Is D&D getting too powerful?

[Bendris Noulg]

That's one idea behind them. Another is to expand player options beyond the core classes.

Read the description again. It is one of the options given the DM that a Prestige Class may be granted to a Player Character "as a reward for achieving high level."

Another option is to make them NPC only.

Right, a DM's only considerations should be his narcissistic involvement with his campaign world. No thought should be given to the enjoyment of the players. If they can explore some new options, just give them a smug, officious look as you continue to drone on reading boxed text.

As opposed to giving in to some over-pampered snot nosed player that is wasting space at my table that would be better filled with a decent player that's there to have fun, not run the game from behind his character sheet.

Now, THAT is some old-school DMing skillz there lol.

I'm deriving this directly from the DMG. If you don't like it, write CustServ@Wizards.com and ask them to change it. Until then, who's got the "spirit" of the rules and who just wants everything handed to him the exact way he wants it and will insult those who suggest otherwise is rather clear.

Yes, I've had people with your attitude at my table. It's given me and my group immense pleasure giving them the boot.

 

[Black Omega]

Re: Prestige Classes

If I feel that I want to make a character aspire to a certain type of prestige class, what right does my DM have telling me no?

Well, he's running the game?

I don't have a list of PrC's that are banned from my game, but there are some. Either because of region or power level. A player could ask to be a pre-errata Ninja of the Crescent Moon but he already knows I'll say no. If a class is broken or simply doesn't fit the game, then it's not an option.

BUT. That doesn't mean there isn't some other way to do it. As long as we can work out something that makes me happy and lets the player have fun, that's great.

 

[Felon]

If I feel that I want to make a character aspire to a certain type of prestige class, what right does my DM have telling me no? I'm not taking this from a bully perspective, I'm just wondering "why not?". If I make a mage from Cormyr, make a point of keeping in contact with some wizards back home, and want to take Cormyr Battlemage, what defense does the DM have in saying "no"?

OMG, I can just imagine the vein bulging out of the sight of the head of Bendris and many another DM at the mere suggestion that their authority should be subject to discussion.

After all, what benefit is there in taking on the thankless chore of DM'ing if you can’t be a petty autocrat who arbitrarily and summarily vetoes perfectly reasonable requests?

*sigh* D20 Modern seems superior on so many levels to 3E D&D. You have your attack bonuses balanced with defense levels. Alignment that is actually a roleplaying tool instead of a restriction. A balanced class and weapon system. Lots of feats. And the emphasis on Advanced Classes actually make sense instead of the power gaming aspects of D&D PrCs. Wish I could find somebody who played it

Ditto on all counts, including my regret that nobody I know has an interest in playing it. Then again, not having had the chance to play it, I have no idea if it’s really worth a damn lol. Oh well, maybe Urban Arcanna will turn some heads.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

OMG, I can just imagine the vein bulging out of the sight of the head of Bendris and many another DM at the mere suggestion that their authority should be subject to discussion.

After all, what benefit is there in taking on the thankless chore of DM'ing if you can’t be a petty autocrat who arbitrarily and summarily vetoes perfectly reasonable requests?

Gee, how petty and childish can you get..?

Just for S&G's, here is exactly how I deal with Prestige Classes.

Don't like it? Well, prospective players have a choice: Play or don't. I've found that the players worth having join.

The others aren't missed.

And, like it or not, my game is better without them.

 

[Tiefling]

Re: Prestige Classes

Prestige Classes are a DM option thing. But look at this, lets say I play in a FR campaign. I have made it a point to own every FR book that has come out, partly because of a completist mentality, partly because I think they are well written books. If I feel that I want to make a character aspire to a certain type of prestige class, what right does my DM have telling me no?

I'm not taking this from a bully perspective, I'm just wondering "why not?". If I make a mage from Cormyr, make a point of keeping in contact with some wizards back home, and want to take Cormyr Battlemage, what defense does the DM have in saying "no"?

It detracts from the game. How, you ask? I don't know. It depends on the DM, the players, and the game they're running. If the DM thinks that it will detract from the players' fun and his own fun (don't forget, the DM is supposed to enjoy gaming too), he has a right to disallow it. Although he should offer an explanation, I think.

I would say that the majority of the players should agree with his decision, but there's another consideration. Sometimes what the players want is different from what they will enjoy (I think I explained this to Edena_of_Neith a while ago). The players may want to learn a spell or take a prestige class that's overpowered, and they may enjoy the novelty and power in the short-term. However, if the overpowered element will disrupt the power balance and the game will become less fun in the long-term, it's better not to have that element, even if the players want it.

This is one of the reasons why it's important for a DM to know his players. He needs to know what they truly enjoy, so that he can set up the game to satisfy them in the long term.

 

[navriin]

I side with the idea of the DM being his own petty deity in is campaign =p

The DM has every right to say what goes in his world and what doesn't. To many times I see players be thankless for the vast amount of work it takes to run a good campaign. Whine all you want, if what you desire is overpowered IMO than too bad.

Get his, the DM has a right to have fun too. If you don't like how he runs, find another DM. Forcing your DM to run a style he doesn't like will make him grouchy, and it will spread to the players.

For this reason it is advisable to get together before starting a campaign to make sure everybody is on the same page.

If there is a prestige class you just must have, try discussing how you think it would fit into the DM's campaign. Make a background for it, an orginazation, a history. You would be surprised how many DM's would let things slide if the player is actually putting RP effort into it.

 

[Felon]

Read the description again. It is one of the options given the DM that a Prestige Class may be granted to a Player Character "as a reward for achieving high level." Another option is to make them NPC only.

Right, and your point is? In SeveredHead's post, it didn't sound like a petulant player was trying to strong-arm him into anything. It sounded like a player was saying "Hey, this looks like a fun PrC to play, and it doesn't look too overpowered or anything. Can you look it over and let me know if it's OK?" SeveredHead looks over the PrC, doesn't think it's unbalanced or detrimental to his campaign, considers saying yes but whimsy strikes him and he says no anyway because the party doesn’t “need” a Fate Spinner (as opposed to “needing” just another vanilla-flavored wizard I suppose).

Now, from what I'm hearing from you, the DM looks at the class, the DM doesn't ask any questions or discuss what about the class is appealing, but rather glances at the PrC, decides that it isn't "suitable" for his campaign based on whatever caprice pops into his mind, and poo-poos it with casual disregard for the eagerness in his player's eyes.

As opposed to giving in to some over-pampered snot nosed player that is wasting space at my table that would be better filled with a decent player that's there to have fun, not run the game from behind his character sheet.

You're fond of telling people to read things, so kindly read my post again. Nobody's talking about usurping the DM's authority. I'm talking about the DM using his authority appropriately. Approving reasonable requests will enhance the game for a DM's players, and beats the hell out of just taking them all for granted like they're nothing more than props for his precious campaign. You, Bendris, may or may not do this, but you're currently defending the position of DM narcissism with great zeal whether or not that's your intention.

I'm deriving this directly from the DMG. If you don't like it, write CustServ@Wizards.com and ask them to change it. Until then, who's got the "spirit" of the rules and who just wants everything handed to him the exact way he wants it and will insult those who suggest otherwise is rather clear.

First, you've hardly proven yourself to be an exemplar of diplomacy. Second, being lawyerish about the wording of text in the DMG is hardly capturing the "spirit" of the game. Look beyond the text.

Yes, I've had people with your attitude at my table. It's given me and my group immense pleasure giving them the boot. [/B]

Yes, no doubt it gave you the same kick the Puritans got out of hanging a scarlet woman who dareth to paint her face with the divul's colours! How dare people come to your table with fresh thoughts and perspectives and opinions? There is only room enough at the table for one thought and one perspective…and those can be found on page XXX of the DMG lol.

Don't like it? Well, prospective players have a choice: Play or don't. I've found that the players worth having join. The others aren't missed. And, like it or not, my game is better without them.

Since you cast people out for trying to offer their own perspectives, as if that in and of itself were disruptive, then you really don’t have more than a vague idea whether or not your game would be better off without them. All you seem to have is the predisposition that anyone who won’t kowtow to you can't be all that good.

If there is a prestige class you just must have, try discussing how you think it would fit into the DM's campaign. Make a background for it, an orginazation, a history. You would be surprised how many DM's would let things slide if the player is actually putting RP effort into it.

Well-put.

 

[LostSoul]

The only time D&D (as a system) really breaks down is when the group wants a certain feel but, after gaining levels, that feel is lost. That can be because of the strength of magic, the combat ability of high level fighters, or the silver tounge of the Rogue.

If the group (as a whole) realizes this and decides to keep away from the things in D&D that ruin the "feel" for them, then everything will run smoothly.

More and more, I see D&D as a simple system: d20 + mods vs. DC.

 

[Gothmog]

My take on PrCs when I run a game is that I have to ok every one of them- just because it is in the DMG or a Wizard's splatbook doesn't mean its ok. For the most part, I don't see the point of fighter and rogue PrCs, and none of the spellcasting PrCs wizards has presented fit well in my game world, so I have no problem banning them. I have made up PrCs' for various religious orders, specialist vocations, knightly or fighting orders, and a few arcane PrCs, but they are the exception, not the rule. Also, I only allow a character ONE PrC during their career, no exceptions. Finally, there has to be a good in-game reason to take one- such as having met and favorably impressed memebers of that PrC who would take on the character as an apprentice. None of this "But my character would gain lots of cool powers!" crap. For the most part, players don't know about most of the PrCs in my world. Having said that, if a player has encountered a certain PrC, wants to gain it, and is willing to pay the price involved (whether time, money, service, etc), then I will work with them to make sure they can qualify for it. PrCs are not something that should be picked up on a whim, nor something completely under the control of a player.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Right, and your point is? In SeveredHead's post, it didn't sound like a petulant player was trying to strong-arm him into anything.

No, but your post indicates just that, by insinuating that a DM not allowing a Prestige Class is anti-thesis to what 3E is intended to be.

Now, from what I'm hearing from you, the DM looks at the class, the DM doesn't ask any questions or discuss what about the class is appealing, but rather glances at the PrC, decides that it isn't "suitable" for his campaign based on whatever caprice pops into his mind, and poo-poos it with casual disregard for the eagerness in his player's eyes.

Absolutely. Placing a Prestige Class into a campaign (or even a base Class, Feat, Race, Monster, or anything else for that matter) greatly effects the feel and flavor of that campaign. The DM is the creator of that campaign, and if he doesn't like the feel of it, he'll loose interest and the campaign will suffer for it (if it doesn't just come to a premature end).

You're fond of telling people to read things, so read my post again.

Okay...

Nope, it's still crap.

Nobody's talking about usurping the DM's authority. I'm talking about the DM using his authority appropriately. Approving reasonable requests will enhance the game for a DM's players, and beats the hell out of just taking them all for granted like they're nothing more than props for his precious campaign.

Who determines the measure of what's "appropriately". What I consider appropriate (and, yes, I'm a Player too, so I'm speaking from both sides of the screen) is that a flavor decision is just as valid as a balance/mechanics decision. You're arguing that only the later is valid and that the DM should allow a PC to take any Prestige Class he desires regardless of the impact on the former, meaning that our view of "appropriate" is different.

However, you seem to view any DM that doesn't share your view of "appropriate" is, as you put it, "narcissistic" and handles Player requests with a "smug, officious look as [they] continue to drone on reading boxed text."

You, Bendris, may or may not do this, but you're currently defending the position of DM narcissism with great zeal whether or not that's your intention.

I'm defending (Psi)SeveredHead's consideration that a Prestige Class might not have actually belonged within the game he was running. Indeed, I would defend that not only for him, but for me, my own DM, and any other DM out there that gets called names by Players that are too self-centered to consider the game beyond their own character sheet.

First, you've hardly proven yourself to be an exemplar of diplomacy.

I'm diplomatic with those that prove themselves worthy of diplomatic effort.

Second, being lawyerish about the wording of text in the DMG is hardly capturing the "spirit" of the game. Look beyond the text.

Considering the text and stating that players don't tell a DM that they can't make a (valid) flavor decision about what Prestige Classes are allowed in a game is not being a rule-lawyer. It's understanding the spirit of the game. You should try it sometime.

Yes, no doubt it gave you the same kick the Puritans got out of hanging a scarlet woman who dareth to paint her face with the divul's colours! How dare people come to your table with fresh thoughts and perspectives and opinions? There is only room enough at the table for one thought and one perspective…and those can be found on page XXX of the DMG lol.

And obviously you don't know spit about me, my group or my game. Rather, you spew out a bunch of ignorance and wave it on the flagpole of "free thinking". Fact is, I've been, as a Player, the victim of DMs that gave in to the demands of Players that felt they should get everything they wanted in whatever manner they should gain it. And you know what? Those games sucked. I've learned from experience how to make a good game, both as a DM creating worlds full of flavor and integrity and as a player participating in the world of someone else's creation. And I've had other Players say to me, "don't you think [the DM] should have let me [petty want]?" My answer has always been "no."

Just like it is now.

Since you cast people out for trying to offer their own perspectives, you really don’t have more than a vague idea whether your game would be better off without them.

If they want to set a world's flavor and make rules decisions, they can run a campaign. They'll even be assured that I won't harp on them about flavor issues.

All you seem to have is the predisposition that anyone who won’t kowtow to you can't be all that good.

Any player that would rather whine and cry over some Prestige Class than enjoy the game as its offered and get into the role of their character isn't that good of a player. Any player that doesn't think their character is complete without a certain Prestige Class isn't that good of a player. And most certainly, any player that would call someone names rather than try to understand and flow with the flavor of a campaign setting isn't that good of a player.

And, I'm not sorry to say, every post you've made has only reinforced my stance in the matter.