Things I May No Longer Do While Playing X: Bard is not a valid choice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goto124

*** May not insist that's the only right way to play a war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymouswizard

**** May not insist there must be a left way to play a war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madbox

***** May not insist that war is a 3 axis space, and that there is an up way and a down way to play a war.

---

****** Banned from using my Solar Quest board game to simulate the fourth axis of War.

*May not "roll up" a new Wizard PC just to cast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goto124

Bugsby's Expressive Single Digit!

---

Spell!
***There is no such spell either!
*****It was not "written up" by Gygax in '79!
******Do not start bringing out old issues of "The Dragon"
******* So'is'y'r'mom'a is not an Elvish name meaning "Soft Autumn Breeze"
********You did not use Tolkien's Quenya language!
**********It's not Sindarin either!

* Must not create a beholder with only one HP.
** Upon death, the beholder cannot fly around the room rapidly while deflating with a fffffffffffffffffffffff sound, before flopping ungraciously onto the floor as a flat piece of leather.
*** Cannot use a balloon IRL to simulate the effect.

* The correct way of subtly finding out if someone is a vampire is not "Excuse me, sir, are you a vampire?"
** This appplies doubly if I have the ability to read minds.

*My character's goal in life is not to bang a celestial.
**Nor is it to happily marry one.
***This goes double if I am a tiefling warlock.
****Triple if my goal is instead to create a half-fiend-half-celestial.
*****Not allowed to then play as that character in the next campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belac93

*My character's goal in life is not to bang a celestial.
**Nor is it to happily marry one.

---

*My bard's goal is not to bang Sune.
** Even if he does worship her.

Thats totally his goal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dire Roc

*My bard's goal is not to bang Sune.
** Even if he does worship her.

Thats totally his goal

---

What would be the XP for that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bard

Goddess of Love and Beauty? I totally nailed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Audience

Yeah right. Pull another one, it's got bells on!

---

* My pokemon trainer cannot be a shameless flirt to all the ladies
** especially if they are themselves female
*** My pokemon team are not my harem
**** I cannot be involved in a love triangle between me, my Gardevoir and my Lucario due to both pokemon having empathic connections to their trainers, especially if they are both female as well
***** Most Especially can't try to use Burst to fuse with both of the above at the same time just to see what would happen.

*My backup characters cannot all be siblings of my first one.
**Especially if they all have different alignments.
***No, they cannot all be different races.

*If I roll an 18 and a 3 on a character, not allowed to make a wizard with 3 intelligence and 18 strength.
**Not allowed to roll my ability scores; 17, 17, 17, 18, 18 (that was insane).

* Okay. Here's the search plan for the dungeon. First, we explore every hallway and map them out to kill any patrolling monsters around and make sure we don't get flanked, BUT we don't open any doors or go into any rooms that the DM has carefully prepared with more intelligent encounters. THEN we'll explore those rooms one at a time, but not touch any treasure, read any books, work out any puzzles, try to answer any riddles, or open any chests. Bonus points for chortling whenever the DM cusses us out for AVOIDING EVERYTHING HE PREPARED. ((No longer allowed to do this. Obviously.))

*Not allowed to play a mad scientist in D&D
**Even if its the only way i'll play Curse of Strahd
***i rolled a paladin and must stick with people until dead - and accept the party revivle from Jennie even if i desperately want to play a Bladesinger
****not allowed to roll backups until the character is dead....even if i like makeing characters

*If my Marine has a higher social standing then the noble i must have a valid backstory reason
**no 'because i read about something similar in GURPS 'Ground Force' and thought it was cool' is not a valid reason
*** Being a professional Champion for nobles IS a valid reason how ever.....but must ask if that's a -thing- in the subsector the campaign happens in.

*do not need to repeat 'On Target' every minute if we are playing shadowrun.....yes i am playing a sniper with a police background, no it is not so ingrained in the character to do it even though one of the other players gets the joke....the DM doesnt and its annoying.
** do not need to say 'Tango Down' either in fact if they did it in a movie or Rainbow six its Vetoed
*** getting more kills then the street samurai and Drone rigger combined will cause the DM to look at your rifle askance even if he approved it before the run expect your ammo to run out verrrry soon.



did i do that right ? >.>

*I may no longer use the message cantrip to torture enemies with an hour long "Hey! Listen!"
**If the target gives up after 5 minutes it's considered bad form to look sad...
***If while doing said action my DM asks what my alignment is, I may not answer "True Neutral, als known as Not Giving a ****"
****The fact that it ultimately remained very successful does not make it standard practice.
*****Not to then threathen the DM with a character that is basically Havelock Vetinari during his Grand Sneer if he kills my current one...
******doubly so when the Vetinari Build is basically a Lorebard that's very effective at finding mages and disabeling them.

Oh, and contrary to popular belief these really all happened. I call them Last Wednesday

*My alchemist can only throw one bomb in a round
**My cohorts can't throw bombs for him

*May not make a god of bureaucracy.
**No, I am not allowed to play Clark the Clerical Clerk.

* Cannot make jokes about Caesar dressing.

My Explorator/Chief Enginseer may no longer space 100 crew members on suspicion of possession, even if he was nearly killed by just one possessed auspex operator and they were likely possessed due to proximity to a Chaos Space Marine ship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belac93

*May not make a god of bureaucracy.
**No, I am not allowed to play Clark the Clerical Clerk.

---

***May not create a paladin dedicated to the cause of bureaucracy. Normal paladins are bad enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goto124

* Must not create a beholder with only one HP.
** Upon death, the beholder cannot fly around the room rapidly while deflating with a fffffffffffffffffffffff sound, before flopping ungraciously onto the floor as a flat piece of leather.
*** Cannot use a balloon IRL to simulate the effect.

---

*Loudly Ahems*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Encyclopedia Magica, Volume 1, pg. 151

Carnivorous Balloon
XP Value: — GP Value: 200
The Book of Marvelous Magic
This balloon floats toward any living creature that
approaches within 10 feet. It magically moves at
double the movement rate of its victim, but cannot
pass through solids. When close enough, it
attacks, automatically hitting its victim and
inflicting 2d6 points of damage caused by blood
draining. It inflicts 1d6 points of damage each
subsequent round. Furthermore, it does not let go
until either it bursts or the victim is dead.

---

Gygax DID make that joke. In fact, magic balloons in ad&d are immune to all damage other than piercing or slashing damage (including most forms of magic just for extra infuriation).

So clearly, you can totally make a beholder with one hp who goes fffffffffffffffffffffff on death. :smallbiggrin:

* May not get annoyed at the Dm throwing a party with only one primary spellcaster against an encounter including four monsters resistant to nonmagical damage.
** Especially when my character spends 3 rounds attacking one of them with no indication that it isn't doing anything ('why didn't you say it didn't flinch on any of my attacks?' 'you didn't ask!'¹ :smallmad:).
*** It's not the well done bait-and-switch I mind, it's the fact that we didn't get any clue as to what they actually were or their capabilities unless we asked them 'did they react to this attack?'

¹It might just be because I'm so used to playing with a different GM, but I expect to hear the enemy's reactions if they aren't what's expected, seeing as I've been in a game where an enemy reacted to discovering that I was wearing armour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymouswizard

* May not get annoyed at the Dm throwing a party with only one primary spellcaster against an encounter including four monsters resistant to nonmagical damage.
** Especially when my character spends 3 rounds attacking one of them with no indication that it isn't doing anything ('why didn't you say it didn't flinch on any of my attacks?' 'you didn't ask!'¹ :smallmad:).
*** It's not the well done bait-and-switch I mind, it's the fact that we didn't get any clue as to what they actually were or their capabilities unless we asked them 'did they react to this attack?'

¹It might just be because I'm so used to playing with a different GM, but I expect to hear the enemy's reactions if they aren't what's expected, seeing as I've been in a game where an enemy reacted to discovering that I was wearing armour.

---

Actually you may have quite the reason to get annoyed with said DM. He should describe the events taking place and not turn the session into a game of 'mother, may I..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Socratov

Actually you may have quite the reason to get annoyed with said DM. He should describe the events taking place and not turn the session into a game of 'mother, may I..."

---

It might also be because I'm used to a very different style of fight. I'm used to being in fights with roughly human enemies where planning can make you win in a round or two, and it's hard to be resistant or immune to anything. Heck, I personally prefer HP totals within the range of a couple of weapon attacks¹, so the idea of being able to throw 60+ damage at an enemy, even if only 30 gets through, just rubs me the wrong way.

But yeah, I wasted two turns on attacking an enemy because of the combat equivalent of 'you must roll a spot check whenever you move'. I probably could have taken down one of the ones damaging the Barbarian due to how well I was rolling for damage. I know for some groups what I want might come across as needless handholding, but is 'he didn't seem to notice your crossbow bolt' and 'he flinches at the acid orb, stifling a scream' really that hard.

I mean, I'm bad at this sort of thing. This is why I don't tend to run enemies with inherent resistances, so a character doesn't spend 3 rounds attacking a guy they can't hurt. Also, call me old fanished but if there's 8 enemies then there should not be 4 with at least the hp of the party tank, plus resistance to nonmagical damage (the party was a Greataxe wielding barbarian, a spear using bard1/rogue2 [no combat spells], a tiefling sorceress, and a dragonborn fighter with a heavy crossbow, not a lot of magical damage there).

¹Otherwise I prefer a more abstract damage system such as in Legends of the Wulin, where each hit might not cause damage, but does make later hits more likely to, up to taking someone out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymouswizard

It might also be because I'm used to a very different style of fight. I'm used to being in fights with roughly human enemies where planning can make you win in a round or two, and it's hard to be resistant or immune to anything. Heck, I personally prefer HP totals within the range of a couple of weapon attacks¹, so the idea of being able to throw 60+ damage at an enemy, even if only 30 gets through, just rubs me the wrong way.

But yeah, I wasted two turns on attacking an enemy because of the combat equivalent of 'you must roll a spot check whenever you move'. I probably could have taken down one of the ones damaging the Barbarian due to how well I was rolling for damage. I know for some groups what I want might come across as needless handholding, but is 'he didn't seem to notice your crossbow bolt' and 'he flinches at the acid orb, stifling a scream' really that hard.

I mean, I'm bad at this sort of thing. This is why I don't tend to run enemies with inherent resistances, so a character doesn't spend 3 rounds attacking a guy they can't hurt. Also, call me old fanished but if there's 8 enemies then there should not be 4 with at least the hp of the party tank, plus resistance to nonmagical damage (the party was a Greataxe wielding barbarian, a spear using bard1/rogue2 [no combat spells], a tiefling sorceress, and a dragonborn fighter with a heavy crossbow, not a lot of magical damage there).

¹Otherwise I prefer a more abstract damage system such as in Legends of the Wulin, where each hit might not cause damage, but does make later hits more likely to, up to taking someone out.

---

This seems to be a DM who wants combat to take longer for dramatic tension and for the players to burn more resources to go through.

Anonymouswizard you have a valid complaint here, it states in either the DMG or MM (maybe both, can't recall off the top of my head this late after work) that any attack that seems to not deal full damage must be called out as such by the DM or player who received the reduced damage from the attack. It can be as descriptive or vague as you like, but you MUST give some indication that the attack was less effective than it should have been. Rule 0 should not be used to counter this, as it should be something the characters should be able to observe in-universe. The only time it shouldn't be called out is if they have some way to hide the reduced effectiveness, such as illusions that make the wounds appear as normal or even greater than normal (these then have their own problems such as Will saves to disbelieve and vulnerability to True Seeing).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elxir_Breauer

Anonymouswizard you have a valid complaint here, it states in either the DMG or MM (maybe both, can't recall off the top of my head this late after work) that any attack that seems to not deal full damage must be called out as such by the DM or player who received the reduced damage from the attack. It can be as descriptive or vague as you like, but you MUST give some indication that the attack was less effective than it should have been. Rule 0 should not be used to counter this, as it should be something the characters should be able to observe in-universe. The only time it shouldn't be called out is if they have some way to hide the reduced effectiveness, such as illusions that make the wounds appear as normal or even greater than normal (these then have their own problems such as Will saves to disbelieve and vulnerability to True Seeing).

---

Yeah, as I said I know that I personally aren't good at this sort of thing, but that's both caused and solved by my staying about a kilometre away from monsters with immunities. What was really weird and annoying is, looking back on it, there were implications of attacks doing full damage, but no implications of attacks doing partial damage. If in real life I'd failed a perception test and just hadn't heard the 'your target didn't flinch' that would be fine, but what really annoys me is the 'you didn't ask'.

I suppose it was my fault as well for being right before the initiative before the enemies acted. It's not like there was much time between 'I rolled a 13 for damage' and 'these guys move here'.

Now, part of it might be bitterness due to the fact that we fought an encounter that took ages where only one character could deal full damage, and was obviously balanced with the intent of having the DMPC along for the ride (which I have complained about to the DM multiple times, and still plan to kill him in his sleep once we leave the kingdom¹).

¹He's a super-rich druid prince who was originally going to be several levels higher than the party. Oh, and as far as I can tell the story revolves around him. The only reason he isn't dead yet is because the party hasn't forged a will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymouswizard

It might also be because I'm used to a very different style of fight. I'm used to being in fights with roughly human enemies where planning can make you win in a round or two, and it's hard to be resistant or immune to anything. Heck, I personally prefer HP totals within the range of a couple of weapon attacks¹, so the idea of being able to throw 60+ damage at an enemy, even if only 30 gets through, just rubs me the wrong way.

But yeah, I wasted two turns on attacking an enemy because of the combat equivalent of 'you must roll a spot check whenever you move'. I probably could have taken down one of the ones damaging the Barbarian due to how well I was rolling for damage. I know for some groups what I want might come across as needless handholding, but is 'he didn't seem to notice your crossbow bolt' and 'he flinches at the acid orb, stifling a scream' really that hard.

I mean, I'm bad at this sort of thing. This is why I don't tend to run enemies with inherent resistances, so a character doesn't spend 3 rounds attacking a guy they can't hurt. Also, call me old fanished but if there's 8 enemies then there should not be 4 with at least the hp of the party tank, plus resistance to nonmagical damage (the party was a Greataxe wielding barbarian, a spear using bard1/rogue2 [no combat spells], a tiefling sorceress, and a dragonborn fighter with a heavy crossbow, not a lot of magical damage there).

¹Otherwise I prefer a more abstract damage system such as in Legends of the Wulin, where each hit might not cause damage, but does make later hits more likely to, up to taking someone out.

---

This seems to be a DM who wants combat to take longer for dramatic tension and for the players to burn more resources to go through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Socratov

This seems to be a DM who wants combat to take longer for dramatic tension and for the players to burn more resources to go through.

---

Yeah, no, we basically get a long rest every combat, so no burning of resources (although I still ration my Superiority Dice). The combat was dramatic but had no dramatic tension, it was basically a slog.

Now, it's entirely possible that you're right about what the GM wants, but from what I can tell they want to present hard but fun fights while having no knowledge on how to make them fun (essentially a Combat as Sport encounter with little balance, while half the party prefers Combat as War). Now I've played Combat as War games, and failing to begin with the upper hand can be fun, as can mopping the floor by preparing and luring the enemy into a trap. Here we got to recon and plan, but were only given incorrect information leading to our well excuted being worthless when it should have taken out half the enemy in the surprise round (with a sleep spell that 3 demons failed the save on but ignored, and an improvised grenade which should have wounded the rest), and we were only saved by the prisoners finally deciding to fight (compared to a fight I've played were the police we notified closed off the escape route after we managed to make our enemies flee despite being outmatched).

* Cannot play as Bastion.
** In a DnD game.
*** My character cannot be referred to as 'a sentient Ballista'.

* When outfitting my D&D character, I'm not allowed to buy a stiff.

** Cannot assume "stiff" means "corpse".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymouswizard

Yeah, no, we basically get a long rest every combat, so no burning of resources (although I still ration my Superiority Dice). The combat was dramatic but had no dramatic tension, it was basically a slog.

Now, it's entirely possible that you're right about what the GM wants, but from what I can tell they want to present hard but fun fights while having no knowledge on how to make them fun (essentially a Combat as Sport encounter with little balance, while half the party prefers Combat as War). Now I've played Combat as War games, and failing to begin with the upper hand can be fun, as can mopping the floor by preparing and luring the enemy into a trap. Here we got to recon and plan, but were only given incorrect information leading to our well excuted being worthless when it should have taken out half the enemy in the surprise round (with a sleep spell that 3 demons failed the save on but ignored, and an improvised grenade which should have wounded the rest), and we were only saved by the prisoners finally deciding to fight (compared to a fight I've played were the police we notified closed off the escape route after we managed to make our enemies flee despite being outmatched).

---

Okay, so what I'm getting here is that this is not a 3.5 game, so I could be wrong on what I said before. I tend to default my thoughts to 3.5 or Pathfinder, so I've made bad guesses before. If so, I am sorry for the possibly faulty information.

Now for an on-topic contribution to the thread (3.P):
*As DM, may not throw a group of 5+ Phase Spiders against a 4 person party of level 7 characters is I have no intention of killing at least one party member.
**This goes double if the caster in the party is the only one they can grapple and go ethereal with, and the caster is not capable of dealing with casting during a grapple.
***The Half-Minotaur Krynn Minotaur Anti-paladin should most certainly be the tank, but I should reread his Unholy template once in a while before throwing Incorporeal Undead at the party.
****Yes it's my fault that the Sorceror died to the Phase Spider group (6 in this case), even though she was the one to finally make the concentration check to cast a Fireball at point-blank range. (Player had forgotten they did NOT have a Ring of Evasion, and they couldn't have used Evasion in that situation anyway).
*****When throwing random Undead at the party, I should probably not look strictly at the CR in the book and figure they can handle it.