DM thinks I shouldn’t be wild shape all the time

[Crake]

Considering how Eberron PrCs don't exist in FR, your example is a bad one.

And by your logic, that would be bad. Because it's a mechanical change due to the setting.

This is that strawman that you love so much. Didn't I say homebrew better be solely location related? As in you can create a homebrew location with homebrew cities and town as long as you don't make any changes to the rules? How does that equate to "play only greyhawk?" FYI world building is part of the ruleset, including custom planes and their affects on spells like summoning. I'm just less inclined to play in a game where the astral plane doesn't exist.

So why is faerun allowed to make mechanical changes, like forcing you to pick a deity as a cleric, but a DM's homebrew setting isn't? I'm fairly sure eberron has a few of those too, like action points, which aren't a default part of the game. But if you want #nochanges, then the "default" setting, where all the standard things are as outlined in the core books, then you're looking at greyhawk. That is how I came to that conclusion, because anything not greyhawk, would be a deviation from the "standard" rules.

Why roll initiative? Why roll damage? Why not just describe what you're doing, and what your monster is doing, until a player says "I decapitate it" and you say "it dies"? This is a game. It's all about mechanics and system mastery. It's not the only thing it's about, RP is important too, but a mindless gauntlet with no RP is still d&d where as RP with no mechanics is not d&d so RP is optional, mechanics are mandatory, therefore in d&d mechanics and system mastery is inseparable to the system.

World Building using all the world building rules in d&d is still d&d. Making up a rule where if a creature grants cover, he gets hit by the ranged attack if it misses you is not d&d. Neither is limiting cleric's spell access because you don't like how clerics know all their spells while wizards don't, or making every creature including fighters get only half BAB because you want AC to stay relevant longer.

Wow, and you claimed I was strawmanning? I'm just gonna go ahead and ignore the first bit, here, since its just totally irrelevant. Regarding the second bit though, notice how all of the things you listed aren't changes based on lore, but rather changes based on mechanics? You're not changing the way clerics get spells becuase it makes sense for the setting, you're changing it becuase you don't like the mechanics of the class. That's completely different to my example before of removing elementals from the summon nature's ally list, I didn't remove them due to a mechanical issue or bias, but beacuse it made sense for the setting. Is that concept that hard for you to imagine? That a change may be made for a reason other than mechanics?

[RoboEmperor]

@Crake
I think i'm derailing the thread at this point so I'm just gonna drop the issue. If you want I can continue over PM.

[Crake]

@Crake
I think i'm derailing the thread at this point so I'm just gonna drop the issue. If you want I can continue over PM.

I don't think it's derailing the thread. The thread is basically about where the boundary is between what the DM does and does not have purview over, with the OP basically being a prime example and a leaping point for further discussion. I say this, because the OP's already been back and explained what happened with the case at hand, which co-incidentally was also a textbook case of a very poor way to handle an issue as a DM.

Personally, as a DM I'm quite happy to let any character concept play out, until religion starts to fit into the mix. If you want to start playing a devout character in my setting, you'd best be prepared to actually be devout. It's caused conflicts at my table, for sure, but personally, I'd rather maintain the integrity of my setting rather than have some bastardized character concept running around that should never have existed in the first place, even if it means one of my players gets grumpy over it, because I said no to their character concept. On the other hand, if you're playing a wizard, there's no such conflict, because, short of putting in the time and effort to learn how to cast magic, there's no other roleplay requirements to being a wizard. You can be any sort of wizard you like, but if you want to be a druid, you need to fit into the niche of what is expected of a druid. Same goes for clerics and paladins, or anyone else that recieves their power from some outside being that gets to decide what they need to do to gain that power.

And that brings is back to the case at hand, where a DM requested the player make a change based on (at least claimed to be based on) a role-play reason (why is your character being so antisocial and reclusive, always staying back in roleplay scenarios as a bat, etc), and everyone is claiming that either a) the DM is using that as a mask for a mechanical issue he has, or b) that if it is a roleplay reason, the DM has no right to intervene on the way a character is being played.

[RoboEmperor]

I don't think it's derailing the thread. The thread is basically about where the boundary is between what the DM does and does not have purview over, with the OP basically being a prime example and a leaping point for further discussion. I say this, because the OP's already been back and explained what happened with the case at hand, which co-incidentally was also a textbook case of a very poor way to handle an issue as a DM.

But me dictating what is d&d and what is not feels off-topic.

Personally, as a DM I'm quite happy to let any character concept play out, until religion starts to fit into the mix. If you want to start playing a devout character in my setting, you'd best be prepared to actually be devout. It's caused conflicts at my table, for sure, but personally, I'd rather maintain the integrity of my setting rather than have some bastardized character concept running around that should never have existed in the first place, even if it means one of my players gets grumpy over it, because I said no to their character concept. On the other hand, if you're playing a wizard, there's no such conflict, because, short of putting in the time and effort to learn how to cast magic, there's no other roleplay requirements to being a wizard. You can be any sort of wizard you like, but if you want to be a druid, you need to fit into the niche of what is expected of a druid. Same goes for clerics and paladins, or anyone else that recieves their power from some outside being that gets to decide what they need to do to gain that power.

In the OP's situation it wasn't religion. It was the druid's personality the DM railroaded on the fly as a response to a mechanical thing.

In my situation it wasn't only religion, it was also house rules that changed the very nature of how cleric spells work.

Religion restrictions are all fine if they are informed about before the first session. And for the record, clerics have no restrictions either. Elder Evils clearly spelled out someone worshiping something, even themselves, results in divine magic. Hell even Frostburn says so as that harpy's worship is what keeping the portal to the hells open. You need an overgod to stop this from happening.

Kyberwulf's post however is not fine since he declared spending more time as an animal instead of a human is disrespecting nature when it is almost always the opposite just because he doesn't like wildshape.

[Crake]

In the OP's situation it wasn't religion. It was the druid's personality the DM railroaded on the fly as a response to a mechanical thing.

Well, firstly, we don't know it was a response to a mechanical thing. We can assume, but we don't know.

In my situation it wasn't only religion, it was also house rules that changed the very nature of how cleric spells work.

Religion restrictions are all fine if they are informed about before the first session. And for the record, clerics have no restrictions either. Elder Evils clearly spelled out someone worshiping something, even themselves, results in divine magic. Hell even Frostburn says so as that harpy's worship is what keeping the portal to the hells open. You need an overgod to stop this from happening.

The DMG has a whole section about changing the way classes work, and something like limiting the spell lists clerics have based on their deity, or requiring a deity in the first place, definitely fits in with the sorts of things it describes. Page 174 if you're interested in reading about it.

Kyberwulf's post however is not fine since he declared spending more time as an animal instead of a human is disrespecting nature when it is almost always the opposite

I can't speak directly for him nor do I necessarily agree with him, but I can definitely understand his position on the matter. The notion is that nature has given you this power to use to maintain the balance, but you yourself are a part of nature, and you must maintain balance within yourself as well. Endlessly being in a form other than your own is definitely unbalancing for yourself, you aren't being true to who you are, you're trying to be something else. Maybe on days you're out adventuring, but time spent in towns, or during your downtime?

Again, not something I necessarily agree with, but I can see his position, and if he was running the game, then I would adhere to his ruling and not argue with it.

just because he doesn't like wildshape.

I don't recall him saying that. I could be wrong, but unless he actually said that, you really need to stop ascribing motive to something when you really have no idea what people are thinking. I think you'll find it a lot easier to remain level headed if you don't assume motives, let alone motives that you see as negative, beind people's statements. If you're going to assume a motive, at least assume a positive one, it'll help you see the silver lining, and possibly let you view things from a different perspective that you may not have considered before.

[Harkness]

DM thinks I shouldn’t be wild shape all the time.

Sounds like you need a new DM.

[AnimeTheCat]

No it's not. You made a random d20 game using the d&d ruleset as a basis but it's not d&d. Pathfinder is not d&d, it's pathfinder. So if pathfinder isn't d&d, what chance does your homebrew have of being d&d 3.5?

If a game says d&d 3.5 I expect to play d&d 3.5. Not pathfinder, or whatever you call your homebrew.

Considering how Eberron PrCs don't exist in FR, your example is a bad one.

This is that strawman that you love so much. Didn't I say homebrew better be solely location related? As in you can create a homebrew location with homebrew cities and town as long as you don't make any changes to the rules? How does that equate to "play only greyhawk?" FYI world building is part of the ruleset, including custom planes and their affects on spells like summoning. I'm just less inclined to play in a game where the astral plane doesn't exist.

World Building using all the world building rules in d&d is still d&d. Making up a rule where if a creature grants cover, he gets hit by the ranged attack if it misses you is not d&d. Neither is limiting cleric's spell access because you don't like how clerics know all their spells while wizards don't, or making every creature including fighters get only half BAB because you want AC to stay relevant longer.

D&D 3.5 is a system. Pathfinder is a system. Faerun is a setting. Grayhawk is a setting. Eberron is a setting.

Faerun, Grawhawk, and Eberron all use D&D 3.5 as their system, but have differing rules dependent upon their unique settings.

For example, The Ashbound are a unique collective of Druids in Eberron. the Feat "Ashbound Summoning" is unique to this group of Druids. Would you say that if I didn't allow you to take the Feat in a Faerun Setting that I "Wasn't playing D&D 3.5"? A different Example, also from the Eberron Campaign Setting, is the Kalashtar and Shifter races. If We were playing in Grayhawk, a setting that doesn't include Kalashtar or Shifters, would you say I'm not playing D&D 3.5 if you can't play a Kalashtar or Shifter? Yet another example, is playing in the Eberron Campaign Setting still playing D&D 3.5? With their Regions of Origin rule, Druids and Rangers are restricted as to what animals they can have for Animal Companions. Further, another example of a campaign setting overruling the PHB again from Eberron, on Page 35 of the Eberron Campaign Setting under the heading "Clerics and Corruption" there is a passage that says, "A cleric can cast spells with any alignment descriptor. Casting an evil spell is an evil act, and a good cleric’s alignment may begin to change if she repeatedly casts such spells, but the deities of Eberron do not prevent their clerics from casting spells opposed to their alignments. This rule supersedes the information in Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells on page 33 of the Player’s Handbook.". Does this mean Eberron isn't D&D 3.5? It changes the rules, and what is available to clerics from what is listed in the 3.5 PHB.

What I'm getting at is that the setting will modify the rules. Modifying the rules does not mean you playing something other than D&D 3.5. You're still playing 3.5, but youre playing in a different setting that modifies those rules. Modifying the rules doesn't make it not 3.5. The core mechanics are the same. You have your skills, you use your d20, you have classes, etc. You're playing 3.5, but you're playing it in a different setting. Effectively, you're just using Rule 0 in your world building.

[Zecrin]

I didn't name call
...
I call you entitled

The DM in question isn't really changing any rules in question, but rather enlightening the player of the rules. And sometimes, yeah, the DM should tell the player how to feel. If you're playing a cleric of Uriel, the paragon of compassion and benevolence, and you see someone being brutally tortured, and you say "My character views the scene with cold, uncaring eyes before moving on", hell yes I'm gonna say "uhh, you're playing a cleric of Uriel, there's no way that's how you'd react". Because you see, a character who would react like that, should never have been blessed by uriel with his power in the first place, thus the character becomes a living, walking paradox.

The DM is in fact changing the rules. They allowed wildshape in the past. They allowed the druid to remain in wildshape form for extended periods of time. They provided the player with a book detailing how to transform into a desmodu hunting bat. The DM allowed a character to build around this and then pulled what I consider to be a bait and switch. This is fine. The DM has the power to do this. But just because they have the power to do something does not make them a good DM for doing it.

Also the DM should not tell the players how to feel. This is a hallmark of a bad DM. If a cleric says "My character views the scene with cold, uncaring eyes before moving on." Then you may consider saying, “Your goddess does not grant you spells the next morning.” But as the DM, you do not seize control of the character. This would be analogous to four players voting to take control of an NPC away from the DM, should that NPC ever act out of character.

Also the argument that such a character would never have been blessed by uriel in the first place strikes me as silly. These aren’t omecient gods we’re talking about here. Why would the gods have created Asmodeus, if they knew how evil he was? How can fallen cleric or paladin exsist? Why would gods invest them with their power in the first place?

If you spent your time explaining all the nuance of your setting to players before starting your game, you'd never get started in the first place. Plus, there are things that the DM may just not consider, as it's not something they'd ever fathom. There's stories of players doing things out of left field all the time, and this extends to character roleplaying. What you're basically saying is "A DM who can't read their players' minds is a bad DM.

How your class features work =/= nuance. It would take under 20 seconds to explain that your restricting wild shape should someone play a druid.

Also yes, I would posit that a DM who does not consider the implications of material which they explicitly allow in their setting, is not a good DM. Just as online guides are available to players so to are they available to DMs. The DM also can (and should, in my opinion) talk to a players about game balance before the start of a campaign.

I call you entitled because your post was all about "the book says this, so that's how it is", giving a sense of entitlement, because some words in a book said it, and thus the DM has to give it to you.

The DM doesn’t have to give it to you. The DM does not have to follow the rules of the game; they are designed to be flexible for a reason. But if I want some degree of warning and honesty with regards to changes to the rules which hurt my character, that’s entitled? I don’t understand that. It’s just the courteous thing to do.

I have to disagree with you here. If you don't follow the scriptures of your religion, it means you don't have particular respect or reverence for whatever it is you follow, you're merely following it for the sake of following it. That's all well and good for the average person, but divine casters are held to a different standard. If your holy scripture says "thou shalt not eat meat", and you eat meat as a cleric, that's basically spitting in the face of your god. Respect in an ideal, maybe, is a one way street, but respecting a greater power, well, no, it's not a one way street. You don't get to decide if your "I feel like I revere you" is enough, your DM does, because your DM controls your deity, who controls your source of power.

Your cleric to druid comparison is apples to oranges. A cleric has an explicit code of conduct set forth by their deity, a druid does not. Furthermore, as nature is not, to my knowledge a sentient creature, it does not set forth a code of conduct, or have an ability to feel revered. Therefore, the druid themselves must decide whether they feel respect towards the wild.

Also, many religions believe that no one is free from sin, not even clergy. And yet, despite this, all of the clergy still revere their sovereign deity. Maybe if the cleric commits a gross violation of their code, they will lose access to spells (assuming the comparison is apples to apples, which its not). Using a druid class feature for its full listed duration though, which apparently to some constitutes a disrespect, is not equivalent to a “gross” violation.

The DMG has a whole section about changing the way classes work, and something like limiting the spell lists clerics have based on their deity, or requiring a deity in the first place, definitely fits in with the sorts of things it describes. Page 174 if you're interested in reading about it.

Yes and the DMG also says, "no one like to get something, only to have it taken away again"

And the complete arcane suggests that good DMs not resort to "capricious and arbitrary limitations on magical power"

[Talakeal]

So, I think the moral of the story is to just ban the fricking MM2. Worst balanced book ever. Twenty years later and that thing is still causing problems. I still sometimes have elemental wierd flashbacks.


For the record, I dont think it is out of place for any player, including the DM, to ask another player, including the DM, to try and stick to the tone that was agreed upon at the start of the campaign.

If you agreed to play a low key sword and sorcery campaign, permanent polymorph is not appropriate. If you agreed to play a heroic campaign, suddenly becoming a CE child murderer is mot appropriate. If you agreed to play a realistic historical game, the DM having aliens invade war of the roses era England is not appropriate, etc.

Obviously there is no hard line though, and I would err on the side of trusting the player / DM.

Hell, if he'd just taken the player aside and said "The way you play your character totally breaks my immersion, can you tone it down or change it please?", I'd at least get it - I'd probably rather leave a game if that was said to me, but it wouldn't be on bad terms.

If you are leaving someone's game because they politely asked you to tone something down, I think you are probably going to be leaving on pretty bad terms. Imo that is an outrageous overreaction.

[eggynack]

So, I think the moral of the story is to just ban the fricking MM2. Worst balanced book ever. Twenty years later and that thing is still causing problems. I still sometimes have elemental wierd flashbacks.

It's a strong book, but I'm super doubtful it's the problem here. The DM's problem seems to be with perpetual wild shape rather than imbalance, which makes sense given the party seems reasonably strong. It's also not clear they're using enhance wild shape, and, as I've previously noted, the difference between this form and dire bat is not massive without the expanded blindsense. Realistically, if something's messing with the game's balance, it's probably the character's frequent summoning. More or less core only summoning at that.

If you agreed to play a low key sword and sorcery campaign, permanent polymorph is not appropriate.

This is a weird line to me. We're talking about a 10th level druid here. All kindsa ridiculous magic nonsense, and a lot of the other PC's have abilities to match. It seems odd that being a bat long term would be out of place. Especially given that being a bat in the first place is not out of place, and given also that being a bat when adventuring for similar durations is also presumably not out of place. This division between being a bat all the time and what the DM seems to want seems blurry and arbitrary.

[Crake]

This is a weird line to me. We're talking about a 10th level druid here. All kindsa ridiculous magic nonsense, and a lot of the other PC's have abilities to match. It seems odd that being a bat long term would be out of place. Especially given that being a bat in the first place is not out of place, and given also that being a bat when adventuring for similar durations is also presumably not out of place. This division between being a bat all the time and what the DM seems to want seems blurry and arbitrary.

I think the key phrase in that quote is "low key". You can be all kinds of powerful, but still keep it subtle, that's actually a basic premise of my campaign setting, 99% of magic happens behind the scenes, outside of the public eye.

That being said, OP did say that they were in sigil, and that they're planes-hopping, so I don't think this quote is specifically for this campaign, but rather just a generic example, or, if it were for this campaign, then it would be quite misplaced considering the information we have.

[Divine Susuryu]

If you are leaving someone's game because they politely asked you to tone something down, I think you are probably going to be leaving on pretty bad terms. Imo that is an outrageous overreaction.

I have a pretty low-key, deliberate RP style, so in my case, if that still annoyed the DM enough to break his immersion, I'd have to leave. I couldn't play in a game where a DM was so hidebound that RP as purposefully non-disruptive as mine was too much.

[Crake]

I have a pretty low-key, deliberate RP style, so in my case, if that still annoyed the DM enough to break his immersion, I'd have to leave. I couldn't play in a game where a DM was so hidebound that RP as purposefully non-disruptive as mine was too much.

This is the kinda thing that you should really add to your initial statement, because saying 'If he said that to me, I'd quit" sounds unreasonable, but saying "If he said that to me, I'd quit, because I'm already super low-key, and if he wanted to me to any more low key, he'd basically be asking me to not use my abilities ever" makes plenty of sense.

[Divine Susuryu]

This is the kinda thing that you should really add to your initial statement, because saying 'If he said that to me, I'd quit" sounds unreasonable, but saying "If he said that to me, I'd quit, because I'm already super low-key, and if he wanted to me to any more low key, he'd basically be asking me to not use my abilities ever" makes plenty of sense.

Fair criticism, duly noted

[eggynack]

I think the key phrase in that quote is "low key". You can be all kinds of powerful, but still keep it subtle, that's actually a basic premise of my campaign setting, 99% of magic happens behind the scenes, outside of the public eye.

I think he meant low key relative to the game world, rather than low key relative to the public. That's usually what is meant by that kind of "low key sword and sorcery campaign" phrasing. If it is relative to the public, then there should be some explicit in-game basis for that need, rather than there just being some aesthetic concern. And then the problem mostly resolves itself. If you go around as a bat then people will go after you for witchcraft or something. You presumably would have very limited access to magic in general within towns and villages, rather than there being this specific sort of restriction, and the reduction in defense would be partially mitigated by this need. In any case, this broad sort of scenario certainly wouldn't demand an argument. It would be blatantly obvious up front that this sort of thing is unwise.

[Crake]

I think he meant low key relative to the game world, rather than low key relative to the public. That's usually what is meant by that kind of "low key sword and sorcery campaign" phrasing. If it is relative to the public, then there should be some explicit in-game basis for that need, rather than there just being some aesthetic concern. And then the problem mostly resolves itself. If you go around as a bat then people will go after you for witchcraft or something. You presumably would have very limited access to magic in general within towns and villages, rather than there being this specific sort of restriction, and the reduction in defense would be partially mitigated by this need. In any case, this broad sort of scenario certainly wouldn't demand an argument. It would be blatantly obvious up front that this sort of thing is unwise.

I mean, you would normally be right, but at the same time, people are weird. The DM may, for example, be holding out on repercussions because he doesn't want to derail the game, but still be getting annoyed that the players are being so flagrant in their magical displays, rather than just punishing them with in-game consequences. Likewise, sometimes players are just straight up dense, and don't get the message after repeated in-game issues, which then causes problems for everyone.

[eggynack]

I mean, you would normally be right, but at the same time, people are weird. The DM may, for example, be holding out on repercussions because he doesn't want to derail the game, but still be getting annoyed that the players are being so flagrant in their magical displays, rather than just punishing them with in-game consequences. Likewise, sometimes players are just straight up dense, and don't get the message after repeated in-game issues, which then causes problems for everyone.

Really seems like the DM's bad though. An understandable error, perhaps, but they're (theoretically) solving in-game problems with out-of-game solutions. The whole point of this sort of game structure is for the world to react to these sorts of decisions. Otherwise, the whole thing returns to being an arbitrary aesthetic aim.

[Talakeal]

I have a pretty low-key, deliberate RP style, so in my case, if that still annoyed the DM enough to break his immersion, I'd have to leave. I couldn't play in a game where a DM was so hidebound that RP as purposefully non-disruptive as mine was too much.

Everything is relative to the game. But yeah, if you are already so quiet and non-disruptive it probably wouldn't be an issue, although the opposite might be.

I think he meant low key relative to the game world, rather than low key relative to the public. That's usually what is meant by that kind of "low key sword and sorcery campaign" phrasing. If it is relative to the public, then there should be some explicit in-game basis for that need, rather than there just being some aesthetic concern. And then the problem mostly resolves itself. If you go around as a bat then people will go after you for witchcraft or something. You presumably would have very limited access to magic in general within towns and villages, rather than there being this specific sort of restriction, and the reduction in defense would be partially mitigated by this need. In any case, this broad sort of scenario certainly wouldn't demand an argument. It would be blatantly obvious up front that this sort of thing is unwise.

Its all relative to the game.

That being said, one of the reasons I don't like "freak show" campaigns is that it gets really exhausting just coming up with consequences and reactions. I don't want to spend a half hour out of every gaming session coming up with realistic ways for NPCs to freak out over being confronted with a talking cat, a living wall of flame, a fly demon, and a half dragon half hyena walking into their bar and asking for a drink.

Of course, a lot of players are spotlight hogs and love this sort of attention, so the consequences might actually be their end goal even if that's not what the DM (or the other players) signed up for.

[lord_khaine]

So, I think the moral of the story is to just ban the fricking MM2. Worst balanced book ever. Twenty years later and that thing is still causing problems. I still sometimes have elemental wierd flashbacks.

I do think this is in part a good lesson?
Isnt it also the book with the fleshraker?

[noob]

So, I think the moral of the story is to just ban the fricking MM2. Worst balanced book ever. Twenty years later and that thing is still causing problems. I still sometimes have elemental wierd flashbacks.

False.
there is worse: serpent kingdoms.
between sarruks, manyfanged daggers and ability rip to get rid of your own sur weaknesses and a whole bunch of other broken content serpent kingdoms seems intentionally broken.

[eggynack]

I do think this is in part a good lesson?
Isnt it also the book with the fleshraker?

Nah, that's the MM III. Fiend folio is also pretty sweet for druids, what with having both oread summoning and all the cool plants along with some other stuff. A lot of monster books are pretty crazy though. As are books in general. I dunno that druids have much in the way of points of vulnerability book-wise.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked for goodof all mankind.