of an already complex maneuver, but at least it would be internally consistent. What the OP first brought up was less of a ruling on the consequences of a wizard grappling and more a ban on wizards grappling because of what might happen to them. That's considerably less justifiable.

hamishspence
2010-02-04, 04:45 PM
Grappling has become notorious enough to get a trope all to itself:

Grappling with Grappling Rules

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GrapplingWithGrapplingRules

Sinfire Titan
2010-02-04, 04:46 PM
Hey, I'm just working with what I've been given; headlock is pretty much the only specific grappling maneuver that's been suggested (other than the 4 leaf clover). I've asked for other examples, since I'm having trouble thinking of stuff that doesn't risk your hands, especially when dealing with armed opponents.

And they don't even necessarily need to be using a hand held weapon... What about one that he has on his belt? It seems like this would be incredibly common in most medieval-ish worlds; I can't think of many fantasy RPG characters that I've created over the years, regardless of system, that didn't have a belt knife (or a holdout knife somewhere else).

It just seems to me, that if you're seeking out a grapple, you're putting your hands in much worse risk than if you're trying to avoid a grapple.


If your best action is putting you at a higher risk than you are capable of handling, someone is doing something wrong. It may be you, it may be the enemy, but someone screwed up.

In DnD, it's very feasible to grapple an armed opponent depending on the weapon the wield (hell, even using weapons that can be used in a grapple means you take a penalty). It isn't realistic because it was never meant to be. Just because IRL you'd get stabbed, cut up, or beat to death doesn't mean a 2nd level Totemist will have the same results.

JoshuaZ
2010-02-04, 04:49 PM
Whereas I would say "the DM said he would, not disallow, but weaken, a feat which is commonly regarded as taking the class from extremely powerful to god mode, and that killed my interest in the class" is a cause for worry, m'self.

But there are good ways to do that. Ad hoc "this spell in, this spell not" is not a good way to do that. Good ways include for example saying that you can't use your highest level spells on Natural Spell, or breaking it into a feat that can be taken multiple times, the first time working for spells of level 3 or below, the next level 6 or below, the next level 9 or below etc. Both of those are workable fixes. This just sounds like micromanagement.

faceroll
2010-02-04, 04:49 PM
Fell asleep last night guys. Thanks for the replies. Part of the reason why the whole exchange bothered me last night is because he was denying an entire style of play, which as a player, I don't see as fair.

On a grappler's wizard character sheet, there would be nothing really out of the ordinary. Two human feats (Improved Unarmed Strike and Improved Grapple) and a familiar (an octopus), odd as they may be, are both core and legal options available to the character. The one thing that may seem out of place would be the 14 strength, but that is entirely possible with a 32 point buy.

Nothing about the build is stuff that "shouldn't be", except if this was a desert setting. But the DM didn't use that as part of the justification. He actually told me later on, "no grappling wizards". Here is a gem of the conversation from last night.



I don't really see how a DM could say, "No grappling for you, Wizard. But you, monk, you can do that, even though the wizard can do it better." What I really don't understand is how a DM can nix a whole concept because in his mind, a character shouldn't be able to do that because the blasty wizard archetype is the one he adheres to. I even tried to cite precedent saying that Conan the Barbarian could actually read and knew about magic enough (read spellcraft and/or knowledge arcana/the planes) that he wasn't the typical hurly burly barbarian. To which he replied that his dwarf tank had a 15 int because he was a tactician, which totally makes it legal.

This is why I wanted to pull out a cleric-zilla who could out-melee his tank. Not because I like silly builds (which I totally do) or because I like giving him a hard time (which I totally do, but mostly all in fun), but because his reasons are arbitrary to me. If you can have a military genius, why not have a wizard who can punch someone when he runs out of spells? Oh that's right. If they do, they will break a pinky and be S.O.L. when it comes to spells with Somatic components.

Your approach is wrong. Make up a story to tell the DM that justifies the wizard's grappling. Maybe the wizard has a tome of ancient fighting techniques that he has trained in. When he focuses his chi, his fists turn to stone and he swells with the strength of a bull. Sometimes, he just feels like throwing a HADOKEN. Maybe the wizard has some sort of fascination with aberrations and wishes to emulate them- he has an octopus familiar, the aberrant heritage feat + tentacles feat, he casts spells that makes him sprout more tentacles, extra arms, increase the reach of his tentacles, cover his body in acidic slime, etc.

LoM & SpC have a ton of great spells & feats to make such a concept workable.

Explain to your DM that Wizard isn't a profession, it's a set of rules that you can use to build a character that has a specific in-game representation. Not every wizard has to have a raven on his shoulder and hang out with guildies all day, because a class doesn't have much of an in-game existence. Tell the DM to stop metagaming.

DragoonWraith
2010-02-04, 04:49 PM
That's fine, feel free to disagree. But it's fairly common for people use it to mean all ad-hoc rulings by the DM, not just bad rulings by the DM. And since I'm the one that used the term "DM fiat", and that's the way I meant the term, I kind of feel like we should really be using my definition... Otherwise you're just arguing semantics, which is fairly pointless.
Fiat does not mean "ad-hoc" or otherwise, nor does arbitrary. Arbitrary means without a particular reason, on a whim. If something the DM hadn't thought of comes up, and he needs to make a decision, that is ad-hoc, but it doesn't have to be arbitrary, and if it is not, it's not a fiat, it's just a ruling.

And seeing as this is the actual meaning of the word, I feel like it's a fair point to bring up. "Fiat" is Latin for "Let it be", as in, "fiat lux", "let there be light." Fiat implies use of authority, rather than reason, for a ruling, which is why it is negative.

So, no, just because you mis-used a word before any of the rest of us used it correctly does not mean that you get to have your definition used.


Saying "there are no wizards in the setting" or "wizards wouldn't grapple because of the risk of losing thier spell casting" are both DM fiat; neither of them is inherently worse than the other. "the incantatrix is broken" is not dm fiat, since it's not a ruling.
I meant to imply that the incantatrix was banned. Now, the primary difference I was going for is that there are reasons why the Wizard and Incantatrix are banned here (doesn't fit the setting, and doesn't fit the desired power level, respectively). The grappling thing? Neither. It's banned simply because the DM doesn't like it. And that is bad. At least, that is my opinion. It's similar to DMs who say (and this is quite common), "I don't like Tome of Battle, so you can't use it". The argument could be "I am not familiar enough with Tome of Battle to run the game correctly", which is fine, but I have seen plenty of DMs who have said "I have ToB, I've read it, and I don't like it, so nyah." That bothers me on a level where I wouldn't play that DM's game even if I had no interest in using anything from the Tome of Battle. And that is what was being described as the DM's actions here.

That said, I do agree that his responses (the Cleric and Druid) are troublesome, and indicate that the OP's side of the story may not be unbiased. But in the hypothetical situation that would exist were the OP's story exactly as presented, welll... yes, I feel like the DM is very wrong.

JoshuaZ
2010-02-04, 04:55 PM
I meant to imply that the incantatrix was banned. Now, the primary difference I was going for is that there are reasons why the Wizard and Incantatrix are banned here (doesn't fit the setting, and doesn't fit the desired power level, respectively). The grappling thing? Neither. It's banned simply because the DM doesn't like it. And that is bad. At least, that is my opinion. It's similar to DMs who say (and this is quite common), "I don't like Tome of Battle, so you can't use it". The argument could be "I am not familiar enough with Tome of Battle to run the game correctly", which is fine, but I have seen plenty of DMs who have said "I have ToB, I've read it, and I don't like it, so nyah." That bothers me on a level where I wouldn't play that DM's game even if I had no interest in using anything from the Tome of Battle. And that is what was being described as the DM's actions here.


If the DM's concern is that ToB doesn't fit with the flavor of his campaign, that's a reasonable response. If he's concerned that ToB is broken then he's wrong, but he's still understandable in his response. Both of these can be handled by talking to the DM. The first one for example can be dealt with by reflavoring.

9mm
2010-02-04, 04:56 PM
Grappling has become notorious enough to get a trope all to itself:

Grappling with Grappling Rules

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GrapplingWithGrapplingRules

funny thing... the opens the PHP right to the section where the grapple rules are located, is at them after the first page flip, and then promptly flips past them

DementedFellow
2010-02-04, 05:21 PM
Thank you all for your responses! I must say it is an interesting read over the past few pages.

Since I don't want to search through a couple pages and address questions and comments by the poster, I'll just hit the high notes.

1.) It isn't uncommon for me throw weird builds at this DM. He has made rulings in the past such as "no anthropomorphic animals" or "no monsters with class levels" and I leave it at that usually because those are things that are hard to corral in game and are pretty cheesy. He usually just laughs at me and says I can't play a serious character, as he sees the builds I find or make as pretty outrageous. Typically, I'm fine with this opinion and we laugh and move on.

Getting him to look at Truenamer was a big deal and when he did, he saw that it wasn't over-powered or gamebreaking. He thought a silence effect would pretty much nerf me, but when I showed him the section on how the universe hears me regardless of the silence effect, his reply was, "aww shucks." I think he was going to use it against me some time in the upcoming game, but I can only make this assumption based off the multitude of "mwahahas" he bellowed as I looked up the page number. He actually did allow Truenamer, when I explained that the Truenamer wasn't a caster so much as a debuffer. Again, he allowed it, and even allowed Sun Elf for the tasty +2 INT score.

2.) My resistance to his abrupt "no grapple wizard" response is mainly because a wizard CAN do the job better. His replies that wizards are puny and thus unable to hold out in a grapple is basically ignoring the character's stats and feats. When we remove ourselves from the rules of the game, we are no longer playing the game we first intended to play.

The fact his "dwarf tank" has an INT of 15 and is a tactician is as against the grain to me as a wizard who can punch the everloving crap out of someone. If we are playing with the older edition mindset, shouldn't dwarves be nothing but reckless drunken revelers, incapable of thinking past the next drink?

We either play one game where feats and stat selection actually have a bearing in game, or we go freeform. Personally, I'm cool with either, but I don't like a seemingly random hodge-podge amalgamation with the two.

3.) The next issue I wish to address is the CoDzilla option. When I found out that he would cherry pick which spells would work with Natural Spell, I immediately grew cautious that he would just randomly nerf X spell for some arbitrary reason, and I was concerned this might happen midgame.

The cleric meanwhile seemed like a good option since it would be a totally core CoDzilla with only Extend spell instead of the DMM cheese. I was curious to see what exactly he would nerf when I buffed up and did more damage than his meager "tank". And to see if he would bitch and moan about how I should be the healbot instead of a melee god, since I am playing a priest.

Is it a childish response? Certainly. I have no other excuses to justify this line of thought other than to see if I could illicit more seemingly arbitrary rules about how a character should or should not be played.

4.) I am a silly player. I make no assertions otherwise. I love laughing and giggling at the surreal aspects that can go down in-game. Has my silliness hurt a game in the past? I don't believe so. Almost all the characters I've played have some quirky nature about them rather than a Mr Serious McColdStare type character. This is how I have fun.

Any other questions/comments I didn't address? These were a lot of responses to read through and I may have missed some.

DragoonWraith
2010-02-04, 05:23 PM
If the DM's concern is that ToB doesn't fit with the flavor of his campaign, that's a reasonable response. If he's concerned that ToB is broken then he's wrong, but he's still understandable in his response. Both of these can be handled by talking to the DM. The first one for example can be dealt with by reflavoring.
Exactly, but I didn't want to get into thsoe examples because it would have bloated the sentence without improving the point I was trying to make. Yes, there are a number of very legitimate reasons to ban things. "I don't like it" just isn't one of them.

Thurbane
2010-02-04, 06:06 PM
I just can't get over the gigantic sense of entitlement some players seem to have. They have an attitude of "it's in a book, so the DM must allow it". And it gets backed up when they post their complaint - people chime in with what a horrible DM you must have if he won't let you take that Girallon/Warblade/Warhulk/Totemist that you just have to play in his otherwise core only campaign.

Thank goodness I donít play with any groups like that. I happen to believe that the person who is devoting their time and resources to create a game world for me to play in deserves a little respect.

Öand of course, there is the other end of the spectrum, where the DM shoots down every player build, no matter how humble; but Iím not seeing that with the kind of regularity with which I see self-entitled players.

DementedFellow
2010-02-04, 06:14 PM
Thurbane, if the book in question is CORE, then I don't see why a DM would disallow it.

DragoonWraith
2010-02-04, 06:14 PM
It's not about entitlement, it's about a DM being reasonable enough to allow his player's the leeway to do odd or unusual builds without freaking out about how it breaks with tradition or his own thoughts on how things should be. DMing should be about working with the players on character creation, not imposing upon them your own ideas. Frankly, Thurbane, your post is extremely insulting.


Thurbane, if the book in question is CORE, then I don't see why a DM would disallow it.
See, on the other hand: the Player's Handbook is the most unbalanced book ever written by Wizards for 3.5, hands down, bar none. That I could see a DM banning very rightly for balance reasons, with the exception of the Bard and possibly the Barbarian and/or Rogue. The rest of the classes from the PHB, plus Humans, Half-Elves, and Half-Orcs, are all rather awfully balanced.

frogspawner
2010-02-04, 06:20 PM
We either play one game where feats and stat selection actually have a bearing in game, or we go freeform. Personally, I'm cool with either...
You could try playing with just what's in the 3.5 PHB.


If we are playing with the older edition mindset, shouldn't dwarves be nothing but reckless drunken revelers, incapable of thinking past the next drink?
Not really. How you role-play a character is independent of the D&D version. (Though more complex rules seem to actually hinder the RP, by distracting players into "build optimization" and such).


I am a silly player. I make no assertions otherwise. I love laughing and giggling at the surreal aspects that can go down in-game. Has my silliness hurt a game in the past? I don't believe so.
But maybe your silly approach hurts enjoyment of the game for your fellow players. That may be the source of your DM's apparent annoyance. Why not let them take it just a bit more seriously, eh?

DementedFellow
2010-02-04, 06:30 PM
You could try playing with just what's in the 3.5 PHB.
I'm confused. How did I not attempt this?



But maybe your silly approach hurts enjoyment of the game for your fellow players. That may be the source of your DM's apparent annoyance. Why not let them take it just a bit more seriously, eh?Why should I play a cookie cutter character that fits an archetype when I find the archetype in question, trite and boring? Because that is what the DM wants. He wants MY character to obey his style of gameplay by ignoring a totally viable option in battle. What's to stop him from saying that a Sorcerer cannot make a charge attack because they should always hide behind the meatshield and never enter melee?

frogspawner
2010-02-04, 06:38 PM
I'm confused. How did I not attempt this?I don't believe Truenamers or Bear-whatevers are in the PHB.


Why should I play a cookie cutter character that fits an archetype when I find the archetype in question, trite and boring? Because that is what the DM wants. He wants MY character to obey his style of gameplay by ignoring a totally viable option in battle. What's to stop him from saying that a Sorcerer cannot make a charge attack because they should always hide behind the meatshield and never enter melee?
So... do you think your friends, the other players and DM, would prefer a less silly style?

Kish
2010-02-04, 06:40 PM
I'm confused. How did I not attempt this?

There are no Truenamers in the Player's Handbook I.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe Natural Spell is there, either.

Drakevarg
2010-02-04, 06:41 PM
I could be wrong, but I don't believe Natural Spell is there, either.

Yes, it is.

DementedFellow
2010-02-04, 06:48 PM
I don't believe Truenamers or Bear-whatevers are in the PHB.
The Truenamer was actually OK'd. The Bear character was a joke. However a grapple Wizard can be built and be doable in PHB. That's part of the reason why I am so against his arbitrary nixing of a character concept.

I cannot stress this enough people. Truenamer was OK'd. Bear was a joke.


So... do you think your friends, the other players and DM, would prefer a less silly style?
Silly style has its time and place. How many stories do you know where a group of adventurers has went through the entire story arc?

Some of are the monkey, some of us are the organ and some of are the organ-grinder.

Ponce
2010-02-04, 06:53 PM
Silly style has its time and place. How many stories do you know where a group of adventurers has went through the entire story arc?

Some of are the monkey, some of us are the organ and some of are the organ-grinder.
You seem to be ignoring the question, leading me to believe that you are, in fact, annoying your fellow players as well as the DM. I suspect further that you have a long history of this sort of thing, and that your DM in particular may be so tired of it that he is willing to generate his own rules and explanations to get a handle on the silly things that you do. To summarize, I feel I must sympathize with your DM on this matter.

DementedFellow
2010-02-04, 06:57 PM
I misread the question. I've played in more serious games, such as Call of Cthulhu. There's very little to laugh about, but it is still very enjoyable. The tone of the game comes down to the subject matter. When you're doing a typical dungeon crawl (which is what my DM loves) you have to make your own fun.

JoshuaZ
2010-02-04, 07:16 PM
I just can't get over the gigantic sense of entitlement some players seem to have. They have an attitude of "it's in a book, so the DM must allow it". And it gets backed up when they post their complaint - people chime in with what a horrible DM you must have if he won't let you take that Girallon/Warblade/Warhulk/Totemist that you just have to play in his otherwise core only campaign.

Thank goodness I donít play with any groups like that. I happen to believe that the person who is devoting their time and resources to create a game world for me to play in deserves a little respect.

Öand of course, there is the other end of the spectrum, where the DM shoots down every player build, no matter how humble; but Iím not seeing that with the kind of regularity with which I see self-entitled players.

Both the grappling wizard build and the Natural Spell feat are in core.

Also, while there is an entitlement problem, the best DMs work with players. To use an example of a campaign I'm currently in which is using a semi-homebrewed system in a very Firefly like universe made by the GM, I wanted to play a character who was more or less a religious fanatic, and had certain ideas about what the religion would believe and where it woud come from. So I talked it over with the GM. He hadn't thought much about what religions would look like in the setting and so we worked out together what they might be like and what to expect.

There are genuine problems that can occur. If for example, you want to play say a telepath in a hard-science future setting, that's going to be a problem. Or if you wanted to play an Alienist in a 3.5 setting where the Far Realm and other Lovecraftian realms don't exist, that's going to be a problem. But in the vast majority of situations the DM and a player can probably come to a reasonable middle ground.

FishAreWet
2010-02-04, 07:27 PM
So... do you think your friends, the other players and DM, would prefer a less silly style?

What is silly about a grappling wizard?

Mikeavelli
2010-02-04, 07:32 PM
On the first page, someone suggested drinking heavily during games to make your game more entertaining.

I second this notion.

I've had a few memorable DM's who sound like this guy. You and he have a fundamental difference in playing styles.

You like to make characters that do funny things with the mechanics. I'm very similar to you, and think these ideas were wonderful.

Your DM, on the other hand, believes that people obsessed with mechanics are only that way because they're munchkins. He thinks that if he allows you to go wild with a mechanically unusual character, you're going to spend all session bragging about your numbers and such instead of role-playing.

Some people around here refer to it as the Stormwind fallacy, I can't be bothered to find the link, but the gist of it is he believes you can't be BOTH concerned with mechanics AND be a good Roleplayer.

[hr]

Also, he doesn't trust you. I love doing silly **** with mechanics, and every DM of the sort you're describing started out knocking down anything unusual I thought up - but after playing for a few months with the group, I got to go wild.

Put up with it for now, make him happy with an interesting character, role-play well, and when the next character creation session comes around, press for more creative freedom in your mechanics.

DragoonWraith
2010-02-04, 07:36 PM
(Though more complex rules seem to actually hinder the RP, by distracting players into "build optimization" and such)
Hi, I'd like to introduce you to the Stormwind Fallacy. Please read:

I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')

Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

How does this impact "builds"? Simple.

In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.

In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.

By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.

And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).

Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.

JoshuaZ
2010-02-04, 07:45 PM
Hi, I'd like to introduce you to the Stormwind Fallacy.

The Stormwind Fallacy doesn't apply to the earlier comment. Stormwind says that just because someone is optimizing it doesn't mean that they aren't roleplaying. The claim being made here was that people are more likely to not roleplay as much as they focus more on optimization. I don't have enough experience with serious optimizers to tell if that's true, but it is a very different claim than the sort that Stormwind Tempest was responding to.

Thurbane
2010-02-04, 08:34 PM
Thurbane, if the book in question is CORE, then I don't see why a DM would disallow it.

Both the grappling wizard build and the Natural Spell feat are in core.
Yes, understood about core. But that wasn't really my point, even though my far-fetched example included the word core. Apologies.

My point is that the DM has the right to say no to something if he thinks it won't fit with his campaign, or if he thinks it might be problematic on other ways. Even if it's core.

I've run games where the players weren't allowed to play Gnomes or Halflings (core races) because in my capaign world they had been wiped out ages past in a genocidal incident. Not becuase I hate the races, not because they aren't balanced...but because it was part of the campaign flavor. And guess what? No players complained, and all had a very enjoyable tie in my campaign.

I've similarly played in other games where house rules or DM veto forbid specific things. Rather than get uppity, plot revenge or leave the game, I compromised and adapted. For example, I have a DM that house rules that casters cannot cast defensively...I've played a caster in his game, adapted and dealt with it. Again, I still managed to have a lot of fun.

The key point is that both the DM and players need to be flexible with regard to each others wants and needs. And at the end of the day, I believe the DM has final say, due to him running the game. If that's a hurdle that you can't get over, I would suggest voting with your feet.

I don't mean to sound adversarial or aggressive here, but it is a point (in general) that really bugs me when I read these type of threads.

FishAreWet
2010-02-04, 08:56 PM
Yes, understood about core. But that wasn't really my point, even though my far-fetched example included the word core. Apologies.

My point is that the DM has the right to say no to something if he thinks it won't fit with his campaign, or if he thinks it might be problematic on other ways. Even if it's core.

I've run games where the players weren't allowed to play Gnomes or Halflings (core races) because in my capaign world they had been wiped out ages past in a genocidal incident. Not becuase I hate the races, not because they aren't balanced...but because it was part of the campaign flavor. And guess what? No players complained, and all had a very enjoyable tie in my campaign.

I've similarly played in other games where house rules or DM veto forbid specific things. Rather than get uppity, plot revenge or leave the game, I compromised and adapted. For example, I have a DM that house rules that casters cannot cast defensively...I've played a caster in his game, adapted and dealt with it. Again, I still managed to have a lot of fun.

The key point is that both the DM and players need to be flexible with regard to each others wants and needs. And at the end of the day, I believe the DM has final say, due to him running the game. If that's a hurdle that you can't get over, I would suggest voting with your feet.

I don't mean to sound adversarial or aggressive here, but it is a point (in general) that really bugs me when I read these type of threads.

But this isn't a case of flavor. Unless the flavor of his campaign setting includes, "Wizards automatically fail any wrestling match."

martyrX
2010-02-04, 08:59 PM
Demented:

So, are you actually allowed to do the wizard grappler thing with 'broken fingers' rules? The extra rules seem a little silly, considering that grappling is a less than optimal form of combat, even for a wizard who is good at it. Maybe you should remind your DM that you will likely have 4 HP. How overpowered can that possibly be? 1 sneak attack (which you are suceptible to while grappling) and you are done.

Even so, since you like silly things, why not try the grappler wizard with broken finger rules? It might be fun, even if you can't cast some spells sometimes, and if you know the rules ahead of time, you can adjust accordingly.

Thurbane
2010-02-04, 09:21 PM
But this isn't a case of flavor. Unless the flavor of his campaign setting includes, "Wizards automatically fail any wrestling match."
I humbly disagree - if I'm reading the intent of the DM in question correctly, it is precisely a case of flavor. He is telling the player (in a very ham fisted way, to be sure) that he doesn't want a grappling Wizard build in his game. I cannot say for sure if his motive is flavor or balance, but if I were to guess, I would say flavor. He wants Wizards in his game to fill their traditional role of scholarly chaps who wield great mystical power, not Hulk Hogan with magical powers. :smalltongue:

...I'm not saying I agree with this DMs motives, or that I support his on-the-fly house ruling to gimp the build. What I am saying is that players (in general, not specifically the OP) should be willing to respect the DMs wishes (to a reasonable extent) when they are proposing character concepts.

If a middle ground can't be reached, I believe the more mature thing to do would be to politely drop out of the game, rather than building a "revenge character" to break the game, and show up the DM.

FishAreWet
2010-02-04, 09:30 PM
I humbly disagree - if I'm reading the intent of the DM in question correctly, it is precisely a case of flavor. He is telling the player (in a very ham fisted way, to be sure) that he doesn't want a grappling Wizard build in his game. I cannot say for sure if his motive is flavor or balance, but if I were to guess, I would say flavor. He wants Wizards in his game to fill their traditional role of scholarly chaps who wield great mystical power, not Hulk Hogan with magical powers. :smalltongue:

...I'm not saying I agree with this DMs motives, or that I support his on-the-fly house ruling to gimp the build. What I am saying is that players (in general, not specifically the OP) should be willing to respect the DMs wishes (to a reasonable extent) when they are proposing character concepts.

If a middle ground can't be reached, I believe the more mature thing to do would be to politely drop out of the game, rather than building a "revenge character" to break the game, and show up the DM.

I guess you're right about the flavor thing. As a DM, I hold to the belief that it's game and it's meant to be fun for everyone. I don't think limiting players from things a trivial as grappling as a wizard will make anyone more happy. It's akin to not allowing Halfings to be barbarians because "they're too small!" Why can't there be a tribe in the forest where wrestling is normal practice, enough that even the Wizards can do it? It's just such a small thing to ban a player from doing...

I completely agree about revenge characters. That's stupid. People who do that need to grow up.

DragoonWraith
2010-02-04, 09:45 PM
The Stormwind Fallacy doesn't apply to the earlier comment. Stormwind says that just because someone is optimizing it doesn't mean that they aren't roleplaying. The claim being made here was that people are more likely to not roleplay as much as they focus more on optimization. I don't have enough experience with serious optimizers to tell if that's true, but it is a very different claim than the sort that Stormwind Tempest was responding to.
It's exactly the same, except that in the case of the Stormwind Fallacy there is an assumption that it is absolutely true that this is always the case, while the post I quoted merely alleged that there was a tendency for this to be the case. It is a much more valid claim, from a logical standpoint, I agree, but it's still very much related to the Stormwind Fallacy because ultimately, the two things do not affect each other in the slightest. Nothing about optimization prevents roleplaying during the game. Optimization takes place almost entirely outside of game sessions anyway, when you're deciding how to build them and what feats and the like to take.

If you wanted to argue that a system that has a lot of fiddly rules (like 3.5) may attract players who would not otherwise be interested in roleplaying (and therefore are interested only in "rollplaying"), I might buy that, but any given player is not going to have his roleplaying ability diminished because he is "distracted" by the rules, and for the most part those interested in "rollplaying" would not "roleplay" in a more free-form system, they simply would not play at all.

Of course, I put "rollplay" and "roleplay" in quotes because those terms are, at their core, more than a bit ridiculous (well, roleplay's not, but it is in the context of "rollplay vs. roleplay").


What I am saying is that players (in general, not specifically the OP) should be willing to respect the DMs wishes (to a reasonable extent) when they are proposing character concepts.
I agree. What I am saying is that it is not reasonable for the DM to nix builds just because they don't fit into his narrow-minded view of what a class "should" do. It's not his character.

But I very much agree with your last paragraph; revenge characters are immature and a terrible plan in any case.

Dexam
2010-02-04, 10:44 PM
Why should I play a cookie cutter character that fits an archetype when I find the archetype in question, trite and boring? Because that is what the DM wants. He wants MY character to obey his style of gameplay by ignoring a totally viable option in battle. What's to stop him from saying that a Sorcerer cannot make a charge attack because they should always hide behind the meatshield and never enter melee?
Might I suggest the following to both you and your DM? Sit down in private with your DM and discuss in a calm, rational manner:
- their general expectations of the (meta)game
- your general expectations of the (meta)game
- their general expectations of the campaign/adventure
- your general expectations of the campaign/adventure
- their general expectations of characters and character concepts
- your general expectations of characters and character concepts
- their general expectations of player and DM behaviour
- your general expectations of player and DM behaviour

I there are any situations in which your expectations do not meet, seek a compromise. Seek to understand why your DM has their point of view. Try to explain to the DM your point of view within the context of their expectations. Try to avoid specifics if possible, unless it is a particular sticking point that a compromise cannot be made through discussions of generalities. If a compromise still cannot be reached, proposed that both viewpoints be discussed in front of all the other players, and ask them for their input and feedback. If the majority of players agree with your viewpoint, politely ask that this viewpoint be made official. If the other players agree with the DM's viewpoint, you can either accept this and move on; or leave the game and find a new DM.


I agree. What I am saying is that it is not reasonable for the DM to nix builds just because they don't fit into his narrow-minded view of what a class "should" do. It's not his character.
However, it is the DM's campaign/adventure.

@DementedFellow: Is there a particular reason why you want to play a Grappler Wizard?

DementedFellow
2010-02-04, 11:03 PM
Demented:

So, are you actually allowed to do the wizard grappler thing with 'broken fingers' rules? The extra rules seem a little silly, considering that grappling is a less than optimal form of combat, even for a wizard who is good at it. Maybe you should remind your DM that you will likely have 4 HP. How overpowered can that possibly be? 1 sneak attack (which you are suceptible to while grappling) and you are done.

Even so, since you like silly things, why not try the grappler wizard with broken finger rules? It might be fun, even if you can't cast some spells sometimes, and if you know the rules ahead of time, you can adjust accordingly.

Not really an option, towards the end of the conversation last night here was the quote:

last time im saying this, as the DM, no.
So for some inexplicable reason, no. Grappler wizard is out. The last time remark was when I tried to say the wizard earned his tuition for Hogwarts or whatever via a tough-man contest. He took offense to me calling a generic school of wizardry "Hogwarts" and it was pretty downhill from there.

As to why I want to play a grappler Wizard? I think the concept is neat and it would be an interesting change of pace. Typically I played Sorcerers because I sucked at spell selection, especially at later levels when metamagic enters the picture, but if I have an idea in mind of spells that would aid a grapple check, it wouldn't be too outrageous to keep track of what to cast when.

JoshuaZ
2010-02-04, 11:11 PM
Not really an option, towards the end of the conversation last night here was the quote:

So for some inexplicable reason, no. Grappler wizard is out. The last time remark was when I tried to say the wizard earned his tuition for Hogwarts or whatever via a tough-man contest. He took offense to me calling a generic school of wizardry "Hogwarts" and it was pretty downhill from there.

As to why I want to play a grappler Wizard? I think the concept is neat and it would be an interesting change of pace. Typically I played Sorcerers because I sucked at spell selection, especially at later levels when metamagic enters the picture, but if I have an idea in mind of spells that would aid a grapple check, it wouldn't be too outrageous to keep track of what to cast when.

May I make the following suggestion? First, you seem to be also mentioning genuinely ridiculous builds like the uberbear. Your DM may not realize when you want a serious build and when you are just trying to be annoying. Or he may find all of the bugging about builds so tiresome that he's in the "No" mode as the strong default setting.

Try to suggest that a) you are serious about this build and b) that exceptional individuals exist. Indeed, that's the point of PCs. It might very well be that in your world almost no wizards are grapplers. But, that makes the PC all the more interesting that he's a wizard with a background in wrestling or what have you. It is ok for PCs to be weird without damaging overall game flavor. Indeed, it can lead to really good RP opportunities (how do other wizards react to the character? How do general people react to a wizard who doesn't fit their expectations). It seems like (judging from the limited information you've given us) that there may be serious problems with the DM, but that you may not be communicating very well about where you are serious and where you are just horsing (bearing?) around.

Also, I'd like to echo earlier comments that making a revenge CoDzilla is really not a mature solution to this sort of impasse.

martyrX
2010-02-04, 11:50 PM
how about a fighter/wizard or monk/wizard? those can be grapply wizards, no?

better yet, a bard with improved grapple! :)

Thurbane
2010-02-05, 02:02 AM
So for some inexplicable reason, no. Grappler wizard is out. The last time remark was when I tried to say the wizard earned his tuition for Hogwarts or whatever via a tough-man contest. He took offense to me calling a generic school of wizardry "Hogwarts" and it was pretty downhill from there.
Sounds you and the DM have larger issues than allowing a particular build. It sounds like you basically don't understand each others POV, and that you don't really get along.

This is almost certain to cause many more issues in the future, even if you can agree on a build together...in all honesty, I would recommend finding another group or DM, if the issues can't be settled. There isn't much point gaming if you and/or the DM isn't having a good time at the table. :smallfrown:

KellKheraptis
2010-02-05, 02:22 AM
This post will fulfill three criteria/goals : 1)Validate a grappling wizard, even making it an awesome option for the beatsticks and rogues in your party, 2)Absolutely pwn any notion of your fingers being in danger of being broken, and 3)Express my massive disgust and disdain for knee-jerk reactions to perfectly valid, RAW, and in this instance even <censored> CORE game mechanics, that he has arbitrarily imposed upon one and only one class (house ruling broken bones into grappling might actually make the Reaping Mauler worth a darn...house ruling broken fingers for wizards only is not only arbitrary and absurd, it's just plain [i][u]WRONG).

1)Use a form altering spell or ability to assume the form of a dragon, while under the effect of every strength buff at your disposal. I recommend doing this while fighting something equally physically impressive.

2)Grapple the beast with impunity, and let the melee buddies enjoy hitting AC 4-8 against the big bad who is now flat-footed.

3)Worry not about your fingers, both because you will heal upon shifting back, and because your fingers are covered in scales harder than steel.

Core only can accomplish this. Furthermore, if you have a source of (ex)Earthglide, do this to a real dragon, and then go into a dive. Piledriver from hell! This is actually one of my favorite tactics with a polymorphed flying wizard.

Kylarra
2010-02-05, 02:35 AM
After reading through the thread I'm pretty much in agreement with this.


Sounds you and the DM have larger issues than allowing a particular build. It sounds like you basically don't understand each others POV, and that you don't really get along.

This is almost certain to cause many more issues in the future, even if you can agree on a build together...in all honesty, I would recommend finding another group or DM, if the issues can't be settled. There isn't much point gaming if you and/or the DM isn't having a good time at the table. :smallfrown:


For my own $0.02, in this situation, you're both at fault.

The DM is "at fault" to an extent for stepping down the slippery slope of arbitrarily restricting things that don't fit his concept of how characters should be played. While this can be done well, it wasn't done well here, and the further "justifications" and conversations relayed only further affirm this conclusion.

He may simply be a bad DM, or he may just be having knee jerk reactions to a string of continued character proposals that are getting increasingly annoying each time and this was just the final straw. We don't know, and frankly, I don't particularly care. His methodology for justifying the ban is at fault, and he should've simply stuck with something along the lines of "that doesn't fit the flavor I envision for this campaign, please choose a different character".
~~~~~~
The player is at fault for knee-jerkedly trying to rub things in the DM's face/make a revenge character. If the DM shoots down an idea, take one chance to convince them. If that fails, make a different character/change groups.
~~~~~~

Basically, as with most player/DM issues, the problem stems from a lack of communication about expectations and a clash in gaming styles. Trying to prove a point in game rarely if ever works out well and pushing the envelope to see how the DM will react to your latest attempt to break his rules might be fun for you, but as a DM, I can tell you that it's not fun for me, and it's probably not fun for your groupmates unless they're on the same wavelength as you.

Lyndworm
2010-02-05, 05:19 AM
I feel a little awkward derailing the conversation like this, but is it legal to pack that much BEAR into a character? I'm pretty sure that Anthropomorphic Bears (Monstrous Humanoid type) are ineligible for Were-Bear (requires Humanoid or Giant type).

PhoenixRivers
2010-02-05, 05:22 AM
I feel a little awkward derailing the conversation like this, but is it legal to pack that much BEAR into a character? I'm pretty sure that Anthropomorphic Bears (Monstrous Humanoid type) are ineligible for Were-Bear (requires Humanoid or Giant type).

Bears are like Chuck Norris. When rules disagree, they maul rules.

hamishspence
2010-02-05, 05:24 AM
Giant type can be acquired. Half-troll template (Fiend Folio) is one fairly simple way to convert magical beasts, or Monstrous Humanoids, into Giants.

Math_Mage
2010-02-05, 05:26 AM
Bears are like Chuck Norris. When rules disagree, they maul rules.

But unlike Chuck Norris, in that everything's worse with bears (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitleeyyr8ln8spjv). :smalltongue:

Zincorium
2010-02-05, 08:01 AM
It's pretty damn important for a DM to know when he's houseruling things, and it's also important for the reason for houseruling to be acceptable to the players. It's not just important, but VITAL, to be playing game everyone else is.

The DM, from the problem of someone who has stated they enjoy pissing said DM off, has made a few missteps.

Unfortunately, DementedFellow, you're probably screwing up the game for everyone else.

Jayabalard
2010-02-05, 08:24 AM
It's not about entitlementYes, it really is about entitlement. It's not just about classes; there's also "I can't believe that my DM won't let me have custom magic item X" or "I can't believe that my DM isn't giving us full WBL" and numerous other "I can't believe my DM wonly allow me to have X, the books say I can" ... They're really quite common on this forum.

Keep in mind that neither Thurbane or I are saying that everyone who comes in with a complaint about their DM falls into this category, just that there are a lot of player complaints that show up here that fall into that category.


Thurbane, if the book in question is CORE, then I don't see why a DM would disallow it.I can think of dozens of reasons the primary being: it doesn't fit in with the game world that has been designed by the DM, and cannot be adapted to fit into it.


Is it a childish response? Yes indeed. Extremely.


4.) I am a silly player. I make no assertions otherwise. I love laughing and giggling at the surreal aspects that can go down in-game. Has my silliness hurt a game in the past? I don't believe so.Well, perhaps it hasn't hurt the game for you; that doesn't really say anything about the people you game with. I can tell you that unless we were playing paranoia or munchkin, or some other explicitly silly game, I highly doubt that I would be willing play more than a single session with you, and I'm pretty easy going about sillyness in games.


Hi, I'd like to introduce you to the Stormwind Fallacy. Please read:
I really think you should read it yourself; you're committing a stormwind-fallacy fallacy.


But this isn't a case of flavor. Unless the flavor of his campaign setting includes, "Wizards automatically fail any wrestling match."That sounds like it is part of the flavor he's trying to have in his campaign world: a very specific mold that wizards have to fall into.

While it's probably not the same situation, I can personally think of several different games I've played in where the fluff of how people are able to use magic pretty much precluded a "grappler wizard" (one of these having caps on how high str/con could be for wizards that went down based on level)

Zincorium
2010-02-05, 08:45 AM
Yes, it really is about entitlement. It's not just about classes; there's also "I can't believe that my DM won't let me have custom magic item X" or "I can't believe that my DM isn't giving us full WBL" and numerous other "I can't believe my DM wonly allow me to have X, the books say I can" ... They're really quite common on this forum.

Keep in mind that neither Thurbane or I are saying that everyone who comes in with a complaint about their DM falls into this category, just that there are a lot of player complaints that show up here that fall into that category.

You talk about player entitlement as if it's some sort of icky substance you have to wash off your hands. This is hardly a good usage.

The players are entitled to certain things in every game- if you haven't decided what they are and aren't entitled to, explained it from them, and gotten agreement that this is acceptable, then you are causing any problems that arise in this category.


I can think of dozens of reasons the primary being: it doesn't fit in with the game world that has been designed by the DM, and cannot be adapted to fit into it.

That sounds like it is part of the flavor he's trying to have in his campaign world: a very specific mold that wizards have to fall into.

While it's probably not the same situation, I can personally think of several different games I've played in where the fluff of how people are able to use magic pretty much precluded a "grappler wizard" (one of these having caps on how high str/con could be for wizards that went down based on level)

I do this myself, and mostly agree, but I feel the need to spell out an important point.

Just because you can change the rules for flavor reasons, doesn't make it a good idea automatically. The aforementioned banning of gnomes/halflings? Well, if one of the players has their heart set on playing one, are you actually improving the game by upholding the flavor-based ban? Probably not. The flavor you are attempting to create will probably be forgotten the second session in without reinforcement, but the forced character selection will irritate that player much longer.

In any case, if you can't make a convincing case to the players, rethink things. They just might be right.

Partysan
2010-02-05, 09:05 AM
While a lot of what people are saying about different playstiles is correct, I'd like to point out once more that the ruling "wizards cannot grapple, because they would break fingers and thus be unable to cast spells (requiring somatic components)" does not really make sense that way.
1. There are no rules for breaking fingers when grappling.
2. If there were such a houserule (which, by the way, does not exactly make the game more realistic, since D&D does not really support called shots and apart from that while you may easily break a finger in a grapple you will as easily dislocate a limb...) then why would it only apply to wizards? The aforementioned grappling wizard would have a higher strength and constitution than a standart wizard (ignoring optimized wizards pumping con as second after int) and the appropriate feats for grappling. Why should there be a penalty on finger stability for the wizard class?
3. If anyone would be in danger of breaking a finger in a grapple, which would be a possible houserule, why should that stop a wizard more than e.g. a rogue? He would probably buff himself to minimize the risk and learn still spell. The fact, that grappling might impair his casting ability might make the build less optimal, but nevertheless it remains absolutely playable, if unconventional, and does not strike me as particularly nonsensical or silly.

I think, the way the DM wants to restrict playing a wizard to is a very stereotypical character which not every player might have fun playing. Players like their characters to be special and apart from that should be allowed to choose what kind of character they want to play.

Jayabalard
2010-02-05, 09:16 AM
You talk about player entitlement as if it's some sort of icky substance you have to wash off your hands. Because it is; "sense of entitlement" (which is the phrase used by thurbane) is a pejorative term, and it is indeed something icky that you have to wash off your hands. It's a specific usage of entitlement.


Well, if one of the players has their heart set on playing one, are you actually improving the game by upholding the flavor-based ban? Probably not. I disagree; if the GM has created a flavorful and consistent world deeply involving the events that lead to a lack of gnomes/halfings, then he has vastly improved the game by upholding this flavor-based ban.

In this case, the person who has his heart set on playing on playing a gnome is exactly the same as the one that has his heart set on playing a space marine; neither of those things exist in the game world. If either of them gets upset because they aren't being allowed to play their chosen character, well, they're being a bit childish; if either of them make a character that is intentionally disruptive as a response, they are being extremely childish.


While a lot of what people are saying about different playstiles is correct, I'd like to point out once more that the ruling "wizards cannot grapple, because they would break fingers and thus be unable to cast spells (requiring somatic components)" does not really make sense that way.I think there have been a couple of answers to all the stuff that you've objected over. 1 is a non issue; 2&3 - noone said it only applies to wizards, but it is said that they are taking a risk since they need their fingers to be able to do complex gestures for casting spells; fighters tend to not worry about losing the ability to cast spells.

Partysan
2010-02-05, 09:23 AM
I think there have been a couple of answers to all the stuff that you've objected over. 1 is a non issue; 2&3 - noone said it only applies to wizards, but it is said that they are taking a risk since they need their fingers to be able to do complex gestures for casting spells; fighters tend to not worry about losing the ability to cast spells.

They are taking the risk, yes. However that does not make the idea completely silly and the build impossible to pull of. Especially in a world with healing spells and still spell feats. It may be suboptimal, but hardly worth outright banning from play.

Jayabalard
2010-02-05, 09:27 AM
They are taking the risk, yes. However that does not make the idea completely silly and the build impossible to pull of. Especially in a world with healing spells and still spell feats. It may be suboptimal, but hardly worth outright banning from play.Knowing whether it's worth banning or not would require that we know a lot more about the game world that this DM is using; depending on that world, it may be clearly worth banning, or not.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-05, 09:34 AM
Yes, it really is about entitlement. It's not just about classes; there's also "I can't believe that my DM won't let me have custom magic item X" or "I can't believe that my DM isn't giving us full WBL" and numerous other "I can't believe my DM wonly allow me to have X, the books say I can" ... They're really quite common on this forum.

I'm under the belief that when a game is advertised as D&D(with set of house rules x), I am entitled to play D&D(with that set of house rules) unless the group generally decides to change something.

When rules get randomly changed due to fiat midway through, then yes, I am entitled to be upset at that.

Gnaritas
2010-02-05, 09:35 AM
I disagree; if the GM has created a flavorful and consistent world deeply involving the events that lead to a lack of gnomes/halfings, then he has vastly improved the game by upholding this flavor-based ban.

In this case, the person who has his heart set on playing on playing a gnome is exactly the same as the one that has his heart set on playing a space marine; neither of those things exist in the game world. If either of them gets upset because they aren't being allowed to play their chosen character, well, they're being a bit childish; if either of them make a character that is intentionally disruptive as a response, they are being extremely childish.


In "my" world i allow a lot. There are certain consequences though.
In my world the party is rebelling against a human empire.

You play a human, fine.

You play a dwarf, fine, but you are living in the human empire that recently conquered the dwarven lands. You are treated as a minority, sometimes as filth, you will suffer racisme and disrespect.

You play an elf, fine, but the human empire is at the brink of war with the elves. You can and probably will be attacked and imprisoned on sight.

You play a half-orc, fine, but the orcs live some distance away from the humans, hardly anyone has ever seen an orc. You will be seen as a monster a freak of nature, a devil. Guards will try to kill you, people you want to protect will fear you.

Gnaritas
2010-02-05, 09:38 AM
I'm under the belief that when a game is advertised as D&D(with set of house rules x), I am entitled to play D&D(with that set of house rules) unless the group generally decides to change something.

When rules get randomly changed due to fiat midway through, then yes, I am entitled to be upset at that.

Midway through, yes, i can understand being upset, but even then most of the times i dont see a problem. I haven't followed the discussion, but is that the case here?

Tyndmyr
2010-02-05, 09:40 AM
Midway through, yes, i can understand being upset, but even then most of the times i dont see a problem. I haven't followed the discussion, but is that the case here?

Well, if you suddenly tell me about a "wizards can't grapple or be anything except fail and crappy in melee" rule after I've already built a wizard...Im going to be annoyed. I invariably ask about house rules and acceptable sources beforehand, and will take you at your word. If you add invented things after the fact to disallow my build, you're being a jerk. If you don't like my build, tell me the reason why, and we'll fix that. Don't just invent rules to say "no, try again".

Jayabalard
2010-02-05, 09:47 AM
Well, if you suddenly tell me about a "wizards can't grapple or be anything except fail and crappy in melee" rule after I've already built a wizard...Im going to be annoyed. I invariably ask about house rules and acceptable sources beforehand, and will take you at your word. If you add invented things after the fact to disallow my build, you're being a jerk. If you don't like my build, tell me the reason why, and we'll fix that. Don't just invent rules to say "no, try again".I notice that you didn't really answer the "is that the case here" question; as far as I can tell, it's not. So I'm really kind of confused as to what this has to do with anything that anyone here is discussing.


In "my" world i allow a lot. There are certain consequences though.
In my world the party is rebelling against a human empire.That's not really the same situation as "they were wiped out, so they don't exist in this game world"

Gnaritas
2010-02-05, 09:53 AM
Well, if you suddenly tell me about a "wizards can't grapple or be anything except fail and crappy in melee" rule after I've already built a wizard...Im going to be annoyed. I invariably ask about house rules and acceptable sources beforehand, and will take you at your word. If you add invented things after the fact to disallow my build, you're being a jerk. If you don't like my build, tell me the reason why, and we'll fix that. Don't just invent rules to say "no, try again".

Well, before i actually build a character, i give the general idea to the DM.

If a player asks me "Can i build a wizard?" i would say "Sure, but there are certain spells like Polymorph that i won't allow, if you have a doubt, ask me".
If the then comes along with a Persistent Spell Incantatrix i will still not allow it, even though i did not specifically mention it.

Starbuck_II
2010-02-05, 09:53 AM
Yes, it really is about entitlement. It's not just about classes; there's also "I can't believe that my DM won't let me have custom magic item X" or "I can't believe that my DM isn't giving us full WBL" and numerous other "I can't believe my DM wonly allow me to have X, the books say I can" ... They're really quite common on this forum.


The OP is asking why a core class isn't allowed.

So this really seems less about entitlement and more about DM issues with flavor. We even created a great background for Wizard 1/Monk.

Afte fingers hetting hurt as a wizard he became a monk since his spellcasting wasn't as good anymore.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-05, 10:03 AM
I notice that you didn't really answer the "is that the case here" question; as far as I can tell, it's not. So I'm really kind of confused as to what this has to do with anything that anyone here is discussing.

I don't know the exact DM-player relationship, so I can't say that for certain, but my answer IS relevant to the sort of off-the-cuff rulings that modify the game we've been discussing.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-05, 10:04 AM
Well, before i actually build a character, i give the general idea to the DM.

If a player asks me "Can i build a wizard?" i would say "Sure, but there are certain spells like Polymorph that i won't allow, if you have a doubt, ask me".
If the then comes along with a Persistent Spell Incantatrix i will still not allow it, even though i did not specifically mention it.

This falls into the "if you have a problem with it, tell me what it is, so we can fix it" category. If it's too powerful, say so.

Don't say "Nobody uses incantations in this world, so you can't play an incantatrix", because then when I come back with a DMM persist character, we're both wasting our time.

Ashiel
2010-02-05, 10:18 AM
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.

This is not true, nor will it ever be. As someone who has been DMing almost exclusively for ten years, I find this to be the method of the weak minded and/or jackasses. It's only used as an excuse when the DM wants to ignore the rules (you're a wizard so I say your fingers break, end of discussion) or punish a player (rocks fall, everyone dies); and in both cases merely because they don't have any reason and are just being a jackass (stubborn and of animal intelligence). It also sounds idiotically arrogant. :smallannoyed:


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.

Sounds like a cop-out to me. If you want to play with the same characters every time, why even bother? If he avoids all classes and issues that he is unfamiliar with, the only possible conclusion is he will suck as a DM because he'll never bother to get any better at anything but what he's already expecting. :smallannoyed:


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.
Emphasis mine.

Of course, a grappling wizard doesn't sound like a horrible overpowered or underpowered option. It likely won't be godly if its focus is grappling things rather than re-arranging the universe, and it probably won't be underpowered 'cause it rearranges the universe some while grappling; so I'm not sure why you mean by "axes you back to the campaign power level".

Also, speaking of axes...
One of the best wizards I've ever seen played in a game was a big war-axe wielding wizard who specialized in abjuration, and took a fierce joy in rushing into melee combat to bring the fight to his enemy. He used magic to give him an edge in those combats (especially for defense), and even later made his war-axe into a "staff" that he could cast spells from.

I could have been an idiot and said "Wizards don't fight with weapons, now go sit in the corner and cry alongside that no-good sword-wielding Gandalf, and shut up!". Or, y'know, I could have just let him play his off the wall, not-so-cookie-cutter wizard and watch how it played out and have fun while doing it. If his wizard worked, cool. If not, maybe he'll make something different with his next character.

Also, it saddens me to see DMs out their treating players like their puppets. :smallamused:

EDIT:

ME: why have a familiar that would grant a bonus to grapple if the creators of the game didn't want players to take advantage of that?
HIM: the folks that made the 3rd version and **** were NOT gamers, they were ****ing money whores looking for cash. Wizards didnt grapple in the original versions, and you know im a 2nd Ed lover.
ME: but we would be playing 3e when we play right?
HIM: yes, but that does not change ME.

This guy is a lost cause, and a perfect example of a Jackass.

Iceforge
2010-02-05, 10:32 AM
ME: why have a familiar that would grant a bonus to grapple if the creators of the game didn't want players to take advantage of that?
HIM: the folks that made the 3rd version and **** were NOT gamers, they were ****ing money whores looking for cash. Wizards didnt grapple in the original versions, and you know im a 2nd Ed lover.
ME: but we would be playing 3e when we play right?
HIM: yes, but that does not change ME.

This guy is a lost cause, and a perfect example of a Jackass.

Hopefully you mean the Player?

The GM has already said no to the build; No matter how faulty his reasoning is, a player should always stick to the right options:

1) Accept it, and move on to another character concept
2) Leave the game

Continuing to argue about it with the GM serves no purpose; The GM clearly doesn't want X in the game and continuing to reason for wanting X in the game is plain childish.

In the specific case of banning grapple from Wizards, I would, if I was a player, leave the game.

Blaming the GM for becoming anoyed and irrate (which could explain the rant at WotC) due to a player acting like a jerkish child, is a bit stupid imho

martyrX
2010-02-05, 10:59 AM
how about a fighter/wizard or monk/wizard? those can be grapply wizards, no?

better yet, a bard with improved grapple! :)

To complete this thought - why don't you tell your DM what you want to be able to do and let him suggest how you can go about it?

Instead of saying, 'I want to use this specific build' just say, 'I want a character who can grapple well and cast spells too.' Let him make some suggestions. Tell him you don't NEED to be a pure wizard, that you will multiclass, or be a bard, or whatever it takes to be able to make this character.

I bet it works.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-05, 12:28 PM
Blaming the GM for becoming anoyed and irrate (which could explain the rant at WotC) due to a player acting like a jerkish child, is a bit stupid imho

Wait, wait...according to you, arguing a point is acting like a jerkish child, but going on an irate rate is not?

Viletta Vadim
2010-02-05, 02:59 PM
I just can't get over the gigantic sense of entitlement some players seem to have. They have an attitude of "it's in a book, so the DM must allow it". And it gets backed up when they post their complaint - people chime in with what a horrible DM you must have if he won't let you take that Girallon/Warblade/Warhulk/Totemist that you just have to play in his otherwise core only campaign.
I just can't get over the gigantic sense of entitlement some DMs seem to have. They have an attitude of, "It's in the book, so as DM, I am God and players must obey me without question."

The fundamental fallacy I keep seeing here is the notion that it's the DM's game. Thing is, D&D is a group game, it's a group of friends, of peers, of compatriots, of equals coming together to play a game. It is absolutely not the DM's[/]i game; it's [i]everyone's game.

And then, there's the matter of DM authority. There are two models for DM power.

1) The DM has a broad but finite level of power/authority.
2) The DM is God, with no limits on her power/authority.

Thing is, case 2 is really case 1, and the difference is semantic quibbling. Remember the old axiom? "With great power comes great responsibility." Even if you argue that the DM has the authority to decree that your character's head spontaneously explodes, no save, out of the blue, for absolutely no reason, it's still just a semantic dodge around the fact that the DM would be wrong to do so.

If you use the, "DM is God," model, then it is pointless to discuss what is and is not within the DM's authority, because everything is within her authority; the discussion becomes one of whether or not the DM is right to do something.

Ultimately? An abusive DM is every bit as wrong and worthy of scolding as an abusive player, regardless of whether or not the DM has the authority.

The GM has already said no to the build; No matter how faulty his reasoning is, a player should always stick to the right options:

1) Accept it, and move on to another character concept
2) Leave the game

Continuing to argue about it with the GM serves no purpose; The GM clearly doesn't want X in the game and continuing to reason for wanting X in the game is plain childish.

In the specific case of banning grapple from Wizards, I would, if I was a player, leave the game.
So you say the only mature options are are to shut up and give in or leave, rather than actually having a mature and honest dialogue with your friend and equal? I do believe that's the childish route.

If you can't have an actual conversation with your DM about a ruling, and he won't actually respect your position, you have bigger issues to deal with.

Conducting actual logical discourse, seeking to understand what everyone wants, and finding out what everyone wants out of the game so that there can be a solution that suits everyone's needs is the pinnacle of mature solutions. That doesn't mean shutting up and playing nice. That means interacting and communicating with other human beings as equals. To leave the game for fear of actually talking to your friends is the height of childishness.

Kylarra
2010-02-05, 03:02 PM
imo they're both being childish, but the player is the one deliberately choosing to further aggravate the situation, or has potentially planned on doing so.

Viletta Vadim
2010-02-05, 03:10 PM
imo they're both being childish, but the player is the one deliberately choosing to further aggravate the situation, or has potentially planned on doing so.
Perhaps, but there are absolutely times when you have to stand your ground to get your point across. Though in those cases, it takes a very firm grasp of the situation and an ample supply of good judgment.

faceroll
2010-02-05, 03:10 PM
I just can't get over the gigantic sense of entitlement some players seem to have. They have an attitude of "it's in a book, so the DM must allow it". And it gets backed up when they post their complaint - people chime in with what a horrible DM you must have if he won't let you take that Girallon/Warblade/Warhulk/Totemist that you just have to play in his otherwise core only campaign.

Thank goodness I donít play with any groups like that. I happen to believe that the person who is devoting their time and resources to create a game world for me to play in deserves a little respect.

Öand of course, there is the other end of the spectrum, where the DM shoots down every player build, no matter how humble; but Iím not seeing that with the kind of regularity with which I see self-entitled players.

Seriously.

Look at this:


The next issue I wish to address is the CoDzilla option. When I found out that he would cherry pick which spells would work with Natural Spell, I immediately grew cautious that he would just randomly nerf X spell for some arbitrary reason, and I was concerned this might happen midgame.

As if nerfing one of the most ridiculous feats for one of the most ridiculous classes in the game is "arbitrary." I suppose that it's arbitrary, in that the DM, as arbiter of the game, has made the decision, but there is certainly a great deal of justification.

Kylarra
2010-02-05, 03:14 PM
Perhaps, but there are absolutely times when you have to stand your ground to get your point across. Though in those cases, it takes a very firm grasp of the situation and an ample supply of good judgment.Yes, but this is not one of those times. Sure, political correctness is all well and good (in most cases), but if I have to caveat every single statement I make, then my posts will end up looking like a treatise rather than something that people can, assuming they are both literate and understand english, comprehend, albeit most likely not to the degree I wish them to and possibly inferring things that I don't really intend to be saying due to the intricacies of the English language, not that I'm trying to imply any specific criticisms to the English language with this post, I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of trying to quantify every, or at least as many as I can possibly think of at that given moment in time, potential possibility.

faceroll
2010-02-05, 03:17 PM
Yes, but this is not one of those times. Sure, political correctness is all well and good (in most cases), but if I have to caveat every single statement I make, then my posts will end up looking like a treatise rather than something that people can, assuming they are both literate and understand english, comprehend, albeit most likely not to the degree I wish them to and possibly inferring things that I don't really intend to be saying due to the intricacies of the English language, not that I'm trying to imply any specific criticisms to the English language with this post, I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of trying to quantify every, or at least as many as I can possibly think of at that given moment in time, potential possibility.

The proper punctuation mark would be the semi-colon, not the comma, for a list such as yours.

Kylarra
2010-02-05, 03:19 PM
The proper punctuation mark would be the semi-colon, not the comma, for a list such as yours.It's not a list. It's a series of nested parenthetical statements.

Viletta Vadim
2010-02-05, 03:24 PM
Yes, but this is not one of those times.
Oh, I'd say it is. There are major, massive underlying issues with the DM/player relationship, and I'd be willing to bet money that Demented ain't the only one having a problem with this guy.

If the DM's taking a stance bordering on, "You are not allowed to have a character of your own devising, you are only allowed to conform to a fixed list of stereotypical archetypes and may only deviate from them in a fixed number of preapproved ways that I like and if you try to make something that's actually your own rather than some permutation of my imagination, I will use my DMly powers as a sledgehammer to beat you back in line you worthless sack of crap, you," it's time to stop the game and have a chat.

faceroll
2010-02-05, 03:25 PM
It's not a list. It's a series of nested parenthetical statements.

That's why I wrote "a list such as yours." It's not really a list but I couldn't think of what to call it.


If the DM's taking a stance bordering on, "You are not allowed to have a character of your own devising, you are only allowed to conform to a fixed list of stereotypical archetypes and may only deviate from them in a fixed number of preapproved ways that I like and if you try to make something that's actually your own rather than some permutation of my imagination, I will use my DMly powers as a sledgehammer to beat you back in line you worthless sack of crap, you," it's time to stop the game and have a chat.

You forgot to mention the part where he twirls his comically villainous handlebar mustache and laughs maniacally.

Jayabalard
2010-02-05, 03:55 PM
The OP is asking why a core class isn't allowed.If you look back, you might notice that that the OP's issue is only tangentially related Thurbane complaint about "sense of entitlement" that is espoused by some of the posters on this board. I'm pretty sure his comment was aimed at some of the people who responded to the OP rather than the OP himself.


I don't know the exact DM-player relationship, so I can't say that for certain, but my answer IS relevant to the sort of off-the-cuff rulings that modify the game we've been discussing.I don't think that anyone is asking about the exact DM-player relationship. What has been asked is "has the OP presented his situation as this"


It's exactly the same,No, they're not; they're extremely different types of of arguments, and the logic that Stormwind uses to refute one does not apply in the way that you're trying to apply it.

Stormwind shows that the statements "optimizing always means a reduction of roleplaying" and "roleplaying always means a reduction of optimization" are false statements; it is fallacious to takes this to mean that "optimizing never means a reduction of roleplaying" or "roleplaying never means a reduction of optimization" are true. Doing so depends on a false dichotomy.


Sounds you and the DM have larger issues than allowing a particular build. It sounds like you basically don't understand each others POV, and that you don't really get along.

This is almost certain to cause many more issues in the future, even if you can agree on a build together...in all honesty, I would recommend finding another group or DM, if the issues can't be settled. There isn't much point gaming if you and/or the DM isn't having a good time at the table. :smallfrown:Agree completely. I personally think that the situation is likely not salvageable, that the best possible result would be for the GM and OP to not game together; I can only imagine how unpleasant dealing with this sort of thing must be for the rest of the people in that gaming group.


Why should I play a cookie cutter character that fits an archetype when I find the archetype in question, trite and boring? That's not what was suggested; what was suggested was "Why not let them take it just a bit more seriously, eh?" So this little venom filled rant does not really seem like a very appropriate response.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-02-05, 03:55 PM
That's why I wrote "a list such as yours." It's not really a list but I couldn't think of what to call it.



You forgot to mention the part where he twirls his comically villainous handlebar mustache and laughs maniacally.

A comma, as far as I am aware, is an equally valid choice; a semi-colon would only be better due to it providing variety.

Secondly the OP mentioned the DM laughing maniacally when the rules on Truenaming and silence effects were being looked up. (Or I really need to stop reading late at night, it may affect my memory in unwelcome ways, one of the two)

Starbuck_II
2010-02-05, 03:57 PM
If you look back, you might notice that that the OP's issue is only tangentially related Thurbane complaint about "sense of entitlement" that is espoused by some of the posters on this board. I'm pretty sure his comment was aimed at some of the people who responded to the OP rather than the OP himself.

But if we aren't talking about the OP... isn't that kinda off topic?

faceroll
2010-02-05, 03:59 PM
A comma, as far as I am aware, is an equally valid choice; a semi-colon would only be better due to it providing variety.

This is incorrect. A semi-colon is not there "for variety."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi_colon

Viletta Vadim
2010-02-05, 04:03 PM
You forgot to mention the part where he twirls his comically villainous handlebar mustache and laughs maniacally.
Oh, no, that's a good thing. All DMs capable of growing a mustache should include mustache-twirling and maniacal laughter.

DementedFellow
2010-02-05, 04:10 PM
I have read the replies and some of them are a little damaging to my ego. And I can certainly see why people would think I am being a bit of a douche in planning on playing a cleric-zilla for not getting my way. There are a few points I wish to address though.

1. Nerfing of the Natural Spell. If the DM was going to cherry pick the spells that would work in animal form, then I wouldn't be surprised if the only spells I could walk away with would be Goodberry and Speak With Animals. Either ban the feat or don't. I can see the cheese inherent in it and I wouldn't question, but if this guy is going to say that entering a grapple will damage fingers, then there is no telling where he would have went with this feat. Considering as we would start out at 1st level, when I could take Natural Spell would be mid-game and I didn't want to go down a road that could have me playing a character who has an ability, but is unable to use it properly.

I opted out of a druid build because there are so many things he could pick apart with it. He could dis-allow X animal companion or possibly nerf the wildshape feature.

With the cleric, the options he could nerf are diminished greatly. So long as I act in accordance with my deity's alignment, he shouldn't deny spells. The turn attempts are situational at best and I don't really think I'm going to go for a build that will get the most out of them, especially since I was planning on going with a core cleric and the DMM cheese is not core.

As I said before, the cleric character would be an excursion to see how much of the rules the DM was planning on denying or outright banning in a totally core build, especially since I would be playing against type of healbot, as every cleric should.

Sure it's childish, and I never said otherwise.

2.) Some of you have suggested leaving the group altogether. And I'm leaning heavily in this direction. This DM has had a history of giving characters things just to take them away in the end. Once there was a character who became undead and so did his familiar. The party cleric used turn undead and the familiar fled and wasn't recovered until 2 months later.

It's hard to convey the tone of conversation that occurred when I brought up the grapple wizard, but I got the distinct impression that upon entering the first grapple, the wizard would be nerfed all to hell without having the ability to cast spells with somatic components. Since we would be starting out as a 1st level character, the spells that would be available would be Flare, Light, Hold Portal, True Strike, Ventriloquism, and Feather Fall. If I was playing a specialist Wizard, this list could be even more diminished.

Any other questions/comments I am missing?

Kish
2010-02-05, 04:16 PM
as every cleric should.

See, lines like that make it look like you and this DM are on opposite sides of the same coin--both with rigid concepts of how a character class "should" be played--and the big problem here is that your concepts don't overlap.

DementedFellow
2010-02-05, 04:19 PM
See, lines like that make it look like you and this DM are on opposite sides of the same coin--both with rigid concepts of how a character class "should" be played--and the big problem here is that your concepts don't overlap.

Sarcasm is hard to convey in text. But I was totally being sarcastic with that comment. If a wizard cannot enter a grapple, then naturally, the cleric should only be there for healing after a battle. At least that's what I'm leaning heavily in assuming my DM would think.

martyrX
2010-02-05, 04:25 PM
Any other questions/comments I am missing?

What about my post on page 7? Seems like a compromise that could satisfy both of you, which is what you need if you want to play and have fun.

DementedFellow
2010-02-05, 04:34 PM
What about my post on page 7? Seems like a compromise that could satisfy both of you, which is what you need if you want to play and have fun.
I will certainly try that next time I see him. The problem with the bard is that i have to wait some levels before I can take the feat to give me the octopus familiar, which is vital to the buld. And there aren't that many bard spells that would aid a grappler.

But certainly trying to explain what I am going for might be an easier pill to swallow.

Toliudar
2010-02-05, 04:41 PM
As I said before, the cleric character would be an excursion to see how much of the rules the DM was planning on denying or outright banning in a totally core build, especially since I would be playing against type of healbot, as every cleric should.

DF, if this is really your intent, there's an unchildish way to find that out: ask. Outline what you ACTUALLY want to play, and work with him on a compromise that you're both happy with. If he nerfs you further later on, it should give you a reasonable opportunity to rebuild in response to that.

Don't get me wrong. The DM in question may be unnecessarily arbitrary in his calls, but if you're not ready to leave the group yet, what's the point of escalating the conflict?

Viletta Vadim
2010-02-05, 04:48 PM
2.) Some of you have suggested leaving the group altogether. And I'm leaning heavily in this direction. This DM has had a history of giving characters things just to take them away in the end. Once there was a character who became undead and so did his familiar. The party cleric used turn undead and the familiar fled and wasn't recovered until 2 months later.

It's hard to convey the tone of conversation that occurred when I brought up the grapple wizard, but I got the distinct impression that upon entering the first grapple, the wizard would be nerfed all to hell without having the ability to cast spells with somatic components. Since we would be starting out as a 1st level character, the spells that would be available would be Flare, Light, Hold Portal, True Strike, Ventriloquism, and Feather Fall. If I was playing a specialist Wizard, this list could be even more diminished.

Any other questions/comments I am missing?
Before you simply leave, talk to the other players about this. Odds are, if you're having major problems with this guy, you're not the only one. Considering he has a reputation, you're clearly not the only one who's had a problem with this guy to date.

Get with the other players, discuss, and bring the subject up with your DM. Insist on knowing the rules of the game beforehand. If only certain spells work with Natural spells, then insist on knowing what those spells are beforehand, and if grappling is going to hold a risk of broken limbs, insist on knowing what the rules for broken limbs are and exactly what it takes to fix it. Explain that you have a right to know the rules of the game you're playing, and if he cannot provide a copy of his houserules, it is quite literally impossible to play.

If he's being an overbearing tyrant to everybody, get together and let him know how it makes y'all feel (in more delicate language than, "You are being an overbearing tyrant," of course), talk to him, work with him. The worst it can do is destroy a group that you (and probably others) were considering leaving anyways. The best it can do is get him to actually sympathize.

Or, even better, give the guy a vacation! It's not at all uncommon for DM who spends too much time behind the screen to lose empathy with the players. Let someone else DM for a change. If no one else in the group is a DM? Congratulations, you're DMing now.

Sarcasm is hard to convey in text. But I was totally being sarcastic with that comment. If a wizard cannot enter a grapple, then naturally, the cleric should only be there for healing after a battle. At least that's what I'm leaning heavily in assuming my DM would think.
At which point, you open up to the PHB, page 21, where the description of the Cleric class reads, "Cleric: A master of divine magic and a capable warrior as well."

What about my post on page 7? Seems like a compromise that could satisfy both of you, which is what you need if you want to play and have fun.
Compromise is always a bad thing. It means both sides sacrifice, both sides lose, and both sides are bitter. A compromise is an arrangement that everyone hates but is willing to tolerate until ill feelings boil over and explode.

What needs to happen is an accord that gives everyone what they really want and need, along with an understanding all around of what everyone wants out of the game.

Kylarra
2010-02-05, 04:52 PM
Oh, I'd say it is. There are major, massive underlying issues with the DM/player relationship, and I'd be willing to bet money that Demented ain't the only one having a problem with this guy.

If the DM's taking a stance bordering on, "You are not allowed to have a character of your own devising, you are only allowed to conform to a fixed list of stereotypical archetypes and may only deviate from them in a fixed number of preapproved ways that I like and if you try to make something that's actually your own rather than some permutation of my imagination, I will use my DMly powers as a sledgehammer to beat you back in line you worthless sack of crap, you," it's time to stop the game and have a chat.I will rephrase.

While this is definitely a time to take a stance, the proposed methods are what I object to, and in my experience, such tactics will very rarely help the situation, and generally aggravate it.

So, yes, it's time to talk to the DM. No, don't do it by trying to push houserules until he breaks or making revenge characters "Because you can".

Iceforge
2010-02-05, 04:53 PM
Wait, wait...according to you, arguing a point is acting like a jerkish child, but going on an irate rate is not?

No, thats not what I said.

The player presented idea X to his GM, which the GM did not allow, upon being asked his reasons for this, he gave reason Y.

Now, however poor reason Y is in anyone elses opinion, unless you can counter argument Y to the GM, his decision should be accepted as a criteria to play in a game he is running as a GM.

For instance, his initial reason was "they break their fingers", you could bring up that would be equally anoying for a fighter, who would be unable to wield his weapon or a bard who would be unable to perform well with his chosen instrument, if that instrument required the usage of hands (can't think of any that doesn't right now, but covering all bases)


The subtext of the GM ruling against build is clearly that it doesn't fit the GM's view of his game-world and how that class fits into that world. Now, you can find that unacceptable, and you are then free to not play in the game, at least that is how I view the GM's response.

Once the GM has established that "this is how it works in my game world", bringing up rules that contradicts him is just stupid, as whatever it is allowed by the rules or not, it does not belong in the game world.

Personally, as a GM, I would never make such a restriction and as a Player, I would never play in a game with such a GM, but I wouldn't pester him to try and change his mind about how he envisions his game world just to fit my needs; That will only lead to him running a game world that he is not entirely happy with and thus diminish the playing experience for all participants of the game that would have accepted and been fine with his initial ruling just to benifit my ego, which would be childish.

As the player in the examples given, basicly scouts through the rules to find reasons he should be allowed to break the GMs game world due to stuff in the rule books, then he is attempting to break the GMs established game world to suit his own egocentric needs, which is childish in my honest opinion.

Viletta Vadim
2010-02-05, 05:02 PM
Now, however poor reason Y is in anyone elses opinion, unless you can counter argument Y to the GM, his decision should be accepted as a criteria to play in a game he is running as a GM.
At the same time, if Y is so vague and insubstantial that it is impossible to discuss rationally and doesn't even qualify as a reason, then it is perfectly valid to insist on getting an actual reason for the ruling. Otherwise, the DM would be perfectly justified going around saying, "I don't like Z," and, "I don't like Q," as irreproachable reasons for banning whatever she pleases and the players would have no recourse because the reasons cannot be countered.

And a reason that is utterly absurd is equally as out-of-place. "No, because I am spontaneously generating houserules designed to explicitly screw your idea over," is not a valid reason, and the fundamental needs and desires of both participants need to be brought to light in order to resolve the situation. The point must be pressed in order to address the underlying issues.

Iceforge
2010-02-05, 05:04 PM
So you say the only mature options are are to shut up and give in or leave, rather than actually having a mature and honest dialogue with your friend and equal? I do believe that's the childish route.

If you can't have an actual conversation with your DM about a ruling, and he won't actually respect your position, you have bigger issues to deal with.

Conducting actual logical discourse, seeking to understand what everyone wants, and finding out what everyone wants out of the game so that there can be a solution that suits everyone's needs is the pinnacle of mature solutions. That doesn't mean shutting up and playing nice. That means interacting and communicating with other human beings as equals. To leave the game for fear of actually talking to your friends is the height of childishness.

Maybe my views are coloured by being blessed with a very active nearby roleplaying community, where there are lots of groups, and to many playing in various groups for me to establish what I would qualify as a "friendship" with more than a handfull of them, meaning I am playing with people who share an interest in roleplaying and who lives in proximity to me, and some friends.

Due to that, when I join a group, it is often with a few people I do not know, a friend or two and mostly people I do not know at all or only know by apperance, as I've seen them before in the club.
When that is the case, once a campaign is starting, there is no investment in it; If the conditions for character creation in the campaign is not agreeable, there is absolutely no need or reason to start argueing about it to get the GM to change his rules, as I can just easily join a group another night or in another room at the same time where the rules/conditions will be more in my liking

Iceforge
2010-02-05, 05:18 PM
At the same time, if Y is so vague and insubstantial that it is impossible to discuss rationally and doesn't even qualify as a reason, then it is perfectly valid to insist on getting an actual reason for the ruling. Otherwise, the DM would be perfectly justified going around saying, "I don't like Z," and, "I don't like Q," as irreproachable reasons for banning whatever she pleases and the players would have no recourse because the reasons cannot be countered.

And a reason that is utterly absurd is equally as out-of-place. "No, because I am spontaneously generating houserules designed to explicitly screw your idea over," is not a valid reason, and the fundamental needs and desires of both participants need to be brought to light in order to resolve the situation. The point must be pressed in order to address the underlying issues.

Well, if the reason given is impossible to discuss rationally, we are in a completely different ballpark altogether, but the reason given by this particular GM was possible to discuss, but I have seen no indication that OP actually adressed it by, for instance, bringing up that breaking fingers would be equally bad for fighters or bards (and pretty much anyone else), or how magical healing should be able to fix the fingers, should an accident happen.

That would mean the GM would either have to give more (and hopefully better) reasons for his decision or change his mind about it.

By ignoring what the GM said and just bringing up stuff writen in the rules, you are trying to say that rules trumf world design / the gm / whatever, which will do nothing to resolve the situation.

I do not think the GM in this particular case handled it perfectly nor reasonably, but I certainly do not think the player was helping the situation at all either

Kish
2010-02-05, 05:21 PM
or a bard who would be unable to perform well with his chosen instrument, if that instrument required the usage of hands (can't think of any that doesn't right now, but covering all bases)
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0198.html

Jayabalard
2010-02-05, 05:27 PM
Oh, I'd say it is. There are major, massive underlying issues with the DM/player relationship, and I'd be willing to bet money that Demented ain't the only one having a problem with this guy.I dunno, it looks like demented is going out of his way to be a problem player. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the DM wasn't the only person that had a problem with his behavior.


DF, if this is really your intent, there's an unchildish way to find that out: ask. Outline what you ACTUALLY want to play, and work with him on a compromise that you're both happy with. If he nerfs you further later on, it should give you a reasonable opportunity to rebuild in response to that.Agreed; if you ask in advance, he has his opportunities to address any issues he has in advance. You can rule out problem builds right from the start rather than waiting until the game is already going.


But if we aren't talking about the OP... isn't that kinda off topic?Indeed, that's what tangential means; it looks to me like it was more a remark about the people posting on the thread than the OP itself.


Perhaps, but there are absolutely times when you have to stand your ground to get your point across. Being a ****** is not the same thing as "standing your ground" ... it's just being a ******


Compromise is always a bad thing. It means both sides sacrifice, both sides lose, and both sides are bitter. A compromise is an arrangement that everyone hates but is willing to tolerate until ill feelings boil over and explode.Interestingly enough, it's quite possible that this particular disagreement is based on regional usage of the word "compromise" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise) ... martyx uses British spellings (Flavour) and seems to use the word as it is generally used in the UK (positive meaning), and Viletta is using the word as it is generally used in the US (negative meaning).

martyrX
2010-02-05, 05:29 PM
Compromise is always a bad thing. It means both sides sacrifice, both sides lose, and both sides are bitter. A compromise is an arrangement that everyone hates but is willing to tolerate until ill feelings boil over and explode.

What needs to happen is an accord that gives everyone what they really want and need, along with an understanding all around of what everyone wants out of the game.

Compromise is always a bad thing? Sure, it CAN be bad, but yours is a rather ignorant blanket statement. Always? Are you telling us that you have never conceded something to another person, and had things turn out better because of it (or never even heard of such a thing)? Humans do things for each other for many reasons, not only for their own benefit. Yikes!

In this instance, it seems like the best thing possible. I believe the OP has made it pretty clear that what he wants and what the DM wants are not totally compatible. I doubt that there will be "an accord that gives everything what they really want and need". Thus, a compromise is in order. At the very least, my compromise idea will show the DM that the OP doesn't NEED a specific build but rather a character concept. Then the DM can tell the OP his options for said concept. The OP will have a grappling spellcaster (good for him), and the DM will not have a PC he doesn't want in his campaign (good for him). Yes, there will be sacrifice, but after that there is no need for 'bitterness'. As far as 'losing' - if they get to play and have fun, how are they losing? Sounds like a good compromise to me.

'always' bad...hehe.

martyrX
2010-02-05, 05:31 PM
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0198.html

love it - kazoo playing, grappling bard.

Viletta Vadim
2010-02-05, 06:28 PM
Compromise is always a bad thing? Sure, it CAN be bad, but yours is a rather ignorant blanket statement. Always? Are you telling us that you have never conceded something to another person, and had things turn out better because of it (or never even heard of such a thing)? Humans do things for each other for many reasons, not only for their own benefit. Yikes!
"Compromise is always a bad thing," is not the same as, "Never compromise."

Kicking people out of your group is always a bad thing. However, it's sometimes necessary. It's still a bad thing, and when planning on how to deal with a situation, you should go in planning for a different outcome than kicking people out. Same with compromise.

Not every concession is a compromise. Oftentimes, there are elements of your initial platform that you don't even care about, and it becomes a matter of laying out what it is you actually want out of the game. Sometimes, the analysis reveals, quite openly, that someone is being petty. Sometimes, it reveals that a lot of their position is superfluous in their own eyes and can be removed without sacrifice. If everyone gets what they actually want and need, then everyone wins and there is no need to resort to sacrificing either side's needs as part of a compromise.

I knew a guy once who was very gung ho anti-ToB. However, on analysis and discussion, it wasn't really the mechanics he had a problem with. It was more the flavor, but even refluffing wouldn't satisfy him. Ultimately, his real problem was that hearing, "I use Searing Blade then Shadow Step behind him and hit him with Emerald Razor," made him want to stab himself in the ears with a pencil. In fact, he had absolutely no problem with Tome of Battle itself, it's the names of the maneuvers themselves that drove him batty. All it took was changing maneuver names to satisfy him, and how many people do you know who are truly married to maneuver names? The situation was resolved without sacrifice on anyone's part. Everyone won.

The point is not, "Never compromise." It's, "First try to find a situation where everyone can win." Compromise is an extreme last resort.

In this case, neither side seems to truly understand what the other fundamentally wants or needs in order to even attempt to devise a mutually equitable solution, therefore they're not even close to being backed into a corner where compromise is the only possibility.

martyrX
2010-02-05, 07:00 PM
"Compromise is always a bad thing," is not the same as, "Never compromise."


Never said they were the same, in fact, I don't believe I ever referenced 'never compromise'? Still, compromise is NOT ALWAYS a bad thing. It is sometimes good and sometimes bad, depending on the circumstances. Always is a rather strong word. It means all the time, every time.



Compromise is an extreme last resort.


No, giving the DM a beat-down would be an extreme last resort (fun maybe, but extreme :smallbiggrin:). Compromise happens every day, millions of times a day, and leaves many people feeling good about the outcome.



In this case, neither side seems to truly understand what the other fundamentally wants or needs in order to even attempt to devise a mutually equitable solution, therefore they're not even close to being backed into a corner where compromise is the only possibility.

Compromise can be a mutually equitable solution.

hmm...The more I read your posts (and my replys) the more I think we are arguing about semantics here, so i'll use the phrase 'a good solution'.

I think we both agree - these guys need to talk and come up with a good solution. My method for a good solution is - the OP tells the DM what kind of character he wants to play (a spellcasting grappler), and lets the DM decide what options are agreeable. If he says, 'you could be a multiclass fighter/mage and that works for me' and the OP thinks that would be fun, roll up the character and let the fun begin. Else, choose a new concept. Repeat until character is made. Proceed with fun.

Demons_eye
2010-02-05, 08:14 PM
If you say so


I dunno,


If you say so;


I dunno,


It didn't sound very arbitrary to me


I'm pretty sure


I dunno,

Come on Jay, sound more authoritative. Tell yourself "I know this"


Putting my views out on this; The DM is not god and should not be treated like such. The players should not expect X from Y unless the DM has said its ok. Even then the DM has the right to ban something but he should have good reason. The DM in demented's game sound to me like hes in the wrong and should admit he was in the wrong. You need to work out a way that the DM's authority is not challenged but you can work with him to change things the group, or even you yourself, find unfair/unjust/rude/wrong/crazy so long as both parties can go back and laugh about it next week.

Exp: I think my DM's fiats (I do too) and call him on it but I still go with it if given. If I was DMing and my players thought I was begin wrong or unfair I would love for them to tell me because its as much as their game as it is mine.

In demented's spot I too would find annoy the DM but all I have to say is don't. Wait the week or how ever long you do, make you character and just play as you would. Wait for the next person to DM and make the silly build, bonus points if you DM then send thing but silly builds at them.

Koury
2010-02-05, 08:19 PM
The DM is not god and should not be treated like such.

*ahem*

:smallcool:

Thurbane
2010-02-05, 09:52 PM
The fundamental fallacy I keep seeing here is the notion that it's the DM's game. Thing is, D&D is a group game, it's a group of friends, of peers, of compatriots, of equals coming together to play a game. It is absolutely not the DM's[/]i game; it's [i]everyone's game.
I'll answer this with a re-quote of some of my earlier points:

Thank goodness I donít play with any groups like that. I happen to believe that the person who is devoting their time and resources to create a game world for me to play in deserves a little respect.

Öand of course, there is the other end of the spectrum, where the DM shoots down every player build, no matter how humble; but Iím not seeing that with the kind of regularity with which I see self-entitled players.
...and...

This is almost certain to cause many more issues in the future, even if you can agree on a build together...in all honesty, I would recommend finding another group or DM, if the issues can't be settled. There isn't much point gaming if you and/or the DM isn't having a good time at the table.
...basically, I never advocate that a DM is lord and god and the players must slavishly adhere to his whims - what I am saying is that when a DM and a player reach an impasse, IMHO the right thing to do is to defer to the guy who put his time and effort into creating a "virtual reality" in which the players can play.

Just curious - what do you believe? If a situation arises where the player and DM cannot reach common ground, what should happen? The player is always right? The DM is always right? They both should just walk away form the table and not play together?

Thurbane
2010-02-05, 10:19 PM
Just because you can change the rules for flavor reasons, doesn't make it a good idea automatically. The aforementioned banning of gnomes/halflings? Well, if one of the players has their heart set on playing one, are you actually improving the game by upholding the flavor-based ban? Probably not. The flavor you are attempting to create will probably be forgotten the second session in without reinforcement, but the forced character selection will irritate that player much longer.
You know what? None of my players had the slightest problem with this...in fact, most commented that they enjoyed the flavor of my campaign (not just the gnome/halfling thing, but for others changes and house rules). But if one of my players came to me, and said they absolutely, positively could not have fun playing anything other than one of these races, I might have been inclined to work a story based reason into my game for why one of the vanished races had returned.

...but seriously - if you go into a game with an iron cast vision of exactly what character you want, setting and DM be damned, in general, prepare for the possibility of being disappointed.

Case in point: my group are wrapping up the Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk mega-module, after almost 18 months. When the game first started, I really, really wanted to play a Binder. I had recently bought ToM and was very keen to try one out. The DM said he'd prefer I didn't, as it didn't fit with the theme of the game his was planning, as well as the fact that he wasn't familiar with the class himself. Although a bit disappointed, I rolled with it, and made a Dragon Shaman, another class I'd been eager to play. 18 months down the track, and guess what? I love my Dragon Shaman, it's been one of the most fun characters I've played. I suppose I could have had a tantrum when I was told "no" by the DM, but much as in the rest of life, I realized that sometimes you don't get every last little thing you want, and that a little compromise can definitely be a good thing. :smallwink:

Viletta Vadim
2010-02-05, 10:33 PM
...basically, I never advocate that a DM is lord and god and the players must slavishly adhere to his whims - what I am saying is that when a DM and a player reach an impasse, IMHO the right thing to do is to defer to the guy who put his time and effort into creating a "virtual reality" in which the players can play.
Unless, of course, the DM forces 'impasses' regularly by being tyrannical and immovable and the only way to avoid them is to slavishly submit to his every whim.

There is a point at which you have to stand your ground and claim your rights as a player. If there's an impasse, the right thing to do might be to defer, but there is also the possibility that the right thing to do may be to stand up to the guy, or get together with the group and collectively tell him how you feel, or any number of other things. But systematically deferring to a tyrant only fuels tyranny.

Just curious - what do you believe? If a situation arises where the player and DM cannot reach common ground, what should happen? The player is always right? The DM is always right? They both should just walk away form the table and not play together?
Interesting fact. The traditional gaming group is five people, not two. If two people can't work it out on their own, there are three potential arbiters waiting in the wings. One of the benefits of a group game. If you're really tired of the point and want to get it over with, you can even put it to a vote.

Thurbane
2010-02-05, 10:38 PM
I can just see it now, DMing by player committee:

Player 1: I wanna play a multicalssed Warblade/Psion!
DM: ..err, I wasn't going to use ToB or psionics, but I guess I can include them for you.
Player 2: I wanna be a gestalt Cleric//Druid!
DM: Wow, I wasn't planning on running a gestalt game, but I suppose it should be OK.
Player 3: Hey, I read this sweet class on the internet called the Lightning Warrior, is homebrew cool? It says that it truly sacrifices power for flavor.
DM: ...uh, I suppose, can you at least print out the webpage for me?
Player 4: I wanna play a wild west gunslinger...I made up a character using d20 Past rules!
DM: Geez...OK, I guess he can have fallen into a fantasy world through a rift or something.
Player 5: I just finished watching my Star Wars boxed set. I wanna play a Wookie! Star Wars d20 rules shouldn't be hard to include?
DM: ...you know what? Screw you guys, I'm joining the chess club. Run your own damn game!

:smallbiggrin:

Kallisti
2010-02-05, 10:39 PM
I think I'm going to build a Cleric-zilla. Just to show him what playing a class can -really- mean. Any advice?

Don't do this. The proper response to your DM being a control freak is either to let it slide, talk to him like a reasonable adult, or leave. Being a jerk back won't solve anything.

...unless you're absolutely certain you'll never game with him or the group again, in which case go ahead. It won't solve anything, but it might be amusing, which is just as good if you'll never have to deal with him or any of the players again.

But a more mature response would be either to decide that you don't want to play with such a traditionalist DM and leave or accept that he is that way and either talk to him reasonably about it or just let it slide.

Demons_eye
2010-02-05, 10:40 PM
...but seriously - if you go into a game with an iron cast vision of exactly what character you want, setting and DM be damned, in general, prepare for the possibility of being disappointed.


Same can be said for the DM, if he is set on the settings and players be damned no one is going to have fun.

You want to play a Drunken master? No sorry, there are none in the game. You want to play your character drunk? Fine take penalties for it. Well don't play him drunk then!

You want to play a rogue that worshiper of X? Fine. *Half way into game* No you can not sneak attack! Hes the god of honor!

You want to play a fighter? Fine. Your using a chain whip? Take 4 damage. For using a silly weapon. Your lucky I let you use it as only the true EW Masters can even own one.

You want to play a grappling wizard? Fine but you have a chance to break your fingers and lose your ability to cast some spells. Well dont do it then! I don't care if he has 14 str and has improved grapple meaning he has trained in the arts of grapple for some time now!

DM thats spend a lot of time on games, and DM in general, should get some respect but people forget respect is earned. If you are the DM I will respect you up till a point, then you have to earn it and you can lose it. If my DM did some thing wrong, not step up to it, or is just plain acting stupid/jackass/crazy I lose respect for him. If he was doing a good job and was a fair and just person I would go along with what he rules regardless of if I think the ruling is right because I respect him.

Demons_eye
2010-02-05, 10:46 PM
I can just see it now, DMing by player committee:

Player 1: I wanna play a multicalssed Warblade/Psion!
DM: ..err, I wasn't going to use ToB or psionics, but I guess I can include them for you.
Player 2: I wanna be a gestalt Cleric//Druid!
DM: Wow, I wasn't planning on running a gestalt game, but I suppose it should be OK.
Player 3: Hey, I read this sweet class on the internet called the Lightning Warrior, is homebrew cool? It says that it truly sacrifices power for flavor.
DM: ...uh, I suppose, can you at least print out the webpage for me?
Player 4: I wanna play a wild west gunslinger...I made up a character using d20 Past rules!
DM: Geez...OK, I guess he can have fallen into a fantasy world through a rift or something.
Player 5: I just finished watching my Star Wars boxed set. I wanna play a Wookie! Star Wars d20 rules shouldn't be hard to include?
DM: ...you know what? Screw you guys, I'm joining the chess club. Run your own damn game!

:smallbiggrin:

This is just plain far sided. Dare I say I find you lack of faith in players disturbing.

Thurbane
2010-02-05, 10:50 PM
Unless, of course, the DM forces 'impasses' regularly by being tyrannical and immovable and the only way to avoid them is to slavishly submit to his every whim.
...yes, I suppose. Having never encountered this situation in 25 years of gaming, I don't feel qualified to comment.

There is a point at which you have to stand your ground and claim your rights as a player. If there's an impasse, the right thing to do might be to defer, but there is also the possibility that the right thing to do may be to stand up to the guy, or get together with the group and collectively tell him how you feel, or any number of other things. But systematically deferring to a tyrant only fuels tyranny.
That's some evocative language there...we are talking about a D&D game, not a freedom fighter in a dictatorship. :smalltongue:

Rights? Is the player the only one with rights? Does the DM have any? Is the DM automatically in the wrong for challenging a player about anything? Does the DM have the same right to have fun at the table as the players do, or is he only there as a facilitator of the players having a good time?

Ideally, a gaming group should be fun for the whole group, including the DM. A disruptive player can ruin the game for everyone just as easily as a tyrannical DM.

Interesting fact. The traditional gaming group is five people, not two. If two people can't work it out on their own, there are three potential arbiters waiting in the wings. One of the benefits of a group game. If you're really tired of the point and want to get it over with, you can even put it to a vote.
You know what? If a player, or players really don't like the way a DM runs thing, no one is forcing them at gunpoint to sit at the table each week. I'm all for democracy, but there is a fine line between democracy, and mob rules.

If I ended up running a game that wasn't really fun for me, where the players overruled every decision I made that they didn't like, and in which no one had any respect or interest in the campaign world I was trying to create, I wouldn't even bother DMing.

Obviously, we have two very different viewpoints about the rights and responsibilities of both a DM and the players in a gaming group...maybe we should just leave it at that.

Thurbane
2010-02-05, 10:52 PM
This is just plain far sided. Dare I say I find you lack of faith in players disturbing.
It was meant to be absurdist, not a real depiction of what would happen. :smallwink:

Viletta Vadim
2010-02-05, 10:52 PM
I can just see it now, DMing by player committee:

Player 1: I wanna play a multicalssed Warblade/Psion!
DM: ..err, I wasn't going to use ToB or psionics, but I guess I can include them for you.
Player 2: I wanna be a gestalt Cleric//Druid!
DM: Wow, I wasn't planning on running a gestalt game, but I suppose it should be OK.
Player 3: Hey, I read this sweet class on the internet called the Lightning Warrior, is homebrew cool? It says that it truly sacrifices power for flavor.
DM: ...uh, I suppose, can you at least print out the webpage for me?
Player 4: I wanna play a wild west gunslinger...I made up a character using d20 Past rules!
DM: Geez...OK, I guess he can have fallen into a fantasy world through a rift or something.
Player 5: I just finished watching my Star Wars boxed set. I wanna play a Wookie! Star Wars d20 rules shouldn't be hard to include?
DM: ...you know what? Screw you guys, I'm joining the chess club. Run your own damn game!

:smallbiggrin:
Except... that's not remotely what I was suggesting. I never said, "Always approve everything." I said, "If a DM and a player can't come to a consensus, it's better to get third party to arbitrate rather than beat the player down with a sledgehammer." This example of yours... has nothing to do with anything I said.

Kylarra
2010-02-05, 10:55 PM
This is just plain far sided. Dare I say I find you lack of faith in players disturbing.I find the fact that this post follows your own very silly post to be very ironic. I've seen players act in the very way that Thurbane describes, admittedly it was before we actually decided on what flavor of D20 we wanted to play at the time, but people want to play different things, shocking I know.

The fact of the matter is that both sides really need to come clean. The DM can and should provide a framework for what sort of game you guys are playing and set the basic flavor.

By the same token, they should be willing to at least consider changing the flavor if a player feels strongly enough about it, by no means does this mean they should give in to any desire a player wants, because that's just silly, but again, it's a two-way street, the player should also be willing to entertain the idea of changing if the DM feels strongly enough against it.

Is this particular situation rather ridiculous? Yes, yes it is, on both sides.

Demons_eye
2010-02-05, 11:05 PM
I find the fact that this post follows your own very silly post to be very ironic.

My last example was what the point of OP. I was using the others to illustrate the grappling thing better.

Begin a DM is harder then begin a player so you can expect screw ups, bad mistakes, and the like. You are held to a higher standard when you are a DM, its tough, fess up when you mess up. Begin a player is relatively easy and when you start acting like a jackass its even worse and you deserve a smack up the head. Thurbane example was a group of people acting like idoits and I find that hard to believe while a lone idiotic DM more believable.

I agree that finding a balance of the DM and player is the needed approach.

Koury
2010-02-05, 11:09 PM
I can just see it now, DMing by player committee:

Player 1: I wanna play a multicalssed Warblade/Psion!
DM: ..err, I wasn't going to use ToB or psionics, but I guess I can include them for you.
Player 2: I wanna be a gestalt Cleric//Druid!
DM: Wow, I wasn't planning on running a gestalt game, but I suppose it should be OK.
Player 3: Hey, I read this sweet class on the internet called the Lightning Warrior, is homebrew cool? It says that it truly sacrifices power for flavor.
DM: ...uh, I suppose, can you at least print out the webpage for me?
Player 4: I wanna play a wild west gunslinger...I made up a character using d20 Past rules!
DM: Geez...OK, I guess he can have fallen into a fantasy world through a rift or something.
Player 5: I just finished watching my Star Wars boxed set. I wanna play a Wookie! Star Wars d20 rules shouldn't be hard to include?
DM: ...you know what? Screw you guys, I'm joining the chess club. Run your own damn game!

:smallbiggrin:

I must say, if my players came to me with that stuff, I'd most certainly look it all over. If they were all OK with the ridiculousness of that, I'd be down too. I mean, think about it. I'd finally be able to use my homebrewed gungan gunslinger//spellslinger BBEG.

My biggest issue would be making sure everyone was relatively even powered. And since I like running numbers, I like to think I could handle that too.

Hell, one of my games right now involves a Elan Nomad with a superiority complex, a Gnome Root-Walker Druid and his Rat whos always a bit too eager to help, an Azurin Incarnate of Law whos, of all things, afraid of the dark (and adventuring in Undermountain!) and a Dark Whisper Gnome Beguiler who, despite being reserved, the only evil one and lacking in social skills is slowly becoming the face of the group.

And that game is going very well. They are oddly efficient. More so then I expected, thats for sure.

Anyway, what was I talking about? Oh yeah, DMs and players. Honestly, I believe that the campaign is indeed the DMs. He can ban whatever he feels like. But to do so for no reason then "I don't like it, and don't care that you do." is silly. Something too powerful? Cool, tell the players that, and explain why. Setting require no gnomes but a player really wants to be one? OK, you're a really short human, mechanically the same as a gnome. Just write "Short Human" on your sheet.

Its all about flexibility.

Kylarra
2010-02-05, 11:10 PM
My last example was what the point of OP. I was using the others to illustrate the grappling thing better.

Begin a DM is harder then begin a player so you can expect screw ups, bad mistakes, and the like. You are held to a higher standard when you are a DM, its tough, fess up when you mess up. Begin a player is relatively easy and when you start acting like a jackass its even worse and you deserve a smack up the head. Thurbane example was a group of people acting like idoits and I find that hard to believe while a lone idiotic DM more believable.

I agree that finding a balance of the DM and player is the needed approach.That wasn't a group of people acting like idiots, that was a group of people each with different splats, well the first 3 anyway, that they wanted to play in the game that weren't in the DM's original plans. This happens a lot. It really does. The majority of DMs, in my experience, do not have every splatbook memorized and/or don't intend to use every splatbook with variant classes in their campaign. The gunman does pop up every so often, and of course the wookie is very silly.

Thurbane
2010-02-05, 11:12 PM
Same can be said for the DM, if he is set on the settings and players be damned no one is going to have fun.

You want to play a Drunken master? No sorry, there are none in the game. You want to play your character drunk? Fine take penalties for it. Well don't play him drunk then!

You want to play a rogue that worshiper of X? Fine. *Half way into game* No you can not sneak attack! Hes the god of honor!

You want to play a fighter? Fine. Your using a chain whip? Take 4 damage. For using a silly weapon. Your lucky I let you use it as only the true EW Masters can even own one.

You want to play a grappling wizard? Fine but you have a chance to break your fingers and lose your ability to cast some spells. Well dont do it then! I don't care if he has 14 str and has improved grapple meaning he has trained in the arts of grapple for some time now!

DM thats spend a lot of time on games, and DM in general, should get some respect but people forget respect is earned. If you are the DM I will respect you up till a point, then you have to earn it and you can lose it. If my DM did some thing wrong, not step up to it, or is just plain acting stupid/jackass/crazy I lose respect for him. If he was doing a good job and was a fair and just person I would go along with what he rules regardless of if I think the ruling is right because I respect him.
So, basically you are saying if the DM is being a giant **** and shooting down every player concept out of sheer pettiness and stubbornness, that he isn't worthy of respect?

It may shock you to know...I agree! :smallwink:

Demons_eye
2010-02-05, 11:15 PM
In my eyes asking to use 5 different rules sets, inter-grade a different system, and use the Storm Warrior class seems like idoits to me.

But I concede as I believe that you are right, I misread. I still insist that a balance point is needed with DM's and players though.

Kylarra
2010-02-05, 11:17 PM
I still insist that a balance point is needed with DM's and players though.I have never contested this point. :smallwink: