>GM has a small pool of classes that he allows
>Roll poorly (10, 16, 12, 11, 10, 12) all even
>Pick rogue because team needs skill monkey and I can't cast shit
>Campaign doesn't go well with rogue (all enemies seem to be immune to sneak attacks, traps are impossible, not even with nat20, and literally every NPC treats me as a criminal)
>Ask GM for help
>GM removes rogue so I should retcon my character but keeping stats
>No other class benefits from my stats, in fact all of them suffer
>Me "does this mean I should change character?"
>GM "If you change character you start at 1st level"
>Me "Then I don't change character?"
>GM "You can't keep playing with your current character as it's"
>Me "Then what should I do?"
>GM "Don't look at me"
Subtle That GM thread?
>>GM removes rogue so I should retcon my character but keeping stats
Why do you get to keep the stats?
>>GM "Don't look at me"
That's a weird response. Personally I would have got you started at lvl 1, but for some reason you get to keep your stats(?). Not only that, the GM can not even answer your meta questions. In the end, sounds like a shit GM.
if backstabs don't work, start frontstabbing npcs. start carving npcs up if you have to. be flagrant about theft and burn the spoils. become TDK Joker until you find a new group, because the GM of that campaign sounds like a tool.
Not exactly, either I change to another class while keeping stats or I start with a new class at 1st level and rerolling. We're currently at 6th level (we started at 3rd).
Classes allowed are:
Variant sorcerer with medium BaB and light armor
Variant druid without wildshape
There was also rogue but instead of fixing it or changing the enemies and traps GM decided to remove it.
Are you the only one in your group or does your GM demand this?
Also don't do this >>45090143 you can always just quit the game, from what you're saying I suspect your GM is trying to get you to quit anyway because that's just unreasonable and stupid. He's a cunt but that's no reason to ruin everyone else's fun.
>Are you the only one in your group or does your GM demand this?
I am the GM. I should have clarifed though that my whole group does. And it is not because I am an "dictator-GM" (so to speak) but rather because both they and I prefer to play these type of games this way. My breed is dying out though...
This harsh gamer style like this can be fun played a few games this way myself and while i enjoyed the unique aspect of it i could tell right away that if a sub par GM would atempt this the game would be a utter shit fest hope you as a GM can pull the weight you set on your game with this rules
>Not exactly, either I change to another class while keeping stats or I start with a new class at 1st level and rerolling.
Being a GM (and a player) that grew up with games were you restarted from, and I still do play these games, scratch no matter what level, how are you allowed to change class but keep your stats? :curious: That sounds like a weird rule.
My problem with your GM is not the fact that you had to restart but rather that he will not answer your questions/objections about it. Which begs the question doesn't it? What are you guys playing? An actual old-school dungeon crawler (that is what I and my group play) or a more "modern" type of RPG? It doesn't seem like your GM even can answer that question.
>GM has small pool of classes he allows.
And out the door you should have went. A good GM will allow most classes and adapt to keep it difficult and entertaining, DMs who like to limit are bad.
>how are you allowed to change class but keep your stats? :curious: That sounds like a weird rule.
retcon, I never was a rogue, I was other thing, at least that's what I understand from his explanation.
Supposedly is a precon campaign, but I dunno which, lots of undead and elementals.
>There was also rogue but instead of fixing it or changing the enemies and traps GM decided to remove it.
>GM has a small pool of classes that he allows
Legitimate question: Have either of you ever been diagnosed with autism?
>retcon, I never was a rogue, I was other thing, at least that's what I understand from his explanation.
>Supposedly is a precon campaign, but I dunno which, lots of undead and elementals.
I am curious, what type of game are you guys playing? Is is a crawler?
>Legitimate question: Have either of you ever been diagnosed with autism?
Nope. Have you? Because your question is retarded to begin with isn't it? Because why would you otherwise (i) stop us from having fun (?) (ii) look down upon how RPGs typically were played?
>Huh? RPGs were once upon a time commonly played as crawlers. How am I wrong?
>once upon a time
once upon a time you would shit on the ground instead of using toilet. doing it now would make you retarded
>start 5e game
>go barb because I'm tired of playing smart characters.
>having the time of my life, I'm actually role playing.
>GM tells us the port officials are getting tired of our shit.
>captain says we should leave immediately.
Me:"why don't we just fight them"
Captain:"y-yeah, how many guards they got?"
>only 25 guards.
>we have 40 slaves and because of my asshole (literally) we have 10 veterans and a Minotaur.
>we set up some defences
>DM goes to do combat rolls.
>he rolls his eyes.
DM:"fuck this. I just wanted you guys to go on pirate adventures. Not take over towns. You all die. Roll new characters. We're starting a new game"
I was having fun too.
>once upon a time you would shit on the ground instead of using toilet. doing it now would make you retarded
Ah, so in the end you are retarded then? I am curious, why can't we appreciate crawlers today? Why are people who play crawlers retarded?
OSR is fine but needs a DM who knows how to run a game that keeps it fun for everyone. Player rolled up a character concept that's a core part of the game. DM then hacked the game to eliminate other options. DM then set up the plot to make that character concept obsolete.
Player goes to DM with problem, suddenly he throws up his hands and says "my hands are tied I can't change the game" only he's ALREADY changed it several times, which is what lead to the fuckup.
Now honestly in an OSR game, I'd see those stats and think "wizard" because it may not be 18 but it's close enough. Plus a racial template that adds to INT might help (assuming the DM hasn't banned them).
But if the DM is reacting this way, it means one of two things. Either he's passive aggressively trying to force the player out or he's a fuckup as a DM. You need a decent DM to run this kind of game.
So to me these stats aren't that bad and yeah I could make do and have fun, but the signals the DM is sending out suggest he should just quit and get it over with. Bonus shit points to him for not simply kicking you out. 90% of That G* problems stem from passive aggressiveness.
If you do ever run a game, don't invite the DM. Don't make a big thing of it or explain why; if people ask just say "meh, I don't think he's a good fit for this game". The goal isn't to teach him a lesson (that would be passive aggressive too), it's to avoid playing with dicks. You work to keep good players and disinvite shitty ones. Over a period of years, this eventually lead to my group being large, talented, and fun. We've got three excellent DMs and another four who are pretty good, so no Forever DM problem.
Gotta understand. 80% of this guys games end because someone managed to fuck (rape) something they shouldn't have. The DMs roommate was literally that guy. Always making the edgiest characters.
>This is why GM's should make it clear at the VERY start as to what kind of campaign they want to run and make sure that all of the players are on the same page.
My point exactly. In OPs example it doesn't seem like the GM and his players are on the same page. A clarification would mitigate that.
>Campaign doesn't go well with rogue (all enemies seem to be immune to sneak attacks, traps are impossible, not even with nat20, and literally every NPC treats me as a criminal)
For some reason the NPC's acting like they know whats written on his character sheet bothers me more than anything else.
>Neckbeards who roll for stats are far from the worst sort of That GM.
Of course they are. Because, typically (if you have a GM worthy of that title), there is a reason for why that is the case.
So to be clear, the issue here is that your character isn't the most powerful in the group and you see that as an issue because you think you are 'good' at DnD and naturally you should have the most powerful character in the group and possibly even be the leader?
>Campaign doesn't go well with rogue (all enemies seem to be immune to sneak attacks,
Question, are they all skeletons, oozes and other similar anatomy-less things, or is the GM making normal monsters immune too? If the latter, he's being horribly stupid and an atrocious dick. Either confront him or just slap him and leave.
If the former, is it so because your group deliberately, and with freedom of choice, goes into situations where such enemies should be expected (like exploring the Skeleton King's Finest Museum of Undead Oozes), or does he just keep throwing them at you without reason or railroading you into such encouters? Because that's prime material for slap and leave too.
>traps are impossible, not even with nat20
This is absolute bullshit.
>and literally every NPC treats me as a criminal)
Did they catch you doing thief stuff? Do you walk around wearing black leather and a mask all day long? Have you earned (with your behavior in game) this treatment, or is it just a bullshit-ex-machina from your loving GM?
>instead of fixing it or changing the enemies and traps GM decided to remove it.
This is stupid, amateurish, dickish and also more stupid. There is absolutely no reason to not put at least a decent number of monsters subsceptible to your skills and situations in which your abilities do matter. Not to mention again the traps idiocy.
The whole "Restart at first level, keep stats, rogue squatted" is the icing on the cake.
Why haven't you left yet?
>Yeah, exactly that, literally that in fact, incredible you were able to deduce it so fast.
What about my question then? "I am curious, what type of game are you guys playing? Is it a crawler?"
Hence why the DM has to balance the game appropriately for an OSR game. The power level, especially early in the game, is very low and you can't balance encounters the same way.
No, shit you're right I was thinking he could assign traits, not in order rolled. My bad.
Very much what this guy said. And especially that part about "well you can reroll but you'll be first level".
He's either passive aggressive and trying to get you to quit or an incompetent GM. Either way, quit.
Just roleplay the shit out of it and have fun you fucking little bitch. So fucking what if your Rogue sucks. Roleplay as a Rogue who sucks. Be creative. You don't have to be the allstar every fucking game queerbait.
There is more here than simple disagreement over stats and level.
There should be a certain amount if trust between DM and players.
Op has none. No group chi. There is nothing that will "fix" this.
New group time op.
I once had a rogue who's highest stat was a 11. He had 2 4's.
Traits? He had a bad cough ( big minus to stealth), and a limp ( big minus to dex based checks), those minuses stacked BTW.
He was a murderous little psycho. Cowardly and weak. He'd steal from the homeless. He'd kill children for their food.
Eventually captured and hanged. I didn't cry about him tho.
Well, we go into dungeons, but is not the usual, combats seem to be "easy" because, due me not being able to help like at all (not even flaking because undead and elemental), the rest of the group still deals with them, we still didn't die though we fell unconscious on daily basis, so I don't think is a meatgrinder kind of game. GM also didn't say it was going to be a meatgrinder kind of game, didn't say much about the game in fact, for example, in this world undeads and elementals seem to be common as fuck (we realized this at 6th level) and are used as labor, cannon fodder, etc. Then all medium BEGs seem to be vampire spawns, weak litches, etc.
And no, if you ask I don't know the name of the plane, neither of us have knowledge: Planes.
>No other class benefits from my stats, in fact all of them suffer
That's bullshit. You've got good enough stats (with appropriate level wealth) to play either a WIS or CHA caster. Hell, you could do pretty well as a Witch.
Here we go.
>Well, we go into dungeons, but is not the usual, combats seem to be "easy" because, due me not being able to help like at all (not even flaking because undead and elemental), the rest of the group still deals with them, we still didn't die though we fell unconscious on daily basis, so I don't think is a meatgrinder kind of game. GM also didn't say it was going to be a meatgrinder kind of game, didn't say much about the game in fact, for example, in this world undeads and elementals seem to be common as fuck (we realized this at 6th level) and are used as labor, cannon fodder, etc. Then all medium BEGs seem to be vampire spawns, weak litches, etc.
>And no, if you ask I don't know the name of the plane, neither of us have knowledge: Planes.
I wouldn't ask for the name of the plane. That is of no interest. However this whole situation seems weird to me. It is not the fact that the GM surprises you, use you as meatbags, and introduces what you will be facing from now on at lvl 6, that is undead and elementals in this example. But rather that, if I interpret the situation correctly, that he hasn't been clear about what type of campaign he is going for.
To give you an example, I only GM OSR games. Those games are honest. The players, that join these games know what I expect of them. Typically the players are facing a dungeon to defeat. Sometimes that particular dungeon twists and turns, to give them a challenge. For instance in the beginning of january I was running a campaign where the players were situated inside a sleeping god. It was of course treated as a crawler. As that god was twisting and turning in his sleep certain passage ways closed and new ones opened. To me it sounds like you, nor your friends (?), knew what they were going into. That is, your GM was unclear what type of game he was going to present. If that is the case that is in my mind anyway a poor GM. Perhaps a newbie.
>But we haven't been informed, have we?
What I'm hearing here about the player getting screwed in encounters to the point that the DM has removed the whole rogue class sounds like that's exactly what's happening.
>What I'm hearing here about the player getting screwed in encounters to the point that the DM has removed the whole rogue class sounds like that's exactly what's happening.
So? My problem with this whole ordeal is not whether the GM banned/removed certain classes or not but rather the fact that he does not seem to be honest. He should have let his players know these things. The fact that he does not seem to asnswer OPs questions further demonstrates that something is very wrong with this game.
>The DM is beyond help or hope.
I would generally agree. But, has OP or whomever else talked to the guy about this particular game? Perhaps this particular GM is simply a youngster and need some guidance?
>(all enemies seem to be immune to sneak attacks, traps are impossible, not even with nat20, and literally every NPC treats me as a criminal)
This is where the red flags stop simply going up and start waving and glowing and growing alarms to scream with.
Locks are often a good measuring stick actually. If getting into a peasant's home even requires a check, start keeping track. If most doors in a dungeon don't open on a 20+, something's wrong. 30 is shit like a "high noble's lockbox-of-truly-most-treasonous-papers", and if you can't open a lock with a 45, demand to know HOW you've gotten this close to a GREATER GOD'S personal motherfucking stash safe.
Also if everyone always treats you like a criminal (assuming you're not dressed in an orange jumpsuit covered in bloodied knives) no matter what, you're being targeted by the GM, HE is That Guy.
Young can imply lack of knowledge and such.
Young doesn't imply "flat out fucking over players".
We can work on the first one..the other is a personality trait, that can't be fixed.
>Young doesn't imply "flat out fucking over players".
Does he believe that he is doing that though? In the end whatever answer to the question is quite meaningless until we get a clarification from OP in this case. I do agree with you generally though.
>It's the first time I play with this dude but he's not young and, according to the rest of the players, he's being GMing for over a decade.
Since I am curious, did you know what you were getting into? Or is he what I suspect he is (?), that is a dishonest asshole?
In order? Not really since I prefer to fill gaps in the party. But I always roll stats whenever I can, even if it's normally a point buy. I have nothing against in order if that's what the party is doing though.
>I was invited by his younger brother who I met in college
And he told you nothing about the game at all, besides it being a DnD RPG? I am curious about these questions mostly because the type of games that I enjoy, that is dungeon crawlers, are dying basically. So when I hear about people blaming GMs for (i) "this and that" and (ii) "leave the group idiot!", I typically defend the GM. The example you bring up though is quite representative these days. It seems that GMs in general, nowadays, sadly can't handle dungeon crawlers...
>No, not really
If that is the case it is on him indeed. If you want to give it another go I would recommend talking, in private, with him about his campaign and your particular character. If you don't, in your case I would consider it justified, just leave. If you would have been a scandinavian I would have invited you to one of our tables to show you what, and how a OSR campaign is typically played...
I kinda talked already with the GM when I asked for help about being useless, he wasn't straightforward either and didn't give me any option beyond "now rogue is banned, reroll or retcon".
Maybe is a family thing not inform people about what are they going to do though.
Regarding sneak: Sometimes the only way to get your point across is to ask specific questions whenever it's denied.
>Do I get sneak on this guy?
>Is he HUMAN?
>Is he flanked - which he is - or flatfooted - which he also is?
>um, well yes
>*grabs the extra d6s* SO THAT'S A YES THEN.
>I kinda talked already with the GM when I asked for help about being useless, he wasn't straightforward either and didn't give me any option beyond "now rogue is banned, reroll or retcon".
It is that bad? If it is, leave him.
Or he - being hated by all as a criminal anyways no matter what - could just go straight for the unnamed peasantry and ask full details on each and every one of them that he stabs every time they're apparently immune. If asked what he's doing, "Learning how to play my class. Apparently I don't know how to do sneak damage, so I'm checking the ratio of people that are immune vs non-immune to sneak damage. I figure it shouldn't take more than a couple of thousand, and this way I finally get to do something useful in the party instead of stand there uselessly. It'll be nice if at least ONE of my class abilities finally works after all"
If he can't take that level of no-longer-passive aggressiveness as a clue...
The GM banned rogue.
I suggest he use a different class that doesn't have sneak attack, and proceed to SCIENCE his way to the discovery of sneak attacks, by stabbing anyone and everyone that talks to the party in the back of the head until he gains the ability.
>World with undeads and elementals used as cannon fodder, minion, labor, etc
>A class with precission damage exists
Wut? this makes no sense, so a rogue tries to infiltrate an enemy base, how does he deal with the undead sentries and elemental guards in case he gets spotted? how does he kill the vampire spawn lord?, this makes no fucking sense
What makes you think the world is made for your special snowflake to overcome?
Classes have strengths and weaknesses. I admit the GM of OP's campaign was probably gunning for him, but the class has other areas of expertize.
Also try thinking outside of the box. Someone to set up traps, take out the ones controlling the undead, scouting, ect. People need some imagination, not just "what does it do when I swing weapons?"
well it's not like he could sneak attack the ones controlling the undead.
additionally, guaranteed if all his other stuff wasn't working neither was stealth.
setting traps is not recommended when you can't make them even harder than the ones you can't disable. It implies the level of trapfinding in that world is so high that an incompetent retard child like his character could never make them tough to deal with.
What? thats not the same as all. Dragon hunters would exsist if there were dragons.
Are the players undead? Are there any living things in the world? Im going out on a limb and saying the world, PROBABLY, has living creatures in it that can be SA and crit. I dont think, purely conjecture here, that the entire world lives in peace and only fights undead.
The rogue would be completely believable and useful, unless the party is literally fighting ONLY undead. If thats the case, its a GM fault, not a class fault. Sometimes your good at fighting shit, sometimes you find a better way to fight it that isnt 'stab harder'
In order, no, they're not. Except for a rogue.
No martial can use 10 strength well. No caster can use any of those mental stats. A bard could maybe get by the first few levels, he'd be not great but he'd at least be able to TRY to roll for everything and maybe get some info about monsters, and give the good party members his buffs for a little bit. Only rogue looks at that statline as anything worth writing home about.
Those stats work perfectly for a sorcerer
>b-but only cha 12
You only can't cast spells higher than 2nd level, but you still have the spell slots, also at 8th level you rise cha to 13, and keep doing it every 4 levels.
>want to play again
>one of the players has the idea of starting a new, secondary group playing Dungeon World
>nice, something light to play when I don't have the time to prepare for the primary round, and not a ton of new rules to learn
>get a bunch of new players to join, the system is easy after all
>play several sessions, some of the players turn out to be masters of derailing the rather simple plot
>then it happens, my character kills himself while rescuing the dumbass wizard
>oh well, I liked that character, but shit happens
>start creating new character
>"Oh, by the way, stats are being rolled now."
>what I rolled: 15, 12, 9, 9, 8, 8 (one stat may be replaced with a 12 at least, so the final result is 15, 12, 12, 9, 9, 8, in total 65 stat points)
>level 1 standard is: 16, 15, 13, 12, 9, 8, in total 73 stat points
>you can only raise one attribute by one point when leveling up
>mfw the character will have to level up to level 9 to have the stats of a level 1 character
>mfw characters that reach level 11 are automatically lost and you start with a new character, as per Dungeon World rules
>mfw I'll have to play a gimped character for 8 levels out of 10
Not sure if I'm gonna roll with it. Time to wrap up the primary round's campaign so I can play again.
>Give players the house vote: Point buy or roll
>That guy convinces the other players rolling is better, he once had a character with all 18's!
>Everyone knows that guy cheats on his rolls, but he sounded so confident!
>Party landslides point buy.
>Give them one more warning: If you choose this, you stay with what you roll, could be all 8's
>They all get really confused when I say to roll it now. That guy trying to think of reasons not to.
>Go around, one at a time.
>Entire group is hitting 11's all day
>That guy insists he should roll at home. Gets super fucking butt hurt when he gets a 15 as his highest.
Cunts begged me to let them point buy. I like rolling and taking what the gods give you, but I like to give my players a choice, even if they are shitty people.
>I view TTRPGs as a purely mechanical exercise
>I never come up with ideas myself, just roll INT or WIS
>Inventive solutions are pointless when our campaigns are just a few bits of in-character chat in between dozens of simple combat encounters
And this is why TTRPGs are dying of cancer.
If the DM is always right, then literally all anyone has to do in order to be a good DM is to technically be a DM and say "I'm a good DM."
>Your character died because your sister turned me down for sex. Roll up a new one. Level one.
>But the party is level twelve.
>Shut the fuck up and roll me a level one character. And tell your sister she's a bitch. Call her up. Put her on speaker phone, and say it then hang up. Do it.
>Wow, you're a shitty person and a shitty DM.
>Actually, I'm a great DM.
This person is a good DM because they said they were and the DM's always right.
Not always an option, unfortunately. Myself and a few friends started a new group because the only other DM in our area is a That DM. We literally cut the group in half and now both groups are kinda small to run anything really comfortably. Finding new players is redicu-hard.
>Another has +15
>Literally can do anything you do but better
What's the point of you being in the group?
How many delta teams have crippled dudes in a wheelchair and with downs?
Found the shitposters.
For those that have no reading skill...
>"Campaign doesn't go well with rogue (all enemies seem to be immune to sneak attacks, traps are impossible, not even with nat20, and literally every NPC treats me as a criminal)"
This is the obvious sign of a DM dicking with a character that is easily rolled by simple bullshit. He might have went 16 dex, but without any finesse in getting by assholes (+1 in CHA isn't enough to get by town guards as a rogue) You're just screwed. Not to mention rolling real good... you don't get shit. Also with no bonus in Intelligence, I don't care if the Rogue gets a good skill multiplier, you're still not gonna get a good number of ranks to keep you out of trouble, particularly if the DM is more than likely putting the DC 1 higher than the max possible.
One thing OP... you can't crit skill checks, but if you're built like a proper roll, you shouldn't have to roll a 20 to do things your rogue should be doing.
This isn't subtle, This is a THAT GUY DM.
It's not about people having better stats, it's that sometimes you just don't want to play yet another rogue or whatever because the dice gave you mediocre stats in everything but your 15 in one stat. Both ways are legitimate, they're just different.
Oh and excuse me was trying to type and deal with a distraction...
>"One thing OP... you can't crit skill checks, but if you're built like a proper rogue, you shouldn't have to roll a 20 to do things your rogue should be doing."
I really hate when someone I'm getting verification on my numbers and research is looking over my shoulder. A simple bloody response would suffice.
>fuck this. I just wanted you guys to go on pirate adventures. Not take over towns.
Is this nigga high? Pirates regularly raided towns and villages, they didn't restrict their shit to the sea only. Hell they often took over small isolated ports for their own use. A smart GM would have let you guys have it as a base of operations. What a cunt.
>rolled high str/con when I wanted to become wizard
>become transmutation wizard and use beast shape to turn into bear and fuck shit up
Creativity is when you have fun anon. Being min/maxed to shit can be boring.
Different style of play, anons. >>45100006 prefers the rules as a way of structuring roleplaying. >>45100139 prefers the rules as a game to be beaten, wherein the exact details of the character are things one cannot predict and to which one has to adapt as well.
It could easily be something other than being min-maxed to shit. "I want to play a wizard who's brittle as fuck but VERY intelligent, and generally likeable, if a litle impulsive" suggests fairly specific D&D stats, and can come from a place totally unrelated to wanting to be THE MOST OPTIMIZED CHARACTER EVER.
>"I want to play a wizard who's brittle as fuck but VERY intelligent, and generally likeable, if a little impulsive"
you described the most generic and cliche'd wizard in every dnd game ever.
Its such a cliche, that min max is almost better.
I see your point anon. I just think you're giving faaaaaar too much credit to players that do that.
99/100, it ain't about roleplay or some neat character concept.
You have no method of proving you were correct or not, and rolling stats or not only proves or disproves those accusations in your own little world.
You are literally making shit up about people to feel better about your own decisions and preferences. If you like rolling for stats, I ain't gotta knock ya for it, but I am gonna knock you for being a massive elitist prick.
I don't understand what the point of redistributed rolls is. If you roll for every stat in order, then that gives you a creative exercise in coming up with a character concept from those rigid guidelines. But rearranging them gives none of that guidance, but all of the chance for getting fucked over.
My uni has
>Separate clubs for rpgs, tabletop, SCA and general scifi/fantasy appreciation
>All get funding for communal rulebooks, pizza, camps etc
>75% of the campaigns I've joined through them have been good. Literally no problem SJWs, ThatGuys or ThatGMs
>Get to play our rpgs sitting in the lounges on the 8th floor looking out over the city skyline with surround sound atmospheric music and enormous touchscreens for battlemaps etc
>Membership costs $2
Don't play a game where the GM forces everyone to roll for stats because "lel pointbuy is badwrongfun". There's nothing wrong with a player wanting to make a character using rolled stats, but when a GM forces their players to do so, that's just shitty and a sign of That GM.
And the GM should not gargle balls by the pound.
If they started at level 3, then making the new character start at level 1 is not comparable. So the GM is inconsistent.
Next the party is at 6, the average damage will instantly kill any level 1 character. So its stupid to think that makes sense.
Amazingly you gargle as much balls as the GM to think that a GM that can't even make a rogue work is in anyway capable of balancing anything in the game, and only allowing certain classes the GM is clearly trying to make a railroad.
The only context where you do use rolled stats is one where everyone uses the same system, so that everyone is on about the same level.
Then again, the only context where you use rolled stats is one where you have enough classes to make an archetype to fit your stats. So we've already crawled up the rabbit's butthole.
I'd love to GM that way but my players would bitch and moan.
They bitch and moan about almost everything.
Someone takes a hit?
That's a bitching.
That's a big bitching fit.
I need new players and friends.
Yes, the horror of not being able to enjoy a game because RNG shot you out a Monk with 13 as their highest stat.
I know there's lots of macho posturing here about rolled stats by the grognards, but most people don't enjoy it as a system. There's a reason the systems that have it as a mandatory are few and far between.
Again, more macho posturing. It's a pretty gross fantasy that people promote here to "rolled stats are the TRUE way to play the game". Most people don't like rolled stats because it prevents them playing whatever they feel like. And anyone who enforces that outdated, archaic system like it's Sharia Law, then they're being That GM and can go get fucked for all I care. I can have fun with rolled stats plenty, but pretending its a good standard system when it isn't is a load of pretentious grognard shit.
That's a lot of words to use, just to make it clear to everyone that you love cock.
We get it faggot.
Now go watch some anime. And rinse your mouth. Don't try to talk about ttrpgs.
Ok, ignoring the several real world pirates that captured port towns, I have a question; Were you the only one having fun?
If you were, the DM was probably trying to get the game to somewhere others might enjoy.
If not, however, get the group to call him on it. Thats a bullshit, dick move and you shouldnt stand for it.
So, wait. Wanting to maybe control what I have to play as for several months, if not years, makes me a faggot?
Should I roll for race too? Class? What abilities or spells I take? Should I roll for my decisions? Should I just get a fucking random number generator to play for me?
Nah dude. You can roll if you want but ya don't have to. It aint even about minmaxing, its about wanting to play specific things and not fuck the group over. I dunno about you but if I rolled shit sorc stats, triied ro play a sorc and sucked ass because of it, my party would get pissed off with me. Worse again if I fucking get them killed.
Point buy is wrong, in One Shots, those you should make completely random characters and see how they solve the problem, because its a single session game. So really stupid builds are fine.
In games that go more than one session, the point buy is the best because it allows for consistency between players and a baseline of power that the DM can use.
Reminder that in systems built with rolling for stats in mind, most of them will fall in the range where they have little effect if any, and no stats will save you from doing something stupid, rolling poorly, and dying anyway.
I still see no reason to ban certain classes, even core ones, and gimp others needlessly.
I mean, the lad has such shit stats he couldn't be broken. Just let him play a vanilla sorc or fighter for fuck sake.
>no stats will save you from doing something stupid, rolling poorly, and dying anyway.
Never played D&D back then, so I wouldnt know.
Still, considering he cant switch them around, and he had like 10 Cha, I doubt he'd need to be gimped as a sorc. I think someone mentioned he'd not be able to cast any spell above 2nd level, thats enough of a nerf surely?
He has a point though. I mean, for those types of games I would just go point buy though.
But it is a good idea to mix in games where you do roll random stats, so that your default response to problems in all your games doesn't become just "stab harder" as someone else put it.
>I still see no reason to ban certain classes, even core ones, and gimp others needlessly.
Depends on the system and setting more than anything, too many factors to give a blanket answer. Maybe sorcerers just don't exist in the area, Drow get executed on sight, and the dungeon the DM has prepared just doesn't work with a class that has easy access to teleportation or polymorph.
It's not that much of a problem in earlier editions, again. 3e is ridiculous when it gets to the amount of classes, especially when you start adding supplements and prestige classes.
In either case, I'd rather see a class banned outright or at least be heavily implied to be a bad idea than what OP's describing.
I can see where yer coming from but theres some cases where it makes like no sense.
The DM banned fighters. Fucking figjters. I see no logic to it. I mean, does no one ever retire from the military? Is there no such thing as mercenaries? I see no setting reason, nor a mechanical one. The fighter is almost never op. I cant think of a single instance where it is.
Is there something Im missing? Cause, it seems to me, the DM is just being an asshole arbitrarily. Or this is well disguised bait.
>Is there something Im missing? Cause, it seems to me, the DM is just being an asshole arbitrarily. Or this is well disguised bait.
Not saying I'm agreeing with the way OP's DM did it. I could maybe see him banning fighter because it's considered underpowered in 3.x, but then he's allowing monks, so I don't have a clue.
I've considered banning casters (since my setting doesn't have magic) along with rogues and fighters for being underpowdered and monks because my setting has no eastern kung-fu influences in it.
I know you aint agreeing dude. Its just Im a DM myself and Im a bit of a noob DM so Im tryna wrap my head around this.
Even if its bullshit, I might be able to draw some useful experience or info from it. Hell, I now know 3.5 fighters are underpowered badly, as are monks. Im running 5e for now but if we try 3.5 or PF again thatll be useful info
Couldn't a Monk also be a monastic monk that swore a vow to never take up arms as well though?
I know its usually skinned as "Shin Tsao, Madter of a Thousand Strikes" and shit but it could be "Father O'Malley, Belligerent Alcoholic Boxer"
There's "out of your comfort zone", and then there's "utterly useless in all circumstances no matter what", and rolling stats in order is liable to create the latter quite often.
True, but I'd say the opposite can happen in point buy. Characters who are so optimized they won't have any meaningful obstacles in front of them. I like both, it just seems that the people in this thread seem perplexed as to how rolling stats can be fun.
>Characters who are so optimized they won't have any meaningful obstacles in front of them
HOW? No, seriously, how? If you're pointing points one place, those points are not in another.
>Rolling Characteristics for Only War
>Heavy rolls exceptionally bad
>Don't recall the exact numbers, but most weren't over single digits, two twos, highest roll was fifteen, not even a saving reroll in there
>GM: "Yeah... You get a reroll but keep the second."
>Heavy rolls pretty average stats and the incident is forgotten
He's just an average GM, for an average world.
>>GM has a small pool of classes that he allows
Totally fine in games like D&D3.5 where faggots come in with dandwiki homebrew classes.
>>Roll poorly (10, 16, 12, 11, 10, 12) all even
those numbers are fine
>>Pick rogue because team needs skill monkey and I can't cast shit
You don't need anything. The DM should work with the tools the party has.
>>Campaign doesn't go well with rogue (all enemies seem to be immune to sneak attacks, traps are impossible, not even with nat20, and literally every NPC treats me as a criminal)
Like I said. DMs shouldn't be throwing things at you where people feel useless.
>and literally every NPC treats me as a criminal
You're a rogue, you are a criminal.
>>No other class benefits from my stats, in fact all of them suffer
Those stats are fine for plenty of classes.
>>GM "If you change character you start at 1st level"
That's some bullshit
It's implied that the order of rolled numbers is the stats he had to put them in. So if he tried to be, say, a wizard, he'd have average intelligence and wisdom, oddly high dex, and unusually high constitution.
>Save the princess so the King can rule without fretting for her safety
>Still get treated like shit by the guards
>Advocate for leaving the town when it comes under attack from undead
>And now I'm the bad guy all of the sudden.
I think my biggest problem is dump statting. I've had too many experiences where it's one CHA character and the others dump that to a 6 so they can shore up their other stats. So i guess it's more that the party as a whole can easily cover all the bases through min/max. I'm not saying it happens all the time, but it does happen.
On another note I think it can be fun to play with non traditional stat roles. Like a fighter who, yes, has a great strength roll, but lacks con so he is a little more cautious. Maybe his dex is decent so he favors light armor and puts ranks into acrobatics so he can move out of combat easily if he needs to. Its not very often that i see a fighter like that and i think thats because people are afraid to push away from what's recognized as the most effective and safe. I think rolling for stats can get some of that creativity going. I recognize it's not for everyone, but i find that when players try it, they usually have a good time. Although this does require a dm who is flexible, understanding, and willing to build a campaign around non optimized characters, so i can understand the hesitation.
>what I have to play as for several months, if not years
Not with the startolling dungeoncrawling crowd.
They don't give a shit about that because they'll soon enough end up in a ditch underground and they'll just roll up a new one, join the group and keep trucking.
Literally leave, anon.
If your only "option" is to start at lvl 1 and he removed the rogue from play mid game when you were already playing the class, he's a shit dm.
Fuck, he's a shit DM for having traps at all with no classes that can trigger them safely.
If he's your friend, he is not an actual friend and hates you quite a bit.
>small pool of classes
means he might just be a raging asshole.
Current DM seems to hate literally any non-combat anything during combat.
Might just consider quitting at this point, to be frank. I'm saying I enjoy playing, but I'm really not sure why.
>Ask DM what classes the party needs, feel like playing anything
>roll up a rouge
>theres a level 6 NPC rouge he didn't tell me about, party is level 3, I'm level 2.
>life cleric and devotion paladin
>last 2 are wizard and wild sorc
>wizard reads a scroll they find in combat, hoping it might help
>it blinds him
>fighting a wraith with a coffin it came out of
>go towards the coffin, hopefully I can fuck up the body and make it dissapate or something
>coffin lid shocks me
>DM says "it's trapped"
>The fuck who traps a single coffin
>search for traps
>the ENTIRE ROOM is covered in traps
>we're more than 3/4ths of the way through the temple
>only this room is trapped
>all the traps are magically gone. they were only there for the combat (literally says this)
>open the coffin lid after triple checking for traps anyway
>golden sword hilt
>pick it up
>burns me after asking my alignment (CE)
>recommend to the paladin that he picks it up
>sickass magical sword
>pally gets 150 exp for "finding" dawnbringer
>I get 100 for finding traps, the only roll above 9 i've done in 4 sessions
>he also awards EXP for getting the monster kill(s), not participation in the fight
Should I just leave? I know we're running out of the abyss, but I feel like an early level campaign shouldn't feel THIS railroady, especially in combat.
I should mention, he literally looked at me and the guy playing the wizard when we were doing things in an attempt to help outside just attacking at range (with pitiful damage)
Said something along these lines
>"shouldn't be doing non-combat stuff in combat, so you're getting punished for it"
Nigger I'm trying to help how the fuck am I supposed to sneak around or shit in combat when the walls are literally glowing.
Railroading is also the wrong term, but I don't know what the fuck to call it.
>traps are impossible, not even with nat20
Which version is this?
Because I'm fairly certain that in most (if not all) editions
correct me if I'm wrong but this does look like D&Dthere exists no such thing as a "Natural 20" when it comes to skill checks.
It's a specifically attack roll related rule.
inb4 my life is a lie and I've been doing it wrong for years.
I joined this since I'm tired of GMing with my friends, none of them enjoy doing it but they also are super flaky so can't do the long sessions I'd enjoy.
I'm also new to this place while the GM's been going for years and old friends with what I'm fairly sure is the owner.
Not 100% sure but I think in 3.X and maybe other versions nat 20's have a thing written as they count as +10/30 to the roll.
>Not 100% sure but I think in 3.X and maybe other versions nat 20's have a thing written as they count as +10/30 to the roll.
Hm, maybe 3.0, but it says on page 63 of the PHB for 3.5 that 1s and 20s are not automatic failures/successes.
Could be from an errata I didn't see, which is part of why I'm asking.
yeah, that's what I mean.
Like they don't count as automatic sucesses failures/sucesses so its a +10 or +5 beyond a normal 20, just on the 1/20 chance they could do something they wouldn't normally be unable to do otherwise, but without a 10 in the relevant skill they wouldn't be able to hit 40 which is "actually impossible" skill check.
maybe it was the DMG?
That's how I usually run it, in any case, as a roll of 25 or roll of 30 depending on the character/test.
Well, taking the lazy man's way out, I couldn't find it on d20srd either, but eh.
It's not that unreasonable a system mind you, and I see why you'd run it.
Personally, while I don't give game-play bonuses to nat20s on skill checks, I do sometimes add flavour based on the situation. (i.e. one of the PC bards basically got a licence to enter a nobleman's court at any time, by being especially impressive in a performance.)
That's one of the most common and intuitive houserules in the game, as far as I know.
Sounds reasonable, but shouldn't be applicable as often as it may seem on /tg/: unless the PCs are in way over their head (even by adventurers' in-over-their-head standard) or trying something they don't have a skill in, skill checks shouldn't be beatable on more than 15+, anyway.
Don't know man, for me that was always the Take 20s job, to allow for guaranteed success (within ability).
Sounds wrong to me that you'd be able to pick a lock that only the most experienced people in the kingdom can pick with a 5% chance, even at level 1.
>Railroading is also the wrong term, but I don't know what the fuck to call it.
Encountered it before. Personally I call it drilling, since much like with an army drill instructor, it's his way or the highway.
Not really a universal term (to my knowledge) but that's what I go by.
Welcome to d20.
They shouldn't be attempting it to begin with. You can always just deny them a roll entirely, or it should get them into more trouble.
Maybe they could theoretically get a 5% chance of picking the lock if they stumbled upon it on the street, but realistically they'd have to somehow sneak, bluff or fight their way past the guards first (or immediately after).
What skill bonus do you expect those most experienced people in the kingdom to have, anyway? Because under 3.x, I can do something like +12 at level 1 with only core rules.
>what is 15 point buy, other than the most common point buy value
>what is 5e in which buying stats caps at 15, 17 with racial bonus
Rolling stats can be fun, but having bad rolled stats doesn't make you hardcore, just ineffective. Not to mention that it is easier to get high stats with rolls than 15 point buy. Point buy makes all characters of the same power level: it is not to have all high stats, it is to make everyone have the same level of skill. Balance.
>muh 20 point buy
People like to play high fantasy with overall strong characters sometime. I know, incredible.
I have played rolling, I have played buying. I like the second the most and will defend my choice, but can accept that some people doesn't. Why people have to reject everything that does not conform to their vision when it comes to such small things is beyond me.
He's being made to reroll at level one, when the group didn't even start at that level. but the real problem is that the DM designed all the encounters to specifically gun for him. Enemies immune to his backstage, autofail social checks (done via RP), anti-gay skills autofail (can't pass even on a 20). So if OP rerolls, it's likely that even with all 18s and even if he isn't oneshotted catching up in levels, they'll always fight enemies who just so happen to have immunity to all of OP's powers and focus fire him down.
The real story, I suspect, is this. DM's little brother wants to invite his friend to the game. DM is too weak to come out and say no, so he's passive aggressively getting you to leave on your own. OP's handling this just right: don't burn any bridges, just quit and find another group. You don't want a dm like this even if he wanted you in the game
You should probably stop playing with 7 year olds, OP.
Depending on the system (4th Ed mostly) I sometimes disallow races and classes to help the balance out a bit.
Happens more often than you think. As a forever GM it can be slightly annoying when players decide to take the game in a different direction but then you remember that it's about having fun. So long as the players are enjoying their evening I am too.
Not necessarily true. You still have to be actively sneaking, hidden or the target needs to be distracted, flanked or engaging another character (so they can't pay attention to your actions). Basically you apply common sense.
>Rolling for stats.
Can I be this class? Nope.
This one? Ah, Nope.
How come the fighter has higher Int than my wizard?
Simply point-buy with a GM who can actually balance the encounters and checks.
I like Only War it's the one 40K game that allows for characters that don't feel overpowered. (By making them incredibly underpowered...)
Should only award Exp at the end of sessions and then split all of it between the party. So that if you have a combat heavy session the non-combat players don't feel worthless and vice-versa.
>Encountered it before. Personally I call it drilling, since much like with an army drill instructor, it's his way or the highway.
I actually don't mind that term, that's not too bad.
Mind if i use it too?
It's how AD&D worked, it shows maximum languages known, spell level you can potentially cast, chance to learn a given spell from trying to transcribe it, maximum spells known per level, and immunity to illusion spells based on level of spell cast.
That's how 3.x works.
10+x in the casting stat of your spellcasting class denotes the maximum, x level of spells you can cast.
Number of spells =/= maximum level of spells.
Basically, in order to have access to spells on the 1st level list, you need to be the right level in a spellcasting class, AND you need to have the above requirement.
How many spells you can cast is a separate metric.
Worse. It's like you did that and then DM says, "oh btw new house rule: monk powers don't work. If you reroll then you have to start at level 1. I know we started the campaign at level 5 and we're all level 12 now. My hands are tied, I'm sorry, I have to follow these rules I just made up. Oh, also new rule: you can't play a monk anymore."
The whole thing of "3d6 in order" is fine if the DM balances the game around it. But this one didn't. Who fills a dungeon with traps whose DCs are more than 20 over the only rogue in the party's skill?
Also, appropos of nothing: by far the people who cheat on the most in the games I run have been the ones who keep asking to do 3d6 in order.
Well yes, but those are the exact kind of skills where I wouldn't like to see an automatic success either, because generally speaking, if you can't do it on a 20, with your modifiers alone, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
Well, I guess that makes sense, but there is sense (in some cases, not here) in making impossible to disable traps. Usually to make the players think outside the box, etc.
But yeah, you're probably right, it's just the moment someone puts "Nat" infront of 20, it sounds like they're talking about automatic successes.
Rogues are ok. Then, rogues are now banned. Monks are ok. Fighters are banned.
You see what's happening? When one of the DM's regular players wants fighter, then those house rules will just so happen to change again and allow it. But the whole time the DM will thwo up his hands and say, "rules are rules".
Rules are only rules when they stem from some universal principle and bind everyone. When they stem from the DM's current personal agenda and change constantly, then they're just a thin veneer over DM whims. At that point you can legitimately say the Dm is being a dick, because he's just using the rules as an excuse.
Most of the time when I think outside the box the GMs call me metagamer, I shouldn't be able to do more than what my character sheet has written
>Oh shit, I can't find traps but there're traps, I know, wizard, send summonings to try to open doors so they eat the trap
>GM "That's METAGAMING!!"
No, it's like half the thread is a "rolling stats can be fun" versus the people responding to OP's complaint that IN THIS CASE the DM is using the rule to fuck with this player.
Then you have idiots who didn't read the OP carefully and are just spouting off about some random post out of context.
In other words, welcome to /tg/
Implied but never stated. Someone called me on that yesterday: "hey idiot you can't be a wizard with 11 int" except that nowhere does OP actually say it's 3d6 in order. His issue is that he has one exceptional stat but the DM has a long list or prohibited classes and the monsters/challenges/npcs all have immunity to the class powers of whatever he's playing at that moment.
I think the real problem in this thread over and above the usual shitposting is that social retards can't read between the lines and see what's happening here. THey're the kind of people who roll up four characters and run modules all by themselves in teh bathroom because they have no friends and no group will take them, then try to pass themselves off as serious roleplayers on /tg/
Eh, it's a game about imagination.
When I DM, I usually allow this sort of stuff, just with some house-ruled in limitations.
For example, if a wizard wants to Launch Item pebbles that were boulders before he cast Shrink Item on them, I basically allow it, only with the limit that I made a random table, deciding how precisely he can utter the unshrink command. (Meaning anything between, uttering it too early and creating a glorified cover, or uttering it too late while the pebble already richocheted off the guy, is an option.)
That being said, I meant more like:
"Well, there's no way off getting into this mansion through the front gate, without alerting the entire estate. Wanna try climbing to the roof and going from there?" when I said thinking outside the box.
I hate the roll versus point-buy bitching, because all it does is display how many novice gamers are on /tg/.
Rolling for stats seems like the purest option when you've only just started playing rpgs. You're like "I'm not a min-maxer (because people say that’s a bad thing to be apparently)! I'm going to roll my character base stats and roleplay the results." Sounds good right? Except thanks to the very nature of dice and random variables there is a strong likelihood that at least one player in your group will end up with scores that aren’t statistically average.
This means that even if you do away with 2nd Ed’s minimum stat requirements for classes you will still get a character that is more able than others. Worse, you might have someone stuck playing a shit useless character. By binding the players to their results you’re denying them the opportunity to play the game how they want.
Consider that no other type of game does this. They got rid of almost all of this shit in video games around the time Black Isle Studios went under (Planescape, Icewind Dale, Baldur’s Gate etc). You don’t see it in board games or wargaming. Imagine rolling just to see what army you can bring to the table in 40k?
Learn to adapt the challenges you present based upon everyone’s collective ability. That’s the only thing you need to do with point-buying, and in return you give the players far more creative freedom.
Now go on, whine like little faggots about how I’m wrong, and how you’ve been gaming for years, and how AD&D is amazing, and how it doesn’t stifle creativity … get a new record /tg/.
You know if a GM won't help you out in these kinda' situations you should just pack up and leave. Nine times out of ten they finally get off their lazy asses because it means they have to re-spec all the fights they had planned out if you leave.
A GM should have power in certain things, but if he's gotten so complacent that he doesn't help struggling players then he should fuck off.
I wouldn't bother. "You seem to be"... he came out and told you. The excuse for "new players start at lvl one" is that you'll catch up with the party... except that the GM is intentionally gimping you on XP to keep you behind. He's throwing dangerous challenges at you but not compensating you for overcoming them. He's punishing you for playing "wrong" but will kill you when you play "right" because "well, sorry player, those are the rules. My Hands Are Tied(tm)."
You said earlier "I say I'm having fun but don't know why". Does that mean you're having fun but don't know why you're having fun? Or that you're not but just saying you are and don't know why you don't say something.
Honestly, this GM is a lost cause. GMing isn't for everyone and it's not easy. Find another better GM (maybe you) and start a new group. Gms like this only last this long because there are so few GMs and they can get away with shit like this.
I doubt if talking to him will help, but sure if he's a friend go ahead.
I see the Logic of what the GM is doing. He's limiting classes by tier that's the one way to balance 3,5. He removed the fighter and put the warblade instead, only admitted combat/nerfed sorcerers and specialist wizards etc. He's probably a fool tho since He didn't ban the monk.
The sad Truth is that There's very few things that resemble rogues at his aimed tier, and that specialist wizards are still broken and He shouldn't have admitted them.
That SAID He still probably hates OP since he's not trying to help him into the campaing at all.
Shitty authoritarian DMs I've played with always make this warning. The funny thing is, it's not that hard. I've played in plenty of good games with DMs who know what they are doing and don't pose odd draconian restrictions simply justified as "I'm always right." If DMing is a power trip for you, you shouldn't be a DM.
Point buy doesn't give you much to powergame though, unless you think 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 is broken, in that case you're retarded.
Rolled stats is what makes you a powergamer, you roll and keep rolling till you got something broken, if you got shit that character just dies and you reroll.