AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

A few questions for those strong in the lore department. DMs are invited to make rulings and dispel any myths.
Players who play a class/classes that are not in default NWN are invited to share their experiences with us.

Amia Campaign is run of a mix of 3.5 + 3.0 + homebrew.
Is this statement correct/partially correct/incorrect?

Classes(not races) not in default NWN are allowed, without need for DM approval. You may use another class or mix of classes of your own discretion and choice to simulate it.
Are these statements correct/partially correct/incorrect?

First is correct but who really cares. DM's have final say on anything. You know this so I'm confused why you are asking. Anyone who even has a tiny bit of knowledge about DnD knows this.

Second. Request. You can no longer emulate PrC's unless you make a request. Certain PrC's are limited to very specific things and have very specific roles.

The second has been a known rule that comes up regularly for over two years (when a bunch of players wanted to make Grey Guards using Paladin, ie wanted to be Paladins without being Paladins).

MoshingChris wrote:

The second has been a known rule that comes up regularly for over two years (when a bunch of players wanted to make Grey Guards using Paladin, ie wanted to be Paladins without being Paladins).

I read the character creation topics prior to this.
viewtopic.php?p=755014#p755014
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=55954
There is a lot of focus on races, so the race specific rules are clear, while the class related rules are not so clear.
If it is a known rule, I think it should be clearly stated in the character creation threads.

I know a player who made a halfling warslinger, I am not aware if he/she made a request or not, or if it even requires a request, hence I ask for clarification. Assuming I want to make a halfling warslinger, do I need a request?

Example 2: A player creates a duelist/swashbuckler using a parry built bard/fighter. Acceptable or not?

Example 3: It has been said that you can be a Harper without taking Harper Scout. Can you be a Harper Agent without taking Harper Scout?

I'm guessing this means I should rethink my idea's for the mystic theurge i've been working on? first i'm hearing of this, I thought the issue was more stuff that doesn't make sense and races.

ed; to clarify, cleric/sorc. nothing intensly out of the norm.

Simply put most things will get by, but its better to request now than get told you aren't allowed to play said character.

You don't need to take Harper Scout to play a Harper Agent but you do need to make a request to play a Harper Agent as the PrC because there are canon connexions that need to be addressed.

You can call yourself a duelist/swashbuckler with a build but that doesn't mean your playing the PrC. Common sense is applicable.

The same player who made the Warsling Sniper also made the Warlock via a request.

MoshingChris wrote:

Simply put most things will get by, but its better to request now than get told you aren't allowed to play said character.

Correct, that's why I asked. I couldn't find the warslinger request, but I remember reading the warlock request.
So same thing for Glyph's concept, the loophole is you can call yourself anything but it's not actually DM recognised.

If Mosh is correct, that's a new rule. This came up a few months ago, and it was said you can freely emulate classes as long as you don't assume special powers that give you an unfair advantage and that you can't actually represent with mechanics. Actually I posted a very clear formulation of the rule in practice and it was confirmed to be true. Gotta look it up.

This is one of the core tenets of Amia, and has been as long as I've played here. On one hand, it's good to request if you're uncertain. On the other, it's bad to give other people power over something you have a freedom to do, because it establishes practices and ultimately beliefs like this one: that you'd need to make request for it, just because some players have been nice enough to do so.

Mystic Theurges, Bladesingers, Spirit Shamans, Warsling Snipers, Breach Gnomes, all stuff like that has always been free game. This is a topic that probably shouldn't have been brought up, because it may result in officially making the request rules stricter to block any chance of abuse. Which would be tragic, because it's always worked without fuss on the basis that you can do what you want within reason, and some specific cases are explicitly said to be requestable (Truenaming, High Magic, whatever else added to the list).

I think the problem, Iron, is that no one is doing it within reason. I don't know for a fact, though. I am as surprised as you that it is a rule now, when I bitched about a player needing to request to play a Warlock I was told that player didn't have to.

Found it. This was posted last January:

PaladinOfSune wrote:

IronAngel wrote:

You typically don't need to request special base or prestige classes, with some qualifications: you cannot claim any powers you can't actually simulate with the mechanics, and those powers are subject to the same limitations as any vanilla class with those abilities. That is to say, you're not excempt from deity restrictions, somatic spell components or whatever by virtue of pretending to be something other than an NWN class. So your special spell you simulate with a wizard level is not a free action even if it would be in PnP, for example. And secondly, there are some extraordinary things that will require a request. These include High Magic and Psionics and some other things listed in R&L, and anything else the DM deem to be extraordinary. Use caution and common sense here, I guess. If it's a new type of magic entirely, it may need a request. Mundane classes and those who just combine traditional arcane or divine magic with something else should always be fair game.

Arcane Trickster, Breach Gnome, Bladesinger, Eldritch Knight, Shaman, Urban Ranger, Runescarred Berserker or whatever? That's always been fine. Don't claim you're a divine caster who doesn't need a deity or try use Paladin to simulate something with no code of conduct, though. I think it's pretty clear when you ask yourself, "Would this character as a vanilla class face some restrictions, and if so, will I adhere to them in my new interpretation?"

It's funny that anyone should even ask this, because it has always been an Amia staple. Not just an Amian thing, but almost the Amia thing. When I joined, the freedom of creativity was an important selling point of the server and everybody knew that. You wanted to play a primitive shaman of Mielikki and use cleric levels? Sure. You wanted to be a brawler with a monk levels? No problem. Times and points of interest change, I guess.

Bingo.

Quote:

You don't need to take Harper Scout to play a Harper Agent but you do need to make a request to play a Harper Agent as the PrC because there are canon connexions that need to be addressed.

No you don't.

Tel Teukiira, yes, a Harper, no.

Last edited by IronAngel on Tue, May 10 2011, 16:31 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Yossarin wrote:

I think the problem, Iron, is that no one is doing it within reason. I don't know for a fact, though. I am as surprised as you that it is a rule now, when I bitched about a player needing to request to play a Warlock I was told that player didn't have to.

Well, it's just one of those core things about Amia that I've always taken for granted. In fact, it's probably in the top three reasons I would log onto Amia rather than a different server. Amia is supposed to be a place where you have freedom and responsibility over your choices and nobody is nannying you with a supposedly better understanding of the setting. If you're dumb and do something that's not OK, you get burned.

I still stand by that, btw, at least in my personal opinion.

TormakSaber wrote:

Tel Teukiira,...

What is this?

Moonstars. Harper Splinter group.

thought so, crow's daughter is named Teukiira. I never saw that before

Quote:

When in doubt, ask a DM.

Quoted this from viewtopic.php?f=20&t=55954
Confusion results when there is a misinterpretation of the rules, especially when a DM makes a possibly incorrect ruling.
If Iron's statement is indeed the accepted status quo, then the writings should be reformatted and added to the character creation guide.

Well, considering we made a warlock make a request, it seems he's not correct?

Oh I'm correct alright, you may have just ignored or misinterpreted your own rules. It's not impossible for DMs not to know quite every previous call and discussion (as shown by the different opinions in this topic). But I don't think that happened here, because what you did and what I said are not in contradiction. Warlocks are no problem to the quoted true statement:

Quote:

And secondly, there are some extraordinary things that will require a request. These include High Magic and Psionics and some other things listed in R&L, and anything else the DMs deem to be extraordinary. Use caution and common sense here, I guess. If it's a new type of magic entirely, it may need a request.

You have apparently deemed Warlocks extraordinary and a type of magic that requires requests. If so, that's well within Amian practice and my description. It doesn't follow that every PrC needs a request now that you made a call on a specific incident.

If Warlocks have been added to the definite list of requestable things, it might be prudent to edit them into the R&L post. I don't know if you want to keep an open-ended list, but it would probably be helpful to list some of the more common cases.

Anyway, what I posted is not really controversial. Please don't make it seem like it is - not if you're just going to make vague discrediting remarks rather than address me directly. It's a factual description of what has been practiced and preached here. Whether you choose to follow the tradition or change the practice is a completely different matter. You're the DMs and you reevaluate old rules when necessary. But the historical facts are what they are. If you change rules, another good Amian practice has been to update R&L and make a seperate GD topic to announce it officially. But again, whether you stick to that is up to you. Just might be helpful to keep track of what the current policies are.

Once upon a time, when I was a new and stupid DM, I championed the process of DM's discussing, and then making a GD post to inform everyone, and then updating something more permanent. It seemed like the fair thing to do, right?

What didn't seem fair was the response the playerbase gave, slitting my throat for being the messenger. Nothing to worry about, though, it never bothered me greatly, and certainly not at all, personally. It merely made me realize that it wasn't to my personal benefit to keep pushing for things to be done that way.

Then, as time went on, I came to realize that not having every detail spelled out, and allowing gray areas to exist or simply go unacknowledged, created a wonderful situation wherein players could easily be evaluated on their "sense of right and fair play", I'll say, for lack of any better way to put it. Based upon what players do with things like emulating classes that don't exist, or, in the other thread hot in GD right now regarding the use of party chat, a DM and even a fellow player can uncover who is in this and for what reasons.

If the player intuits the right thing to do by the community without an expressed rule, then that player deserves more attention, more credit, more approval, than other players. If the player intuits incorrectly and does the wrong thing, correction is delivered, be it punishment, token punishment, verbal warning, or public humiliation. At the very least, said player earns DM monitoring for signs of unfair play, and usually gets caught.

Does this create an incredibly dangerous territory, wherein those with the power to correct (DMs) are the sole arbiters of what is the right way and the wrong way?

Absolutely!

The above opinion is not to be taken as the opinion of the entire DM Team. Some of them might even disagree with me. I am merely telling you why I, despite noticing what you call a problem, haven't done anything to "fix" the problem but have used the problem to my advantage.

The actual reason the DM Team doesn't go about updating every minor rules difference is because we have so many other things to do that updating rules on a forum no one ever reads, anyway, are trivial by comparison. Oh, they eventually get done, but they don't get done very quickly because people like me, who know about the need to do it, aren't posting every day, "Do this, update that, it needs to say X, blah blah" because I have my personal reasons for not doing so, which I explained above.

You're also up against a basic fact about rules, too. Those who are at risk of being punished by the rules always want those rules to be set in stone so that they can find a way around them. Those who enforce those rules always want those rules to be vague so that no one can get around them.

Note that even as I read what I've written hear, I find it distasteful. It seems like dirty pool. It seems mean and almost oppressive. But it also seems painfully honest.

One can sculpt clay and see true masterwork and creativity as the malleable form is shaped, but one can only chip away from stone. All that is left is less than what they started with.

Dwagin wrote:

One can sculpt clay and see true masterwork and creativity as the malleable form is shaped, but one can only chip away from stone. All that is left is less than what they started with.

Conversely, the stone sculptor will argue that the true beauty of the rock is not displayed until the master chips away the outer layers and shows it to the world.

My personal opinion is quite similar to Yoss'. If a player takes the burden unto themselves to try to emulate a PrC class that isn't part of the set of classes already provided by NWN, then they by default take the responsibility to play that class properly as well as the possible punishment or boon should they fail or excel.

If they have any questions, it's quite a simple process to make a post or send a PM asking about anything that may be kinda fuzzy or in question.

Oh, I'm pretty much in agreement with you two, Yossarin and Ainjyll. Like I said earlier, I'd rather this issue hadn't been brought up at all so those who do it right can continue to do so quietly, and those who fail are addressed case by case. But now that it was brought up, two DMs seem to suggest that the quiet practice is no longer OK. A definite ruling was implied, and it was the wrong one (that is, the one not to my tastes).

The reason I want the rules to be established clearly is not only player protection, but also protection of the rules themselves. When they are clear and documented, new DMs and shifting tastes aren't as likely to result in a total change of direction. I don't want to single Mosh out, and this is a confusing matter with nothing clear posted anywhere, but his first post is a good example of why documentation is necessary: he seemed to think we've had a "known rule" for over two years that you need to request any PrC. That's simply not true. So not only does documentation protect the players from DM whims, it protects the rules and practices themselves. And continuity is by and large a good thing. Now, of course I also have selfish and elitistic motives: the idea that my character concept would need someone else's approval is obnoxious and humiliating. I had to do that on another server, and even though I was always approved, the mere notion that someone else thought they were qualified to tell me what to play drove me away. That's what I've always liked about Amia: as long as your actions show you are responsible and tasteful, nobody will stick their nose into your business. We don't have blanket rules to prevent all abuse at the expense of freedom of creativity.

You can have gray areas. Ideally, you should have gray areas with definite borders: "Non-NWN classes are a controversial matter. Novel magic, unique abilities and anything you can't represent in NWN or anything that gives you special freedoms will need a request. Mundane and everyday classes are typically safe. If in doubt, ask. If you don't ask, and do it wrong, you risk the future of the character. Refer to figure 1.3 for cases you definetely need to request. Otherwise, you're on your own!" And then you could update that figure with the classes you've made the categorical decision of expecting a request for, like Warlock. What is not a good gray area, however, is one DM saying you absolutely need a request, another saying you can freely play non-controversial classes, and a third saying your subtelty and success determine your freedom to continue playing one. You can be vague or clear, but you need to be consistent. This is the same thing I tried to argue some months ago: the level of detail in your rules is not so important, as long as you all say the same thing. And preferrably you would document them at least for yourself, so that new DMs two years from now will remember your policy and treat new characters by the same standards (insofar as shifting circumstances allow). That's fairness.

To sum it up: clarity and documentation does not mean the rules have to be set in stone. You can clearly document a very vague rule that allows for interpreting the gray area situationally. I think I've more or less successfully sketched such a formulation twice now. Gray areas are wonderful, as long as everybody knows what they are.

Khaunwalksthisearth wrote:

Dwagin wrote:

One can sculpt clay and see true masterwork and creativity as the malleable form is shaped, but one can only chip away from stone. All that is left is less than what they started with.

Conversely, the stone sculptor will argue that the true beauty of the rock is not displayed until the master chips away the outer layers and shows it to the world.

Tell that to the missing muscle on that otherwise ruins the perfection of Michelangelo's David due to a flaw in the marble.

I always thought there was one exception beyond the "If you don't claim any extra powers thing, you can do it" clause. Specifically, divine classes, or at least divine classes RPed as non-divine.

It was more of an RP reason, than specifically needing a request on the basis of classes IIRC. In the case of divine classes, DM's would need to know how to handle you as what you're supposed to be(How are they to believe you when you say you're a Grey Guard rather than a paladin, and not just trying to get out of falling?). And in the case of divine as non-divine, well, again they probably want to know that when they look on your class sheet, you're what you are and not just grabbing for excuses if you were to come into trouble IC.

Dramatic_Prince wrote:

A few questions for those strong in the lore department. DMs are invited to make rulings and dispel any myths.
Players who play a class/classes that are not in default NWN are invited to share their experiences with us.

Amia Campaign is run of a mix of 3.5 + 3.0 + homebrew.
Is this statement correct/partially correct/incorrect?

Classes(not races) not in default NWN are allowed, without need for DM approval. You may use another class or mix of classes of your own discretion and choice to simulate it.
Are these statements correct/partially correct/incorrect?

Yaston told me he plays a specialized class known as a Triadic Knight which is also the name of the faction he belongs too. You should ask him about his experiences with it. Just a thought.

IronAngel wrote:

This is the same thing I tried to argue some months ago: the level of detail in your rules is not so important, as long as you all say the same thing. And preferrably you would document them at least for yourself, so that new DMs two years from now will remember your policy and treat new characters by the same standards (insofar as shifting circumstances allow). That's fairness.

What I'd like for every player to have access to all the rules. That's why I ask for rules to be updated.

We've managed to make it over a half-decade without the need to spell this out in black and white. Why the need now?

ainjyll wrote:

We've managed to make it over a half-decade without the need to spell this out in black and white. Why the need now?

Because black and white is easier to understand

Some people just can't get by without strict rules telling them what they can and can't do. Not saying Dramatic Prince is one of them, just saying.

I personally ain't like that. I also don't think every rule should have to be spelled out.

Ðraco wrote:

Because black and white is easier to understand

Black and white is also boring.

There should at least be something saying "there is some leeway with this policy." Some people come here thinking they can play anything from homebrew or either other fantasy universes completely without a request. Some people come here thinking they can't play anything slightly different from what is presented by the NWN vanilla, without making a request.

Both are mistaken notions. It's not so much like we'd be putting up a rule as it would be giving a notice.

ainjyll wrote:

We've managed to make it over a half-decade without the need to spell this out in black and white. Why the need now?

Iron answered this well. For consistency and fairness.
If there is no such rule, then say there is no such rule.

IronAngel wrote:

What is not a good gray area, however, is one DM saying you absolutely need a request, another saying you can freely play non-controversial classes, and a third saying your subtelty and success determine your freedom to continue playing one. You can be vague or clear, but you need to be consistent. This is the same thing I tried to argue some months ago: the level of detail in your rules is not so important, as long as you all say the same thing. And preferrably you would document them at least for yourself, so that new DMs two years from now will remember your policy and treat new characters by the same standards (insofar as shifting circumstances allow). That's fairness.

To sum it up: clarity and documentation does not mean the rules have to be set in stone. You can clearly document a very vague rule that allows for interpreting the gray area situationally. I think I've more or less successfully sketched such a formulation twice now. Gray areas are wonderful, as long as everybody knows what they are.

Have a rule, don't have a rule, I don't care. Just make sure you're all on the same page so we can actually get the same answer when we ask if something's OK, regardless of who we ask.

We've gotten by so far, because it was a rule or standard practice that you could do it within reason. We appear to have an issue now because the DMs no longer seem to agree on this. You've given contradictory information in this topic, and you seem to think it's no problem? Well, it is. If DMs disagree, it's their job to sort it out and let the players know. It's not our job to pick and choose who to trust. I will of course take Sune's word, and somebody who likes enforced requests will take Mosh's word. It's called mommy-daddying, and it's bad.

Dark Immolation: I agree about the divine classes thing. It would fall under what I said about accounting for any restrictions your class would normally have and incorporating them into the class you're pretending to be. That is, it's probably fine to play a shaman using cleric levels, but getting your spells from a host of spirits and possibly some patron(s) like the Elemental Lords. (I had a druid Spirit Shaman, Kai Undt was a cleric shaman of Mielikki, for example.) It's not fine to play an arcane class using cleric levels (without special approval).

If you don't want to formulate the proper practice in words, can you at least answer this: can we go on doing what we've been doing so far, whatever that is? Will you preserve the status quo or will things have to change?

Class Emulation

Who is online