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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Halivar" data-source="post: 1574510" data-attributes="member: 9327">You've got to be kidding. On the face of it, this strikes me as a vindictive response to the player, and patently unfair.    The reason why "warrior" is an NPC class only is because fighters without feats suck. That is to say, they are utterly, completely useless to everyone. Fighters are one-trick ponies (did I steal that from someone?). If they are not the primary damage dealers in combat, then just take the fighter class out all together, because they have no other use. Of course, that won't be the end. Eventually you'll have to ban any other melee class he'd cheese, like the paladin or ranger. In the end, bards will be the closest thing to a melee class you've got.    Rest is not to Dannyalcatraz, but to DM's in the audience:   That said, any DM who chases a powergamer around, banning every core class, core feat, or core skill he may want to take (because he will eventually find something else that's powerful, such is the way of the powergamer) ought to spare himself the grief, and the player the frustration, by simply not DM'ing for that player. Let the player join a different campaign where the DM can handle (and prepare for) that player's style of play without ruining the fun for him.   So, in summation: if you ban a core class, feat, or skill because of anything other than campaign setting relevance (i.e. no monks in Middle-Earth), then you need to seriously consider whether or not you are merely trying to overcome an inability to match the players in terms of playing ability. I'm not syaing that's what it is; you just need to consider it, that's all.    So, in summation of my summation: chopping down core rules = not fun = bad. Don't do it.</blockquote>

Verification