I do not see it that way, Caleb. Eyvinder didn't "make motions towards Cosimo" until he had actions to use. His actions didn't come until after Cosimo's. The player saying "I grapple Cosimo" doesn't matter to Cosimo because he doesn't know the Eyvinder's intention. He is making assumptions about what his intention might be and when he used his spell he was making a pre-emptive strike. Cosimo struck before Eyvinder did.
Let me say that again just to make sure it is perfectly clear: Cosimo struck before Eyvinder did. That is true, correct?
StreamOfTheSky: That sounds... hillarious! I wonder how effective a build like that would be including size modifiers. I haven't run the numbers but with Tiny being able to use Dex without a feat (something I didn't actually realize until now) it certainly makes it seem more feasible.
Care to give it a whirl?
mempter: I never played it. I did, however, see it. A long time ago. Sounds pretty fitting. ;)
A Paladin is still just as guilty as the party member who killed (or atleast attempted to kill) Cosimo...
No character attempted to kill Cosimo. In fact, they assured him that this wouldn't happen. He was detained for questioning and for good reason. He refused to hand over a scroll after the paladin had seen him dealing with a verify-ably evil person and he was clearly hiding key details to the plot from his party.
Semantics aside, the player directs what the character does; of course the character isn't going to say "SMITE EVIL" or "GRAPPLE INITIATING" unless it's some sort of robot (which he isn't), but the player still said what the character was attempting to do. He took the first move in that altercation, and that's that. Unfortunately, saying who started the "fight" doesn't solve anything, so this remains a moot topic.
These are not semantics, bud. You are getting OOC statements confused with IC ones. The player saying "I have my character grapple Cosimo" is not the same as the character actually acting to do so. That is what initiative is for. At the time that initiative was rolled the paladin had not yet attempted to grapple Cosimo. Why? Because he didn't go first in initiative. Cosimo made the first aggressive move against his party member. That is definitely important especially with a paladin involved.
This isn't just a minor issue here. The paladin is able to claim self defense now. Cosimo attacked him. This is a legal issue and paladins follow law. The paladin had it within his rights to defend himself at that point. And, honestly, to keep Cosimo subdued so that he couldn't retaliate afterwords.
If I were in the paladin's shoes I would have made sure that Cosimo was the first one to attack me (casting a spell against me is considered the same thing) so that it was justifiable that I defend myself. Cosimo made it easy for him though.
Weirdo: I read your comments on this but I have to disagree with you here. The paladin's movements in character could have easily been to try to take the scroll from Cosimo as the paladin didn't know at that time that it wasn't on his person. Without having actually laid a hand on Cosimo yet there is no way that Cosimo would have known. Readying an action to respond before an attack doesn't work either, IMO. You have to have something to retaliate against. If the blow never landed then your not retaliating, you are giving a per-emptive strike. And I think we all know what kind of controversy happens when you start throwing around that term. It starts to get into the whole Minority Report "precrime" situation.
I do like Weirdo's suggestions and comments. I would pay particular attention to what he said about DM favoritism as I think that is very accurate and close to the point I was making earlier. He also has good suggestions for NPC/patron/god interaction to help direct PC actions IC. However, as I believe he is pointing out this is largely something that needs to be discussed OOC first. And finally he is correct that the DM had burdened you with plot specific secrets as this instigated their mistrust of you.
DrDeth has the same opinion about sharing OOC stuff with other players and having enough trust in them to not metagame that knowledge. This is what I suggested as my solution as well. I am a pretty experienced gamer but DrDeth has me beat there. You really should listen to what he has to say, he has been around the gaming table for a long time and has valuable experience to offer. I think you need to listen to what he has to say because he hasn't said anything offensive and as far as I can tell is offering you quality advice. That is what you came here for, right? You have to understand that the advice that we give might not be what you wanted to hear, but that does not mean that it isn't good advice.
Asking him to simply not post any more because you do not like his suggestions shows that your not being very open-minded about this. Remember, we don't have a stake in this issue personally. We have no reason to give bad advice. We are basing our opinions off the information that you give us. DrDeth isn't the type of person who likes to go out of his way to make people's lives miserable. His suggestions are meant to help. As are mine. But also understand that we are thinking about your party, not just you.
Again, Weirdo has a very good point about the DM favoratism that is going on in this game but it doesn't look like you see it. He said, "It's not just the fact that you've summarized this from your POV. If the DM was being accurate when he said that it would be easier for plot-related reasons to retire the entire rest of the party (or even just the 2 most antagonistic) than it would be to retire Cosimo, you've got a problem. And if your DM told the other players that, you can bet they're feeling less important, even if they do have their own things going on."
He never told the party that. That was my own statement, and I am unsure if he has even said it himself. At this time I see how unfortunate that statement is.
What? This is what you said:
He also firmly told them in and out of character that I had really good reasons to keep the scroll from the party and that Cosimo was actually a big part of the plot by now. If they wanted to keep playing, they had to do so with me playing Cosimo.
That certainly sounds like the DM told the other players that.
Look, Weirdo is right. It is very clear that your DM is giving you favoritism here. Hopefully you both realize this and correct it. I think this is one of the major problems with your game. But don't take my word for it: ask the other players how they feel. Do they think you are DM's pet?
Just kinda catching up here still.
Caleb: You said that you are looking for an outcome that allows the game to continue with everyone satisfied. That may not be possible. Someone may have to do something that they do not want to do. In these situations it is likely best if the least changes can be made. In other words, it would be less fair if all of the other players had to make new characters and you did not as your DM suggested. On the other hand, just having one player make a new character would be less intrusive to the game itself. If your character is that pivotal to the story, then so be it. That doesn't mean that the character should be a PC though. It should be relegated to an NPC at that point.
Also, the way he was saying that your character is so pivotal kinda concerns me. To me it seems like he thought that the character was so pivotal to the story that he was not allowing negative actions from the party to affect the character. He was even willing to step in to control other character's PCs and not allow them to do what they think their characters would do. I'm not sure how to put this but that seems like railroading in the way. More like the DM is trying to tell a story despite player input. Not sure if it makes sense the way I said it but as a player this can be pretty offensive. When I say, "My character does X." and the DM cuts in and says, "No, your character can't do X because that will interfere with my story. Instead your character does X." ...yeah, I would probably get pretty irate. If I'm not mistaken that seems like what is going on here.
I do agree that the other players may have taken it too far. But when the players and their characters have reached the point of frustration that they were at and the DM was unwilling to step in to try to quell the inter party conflict (and actually seems to have approved of it up until that point) then I'm not sure if the players had any other option to facilitate a change.
On the issue of what a DM should do when faced with this sort of situation... well, I can tell you what I do. When I start a campaign I typically tell my players that while they control their character's motivations that they have to match with the campaign that I am running or I will not allow the character. I also tell them that I do not plan on DMing for any inter-party conflicts that result in violence against another party member. Meaning, I will simply not DM for it. I'll leave or I'll end the game for the night or I'll just quit. I do not run PVP games unless all players are entering with the understanding that will happen. Characters are not allowed to start being predisposed to not get along with another party member. If you have issues in character work them out. If they are unresolvable then change your character so they are resolvable or talk it out with the player out of character to find a solution that will allow the game to continue running without that level of inter-party conflict. I'm a DM, I'm not here to hold the players hands and play parent.
Cosimo knew that it was safest on his person, as those who wanted it wouldn't dare to take it from him. He just couldn't explain why.
I don't think you mean "couldn't". I think you mean "unwilling". And I think that is the problem the players have. The character is deceitful and they do not want to put up with it anymore. Characters shouldn't be deceitful with their own party. I can't say that I blame them for thinking this.
2. He told me that I couldn't play Cosimo after I made it very, very clear that I wanted to keep playing him. I was already feeling bullied, hurt, and shutting down. He knows me very well and knows how I handle things. Siding with the other players would mean I didn't have a friend to vouch for me. I would have handled things horribly, horribly bad, caused hurt feelings, and spent a week in anger, only to blow at the next game or facebook. If I didn't blow up, I would have been hurt enough to quit the group, end the game I am GMing, and stop talking to everyone for a while. Best case scenario, I would have made a character but played him as a background set piece and hoped the game ended quickly.
That reaction sounds very childish. I would hope that your not being serious that you would react that way because it sounds like a kid-fit that a child would do when he doesn't get his way. Not mature at all. Sorry if that is offensive but that is really how I feel on it. Caleb, if your actions are making the game not fun for everyone else then you can't just always get your way, bud. Sorry, that isn't the way that it works in the real world. Your DM could be your friend but he also has a responsibility to make sure that the rest of the table is having fun too.
3. He sides with no one and has everyone retire. Imagine how that would have gone. Not good.
This may not be a bad option. If people can not get along with their current characters and no one wants to stop playing their current characters in this campaign then starting a new campaign might be better for everyone. Maybe this time some ground rules can be set to avoid this kind of conflict in the future. Perhaps one change can be that characters are not allowed to be constantly deceitful with their own party? I dunno... just a suggestion. Not sure how seriously it is going to be taken at this point though.
4. He sides with no one and let the party work it out. Someone already mentioned somewhere that they have heard of games where this basically happened. It didn't lead to good things and I can't imagine it would have led to good things in our case.
Actually it sounds like this was what was about to happen. I understand that you are upset about it because it was a negative outcome for you. But it could have been a very positive outcome for the rest of the party. From their perspective they could have been getting rid of an annoying thorn in their side. If you would have been willing to play a more team friendly character then it could have been an upgrade for them. This wasn't allowed to happen though. They were forced by the DM to deal with the problem in a different way.
5. Ended the game the moment things got hairy, called it a night, and asked everyone to think long and hard about what had happened. Problem would have been that we would have had a week or two of not knowing if Cosimo was going to be released, or if the party was going to continue without him. This could work out great, but it could also turn into a flame war on Facebook as we discuss how to proceed. Most likely good, I will give you that. However, which GM do you know that would have made that call? Unless they experienced this type of problem before, they wouldn't. Carl has never had a blow up like this, so he didn't know what to do or how to stop it. Now he does.
Another mention of a facebook flame war? Wow, maybe I'm getting old but I just can't even imagine dealing with something like that. It seems very childish to me. It seems like you all might be investing far too much emotion and personal feelings into this game. This isn't healthy behavior, bud. There are more important things in life than your Pathfinder game and this isn't worthy of a facebook flame war. Actually... I'm having a hard time thinking of something that is...
Darksol the Painbringer: I disagree with your perspective on what constitutes lawful stupid. I do not intend on getting into another alignment debate though as it doesn't benefit myself, you, the OP or this thread to do so. I will say that you are entitled to your opinion but that doesn't make you right. The paladin in question is entitled to his opinion as well, and the DM his. Personally, I see several opportunities for the paladin to have acted more towards his code. The OP looks to agree with me on this having talked about some of these examples himself.
In regards to the whole initiative thing, there was no "meta-gaming" to be had. In a realistic scenario, when the Paladin's character said "I'm going to grapple Cosimo," the Paladin on the "map" would move towards Cosimo, and if Cosimo did not want him to advance so suddenly and (appear as if trying to) grab him, then Cosimo would react; hence, an initiative would take place. That's not meta-gaming at all, and is something that the GM would officiate as to how it would happen in RAW.
The paladin didn't say "I'm going to grapple Cosimo". The player did. Characters do not generally announce their actions as they do them. Fighters aren't generally walking around going, "Power attack!" and Barbarians aren't generally yelling, "Rage Power activate!". At the time that initiative was rolled the paladin had not yet had the opportunity to even begin to attempt to grapple Cosimo yet. Cosimo very much did throw the first punch.
You are also wrong about several things you say in your post. If you read Calebs post you can see these. The scroll was on Cosimo's person, it was hidden. Also, he did steal the scroll from the party as DrDeth pointed out. It wasn't only Cosimo's decision as to what happened to it and the rest of the party had a right to the scroll as much as he did. The paladin was never going to kill Cosimo so never would have been charged with this crime.
Crosswind, I think you have underestimated the build. The build I posted above will hit more often than the halfling build and while it doesn't have the same number of iterative attacks it does not depend on them. This requires a little bit of thinking outside of the box to see. Also the build I showed above has a lot higher AC and other general defenses.
This isn't a competition of one build vs. another but rather one build vs. environment. However, if you pitted them against a similar foe I'm thinking at any level after 4th that my build would come out ahead. Past that it would get worse for the Halfling. At 8th level and on (after getting Panther Claw) I think that gap would continue to widen. Add to that with the Halfling relying on full attacks and TWF he can only get sustained damage when he doesn't have to move. The build I gave actually can BENEFIT from moving through multiple threatened squares before taking his single attack. The Halfling would be less effective in such scenarios. Not being able to full attack in a round happens often.
Yuliea: Thanx! :)
Anyone: Still looking for other ideas for Tiny sized bruisers. Keep 'em comin.
Darksol: Because the paladin did not win initiative he had not yet attempted to grapple Cosimo. Caleb did know out of character that the player's intention was to have his character grapple Cosimo but acting on out of character information in character would be metagaming.
So, seeing as he had nothing yet to provoke him (or allow for him to claim "self defense") Cosimo very much did throw the first punch.
Regarding the "lawful stupid playstyle" I disagree. I think it was out of character for the paladin to have went as far as he did with such a deceitful character in the party. In fact, I think he likely should have broke his code by knowingly associating with evil characters. And I'm not sure where you are getting that there was no talk about the scroll before hand. There was an entire session that was missed by Caleb where I bet the scroll was the topic of much discussion. And they did talk to Cosimo about it too and as far as I can tell he reacted very defensively (read: suspiciously).
The problem with this issue I think is with the DM. I think through a culmination of his other actions that Cosimo's alignment would likely have shifted and should have detected as evil. I'm sure the DM would disagree with me on this though as he was in on the hoax. Clearly Cosimo's intentions were not good though and purposefully trying to withhold an important and valuable magic item from the rest of the party is something that the paladin should have involved himself in. Classically if you offer a threat and ultimatum to a paladin, I don't see them as acting any other way than this one did:
"No, you can not have this important valuable party treasure. I will keep it for myself and not let you have it. You can have it when you pry it from my cold dead hands."
Yep, seems paladinish to me. And no, I do not think it is lawful stupid at all. Perhaps if it were an isolated incident but not with everything that transpired prior to it.
I also wanted to point out that I think we are still seeing this issue through rose tinted lenses. We are having this explained from the perspective from two individuals that feel that everyone else was out of line. I understand that you likely wouldn't want the other players to see this thread. I'm unsure if that is because you enjoy being a deceitful person or if you just enjoy playing a character that is deceitful to his party despite their displeasure. However, I wish there was some way to hear the other player's perspectives on this issue. Preferably from their own mouth (fingers?). I would imagine that we would get an entirely different perspective of the events than those presented here.
Its funny though because even when viewed through rose colored lenses I still sympathize with the rest of the party.
Caleb, I can't believe after all of this that your best solution here is to continue to deceive your party! That is what got you into this mess to begin with. How can you not see that?
Take note that I never actually "messed" with my party...
I wish you would stop saying that because it is clearly not true. I think you must be in denial or diluting yourself about intentions being greater than action or some such nonsense. You need to think about what you have done that lead your party to have this level of mistrust and then think about if you could blame them for having such reactions.
DrDeth pointed this out in the other thread and he had excellent points. I will steal some of them from him:
Honestly, if you ask me, your party's actions were justifiable. I do not see any reason they would have to trust your character in the first place. If the reasons above aren't enough, clearly they have their own.
The problems that were caused here started from the beginning of your campaign. Your DM deciding to allow a deceitful character like yours in a party that includes a paladin is simply asking for inter party conflict. Your actions in character haven't really quelled this problem any either. In fact, they have exacerbated it.
"If you do kill Cosimo's dog, I am not sure we could continue this and Cosimo might have to become a minor villain." Someone then asked, "Isn't he one already?" I don't remember my response to that but I imagine it didn't help.
This concerns me most of all. First of all I do not believe for a second that you do not remember your response. I think it is far more likely that your response was incriminating and you do not care to share it on this board for that reason. But this part is bad enough. Sure they threatened to kill your dog. I wish I knew why actually. But what did you respond with? Another threat!
And look at the response they gave. They thought your character is a minor villain already. Now why could they possibly think this, Caleb? You don't think that it is possible that you are responsible for this? You don't think that your character's actions have lead them to believe your character isn't to be trusted?
I want you to look at what you wrote here and interpret it from the eyes of the other players. Their characters already do not like Cosimo due to his past actions. They felt so strongly about this issue that they didn't feel they could continue with Cosimo in the party. If I am not mistaken they also felt this way out of character.
Their concerns have now been dismissed both in character and out of character. They now have been given an ultimatum that if they want to continue to come to Sabbacc's game that they have to continue to deal with having Cosimo in their party. So rather than resolve the problem by removing the one player/character that is the cause of the conflict everyone else would have to either adapt their current character, make a new character that is amiable to adventuring with such a deceitful character, or leave the game.
What kind of fun is that?! I can't tell you how strongly I am opposed to this kind of ultimatum being issued at a game table. I am really holding back right now to not share how upsetting this kind of behavior from a DM is unacceptable. The message that this sends to the other players is "This is Caleb and my game. The plot revolves so heavily around his character that your characters are considered pawns by contrast. Whether you like the character or his play style is irrelevant to me as I am not concerned about whether this game is fun for you all or not. This game will only continue with me as the DM and Caleb playing Cosimo. If you don't like it, well... there is the door. Don't let it hit you where the Good Lord split you."
And not only that, its worse. Caleb, you were upset when the paladin's player tried to "control your character" by stating that he didn't think you were on your riding dog the entire time. How do you think that player feels when his character is getting controlled by the DM by way of the above mentioned ultimatum? He is being forced to accept your character for OOC reasons when he has IC reasons not to. He is being forced to metagame.
And then there is this gem:
"Your people? You make it sound like you are not part of this community." I pointed out she didn't want him to be part of it anyway, but that yes, amoung ratfolk Cosimo was a leader and that gave him a bit of political power in this situation.
You said this yourself! I pointed it out earlier in this post, in fact. You said, "While he views his party as friends, they are not part of his ratfolk community and he would have no problem leaving them to die if things become overwhelming." That player's character was correct. How can you possibly condemn them for having their character react to what they knew was your character's inclination?
And just to come around to my initial reaction at the start of this post... really? Because what has transpired already hasn't clued you in that the other players do not appreciate this play style? And what about their characters? Is the DM just going to tell them, "You are not allowed to play your character as mistrusting Cosimo. You trust him."?
I'm sorry if I come across as accusatory, Caleb. I am genuinely trying to be helpful and offer advice. Unfortunately, to me it seems like you aren't interested in hearing any advice that requires you to take ownership of having a heavy hand in causing this problem. I do not really understand why it is such a hard concept for you to grasp that you party doesn't trust your character that is admittedly deceitful.
I really don't think this is an IC issue at this point. It is an OOC issue. For your game to succeed you are going to need to adopt a play style that is more enriching to the fun everyone is having. From my perspective your play style seems "selfishly fun" for lack of a better term. I know you said that is not your intention but it appears that your actions have proved otherwise in your party's eyes. Do you honestly think that it is your play group's best interest for you to continue to be deceitful with them?
Here is my suggestion:
It is possible to play a game where all IC actions are out in the open and players know things that their characters do not. This can lead to a very rewarding and enriched story building. Your group in particular could benefit from adopting this play style.
Gnomerule, I would like to respond to your points.
1. I also gave him the benefit of the doubt and helped him by giving him advice on some playful ways of messing with his party. However, in my very first posts I also cautioned him that this sort of thing might not be appreciated by his party and could cause problems. Lo and behold... it did. I'm not off on an "I told you so" crusade here, but you also can't say, "give the guy a break, its all in good fun" because the other players clearly did not think so. In the end, my original assumption was correct and perhaps he should have heeded my advice a bit closer.
2. Your right. Some campaigns are like that. Some people enjoy that play style. Caleb is clearly one of those. I also get the impression that his DM has a like mindset. That doesn't mean that the other two players at their table are a big fan of it. I think it is pretty clear that they became annoyed at having to deal with having a character like Cosimo in the party.
3. Anyone can only give advice based on their personal experience. That goes for anyone. I have unfortunately had a lot of experience dealing with a player who doesn't like to play nice with the team and has a lot of the same behavior that Caleb is manifesting in Cosimo. I think Caleb's intentions are a bit better than those I have experienced but honestly it all amounts to the same thing. Intention only goes so far and doesn't go anywhere at all if intention isn't known in the first place. Or worse yet if his intentions themselves are being called into question.
sabbacc108: Ok, I think we need to cover a few things here. First of all, I am not accusing anyone of anything. I am simply working off information that was posted here in the thread. If you haven't yet read it all I would suggest doing so. As gustavo iglesias just pointed out there have been some contrary statements of biblical proportions made like the one he quoted above. That first quoted statement is particularly concerning and I find myself wondering what his party would think if they knew Cosimo's opinion of them. I can't help but thinking they wouldn't be too happy about that. I can't say that I'd blame them. From their actions I wonder if they already have an inkling of that opinion.
Also, you need to realize that prior to you posting here that we only had Caleb's side of the story to base any opinion on. We are happy to help players here but when there is a party issue and the title of the thread is "Help Me Mess With My Party" ...well, the first thing we are going to assume is that the issue is with the person messing with the party. So far, honestly, I am not entirely convinced that this still is not the case.
And lastly, you said that you have invested a lot of trust in Caleb by giving him insider knowledge about the plot and allowing him to work on things that are typically DM only. The other players do not have this advantage. They know this. They know that you know this. They could be jealous of this. Well, "jealous" might not be the correct word. But if they see you entrusting one player with this sort of knowledge but they do not get the same treatment this is likely to cause a rift in your group.
I guess what we want to know is what the issue is that the players have that lead to their level of distrust. You tell us. Why do you think they feel this way?
Hm. Do you think that it might be possible that the other players saw the relationship that you had with Caleb and thought that the talk going on behind their backs (which was really just discussing plots for the game) were actually Cosimo plotting against his party? Because that is the way that it seems to me. I think we are still missing part of the story here. Why were they suspicious of Cosimo? I mean from what has been described here the character doesn't seem like a very trustworthy sorta guy to begin with. It really seems in character for the others to be so suspicious of him.
And then you have to consider what the other players are seeing happening out of character. I can get behind expecting players to not use OOC info in character. However, that has it's logical limits too. If they see a lot of plotting going on behind their backs (or suspected plotting) they are going to get suspicious as players. If a player is suspicious and their character is suspicious then well... you have a perfect storm for inter party conflict just like what happened.
If the paladin felt betrayed by someone he had considered a team mate then I can't blame him for reacting to that perceived betrayal. I think what you might want to focus on is why that player/character felt betrayed to begin with. I assume that this player is like me and doesn't want to be in a party with someone who doesn't play nice with the party. This isn't fun for this player. Obviously this has to be true or the player wouldn't have made his character lash out against this perceived threat. And now that they are seeing you completely take Caleb's side and tell them they are clearly in the wrong I don't think that will make the situation better.
At this point I still think we are missing some information. I'm not trying to place blame to make people feel bad. However, there seems like there is blame to be placed. The purpose of it here now though is to mend the rift that has been creation. This being the case I stand by my previous suggestion.
Maybe I do have it wrong but it doesn't seem that way with your party being all upset at you. It also seems like this is beginning to carry over outside of the game. I think that there has been a misunderstanding but I don't think that rests in only the hands of the other players. I think you may not be understanding where they are coming from.
I'll try to keep an open mind and I'll wait for your DM to post. I'm interested. If you do start a different thread please post here and link to the other thread. I don't want to miss it.
One last thing though... if your party did react with paranoia and fear I'm sure that their reasons for acting that way were justified. I'm also sure that this had something to do with your character's past actions. What you are asking us all to believe right now is that YOU are the one with the level head and EVERYONE ELSE is just crazy and out to get you. If you ask me that sounds more diluted than the rest of the party being suspicious and paranoid of your secretive character's sub plots. At some point you need to realize that your actions have affected theirs.
Friendships haven't been lost yet. Unfortunately the messing with the party has become part of the plot, so it will continue. I just need to find a balance, and figure out how convince them that what I am doing will actually make the game more fun in the end.
Ok, I want you to see what you did right there. First, you said "unfortunately" and I don't think that anyone here is going to believe that you think that it is unfortunate when clearly this is something that you enjoy. Second, you said that you need to convince them (the players, not the characters) that what you are doing will make the game more fun. That is partly what I suggested. The part about talking to the players, that is. But you need to stop trying to convince them of anything. They aren't having fun anymore, CalebTGordan! You are ruining the game for them and threatening your friendship.
Look, I'm trying to be nice about it but I think I just need to be blunt here. You are being a jerk. The game is supposed to be fun for everyone who is playing it - DM included. You tell me who is having fun with the current climate of the game that you are causing. Because from my perspective here it doesn't look like that is anyone but you... and now, finally, that you realize that your actions may put a stop to your own fun you are actually looking to change how you play? This should have happened before now.
Your actions now are likely to not just determine whether and how your game continues but whether and how your friendships continue. I hope you make the right decision and realize that your play style is destructive. I'm not sure how much more blunt I can be or what more obvious of actions need to happen for you to see this. It really is beginning to seem like you are being purposefully ignorant of the issues you are causing.
C'mon, Ravingdork. We all know your lieing. You do not play characters that get directly involved in melee combat.
Who's character is this really?
Serious suggestions: Ioun Stones (at least a dusty rose prism) and Druid Vestments. Potions of Enlarge Person can also be tons of fun especially with that build.
CalebTGordan, I did warn you. Your current situation now seems even more like my current situation. The difference is that I was one of the players on the receiving end of the "messing with". While it might be fun for you it is important that you understand that you could be having fun at the expense of someone else'. I appreciate that you thought it was all fun and games before but now hopefully you see the damage that your actions can cause.
And blope is correct, this could carry over outside of the game. In fact, I think it is likely. If you aren't playing together with your friends anymore you are going to see them less. They are going to resent you for ruining (from their perspective) their good time.
I would love to hear from your GM just to get a neutral opinion of what transpired. Right now my best advice would be to come clean with the players OOC. Make sure that before you do so that you discuss with your DM and the other players that this is all OOC knowledge and that it is expected that the players do not metagame and allow their characters to act upon information that they do not know. They need to understand your motivations as a PLAYER for doing what you have done. This is very important at this point so that it doesn't allow IC drama to spill out into OOC problems.
You need to preserve your friendships at this point. So long as you are all mature players the OOC knowledge shouldn't change the game play either. You do not have to tell them about your future shenanigans or even share with them everything you have done in the past. Just the things that are pertinent to the issue at hand. If they all have secret agendas as your DM claims they do/will then they should understand. Especially if none of the agendas directly conflicts with one another. If they do then it sounds more like the DM is instigating inter party conflict but I doubt that is the case.
So a problem I ran into when trying to figure out the ability modifiers for a Brownie... I don't think the 3.x rule applies anymore. If it does then the modifiers for a Brownie would be:
And that can't be right. Screw it. Using the stuff from the advanced race guide.
So, I could stat out a full Brownie but instead I think I'll just make it a 10RP race so it is playable at 1st level. It actually works out nicely as that. The only thing you lose out on are the spell like abilities, one feat, and a situational saving throw bonus. Here is what I have:
Low-Light Vision 2
Size: Tiny 4 (+2 Dex, -2 Str, +2 AC, +2 attack, -2 CMB/CMD +8 Stealth)
Slow Speed -1
Standard Ability Score 0 (+2 Dex, +2 Cha, -2 Con)
Standard Languages 0
Fey Damage Resistance 3
Nimble Attacks 2
That would make the total ability point adjustments: -2 Str, -2 Con, +4 Dex, +2 Cha
Lore Warden Fighter
After racial and size modifiers:
1 Fighter 1: Weapon Finesse (racial bonus), Dodge (1st), Mobility (Fighter 1)
The character kinda sucks at level 1 because he doesn't threaten and when moving into his opponent's square to attack them he provokes an AoO. This wouldn't be as bad if he could actually deliver some damage once he is there but he can't do that until level 2. Still, it isn't terrible. His AC at level one is still a respectable 21 (10 +6 Dex +2 Armor +1 Dodge +2 Size) and that is before Mobility. So even when moving into a foe's threatened square he isn't likely to be hit with a 25 AC. Even if they do he does have his DR to fall back on.
Level 2 is infinitely better as he gets to actually start dealing damage. He switches from a rapier to a scimitar and begins dealing 1d2 +6 18-20/x2 damage on his attacks. By level 3 he is starting to come into his schtick. Since he shouldn't have a lot of problems hitting with his +9 attack bonus(+2 BAB, +6 Dex, +1 Masterwork Weapon) he can stand to use Crane Style to give him only a +7 attack bonus but get +3 AC. If he feels the need he could also use Combat Expertise to -1 attack/+1 AC to a comfortable level.
The real crux of the build though is Panther Style. Sure, he doesn't threaten. Sure, he provokes an AoO when moving into an opponents threatened square. He will gladly accept it. After all he has Mobility and will likely be using Crane Style to give him a combined bonus of +7 to AC. By level 3 this should be boosting his AC to around 30. His opponent will likely miss. On the other hand, his opponent triggered a retaliatory strike that he gets for free. Free as in it is not considered an Attack of Opportunity and does not count against his uses of them. Its just an extra attack for daring to try to strike him. Hilarious! Using this he wouldn't even actually have to stop. He could just walk around greeting each opponent on the battlefield in their square triggering as many retaliatory strikes as he has movement to get to them.
And now for a short discussion on metagaming. Each new set of foes will likely not know his tactic or how to respond to it properly. Sure, this isn't going to work through the entire combat. Intelligent foes are likely to catch on. However, even a single round of this can be fairly effective.
Moving on through the build it continues to become more effective using it's greatest weakness as it's best offense. Crane Wing at level 4 completely negates one melee attack per turn making his already redonkulous AC an even better defense. Piranah Strike at level 5 is his equivalent of Power Attack. He will still likely be hitting fairly often at this level and this gives him options. He can use it in conjunction with Crane Style and Combat Expertise or use it independently of them allowing him to find that "sweet spot".
Combat Reflexes at 6th works with Crane Riposte at 7th to allow for multiple AoOs in a round. He will be able to take -1 to attack and gain +3 to AC by this level, can deflect 1 attack per turn and make an AoO in response to it and use Panther Style to make a retaliatory strike when closing with a foe. Underfoot at 9th improves his AC from moving into his opponent's square by an additional 2. Panther Parry at 10th could spell doom for an opponent before they even get to land their first attack on him.
After this he starts going into Duelist allowing him to begin adding his Int to AC to a maximum of his Duelist level and Duelist level to damage. These are going to continue to snowball out of control as his levels progress. IMO Parry is pretty terrible until Riposte comes into play. After that it is actually pretty funny with the way the rest of the build works. Opponents are punished so badly just for trying to retaliate against this character. Combat Reflexes being obtained for free is also a complete loss. I would suggest talking to your GM to see if you could retrain it to another combat feat instead being that you already have the feat.
Enhanced Mobility combined with Mobility and Underfoot boosts AC by 10 for AoOs he provokes from movement. This doesn't include bonus AC from Duelist, Crane Style or Combat Expertise. Threatening from movement is never going to be a problem for him anymore. In fact, he wants to provoke from movement as much as possible. To others it might seem counter-intuative but it is the crux of his build.
His other class abilities just continue to add to this. Elaborate Parry increases his AC from Crane Style to -1 attack/+4 AC. He can deflect a single ranged and melee attack each round...if they can manage to hit in the first place. Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization and his Critical feats all make his later level attacks crazy scary. This is especially true when he reaches his capstone ability. By this level I think his AC should be nearly close to 60. His attacks will be fairly deadly with getting +Duelist level and +Dex to damage along with Piranha Strike on a Keen bursting weapon with a crit range of 15-20.
With Evasion, a high Dex and Grace reflex saves are a breeze for him. With all good Fort saves those should be easy too. The build's single weakness is a weakness shared by most martial classes: Will saves. There isn't much else to be done about this than the normal protections, though.
What do you think? It sounds fun to me. :)
So to clear a couple things up first:
I think my favorite so far would have to be Trogdar's idea. It was similar to what I had in mind.
Oh, also in answer to the question about how you figure ability modifiers for non standard races: If their score is odd give them -1 and take that modifier. If their score is even then use that modifier. So if they have a 13 then the race gets a +2 to that stat. If they have a 14 then that race gets a +2 to that stat. At least that is how it was done in 3.x. Pretty sure that carries over fairly well in Pathfinder.
Two questions... build to what level? And is the Gunslinger allowed?
Full build, but you don't need to give details at every level.Well, Gunslinger I suppose is allowed as I suppose that it is "martial" but I was hoping for a melee build. Something that breaks preconceptions about what the creature excels at. Same kinda goes for mounted builds for that matter.
Also, sometimes it is good to trigger AoOs so long as they do not connect. Likely by means of a high AC, Mobility and Panther Style or similar feats. But what am I giving you all suggestions for, I wanna see what YOU all come up with. ;) Maybe later I'll post some of my own ideas.
Here are the rules:
1. Character must be tiny sized.
Obviously monster races have to be allowed for being able to play a Tiny sized critter. I'm thinking that the strongest fit here would be for a Pixie but I would rather like to keep the racial HD down. For that reason a Brownie might be better. Assume that each HD costs 1 level.
I know I'm likely to get a lot of Rogue based suggestions but I'd rather that the character actually be more martially bent. Perhaps going into Duelist?
Assume a 20 point build. All Paizo books allowed, no 3rd party.
I think prototype00's Monk/Druid build is the best because it doesn't depend on precision damage and has everything it needs by itself without outside buffs or equipment dependability to make it work. It works on it's own merits and does it well. Plus, I'm thinking there are several ways to pump damage even higher. Being a Master of Many Styles on the Monk side is good and it fits the theme of incorporating animal's fighting styles with your own. Dragon Style seems like a natural fit.
I know this is likely going to stir up some conflict but I'm wondering how Tiger Style would work with such a build. The wording of the feat obviously wasn't worded with the intention of being used by something that has paws (or hooves, etc.) rather than hands, but it is really just offering a mechanic. If it works the way that I think it does... well, it could potentially double the damage that some of these builds are doing.
Wait... so you start your post by making an assumed generalization based on anecdotal evidence and then condemn STR Ranger for doing the same thing?
I agree with STR Ranger's generalization, though. I have not heard of a DM who would not allow Duelist Gloves to work for Weapon Training (or barring that, special ones to be made that do).
I think STR Ranger's advice was helpful here.
Grollub... you know what? Bribing my son actually is a kind of appealing idea. I mean, sure it would likely be poor parenting to show him that bribing to get what you want is acceptable behavior... but on the other hand it would show that when working towards a common goal you can make the game as a whole better. I could call it "rewarding good behavior" or "positive reinforcement" rather than "bribing" to satisfy my moral compass. ;)
Also, while I definitely agree that it is an option (perhaps even the best option) to replace him I do not have the authority to decide that on my own.
Ok, so with the people talking about the body wraps only working for half of the Monk's attacks in a flurry I assume this is because of the much debated SKR (I understand it was backed by the team and he was more just the messenger) ruling? I recall the devs saying they were going to firm up their opinion of this issue and get back with us. If this were the case I would really have hoped they would do so before producing more items that simply serve to further complicate the matter and the body wraps certainly seem to accomplish that.
I do not mean to derail the thread and if this turns into anything maybe we should even devote another thread to it. I doubt such a thread would inspire that dev feedback to be given but it might at least draw more attention to the issue that we are seeing.
Not that I'm trying to play devil's advocate or that I'm saying Druid is best or anything, but...
Wild Shape (which you can't use while you're mounted)
Huh? I do not recall reading that rule anywhere. Methinks that an angry monkey riding a mammoth sounds like a pretty tasty idea.
Also, the Druid list does include a pretty awesome spell: Animal Growth. That coupled with Improved Natural Attack, Strong Jaw and the Vital Strike line of feats is pretty spiffy. (3d6 > 4d6 > 5d6 > 7d6 > 14d6)
Here is the latest email from Mr. R (the problem player) on the topic:
Mr. R wrote:
I don't think I have much to add to this debate. It has all pretty much been said. I have no interest in adding to the heat, without shedding some light. I would note that my people eating powers don't kick in till level 10, and except for WLD our campaigns don't advance that far. What is latest word on next game session? Is it two weekends from now?
"WLD" is referring to a World's Largest Dungeon campaign that we played some time ago.
I think this email shows how little of an issue he believes that his actions have caused. ...either that or I'm making a bigger deal of it than it actually is.
DrDeth: I did read your profile. I'm glad that I did. Until I saw where you were located I thought I might know you in real life. You sound a lot like some people I used to hang with. I don't wear a beard and can't be fat, so I can't call myself a fatbeard. I also have never much been into war games so I am not so much a grognard. But I have been honorarily accepted as a grognard for my time in gaming. I've seen you around the boards (here and elsewhere if Im not mistaken) and have a respect for the type of person you are and what you have contributed. I did not personally own your book but I recall seeing it on one of my friend's shelves. Thank you for your support.
Jodokai: Did you like the interview? Maybe I should post it in it's own thread so others see it more. Its kinda nostalgic to me.
Snorter: Well, the thing is I can ask people that question but I can't guarantee to them that "Douchebag McGriefer" will not be there.
...awesome nickname by the way. I may take it to be used in context. ;)
While he views his party as friends, they are not part of his ratfolk community and he would have no problem leaving them to die if things become overwhelming.
I want everyone to walk away to thinking good, friendly thoughts.
How can I mess with my party in a huge, mind blowing way that won't easily be forgotten?
I find these 3 things in conflict with each other. In fact, I'm dealing with a player in my current group who is very disruptive currently. I'm posting about it over here. So I would start by saying that I personally disapprove of anyone who is trying to mess with his party to cause conflict especially if that results in the death of their characters or the players not having fun. If, however, you are just doing it for entertainment value and no one is actually upset by your shenanigans, then I'm all game!
With that being said I recall a previous game where I played a ninja girl follower of Mask in Forgotten Realms in 3.x. She was on her way to becoming a Telflammar Shadow Lord if you are familiar. In our party we had a Vow of Poverty Faerie Monk who needed to donate his money to charity. My character saw no good reason for this hard earned money to go to waste. She would go ahead to the town and work with her local contacts to setup "charities" before they arrived. She would split the "donations" with her accomplices. She didn't make huge profits because the DM didn't want loot to get too unbalanced amongst the party but she still ended up quite a bit ahead. The other player never found out. I had all I could do to stifle the laughter as the DM portrayed the "charities".
But if life gives you lemon, make lemonade ? Should you have the time : Offer the GM to master for a while, prepare a good game, and make Mr. R stick to his concept. See what happens.
I just got done doing that. I would like the opportunity to actually play with my son rather than DMing for him.
Roberta Yang wrote:
Well, if you want to consider that an ultimatum then you are correct. And I suppose it is, it just isn't the ultimatum that I meant. I meant more for the DM to give an ultimatum of "make a conducive character or theres the door." But I suppose it all really amounts to the same thing. I just do not like being the bad guy here. Especially as I just feel that I am asking for the DM's rules to be followed.
I feel like I'm the bad guy to the DM because I'm asking him to enforce rules that he put out. No one likes calling their friend out as spineless.
I feel like I'm the bad guy to Mr. R because he probably sees me the same as I see him: unwilling to bend to someone else's play style.
I feel like I'm the bad guy to Mr. B because he just wants to have a fun game and doesn't have as big of an issue with this as everyone else does.
I feel like I'm the bad guy to my son because he just wants to be in a fun game period and doesn't want to have to deal with this kind of conflict. I want a chance to role play with my son rather than for him. Without being the DM I feel that it is hard to provide the proper type of game for him to enjoy, though.
And now for an update on the situation. Here is the latest email from my DM:
And I need to clarify some things here. First of all I also called and spoke with my DM regarding these issues and cleared up a couple of points. First of all there seemed to have been a miscommunication about what I meant when I said that he was "catering to Mr. R's play style". My DM thought that I meant that he was running the sort of campaign that allowed him to take advantage of his play style. You see... Mr. R, aside from having poor personal hygiene habits and a sometimes annoying play style also has a proclivity for rats. He loves rodents. Yeah, I dunno, he is odd... what can I tell ya? My DM thought I meant that he was putting ratkin foes into the scenario to appeal to Mr. R. I explained to him that this was not what I was referring to. I was referring to the fact that he had setup parameters for character creation pre-game and that by not following those for one player he is catering to his disruptive play style.
That issue alone, I think, caused a lot of confusion in his response above. As for the issues with the characters that he brought up I was unaware of these issues prior to the email. For my alchemist he doesn't have any issue with the mechanics or the RP of the character. It is more of an issue of combat being primarily something he does in an alternate form. I think he wasn't clear on how it worked though and after I explained that it is really no different than a long lasting Barbarian Rage, or a spell buff he didn't have any issue with it. The issue he did have was more for trying to figure out beneficial loot for the character but that has been discussed and really is a non-issue.
The issue he had with my son's character was about him having a Roc as an animal companion. He doesn't like characters that are focused on their animal companion, cohort, familiar, etc. We knew this going in. It was explained that the Roc would not be getting involved in combat likely ever and would simply be used as a means of transportation. He is fine with this.
The gunslinger is Mr. B's character. I had an issue with this character going in because typically I do not like playing in fantasy settings that have black powder technology. Basically I don't like guns being included with my swords and sorcery. I recognize that this is just part of the Pathfinder setting though and have decided to have an open mind about it. Besides, I like his character concept and Mr. B is fun to play with. Also, it was brought up that alchemy isn't far off black powder technology and I can't really argue with that. These were the issues that the DM had as well. Also there is the problem of providing appropriate treasure for this character as well. Not every goblin or orc is going to have masterwork or magical guns laying around.
I did make it a point to explain that the problems that the DM had with the characters that he was only just now bringing up had nothing to do with the players and were things that were easily resolved by either talking about or making some small changes. All of the players I'm sure are willing to do that. The the problem with Mr. R's character isn't something that is on his character sheet. The problem isn't, in fact, a problem with his character at all. It is with the player.
My DM understands this as he has been on the receiving end of it before. I reminded him of last game where he played a paladin and was going after an evil lycanthrope little girl who had just murdered an orphanage full of children. Mr. R's character, of course, wanted to save the lycanthrope and didn't want my DM's character to kill it. My DM made it clear from the very start of this campaign that such behavior wasn't going to be tolerated by his character and he proceeded to smite the lycanthrope girl. It was the right decision. I explained that I feel that I am in a very similar situation currently.
He understood my point and agrees but said that he doesn't feel that he can enforce rules on someone's role playing. I explained that if he felt that way then he wouldn't be able to lay out (or enforce) the rules that he wrote in that email (posted above). But since he feels that he can enforce those then he is very clearly already enforcing rules on someone's role playing. I explained that I do not think this is a bad thing. The reason he made those rules was to ensure that everyone (including him) at the table has an enjoyable game. This situation is no different.
In the end I think we understand each other now at least. I'm not sure how this is going to turn out. My DM said he isn't sure if there is even going to be a next game and wants to talk to Mr. B first. I'm not sure if he is considering giving Mr. R an ultimatum or what. I did explain again that I was unwilling to play in a game where someone is allowed to play an evil, people eating, enemy sympathizing, contrary character that causes this kind of inter party conflict and neither is my son. My son was there during the phone conversation as well and pretty much weighed in with his "if good guys do bad things and ally with the bad guys my character is going to consider them bad guys and want to kill them just like any other bad guy" sentiment. Leave it to a child to bring clarity to a situation, eh?
My DM did have some encouraging things to say though. He did say that he isn't (and never was) going to allow blatant evil actions, people eating or any actual alliance with enemies. He predicted something like this may happen and he was prepared to "bring the hammer down" when it did. I explained that it would have been a lot easier and avoided conflict if he didn't allow those types of characters to begin with. I think, honestly, he is just having a hard time understanding that he really just needs to take a hard line on what types of characters he is willing to DM and what types he is not. Mr. R just plain needs that kind of structure given to him for him to be included in a successful game.
I'll let you all know how it turns out. I might be looking for a new group shortly.
toastwolf: Lansing, actually.
BBT: Smurfs + Bestiality tentacle hentai = Avatar! lol
Capt_Phoenix: We (my son and I) are not opposed to an evil campaign. We even talked about it prior to the start of this campaign mostly as a way of not having to deal with this particular issue. It was brought up that Mr. R has in the past made a contrary character in an evil campaign as well; he was the do gooder. Basically, that solution will not work as a means of dealing with the issue. Plus, the DM isn't really interested in running an evil campaign due to party goals being hard to DM for.
Aranna: I approve of your rules and would like to get them implemented. Now I just have to convince my DM to implement them and stick to them. I understand 3.5 Loyalist's issues with them and they are sound as well. The problem is I think there needs to be a change in the way things are currently done and I do not see a middle ground.
FinalParagon: To answer your question he is a good roleplayer and fun to game with in every other sense except this one problem. In the analogy you used it would be like just needing to find a way to put a guard on the handle of the panini press so you do not get burned. I think this is resolvable but it is either going to take doing it by force or giving the player an ultimatum. The problem is that I do not have the power to apply said force (though I could leave the table) and I do not have the power to give that ultimatum.