Characters your mister cavern never approved of

[Blasted]

So you play Core only with half of core banned?

Wow that sounds pretty awful. Like what's the point of even playing the game at that point?

One archtype and most of one class is not even nearly half the core. And any class that makes it unfun for every other person at the table isn't a good class and shouldn't be played.

So after removing all the non-fun options, what is the point of playing with the remaining fun options? Hrm.

Now, I think it might be better to hand out power-ups to weak concepts, but it ain't my game to run.

The game's reached the point where it's a high level adventure and certain character's schticks aren't applicable. So I've handed out powerups to less high powered chars, but there comes a point where there's no box tall enough to stand on for some to be tall enough to ride.

[Kaelik]

I think his point is that you started by striping like 95% of all content. And then moved on to banning the parts of the 5% that you should ban.

Implicit in that is your justification about making the game less fun for the other players doesn't apply to the 95%.

[Seerow]

So you play Core only with half of core banned?

Wow that sounds pretty awful. Like what's the point of even playing the game at that point?

One archtype and most of one class is not even nearly half the core. And any class that makes it unfun for every other person at the table isn't a good class and shouldn't be played.

You specified you banned "Monks and other concepts for being bad".

If we're banning classes for being bad, you just gutted out half of core. Then banning splat book material as well means there's basically a half dozen classes left in the game.

If your actual definition of unplayable concepts actually is literally just monk and 1 archtype... eh whatever.

[Koumei]

Wait, sorry, I tell a lie. One Rifts game said "This is about fighting the gods, so you can play anything, I mean absolutely anything".

Well Dark Conversions has a table for generating an Alien Intelligence (see: godlike entities). The MC changed his mind.

[MGuy]

I don't think I've ever had a GM that explicitly 'banned' any character I suggested to play. Most GMs I've met/know don't know much about how the game works (and are mostly rulings over rules types). Mostly what ends up happening is that I get nerfed midgame if I do anything really interesting. The closest to actually banning my characters I've come to is a GM asking me to stop summoning things (even though I only started doing it because he kept putting us in bullshit situations) and an implicit agreement with a few GMs to not play "Face" characters anymore.

[Aryxbez]

Submit a mineral warrior water orc Barbarian and watch it get refused. Submit a human Druid and all's good.

I think this quote and some others in this thread are an example of what's wrong with DM's/RPG-Fans in this hobby. They want to encourage people be conceptually less interesting, and more towards generic racial choices, and magic-using (because MAGIC! is easy to explain on the lazy minded).

I don't think I've really ever got a character "rejected", in that I don't get to play in enough games, and/or I avoid campaigns with dumb premises (DM dislikes [Tome] or bans Tome of Battle, cue Fighter-level balance ahoy!).

[MisterDee]

I'm usually the one doing the rejecting, although these days I usually go "I want to run a cool story, here are the characters" or "let's start a game and see what happens, you can be whatever you want that isn't specifically intended to fuck the game up."

I've had more problems with divergent degrees of optimizing than with actual "break the game" builds, really. Vanilla Halfling Rogue is not equal to most of what splatbooks allow you to build.

[MGuy]

I've rejected a few characters but mostly because they were meant to be jokes. While I do allow for some laughs to be had at the table I don't desire characters who are ridiculous or highly inappropriate right up front.

[virgil]

I've had more problems with divergent degrees of optimizing than with actual "break the game" builds, really. Vanilla Halfling Rogue is not equal to most of what splatbooks allow you to build.

Yeah, I get that too. I have had a group where one person made a elf fighter (essentially), while another would make an awakened giant squid Hergian with a marid cohort.

[Josh_Kablack]

This is second hand, but in an early 3.0 game, Steve Z wanted to play a Blackguard in a game where Prestige Classes were disallowed. Steve Z did not let mere rules deter him and created Blackguard B. Blackguard. (The B in the middle was also for Blackguard) Thus the MC would have to refer to his character as Blackguard and could not use merely the surname. Blackguard B. Blackguard was built as a Sorcerer, but referred to all his spells by names of Blackguard PrC powers. Mage Armor became his Aura of Evil, and so on. And of course, he named his familiar Undead, allowing him to Command Undead.

[shadzar]

I think this quote and some others in this thread are an example of what's wrong with DM's/RPG-Fans in this hobby. They want to encourage people be conceptually less interesting, and more towards generic racial choices, and magic-using (because MAGIC! is easy to explain on the lazy minded).

I think it more that oft times the player brings in some concept that either:

a) doesn't fit the RPG system they are using
b) doesn't fit what the GM is willing to deal with and run for
c) doesn't fit with what the rest of the group want to play with
d) is just too munchkiny for long term use
e) the mechanics picked do not really work for the concept
f) the mechanics chosen are being used to over emphasize a concept that is mostly the persona of a character for which there is no mechanics for.

in the case of F take swashbuckler which has been mentioned recently in various places. its classification as a "rogue" class may be the problem with executing what most people's idea of the archtype is because they are often called "rogues" (which should be read scoundrel) and it was assigned the same class group with that name, rather than being a "diplomatic fighter".

this problem probably stems from 3rd doing such since it took the WRONG swashbuckler kit from 2e from the book of thieves, instead of the one from the book of fighters, which is far better fighter.

main differences:
Thief swash: disarm ability, fighter THAC0
fighter swash: 2 AC bonus, one more WP, is a fighter so can specialize his weapon, no extra cost required to pick up rogue NWPs

so why did WotC decide to fuck up and use the shittier example as the future class? because they didn't know what they were doing and just make bad games, which leads people to do F and make BAD choices in creating a character.

so i am prety sure F is the reason for MOST denied characters because the concept was poorly mashed with mechanics, or he mechanics were chosen and a poor concept tacked on that don't fit the mechanics.

[rasmuswagner]

anything that properly doesn't fit with D&D like Annie and Tibbers as one character because it isnt an armchair general game. ONE player, ONE character.

Yeah, Gygax never ran with no Henchmen or Followers!

[shadzar]

anything that properly doesn't fit with D&D like Annie and Tibbers as one character because it isnt an armchair general game. ONE player, ONE character.

Yeah, Gygax never ran with no Henchmen or Followers!

let's examine those shall we? how are they acquired? do they jsut come ont eh character sheet?

Bob: Hey i got a level X character with 30 henchman i want to bring into your game.
DM: fuck off!

this is how it should happen. it isnt a ranger/druid/wizard with an animal companion/familiar. the way that henchmen and followers are acquired isnt by just writing them on the character sheet, they must BE acquired.

i am sure i was referring to the initial post for this thread and cannot see it in the thread review, but i recall something like "shield guard and little girl" thus why i made the Annie and Tibbers connection. that is two characters. first MANY people don't allow multiple characters by one player. that takes trust that should only be given freely by naive DMs that want they game destroyed and EVERYONE loses. not many people can handle more than one character and many can barely do well enough to handle just one.

another comparison would be Master/Blaster where you have the giant brute protecting the little weakling. well that CAN work, but two people playing it works better as i did with the kender/barbarian duo in that one game.

you don't jsut write in henchmen and followers on your character sheet, they msut approach you either via RP, or through dice when the game can support them.

a key thing is knowing WHY a character was not allowed, not just because it wasnt allowed. just saying, my DM was an ass because he didn't allow X, doesn't tell the whole story when there is no reason given. just trying to prove that DMs are all bad, which is stupidity from those buttsore over the DM they CHOSE to play with.

maybe people should add more context if they expect sympathy.

oh look, Ogre did provide context!

The idea was rejected as I would be controlling two characters

so it isnt an actual case of dickish DM, just aligns with item B i mentioned previously, as well probably C.

b) doesn't fit what the GM is willing to deal with and run for
c) doesn't fit with what the rest of the group want to play with

so my response to the concept was on target with the reason given. go figure.

[Wiseman]

[...You Lost Me]

I was once told to not play a lvl 12 totemist because he did too much damage. I think I got 6 claw attacks at 1d6+3 ish. The MC also said the warlock was overpowered, but let his girlfriend play it.

[JigokuBosatsu]

As I recall I was in a RIFTS game where I was not allowed to play a Sunaj Assassin because being able to touch yourself to make a dagger appear is broken. I ended up being a Gigantes Scathach Druid with the delusion that he was Karl Prosek. Go figure. (In a later game I played a Viking berserker built using Ninjas & Superspies and the wacky MDC conversion rules, because it was RIFTS and fucks should never ever be given)

[fbmf]

I wasn't allowed to play a Noghri in a WEG STAR WARS D6 game.

Game On,
fbmf

[PoliteNewb]

I recently tried to join a PbP on RPOL, 3.5, various sourcebooks allowed (of which one was Complete Mage).

So I submitted an elf wizard lvl 3; said I might like to go into Ultimate Magus.

Was told no Ultimate Magus, because they were "broken". Yes, seriously.

Okay, said fine, straight wizard.

Was asked to pick a free profession. I'm an elf from the woods, so I said "Profession: Hunter" (as everybody knows, this let's me do fuck-all, mechanically).

Was told "you're a wizard, not a hunter, pick something different".

Uhh...you mean despite the fact that I'm an elf who lives in the fucking woods, and is a better shot with a bow than most 1st level rangers, I can't be a hunter because "I'm a wizard"?

At that point he told me he already had another elf wizard apply, sorry, no opening.

Biggest fucking waste of time in my life.

[malak]

I once had the pleasure of playing in a PF game (core only).

I wanted to play a sorcerer (since the DM mentioned he doesn't really like powergaming casters - so no Wizard).

Great, it was even allowed...only with the tiny houserule that for casters, there is no 5-ft step. Since positioning is done in an abstract way...ok...

But also, once the caster 'enters melee' (e.g an enemy is within 'battle' distance), which every enemy was every round after first, casting a spell will cause an AoO that cannot be avoided; unless the caster withdraws, that is, spends the whole action running away from the battle.

So the idea was that a caster is ok, but only if you spend every second round running away (doing nothing). And despite that, usually my caster was too far away to even cast color spray and hit someone.

Yay?

I quit after the second session. Yes, it was not that the character was disallowed. But come on...

[Prak]

The groups I play D&D with usually makes characters before showing up to the first game without bothering to ask, so I've never had a D&D character concept denied (the one time a DM has asked for a concept to clear it, was literally a week or two ago, and he approved--a warforged inspired by Pacific Rim Jaeger's and a Data-ish "what does it mean to be sapient and artificial" motif).

On the other hand, in other games... well, never had a werewolf concept vetoed that I can recall. I did have a Star Wars character vetoed, though we never actually played that game--a nautolan ex-jedi who also eschewed the sith philosophy, opting to go his own way, a middle ground. The fact that I wanted him to have several light sabres of various weapon forms, as well as a "dark sabre" (I made it up when I was 16, sue me), were probably larger contributions to him being vetoed than anything else.

edit: Oh, also similar to malak. I played an aranea rogue, which would have been awesome, if the GM had not houseruled in a shitty facing rule which meant that I could only sneak attack in flank if the target was not paying attention to me, which meant fewer than 3 SA's per target in any given combat, at best. I left after a few games.

[Vebyast]

For one GURPS campaign, I built the "Pet Rock": an intelligent but inanimate piece of gravel that had bought up clairvoyance, telekinesis, and telepathy spells at high enough level that it could use them constantly and for free. The GM never let that build off the character sheet.

[Avoraciopoctules]

In one game of WR&M, I wanted to play a suicide bomber. Every time he blew himself up, I'd spend a fate point to miraculously survive. He had a LOT of fate points.

There was also an aztec sorcerer who could spend HP instead of MP, and spend 1 MP to heal 1d6 HP. He cast super-overcharged mage armors that gave him effectively 15 times as many hit points in ablative armor, and could reliably take out 2 enemies per action with his attack spell. The mage armor was flavored as a flowing black shell of silently screaming faces and the attack spell was a magic shotgun where he'd slice his palm and then shoot out blasts of conjured obsidian. This was a starting character, built in response to a pitch for a gritty survival horror game.