No More Multi-Classing

[green slime]

A DM's only obligation is to provide an enjoyable game. A DM does not have to cater to all the warped desires of a single player to create characters that are counter to what the other players' expectations of the campaign are.

 

[Reynard]

It's a fact.

If the DM plays to win, he wins. Unless he allowed the players to create munchkin characters, he can just use an enemy tailor-made to counter the players' strengths and exploit the weaknesses, and he can arrange it so the terrain favours the enemies.

Of course the DM can run rampant over the PCs if he/she so desires, but that is so far from the point that it little more than teeth gnashing.

I suppose it is possible that you just cannot copnceive of a situation where the DM is both playing fair and challenging the players and their characters at the same time. If so, you have my condolences because someone, somewhere in your past must had done you wrong.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Tell me something, what is and is not plausible in a game where everything is totally implausible.

Plausible. Not realistic.

Wizards throwing fireballs, dragons eating whole towns, sentient constructs walking about, warriors with glowing magical swords? To call anything plausible or not plausible in a game that consists of entirely made up things is.........well, implausible.

These things make sense in a world with magic and fantastic beings. They're not realistic, but they're plausible. Plausibility is apparent realism and consistence. Things that are believable.

In a world of magic, you can believe wizards throwing fireballs, dragons eating whole towns. But that it's absolutely impossible for a race that appears a lot like humans that are short, stocky and bearded to wield magic - in a world where a lot of things, including glowing swords and people throwing around fireballs, are possible - is not so plausible.

Btw, dwarves in my games are not all "anti-social racists who can't do nothing but kill and make weapons and armour." In fact dwarves in my world tend to travel quite a bit and even are on friendly terms with elves. How about that? Dwarves actually being friendly with elves. What a concept.

So you reject the usual dwarven stereotypes but embrace the one about dwarves and magic?

I'm not going to change your mind anymore than you're going to change mine but please don't make the insulting assumption that I don't allow stuff like this simply because I don't like to engage my brain. Please <rolleyes>

So why did you ban dwarf wizards? Did you think about it or is it "just because"?

A previous poster said to you something to the effect that we have nothing more to talk about. Have a nice day

If you want to. Have a nice life.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Of course the DM can run rampant over the PCs if he/she so desires, but that is so far from the point that it little more than teeth gnashing.

I suppose it is possible that you just cannot copnceive of a situation where the DM is both playing fair and challenging the players and their characters at the same time. If so, you have my condolences because someone, somewhere in your past must had done you wrong.

Of course he can challenge the players while being fair. In fact, that's what a DM is supposed to do. But it is, in fact, not "antagonist" It's cooperation. He doesn't compete with them. Savvy?

 

[Reynard]

Of course he can challenge the players while being fair. In fact, that's what a DM is supposed to do. But it is, in fact, not "antagonist" It's cooperation. He doesn't compete with them. Savvy?

So you just want to argue semantics when you know exactly what I mean. Why? What possible good could come of intentionally misrepresenting what someone else has said?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

So you just want to argue semantics when you know exactly what I mean. Why? What possible good could come of intentionally misrepresenting what someone else has said?

It might make them use the right words so they don't - unintentionally - misrepresent themselves anymore.

 

[ThirdWizard]

So you just want to argue semantics when you know exactly what I mean. Why? What possible good could come of intentionally misrepresenting what someone else has said?

An antagonistic DM wants the PCs to die, actively. If you don't fall into this group, you shouldn't label yourself as such. Because, there are antagonistic DMs out there.

 

[Reynard]

An antagonistic DM wants the PCs to die, actively. If you don't fall into this group, you shouldn't label yourself as such. Because, there are antagonistic DMs out there.

That's probably true. But after a dozen posts or so explaining myself, it gets old. it isn't likesome new walked into the thread and started harping on it.

 

[ThirdWizard]

That's probably true. But after a dozen posts or so explaining myself, it gets old. it isn't likesome new walked into the thread and started harping on it.

It's one of those hot topics you have to be careful of. Like saying the word

Spoiler

paladin

in any thread is likely to derail it completely, even if the class itself isn't integral to anything being discussed. Now I shall hope that no one does so because of me.

 

[Ghendar]

So you reject the usual dwarven stereotypes but embrace the one about dwarves and magic?

Why not? Sterotypes are not always bad, but see my reasons for allowing dwarven clerics but not wizards.

So why did you ban dwarf wizards? Did you think about it or is it "just because"?

In my current 3.5 game, dwarf wizards do exist but they are so rare as to be almost legendary. Entire dwarven kingdoms exist without a single wizard. Why? It's a design choice I made when 3.0 was released. One of the great things about 3rd ED is the wealth of choices it gives to players and DMs alike. However, I don't always agree with those choices and I see no reason why dwarven wizards should be common or even uncommon in my current world. Just because you can do it doesn't necessarily mean you should. If the rules allow for something that I don't like, it doesn't exist in my campaign. End of story. Any DM can decide that he or she doesn't want something in their game. That's their choice as DM. You may disagree with such arbitrary decisions but any DM has that choice. It's not lazy, it's a preference and to suggest that it's done simply because the DM is lazy is arrogant and insulting.

Getting back to my design choice...
My view of dwarves is influenced from my earliest days of playing AD&D. That's where my reluctance of the concept of the dwarf wizard comes from. But before you accuse me of living in the past, you should know that not all 1st ED stuff made sense to me. For instance, why were players forbidden to play dwarven clerics? Certainly a race that worships a god or gods must certainly be able to receive spells from said god(s). So clerics are okay for dwarves and I think dwarves make great clerics. But wizards??? I say no, or at the very least I say highly unlikely. Sorcerers I view differently. As I said before, sorcery is not learned. It chooses you. That's why I don't have a problem with any race being sorcerers. You mentioned the charisma penalty. Why not swap the charisma penalty for a dexterity penalty? Yes, I know a dex penalty makes for suboptimal dwarven rogue builds.

As a world builder I like to do different things and I sometimes like to create stuff that breaks the typical sterotypes of the various races. A buddy of mine created a campaign world where the only race choices we had for character creation were human, halfling, and half-orc. Why? Because it was part of his design when creating the setting? Elves, dwarves and gnomes were creatures more legendary than real and thus didn't exist in the campaign starting area. Would you have argued with my buddy and tried to make an elven character just because you wanted to, even though it broke all the rules of what his world was about? Again, it was his choice when designing the setting, just as it was my choice to design a setting where dwarven wizards are nearly non existant.