Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pax" data-source="post: 324917" data-attributes="member: 6875">So?  Neither should the Sorceror know s/he will or won't achieve a certain degree of mastery.Then I have my work cut out for me, and have to reassess my plan, and ... re-plan.  And?  Since this is only work for ME, what do you care?As for metagaming: no.  Metagaming is bringing out-of-game issues INTO the game.  Just ebcause a player has a firm goal in mind when designing a character, does not make their plan a case of metagaming. I plan my choices for feats, andmy choices for spells.  That leaves -plenty- of room for the DM's campaing to direct the rest of the Sorceror's growth.And I never claimed I wouldn't revise my plan, either.  However, I HAVE a plan.Just because I know what feats I want to choose, and what spells I eventually want to be able to cast, you assume I think I know EXACTLY what the character will be like at that level?Bah.I never claim to know how a character will look at 20th level.  I claim to know what I want the character to look like, in terms of things that I can choose between 1st and 20th level.I count ONLY on those things which -are- choices for me, when making that plan.  The DM cannot say "no YOU can't have that feat" without completely barring it all along (in which case the development plan takes that ruling into account), ditto for core-rules source spells (and ditto for the plan taking that into account).  Otherwise the DM is playing favorites, and/or, yes, is abusing the so-called Rule Zero.I love how you assume a plan of what feats I want, means I wont "let" a campaign modify my character.  That's funny -- or wait, you were kidding, right ... ?</blockquote>

Verification