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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6155032" data-attributes="member: 95493">Sorry about the delay [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION], I had a busy few days between  events with the family and attending doctors and I knew.. know? This  post is going to be large. I replied with I think something like 3300  (new) words in my previous post and you did with 4958 (I quoted and  removed the quote markings and checked). With that said, I NEED to cut  some of your words out in order to have room for mine.That is the  problem in itself. I don't know what constitutes civilized and there is  no way I'd limit it to those. Every setting has its own assumptions and  saying you don't allow "Orcs, Kobolds, Goblins, Bugbears, Hobgoblins,  etc." means you cut off a lot of very humanoid, some non-adjusted, races  to right off the bat. Also, each of those races have their own  civilizations, monstrous ones where the good PCs wouldn't be accepted  but if I am running any number of games; including evil race games or  where a monster is trying to be other than what he was raised at or  whatever then automatically these other races are being excluded.I  think it makes perfect sense for certain "civilized races" to belong in  the PHB vs. MM for example. That is a basic assumption and I have no  problem with that but I'll be damned if anyone but me gets to decide  what races or even what monsters are allowed as PCs. Simply, as I said  before, my game suffers if I can't play whatever I like or allow my PCs  to do so. Excluding it until a higher level makes sense but excluding it  entirely does not, EVER.Another  problem I think you have is that monsters should be treated like every  other adventurer. That they SHOULD be walking into any city in Greyhawk  or Forgotten Realms and not attracting attention. I have no such  assumptions. When the ogres (and centaur by that point) walked into town  they were immediately beset with questions and nearly attacked. If they  weren't unno.. ogres and if they hadn't been accompanied by the other  PCs they almost certainly would have been attacked as the monsters they  are as soon as they showed their faces in civilization. That is fine  though, that is how it should be. Picking a monster doesn't  automatically give you a pass on weird looks or outright aggression.Right, so it seems to me the best option is,  without knowing which are going to be an exception in whomever's game,  to allow any monster to be used as a PC and to give easy rules to do  that.As to the "who says but you" I think we covered that. I think we see eye to eye there.As with the toned down magic. YES. Agreed. Agreed too that it is not on topic.Right, but my point stands firm here. That is a style. One option among many. I like that sometimes, but the basic assumption of what an adventurer is  contested. And if that is for debate then what the PCs should be  allowed to play certainly is too. Especially with such wide ranging  games. I'd love to be able to use DnD to run braveheart and dragonheart.  Actually I'd rather it be (and to my understanding it already is) much  more broad than that. Having limits ONLY limits. It doesn't allow people  to play things they want, to match the game setting or style they are  playing.Here is that fickle  assumption again. Having a dragon WILL change things. It goes from band  of murder hobos going into a crypt and getting out with their lives and  some treasure to a different kind of game. Maybe this new one is an  epic with dragon and dragon-rider. (That is the one that springs to mind   most readily.) If anything the second screams MORE heroic to me. Yes the  dragon might be the first thing villagers see as they approach the  town, but it doesn't mean they automatically assume the dragon is in  charge. Those assumptions are based on the world they live in. With a  game where a dragon IS a PC you need slightly different assumptions.  Working with the classic core four classes isn't an approach that works  with a dragon in the game. You may not like that, but I LOVE it. Neither  of us should be ignored.I've always considered part of  the reason the world had adventures is that no one else was stupid  enough or skillful enough to do the adventuring thing. Therefore it gave  the PCs a unique "You people are going to die, but do you want to use  that ancient gold to buy a drink" vibe.So, that  analogy I used earlier was flawed but only in one regard. The difference  being that they had to switch. I can understand that is a gripe. Maybe  there can be "baby dragon" options so you can start at level 1. My point  remains the same that no one is expecting a large, full grown dragon  with the full suit of complimentary powers .. to be available at level  1. No one expects you to have wish or miracle at level 1 either but  somehow I see a lot of comments that ignore this comparison. You  shouldn't have wish or miracle at level 1. You shouldn't be a full  dragon at level 1 either. They are each powerful and will change the  game. They require different inborn assumptions. What I go further is to  say that you SHOULD eventually get wish/miracle and you should  eventually be allowed to be a dragon if you want.No one is saying you  have to have monster PCs. I think a previous suggestion (I hope in this  thread but they do start to merge together these days) is rules about  monster-PCs and MANY other things should be held strictly in the purview  of DMs. That is the right scenario I think. What I don't care for is  when people tell me that WotC should not bother exploring this, simply  because they do not like it. I've NEVER cared for Giths (either brand)  but I think they deserve the space to remain in the game as I understand  people enjoy them. The same, I think, should apply here with monster  PCs.Honestly I would love to see rules where the PCs  are (or at least start out) a LOT more average member of their race. I  think there is too much importance on heroic startings in the game  already (heroic tier anyone) and not enough "common Joe picks up weapon  to defend home and becomes adventurer" options available yet. I'm not  advocating for a default or anything, but it would be nice to have that  option - to start weak or at least average.I didn't realize we were limited to  properties only envisioned in fairy tales. *stops* No I'm not going down  that road again. I understand what you mean here. But you have to  realize that just because a fairy tale didn't do it doesn't mean a thing  to current gaming. There are no fairy tales about a world that  literally springs up as you walk toward it but Bastion was a huge hit  with a tight inner structure. It just requires different assumptions,  once again. There ARE books, movies, video games, and absolutely RPGs  where you play as dragons. You can do it in past versions of DnD. It  doesn't matter if it aligns to fairy tales or not, dragons as PCs can  and should be a reality.Has mind  blast remained consistent? What does its current mechanical abilities  look like compared to its previous incarnations. A slightly weaker  framework could work here. Beyond that, I have a hard time that ANY  power shouldn't be something the PCs can do. I have this assertion for  two main reasons.1. Probably the single most powerful ability I can think of, Wish,  is available to PCs and a handful of monsters. If it is something like  that.. then don't allow the monster to be playable until that ability  (or comparable) comes into the game at PC levels. Limits to X number of  times a day is a fair limit for DM controlled monsters as it is for a PC.  Beyond that, I'm out of ideas as I generally agree that limits on  iconic monster abilities don't make sense when only applied to PCs.2.  Which leads me to.. if the PCs can't do it, then (IMHO) the MONSTER  shouldn't have the ability to do it either. If it is too powerful or  game breaking for a PC then it is too powerful and game breaking for a  DM. I'll admit this is my bias. Even a Medusa with an auto "if I see you  then you are stone" has limits that are comparable to PCs.I don't  know if I was unclear or you are just misunderstanding. It was not  player vs player fighting. It was character vs character. It was  roleplaying and done actually very well and it was a lot of fun. They  had to reign the ogres in with words most of the time. They never came  to blows with the ogres. Never, not once. The ogres once used (maybe  twice, I forget) a fellow PC's character as a club.. but that was a  stupidity, rage and .. again.. roleplaying thing. It was good fun and as  I recall used for a single round. The party was never aggressive  towards one another, though the wizard (I think sorcerer) in the first  session RP'd that the was terrified.It was a matter of  babysitting the ogres in so much that they didn't understand the  complicated rules that humans made for each other. They saw cows as food,  not property. Things like that. The ogres were heavily chaotic (CN) but  they were like children in mentality. They had to be reigned in but NOT controlled. Keep them in line socially, not in fights. They had to be  told simple things that were obvious to everyone else but completely  missed by the ogres. All of this was great roleplay, not fighting or  conflict among the PCs. It was hilarity and hysterics and not profanity  and aggression. They did work together to solve goals and at no point  did the other PCs feel out powered or maneuvered by the ogres, though  sometimes the ogres felt talked down to - as they were being talked down  to <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />Reasonably low level and solo,  the wizard could have taken them down. He probably could have cast  spells and fled or maybe killed the ogres but he was roleplaying  correctly that if he didn't get them in the first shot that he was  probably toast. He had the spells to defeat them, but not the will or  motivation. If you have a revolver, are standing 20 feet away from me  and you need to spend some time loading the gun fully to take the 6  shots to take me down.. you better be sure you can do it before I come  up and knock you out. You had also be sure to do it while I'm not  looking, just for good measure. The wizard was a coward being bullied  (unconsciously by the ogres) and not wanting to provoke them into  smashing him into jelly. He would have probably won if it came to it,  but it wasn't a certainty. That distinction is important.They did, but that wasn't relevant to my examples.[quote[It was mostly roleplaying.  In most  roleplaying situations where there is no goal, each person is on equal  footing.  After all, you are mostly just saying what your character says  and does.</blockquote>Mostly, but with the rules we were using  roleplaying and rules (combat rules specifically) mesh a lot. You can  say you are going to run away but that info is on your sheet and you are  defined by it.They  are a continuum. They are opposite and equal ends of the spectrum. You  need imbalance to that people feel distinct and have a certain amount of  one-up-manship over each other. You need balance so that one person  doesn't dominate an encounter (be that a fight or a roleplaying event).  You need the golden middle.I think this argument about imbalance and balance is rather pointless in the long run so I think we can move past it.I've never been able to play one but as I recall there was a dragon in an epic level game in our group.Younger dragons can probably work at 10th or so level. (Or as low as CR 6.. so 7th level party, according to PF. But I think 10th is fine for a dragon in general.)Uncommon to see, but certainly not an impossibility given the right level or conditions.Okay? What does that have to do with  mind flayers? Also what book was that? The only mention of Firbolgs I  can find from a brief search of google says the second MM (which is  3.0).I've been  playing pathfinder for a couple years now, since shortly after the  release of the Core rulebook and Bestiary 1. In that time, do you know  how many aasimars, drow, or tieflings I've seen? All of them were +1 LA  in 3.5 and thus required you to lose a level. In pathfinder they didn't  have this adjustment anymore. I've seen exactly the same amount I saw  when they were +1 LA. The people who play them now are the same ones who  played them before. They enjoy the fluff that goes with the race, not  the stats. They accept the roleplaying consequences that comes with (in  the case of the tiefling) a tail and horns and so they take the +2 dex,  +2 int, -2 cha.That means it is a non-factor of how often you will see non-standard  make up in a party. Monster PCs generally want to be played for being a  monster PC. I have yet to see an all human (or even all PHB-races only)  party at 20th level consisting of 1 fighter, 1 rogue, 1 wizard, and 1  cleric. Never. Not once. Not even close. Not even when mandated by the  DM. I haven't seen that happen at ANY level. I defy your assumption of a  standard party. Monster PCs mean nothing in that equation, as no group  is ever "normal".Which is the same as "I'm a fire evoker. I'm  capable of leveling entire cities, by myself... because I'm 5th level or  higher, at which point I just get better at doing that." So,  comparable. It is different when you have a Fire Giant. It is, we agree.  It is not different enough from a "balance" perspective that I care.  Roleplaying a fire giant has its own problems, as I said. It would be  similar to a necromancer having a giant sign around their neck that  said, "I'm a necromancer, I'm going to bring granny back without her  will. Kill me now, before I raise an army." Except "normal" PCs aren't  forced to wear that sign.I'm  going to convert this into pathfinder, as I can't easily compare  similarly leveled "PCs" in 3.5. A CR 14 adult silver dragon (I'll use  any other CR/dragon combo you want if you choose - just let me know,  this was the first one I happened to open up in the pdf) has the spell  casting ability of.. a caster level 7th. Their most powerful spells,  which are per day btw, are dispel magic and wind wall. Those spells are  3rd level. A CR 14 cleric's (thank you NPC codex!) most powerful spells  are: fire storm and unholy aura and caster level 15. Both of which are  8th level. So, having an insane CHA and a spell list of 8 levels lower  doesn't seem like a huge issue to me.That seems like a problem. You shouldn't allow  those PCs at the same level. Then again, having the same number of  spells (and same quality) as a wizard of 8 levels lower seems perfectly  acceptable to me.And as for ability scores:Dragon: 27, 10,  21, 20, 21, 20. It is an adult dragon. It is also mostly a front line  combatant and so I'll give you the ability scores of the fighter last.Cleric:  15, 12, 18, 10, 24, 8. And this is an NPC. I'm sure a PC could have  higher stats, but that doesn't really matter. Doesn't seem too far  behind.Fighter: 18, 20, 16, 13, 10, 8. STR seems low to me, but again I'm sure that's a NPC-PC divide.The  dragon has great scores. Not the best in all areas, but good scores.  Now, having seen these scores who wouldn't want to be a dragon at CR 14.  And also have spellcasting! Except, again, most people seem to have  little interest in playing it as somehow, with those scores, this ends  up being a sub-par choice. Maybe it is that extra damage against a  specific element and that you can't hide in a town as you will make  waves no matter where you go.Let's go back to that dragon  and dragon-rider scenario I came up with before. Why would the NPCs  assume the dragon was in charge?This  problem isn't unique to dragons. Party enters town with an angel. The DM  could have the villagers do the same thing. DM could do the same if the  party member is an aasimar. Or even if the party member is an elf  depending on the setting. A paladin may be similarly rare to cause  excitement and admiration no matter where they go. All of these, of  course, should now no longer be playable because the DM might decide  to make NPCs consider them the leader when they enter town? I'm going  to figure that isn't what you mean. So why should I assume that what you  said, about the NPCs considering the dragon to be in charge, to be  true?Sounds  like your DM is a bit of a jerk, ignoring the rest of the PCs and even  ignoring what the dragon says. He may not be, he might just have a  specific vision, but in that case if I were the DM I would have  communicated that to the PCs before starting and in such a case it would  not have looked like this either.Fair concerns. Mostly the Monster-PC's  problem as I see it. But it seems likely that if you do a full campaign  with such a PC that you would have a common operating procedure for how  logistics of town workout. Also, adding logistics doesn't mean anything  about how fair, balanced or else while how well a PC works. If it were  then wizards would be disallowed because of the extra bookkeeping.A. When you have a dragon I'm assuming many things are  going to change. What situations do you get when the dragon joins the  party in the first place? Why would he be trying to work for a king?  What is the motivation that causes it to go adventuring any more than  any other dragon in the wider world?B. You could just assume  that the dragon is able to fit. Every door doesn't need to become an obstacle. Why can the PCs wander around freely in a kobold or goblin  cave? Isn't that an obstacle in itself? What is the different here?  Being size medium doesn't convey its own special properties, except that  it is assumed PCs are probably that size.C. Let the  dragon stay outside. Why does he need to go see the king? Chewie didn't  get a medal. That sucks for him, but he's a wookiee. The droids weren't  allowed in the bar because their kind wasn't served there. It sucks for  them, but if they were PCs it was their choice to be droids. They need  to live with it.D. Most dragons can shapechange into something  humanoid. May not be a common thing but it would help them with those  pesky doors. I ignored this for all my previous responses because it  isn't a common thing and I honestly don't like it most of the time and  don't consider it is an intrinsic ability of dragons (no matter that the  book says). I would then say, if flying is a game  breaking ability that you shouldn't allow ANY PC the ability to fly.  Don't allow dragons, pixies, or even wizards to take the spell. Seems  like a blanket coverage could work there. If flying isn't game breaking  then you can allow dragons for that game, at least on that ground. I  don't see the problem here, except that you say certain abilities are  game breaking and that I say if they they are that no one should have  them.While I later talked about roleplaying disadvantages. That wasn't what I said. And so my response remains the same.DON'T  make the disadvantage nebulous. If the only disadvantage you can come  up with is a nebulous (you say roleplaying is always nebulous) one then  don't allow it. Or do allow it and accept that everyone is going to take  it.This  would be the latter. If you are too lazy or otherwise disinclined to  worry about the disadvantage then you shouldn't blame the advantage.  Disallow as a package is my philosophy. If ogres are too powerful that  everyone is taking them and then are amazing wizards (ignoring a  hypothetical ogres can't be wizards rule) then my choices are A.  allowing the powerful ogre-wizards, or B. disallowing ogres entirely. I  don't blame the ogres themselves but I also don't worry about the lazy  DMs who choose not to enforce the "no ogre-wizard" rule.If  the person in question is a member of the party then NO interaction is  impossible. If the PC risks getting into a fight with literally everyone  he talks to then he is going to die or be shunned. That is the choice  the PC is making by taking the traits he did.Using my example  from earlier about the PCs meeting the king and the PC having such a  terrible disposition that the king orders him executed seems apt here.  You say that in that case the PCs should side with him because the king  is overreacting. But if the same rules apply to PCs as they do to NPCs  and that particular member of the party offends people to greatly that  the king orders him dead, then there is NO reason why the PCs should be  siding with him. They may go as far as not killing him but they should  be repulsed and not feel sorry for him. Those are the lots he drew -  intentionally.Why  is the party openly working with this "horrifying and belligerent"  person? Forget that he is an ogre, what roleplaying reason can you give  me that they are working with him? Why not exterminate him in the first  round? Spending 99% of the time just means he has all that much more  interacting with a select few who can go from "okay we have to work with  him, but watch him" to "man this guy is getting on my nerves" to "he is  so ugly/annoying and useless, kill him" far faster than anyone else the  "horrifying and belligerent" person is going to encounter. Why are the  PCs exempt?Is it laziness if the DM  doesn't enforce that disadvantage? Yes. Or at least apathy but given  the scale of the disadvantage, I'm going to go with laziness. He is  unwilling to do it. I don't care why, the disadvantage is fine, the  person applying it is doing it wrong.Which is a non-nebulous disadvantage. As I suggested.If  the only disadvantages you accept are non-roleplaying ones. (I'm sure  I'd allow roleplaying ones on my list but that is beside the point at  the moment) then make sure they all have this level of combat(?)  disadvantage.I  see three problems, the first is that no one else was around to reign  him in. They likely could not have dealt with him on a combat level, but  that doesn't mean they couldn't get him to stop. The mages couldn't  stop him and they were rather behind on the attempt. The module he was  attempting to prove was broken/stupid was probably broken/stupid.  Doesn't mean others couldn't use parts of that module. Nor does it mean  that improvements to a character along those kinds of improvements should  not be attempted. It just proves that you can break something when you  are attempting to break it. I could say the same thing about a lamp.. it  can be used electrocute or stab people. I then smash a lamp and use the frayed wires to electrocute someone and the sharp edges of the light  bulb to cut someone. I have proved my point. That being said, there is  still a great reason to allow these menaces into a household. They  enrich a room, without the lamp your house is darker. You might like it  that way, I prefer my lamps, I hope the 5th edition of WotC allows me to  light my house with lamps.Point proven.Right, and monster PCs are optional rules, even in PF  which has the best version I have seen to date. If I want to come on  Saturday with a dragon PC I have zero expectation that just because it  is "balanced" that it will be allowed. I should probably make a simpler  character as it will be accepted immediately. Again, with that said, I  see no reason why I couldn't bring the dragon PC to the game assuming it  is "balanced".Oh, god, me too.  That is what I tried to do with the book of 9 swords and I found it  woefully wrong. I have since disallowed the book in my game. But it is  one of the two solutions I see, just not my favourite one.It doesn't have to.  Disallow it once it proves to be insane. A dragon PC isn't a problem in  my game. If it becomes a problem in my game, be sure I'm going to do  something about it.Right,  but as you are telling me his point was to break the game that is  exactly how it should have ended up. Disallow someone taking all the  breaking abilities and let them take one or two. Let's say a Dragon with  PC class levels is a broken, a simple Dragon PC may not be. I don't see  how this conversation about your friend's attempt to break the game  using powerful options really relates anymore except to say that those  options shouldn't be introduced in the first place. Over powerful  monster PCs are a problem, powerful monster PCs are not. Some people  might want to use them and some won't, both should be allowed.Did you throw the book out and never use it again? Or did it still have material in it that was acceptable.If a specific monster in the MM is over powerful and broken should the full book be thrown out?I'm  assuming it is the combination of factors that led to that powerful  character, it usually is. Those individual factors are an issue but by  themselves they are not.Gestalt by itself works (with different  assumptions that everyone else has the option) fine. Well even. It  doesn't work when you take 1 level of fighter, 19 wizard, 20 sorcerer.  In that case you end up with a full BAB.. because the wizard and  sorcerer end up being off set. The solution isn't to throw out gestalt,  it is to come up with the solution of fractional BAB.I'm  not positive I understand what you just said but assuming I do.. Those  don't seem remotely equal to me. Seems like it should not be allowed in  the first place. Any ONE of them, fine, but not all combined.Again, "average" guards vs. VERY  abnormal PC was the problem here. If a dragon is part of the team then  the world is going to be different because he is part of the team. It is  the basic assumptions that was the problem here.I never  considered that any monster PC in a party should allow you to run a game  exactly as it is. But I don't see it as any more effort than if the  party was full fighter, full wizard or any other non-standard combo. I  have never encountered a standard combo but that means less over all.I  was recently listening to a kingmaker game (PF adventure path) where  the party didn't have a rogue. No one in the party had the ability to  detect or unlock secret doors, or traps. They managed but it was  different than if they had a rogue in the party. The DM was nice, he  allowed them to find the secret doors, but not the traps, as he NEEDED  to as they would have been unable to proceed without doing so. It was a  published adventure path. The whole game could have gone out of the  window because they lacked a rogue. Having a dragon that could rip  through enemies with insane speed would have been a non-factor if they  couldn't find the secret doors. Power is relative.Yes he could! He  chose the abilities that made him get attacked for no reason. Ignore  that for a second and presume that not all villains know they are  villains. Most of the best villains are doing things because they have  no other choice. Being conscious of it is not a requirement of being  evil.If I understand correctly, he wasn't just walking past. He was pissed off, ugly and unnerving. He was provoking them by being.See  above. He is provoking the PCs too. He went in, unsettled and insulted  the king so much that the king felt himself justified in ordering him  dead. The rest of the party should NOT be on his side, as he unsettles  them too. They should be actively trying to kill him along with the  guards. There might be extenuating circumstances, but I'm assuming  those exist why they would be adventuring with someone who actively  repulses them.By your account the guards in the town were  incapable of challenging the PC. So, the comparison I guess would be.. a  6th level barbarian (I'm guessing?) with rage who is able to single-handedly defeat the entire town of guards. Rage isn't the problem. The  guards being too low is. Too few is another problem. None of them having  access to the same rules the PC is using is another issue.The  problem is your assumptions going in that the entire world is exactly as  it should be if he didn't have those powers.. then giving him those  powers and wondering why everything goes to hell. I don't blame the  powers.. I do but I only blame the combo (at least for now).. it is that  your assumptions never changed.In the world of blind men, the one eyed man is king. I don't blame him having a single eye.. I blame everyone else that didn't.Let  me break this down into two pieces. First, a 20th level (human) fighter  is not and should not ever be compared to a 20th level DRAGON fighter.  At least if that dragon is of any significant level. Those CR 14s from  earlier are ALL the same in PF's rules for PCs. The difference is that  once the PC starts taking that level 14 dragon they are starting at  level 1 fighter.The second part, I'm assuming, relates to  earlier when I talked about how in PF you could eventually remove the  ogre LA so that he would end up with the same amount of levels as a  human fighter. That doesn't happen by 20th and it takes much longer the  greater the CR/LA. Two factors that you don't include when saying dragon  with 20 vs human with 20.Okay, so  6th level is our target? Dragons don't even come into play (still using  PF rules as they are the only ones where this is easy) until CR 6 which  is level 7 wizard. So, 7th level wizard gets one 4th, two 3rd level, in  addition to all the other spells he gets per day. And that excludes all  the myriad of spells he knows and can buy. A CR 6 level white dragon has  spell level capable of casting.. oh yeah nothing because he can't cast  spells at that point. It is the weakest dragon and is still a CR 6 and  can't cast spells vs. the wizard's fly, fireball and .. animate dead? stoneskin? gaes(lesser)? greater invisibility? I could go on.The  dragon's ability to fly seems kinda weak compared to the ability to  hit someone and stay invisible, even if it is all day. The dragon has to  be given other random abilities to try and make up this gap but he  won't even catch up to the wizard's spellcasting ability.Just  as many.. virtually all.. wizard spells do. A cleric can heal and bring  people back from the dead, invalidating trying to kill their HP. The  dragon won't ever have these abilities at the same level. By the time  they rival those abilities the casters will have moved onto bigger and  better things.If your problem with dragons is that they FLY then  you should have the same problem with every other PC capable of flying.  Dragons aren't the problem there. Also, a young dragon.. that CR 6  party member.. is size medium. He can carry party members as well as the  wizard can. Or at least as well as the fighter who has fly cast on him.Okay, so in my  previous example, the player wants to be a wizard but eventually able to  cast miracle. He won't ever get that spell but he gets a lot of other  abilities that makes his class unique. He would have to change PCs and  classes (something you disapprove of) in order to get miracle.The  problem, again, isn't that clerics get miracle. The problem is of  assumptions. Specifically that the PC wants to play a wizard and yet get  miracle NOW. He won't ever have miracle if he stays a wizard and abandoning his wizard means losing "its history, and any emotional  connection you might have with it and starting over again," in order to  get miracle.I wouldn't be  opposed to something like this. I think the LA is too high. I also think  that whatever the PC options are should be the same for DMs.By the time you  can have a huge size (PF) white dragon you are at CR 15 at the lowest.  By that point, the PCs have (assuming core rules) 315k gold. They can be  huge size, will likely have the ability to fly on their own. They won't  need a huge size member of the party to carry them around.What you are really saying is that having a dragon, of at level at any time, might ruin your game and you don't like them.What  I'm saying is that having a dragon, at the right level, it might ruin  my game but I doubt it and I DO like them. And that I should be allowed  to use them. And that if I'm going to use them then the people making  the game should put some effort into it so I can use them appropriately.[/QUOTE]

Verification