Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

DM's house rules - frustrated


Advice

51 to 100 of 173 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

RumpinRufus wrote:
Quatar wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
Honestly, it seems like a reasonable house rule to me, as far as evening the field between casters and martial characters. The fact that OP seems reluctant to play a martial character even with this free buff speaks to that to some extent.

So what you're saying is: Casters are overpowered and the OP wants to abuse that, because otherwise he'd cave in and just play a martial character. Is that what you're saying?

Not everyone likes martial characters. Or sometimes wants to play a concept that needs a caster.

I wasn't trying to accuse OP of power-gaming, just pointing out that one reason (out of many) that some players prefer casters is because they're more powerful. If the OP doesn't care about power and just wants to play a caster for flavor reasons, then he shouldn't care about taking the occasional AoO. If he's concerned casters won't be effective with these rules and cares about power, he should just play a melee character and get the free buff.

Part of the problem as stated in the original post is that the DM is a fan of buffing encounters, so it's not a powergaming issue, it's a survival and feeling useful issue.

And see my previous post as to motives for playing a full caster.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Maybe just suggest you play E6.


Quatar wrote:

So why not just give wizards only 1 race to choose from, scratch their 1st level feat and give them only 1 instead of 2 traits.

Because that's essentially what you did there. With that houserule you basically force casters to take those feats, traits and maybe even races to not suck totally.

Even without that house rule you should be massing out concentration checks anyway. As a caster, you don't need your feats for anything else.


RumpinRufus wrote:
However, it seems to be almost unanimous that casters are more powerful than melee characters once you get to mid-levels, so if the GM wants to make a world where melee characters don't hit a ceiling at level 7, this seems like a reasonable way to do it.

I think it's a pretty poor way of doing it, actually. This house rule makes spellcasters even worse than usual at low levels, while high level spellcasters have far better odds at succeeding on their concentration checks (stat-increases + stat-boosting items), plus could easily have defenses in place that mitigate a lot of the problems of eating an AoO.

So the houserule penalizes low-level spellcasters to a greater degree than it penalizes high-level spellcasters, which would run counter to the idea of making high-level casters less powerful.

Silver Crusade

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Can casters and Ranged weapon users chose another feat?

This "free feat" that only benefits some players and NPCs, is unbalancing.

Imagine if this was Combat Casting or Weapon Finesse as a free feat for all.

How would that effect the balance?

The DM gives everyone Step Up. PCs too. He also gives Heighten Spell to casters for free.

I will make the case that it is unbalanced. I don't think that's really a problem for him, as he thinks casters are the overpowered ones.

@Are
Very good point. It penalizes low level casters when they're not very powerful, and is irrelevant for higher level casters when they actually become super powerful.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Tales Subscriber

I don't think that the "everyone gets step up for free" is so troublesome as the OP makes it sound (except for low level magi, for those it can be troublesome) but you did agree with this house rule before the game started right?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The extreme buffing of enemies as well.


Petty Alchemy wrote:
Casting spells that are swift actions doesn't provoke AoO.

Oh cool, I never knew that!

In that case, playing an Oracle and taking Grace is a good way to get around this. It costs you a (precious) spell known, but basically for the rest of the game you'll never have to worry about AoOs, without investing any feats, traits, gear, etc.


So, let me get this straight.

  • At higher levels, casters > archers > melee.
  • This house rule primarily helps melee characters.
  • The argument is that even though melee characters generally need help to redress the relative imbalance, actually giving them help is unbalancing.

Just, y'know, to make sure that I'm getting the argument right.


The GM's "house rule" does more than just nerf spell casters and ranged combatants, it basically eliminates the benefits of a 5-foot step, especially if the monster/NPC in question takes Following Step and Step Up and Strike. That is going to kill martial characters above 6th level, when they gain iterative attacks and are doing the "5-foot step shuffle" for positioning while making full attacks.

My answer to this for a wizard/sorcerer would be nothing different than "normal" - good positioning to avoid melee and Vanish cast defensively when the excrement hits the rotary oscillator. DC 17 isn't that bad, especially at level 3+. A bonus is that most things will have a difficult time following as you walk away (+20 on Stealth checks), so you buy at least another round before the offending monsters is in your face again. If the GM also metagames, then this (and just about everything else) won't work. However, it is a cheap solution (1 x 1st level spell) that is useful in many different situations.

If it were me, I'd be looking for a different GM to game with. I generally support house rules and rule adjustments to make a better play experience for everyone - those that favor the players or pinpoint specific problem areas. This kind of sweeping change, unless extensively play tested, is just asking for trouble.


Mike J wrote:
That is going to kill martial characters above 6th level, when they gain iterative attacks and are doing the "5-foot step shuffle" for positioning while making full attacks.

I don't understand what you mean by this - the feat allows a character to move when an adjacent foe takes a 5-foot-step away. Why would the fighter be moving away from his target if he's trying to full attack?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

When creating a Houserule, it's important to ask "Does this increase the fun of all, or just a select few?"


RumpinRufus wrote:
I don't understand what you mean by this - the feat allows a character to move when an adjacent foe takes a 5-foot-step away. Why would the fighter be moving away from his target if he's trying to full attack?

It doesn't screw over fighters in general, but it does destroy anyone who wanted to use a Reach weapon. (And archers, which came up before.)

So basically only non-Reach melee fighters don't get hurt by this.


I would just play what you want and ignore the GM's douchery/bias. He is only, what, 1/5 of the players at the table. Your friends (including the GM here too) will still be there so you can have plenty of fun. When a GM has an agenda about something, best to just ignore it.

But for more passive aggressive advice, convince ALL the other PCs to play Wizards. Well, Sorcerers, in case he has a hate-on for spellbooks too. Yes, this is childish, I am not really recommending it. :) Although its actually fun to do in any game. :)

Or go over the top with it. Set your constitution score to 7 or whatever the lowest is that you can. Avoid combat casting. Never take a five foot step away ... its pointless. Instead, take a five foot step UP to the meanest thing on the board *every* time. Cast in its face, not even defensively. Be cheerful and oblivious. After all, nothing is wrong here. Make the same character with a different name every session.

But I guess at that point, you are making the rest of the group weaker, so ignore my advice. Matching the GM's attitude with an equally douchey but opposite force wont help much.

Best wishes!

Grand Lodge

Glendwyr wrote:
So, let me get this straight.
  • At higher levels, casters > archers > melee.
  • This house rule primarily helps melee characters.
  • The argument is that even though melee characters generally need help to redress the relative imbalance, actually giving them help is unbalancing.

Just, y'know, to make sure that I'm getting the argument right.

The issue isn't that this helps melee...the issue is that this helps melees are low levels where they are ACTUALLY the most powerful and does nothing at higher levels where the issue lies. By mid levels archers will have the point blank mastery feat and casters will have stuff that makes casting defensively a none issue.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Really, just ask whose fun he is looking to increase.

This houserule does nothing to stop higher level spellcasters from being powerful.

Perhaps something else? Whatever he chooses, this is not the answer.


Yeah, it seems like almost everyone agrees that if he uses this rule, it shouldn't kick in until mid-level when casters actually start getting strong.

I'd suggest compromising with your DM to establish a level (say 7th level) where everyone gets Step Up, instead of giving it at level 1 where it's unbalancing.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Yes. Simply moving it to a free 7th level bonus feat is a good compromise.

I think this is something that will be more acceptable to your DM, and you.

Grand Lodge

RumpinRufus wrote:

Yeah, it seems like almost everyone agrees that if he uses this rule, it shouldn't kick in until mid-level when casters actually start getting strong.

I'd suggest compromising with your DM to establish a level (say 7th level) where everyone gets Step Up, instead of giving it at level 1 where it's unbalancing.

But that still won't really do anything...other then be a feat/item/trait tax on the archers and casters. if you really wanna nerf the casters, go back to the 2E days where there is no casting defensively or concentration check. You get hit while casting a spell and it fizzles.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Crippling spellcasters with even more houserules beyond this feat is a terrible idea.


Sorry about the unsupported paltry DC claim.

FWIW, it's subjective. Spell interruption just very rarely comes up in my games, because the casters play it safe wherever possible.

Grand Lodge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Crippling spellcasters with even more houserules beyond this feat is a terrible idea.

That's the thing...this houserule really doesn't cripple a spell caster...it is a speed bump at best. And casters have used the 2e ruleset against fighter who all basically had pounce that attacked at full BAB just fine for years. Not saying we should go back to that system...just saying that is ONE way to balance casters and fighter types. And basically to balance casters and fighters at higher levels...you need something this drastic honestly.

Silver Crusade

A note. I did NOT know about this rule in advance the last time he DMed. I do now which is why I'm looking to change it, mitigate it, or just not play.


RumpinRufus wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Casting spells that are swift actions doesn't provoke AoO.

Oh cool, I never knew that!

In that case, playing an Oracle and taking Grace is a good way to get around this. It costs you a (precious) spell known, but basically for the rest of the game you'll never have to worry about AoOs, without investing any feats, traits, gear, etc.

Not to mention many, many of your lvl2 spells per day.


Maybe this is just semantics, but "giving melee characters extra tools to use against casters" is not the same thing as "taking something away from casters." It's not a zero-sum game. Spellcasters have exactly the same capabilities that they had before; ergo, they aren't crippled in the slightest.

While I totally agree that this is something that shouldn't be in place at level 1, the weeping and gnashing of teeth over this house rule strikes me as hilariously disproportionate.


I'm not a fan of Gm's trying to nerf character concepts they don't like or think are too powerful...he is pushing the players to building certain types of characters over others without any clear justification for it...it seems overly punitive against any ranged chars...I wouldn't enjoy playing in this game...Its not the end of the world as far as game balance but if some one had their heart set on a ranged build they now need to optimize/pay a heavy feat tax and thats a load of crap


Glendwyr wrote:

Maybe this is just semantics, but "giving melee characters extra tools to use against casters" is not the same thing as "taking something away from casters." It's not a zero-sum game. Spellcasters have exactly the same capabilities that they had before; ergo, they aren't crippled in the slightest.

While I totally agree that this is something that shouldn't be in place at level 1, the weeping and gnashing of teeth over this house rule strikes me as hilariously disproportionate.

Casters in Pathfinder are designed with the 5 foot step mechanic in mind, taking it away for free clearly takes something away from them. Only the rare char in pathfinder(with step up, ect.) is supposed to be able to negate there ability to step away and cast...that is taking away a key strategy from casters


Does everyone also gain the ability to attack adjacent opponents with Reach weapons?

Also, Heighten Spell is useless at low levels, where this rule has the greatest effect and casters are already weakest. This is really a terrible rule; it does nothing to affect caster dominance at high levels, it just makes them even weaker at low levels when they already suck.

And yes, giving everyone a counter to something of yours is in fact equivalent to taking something away from you. If the house-rule were "oh by the way all weapons count as silver but don't cost extra and don't deal less damage than normal" because the GM considered some PC race with DR/silver to be too good, then that would absolutely be taking something away from that race.


No, eliminating DR/silver would be taking something away. Giving people the ability to penetrate DR/silver would be giving something to everyone else. I grant freely that this is just an issue of semantics - I said as much! - and the overall effect is the same. But the way we discuss an issue affects the way we think about an issue. And we may as well discuss what is actually being done.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Interesting...

I would say in my own games, I far more often see people using 5 foot steps far more often to adjust to get into flanking position safely and then full attacking, than casters using it (most of them cast defensively or suck up the AOO--or rely on allies to provoke AOOs by threatening foes so they use their AOOs per round up before the caster casts). And I see clever meleers using Step Up to keep a combatant being flanked from leaving being flanked.

So it's funny, my concern about this would be about making meleers too powerful, and being largely inconsequential for casters, who in my personal experience don't worry about 5 foot steps very often anyway.

Further, when you activate Step Up, you forego the option to take a 5 foot step on your own turn. If my opponent fixated on using that as an option to stop spellcasters, what I'd do is have 2 meleers stay near my caster, have the spellcaster provoke the Step Up movement, then cast defensively anyway to avoid the AOO (even with 15 plus twice spell DC, a well built caster usually doesn't have trouble beating that), and then have the meleers move in to flank the foe. The foe on his own turn will be unable to 5 foot step out of being flanked because he wasted it on trying to chase the caster.

While if my GM insisted on this house rule I'd go along with it quite acceptingly, I would consider him making himself far more trouble than he is solving.


But if your caster is taking a attack of opportunity followed by a full attack on the melee chars turn-you will die long before the flanked melee char most of the time. If your dm often attacks your casters and archers in melee with heavy hitters you might have a higher opinion of the 5 foot step. Yeah casting defensively can work most of the time but you still risk taking a devastating attack to get of your spell whether you can get it off(not a great thing in the heat of battle)


What I see:
This can be typical problem which i has in my groups often. Pathfinder is very popular system and it's easy to gather a players. Easier than most of low-magic fantasy games, which this particular GM wants to run, despite not knowing of that. IMHO arguing about his houserules is pointless, it's problem of vision of the game.If you can't accept this WFRP-style of play either GM or players should resign.


Personally I wouldn't worry about it too much, while Step Up can be annoying it is far from something that shuts casters down. Worse case scenario is just use a move action to get away, which will provoke but won't risk ruining your spell. If you can't move away just cast Defensively, while you might fail some it really isn't that bad. Casters are plenty powerful enough to deal with people getting to follow up your 5ft adjust.

Step Up does not bridge the martial-caster divide in any meaningful way, just play the game and enjoy the power of a full caster and don't worry about not being able to 5ft adjust. In previous editions you couldn't move and cast and if you took any damage during the round it disrupted your spell casting (not just while you were casting) and casters were still super powerful back then.


Of the two issues brought up by the OP the Step Up ability seems a trivial concern. His tendency to make every single encounter a fight to the death forcing the expenditure of valued resources would be a much greater concern for me.


RumpinRufus wrote:

Honestly, it seems like a reasonable house rule to me, as far as evening the field between casters and martial characters. The fact that OP seems reluctant to play a martial character even with this free buff speaks to that to some extent. However, it's true that at low levels martial characters are already strong enough - perhaps you can compromise with your GM and say characters don't gain Step Up as a free feat until, say, level 7. This helps casters not die at low levels while they're weak, but limits their power at high levels where they tend to be much stronger.

Blueluck wrote:
  • A wizard of the teleportation subschool so that I could swift-action teleport out of danger starting at level 1
  • I don't think this would help, because after using that ability he can't take any actions until his next turn (as Dimension Door.)

    It would not help him in the first turn. But after that it would.

    After the enemy gets to him he does a 5ft step, enemy follows, he casts defensicely or does something else then uses teleport. Next turn enemy can't 5ft step during his turn. So either he doesn't get back in range or he will most likely provoke an AoO from the rest of the party.
    If he does rinse and repeat.

    The caster will still have to cast defensively but the enemy can chose to either provoke AoOs or stop stepping up. Classic Win-Win Situation for the Party.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I have considered giving the same houserule.

    its always stupid to me that a person can just take a step back and do what ever they want. I mean any one who knows about close combat knows that the most natural action is to keep close and engaged to your opponent. if they step back you step forward. in other words step up is as natural as power attack and neither of them should be feats.

    The other reason I like giving step up is because I like encouraging players to work as a team. the caster should not be sitting alone and the melee should not be running off on his own. they should work together and ranged classes should have a back up melee ability.

    Having said that before getting upset about such a thing have you considered ways to work in the system? carry a staff or spear as a weapon, make use of fight defensively, your allies can draw out the enemies AoO, or you can draw the enemy into a flanked position with your 5 foot step (remember that staff, dagger or spear that your wielding)

    in other words. try not to worry about how you cant play like your used to playing and take a few steps to play in the new system.

    its not too hard and could be quite fun.


    blue_the_wolf wrote:
    I have considered giving the same houserule.

    I fully agree with Blue.

    In the previous editions i always dislike the possibility to prevent a AoO with a 5ft step. Range attacks, drinking potions, casting spells and other actions can trigger an AoO but it was far to easy to prevent this. We always used a houserule very similar to the feat StepUp.

    I am honest .. in the most times this houserule is a advantage for the players. I often forget to step up with my NPCs and my PCs use this option very often.


    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    I am assuming you're responding to my post above yours.

    Chaos_Scion wrote:
    But if your caster is taking a attack of opportunity followed by a full attack on the melee chars turn-you will die long before the flanked melee char most of the time.

    As I noted in my post, you can avoid that by either casting defensively (see below) or having other members of your party provoke AOOs so that they have run out of AOOs by the time you cast.

    Anyone who has abilities to render a character flat-footed also helps -- you can't make AOOs when you're flat-footed.

    Quote:


    If your dm often attacks your casters and archers in melee with heavy hitters you might have a higher opinion of the 5 foot step.

    My GM doesn't often attack casters and archers in melee with heavy hitters very often, because the casters and archers in our party are smart enough to stay away from melee range if they can at all help it, and our meleers are smart enough to engage the heavy hitters and keep them from moving toward the casters and archers (Stand Still is awesome for that, although it's not often a priority feat). Not to mention, if the GM really wants to avoid me taking a 5 foot step, rather than bother with Step Up, he's going to attack me with a creature with reach, where a 5 foot step will not take me out of a threatened area.

    There ARE times that you are going to unavoidably be in melee combat, and you should be prepared for that in any number of ways, but in a party playing with good tactics, that should be the exception to circumstances rather than the rule.

    Also, archers in particular have a few ways of not provoking AOOs in melee with some feats and class abilities in the APG -- and further any decent archer should be able to still have enough weapon skill to switch off to a melee weapon if they are in close quarters or unexpectedly find themselves cornered.

    Quote:
    Yeah casting defensively can work most of the time but you still risk taking a devastating attack to get of your spell whether you can get it off(not a great thing in the heat of battle)

    I think you are misunderstanding casting defensively -- you do not risk any attack, let alone a devastating one, if you cast defensively. The definition of casting defensively is wanting "to cast a spell without provoking attacks of opportunity." So if you opt to cast defensively, you never provoke an attack (with one very specific exception noted below). The only downside to casting defensively is that if you fail your concentration check, you fail to cast the spell.

    The only time you CAN provoke an AOO when casting defensively is if you are in melee with a 10th level fighter or 10th level arcane duelist with the Spellbreaker feat--then if you fail, you still provoke the AOO. But those are two very specific enemies (and ONLY characters with 10 levels of fighter or 10 levels of arcane duelist, or a handful of classes that allow you to count your class level as fighter levels, can have this feat). Encounter them often would be unusual, and further by the time you are fighting 10th level enemies, you should have any number of tactics and spells to get you out of melee range.

    Casters have a choice between casting defensively OR provoking an AOO. Sometimes, the former is safer, even if you lose the spell. Sometimes, the latter is worth the risk -- maybe you're protected by a miss chance from displacement or blur and/or you have a bunch of mirror images up, and/or you think your AC is high enough they'll miss one way or the other. And of course again, if the enemy is flat-footed or has used up their AOOs for the round, you're definitely safe to cast. There's a lot of circumstances to take in and consider.

    Taldor

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Here's how you cope with it. Recognize he is the GM. Recognize he puts in time, effort and energy to prep the game and execute it. Realize you're not the GM. Appreciate that he has been open about his house rules and the type of game he will be running.

    Next, ask yourself if you GM that often? Ask yourself if you'd be willing or capable to do the same or better? Then, try running games yourself. Over time you may realize that you have your own house rules that will help make it the game you wish to run and play.

    After that type of soul-searching--see if you still feel as hostile toward your GM over a few minor changes?

    With more years of experience as either a player or a GM you may come to appreciate that sometimes changes or house rules, or the execution style of GMing doesn't please everyone at the table. However, with that experience you may also discover that the GM serves the campaign first, the story second, and the players third.

    Decide for yourself if you have a reason why you can't still enjoy the game, participate fully, and realize these changes are just 1/100000th of the multitudes of facets to the game.

    My guess is once you are calm and accept these rulings, you may discover a great campaign experience of which this is only on part.

    Good luck to you.
    -Pax

    Cheliax

    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    Pax Veritas wrote:

    Next, ask yourself if you GM that often? Ask yourself if you'd be willing or capable to do the same or better? Then, try running games yourself. Over time you may realize that you have your own house rules that will help make it the game you wish to run and play.

    After that type of soul-searching--see if you still feel as hostile toward your GM over a few minor changes?

    If you'd read one of his earlier posts he mentioned, "I DM most of our games and this is an opportunity for me to get out from behind the screen." Also, please keep it civil, he is merely frustrated by his situation and is asking for help. He even mentioned in his first post that he was willing to play if we could help him with a character that he would enjoy given his situation.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Ciaran Barnes wrote:
    If anything, the DM should be creating them* based on feedback from the group members, instead of front-loading the game.

    * = Houserules

    This is all that needs to be said.

    My previous DM did not learn of this until it was too late.

    It's just one of the many reasons I left his table along with the other players.


    And if you read another of his posts you'll see that the GM was not open about these rules - they were not mentioned before the first session.

    But hey, why worry about facts or anything like that when there are Glorious Infallible DM Deities to champion and sniveling entitled players to smite?

    Edit: vvv Yes it was.


    I'll assume that post was pointed at Pax Veritas.

    Lantern Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    Being new as a DM, there have been cases where I've invoked a rule that wasn't quite right. My players are letting me learn and will point out what I've done wrong.

    The one key thing I've learned, being new, is that its all about fun.

    If you or the players are not having fun because of this rule, then let the DM know. If he feels your casters are over-powered, it would better for him to make a battle a bit tougher. (maybe add a spell resistance or damage reduction from spells)

    We can all talk about adding this feat, or adding this skill, but it still comes down to fun. Why should I have to waste certain skills or feats to skirt a DMs house rule? This takes away from the fun of creating a character and modeling how I want that character to be.

    My players will pull me aside after a game and let me know when I've done something "not quite right". I would discuss this matter with your DM, along with your other players, if they are unhappy. I'd rather know as a DM if the players are having fun, or just sticking with the game because they are my friends.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pax Veritas wrote:
    With more years of experience as either a player or a GM you may come to appreciate that sometimes changes or house rules, or the execution style of GMing doesn't please everyone at the table. However, with that experience you may also discover that the GM serves the campaign first, the story second, and the players third.

    Wrong. The entire game is about gm and players. it doesn't matter if the campaign is crap, if the story is crap, as long as everyone has fun. it is everyone's job but most especially the gm's to see to this. If you're the only one having fun in your group and they've told you this, you're doing it wrong.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    What the hell are all these players doing at my table messing with my campaign world and my beautifully-crafted story? This is my setting, and they're lucky to be able to even gaze upon it. Why do they think they're entitled to be able to "play" in it? Spoiled brats. They don't appreciate me or my world or understand anything. This game would be so much better if PC's just didn't exist.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I have other business to attend to. There are some children playing with toys, and I need to explain to them that doing so will inflict wear and tear on the toys, damaging them until they eventually become useless. They should just leave their toys on a shelf in an airtight box, where they belong. Don't they know how much work was put into manufacturing those toys? Do they think they could make better toys? Then where the hell do they get the idea that they're allowed to slowly but surely destroy them? I blame shoddy parenting.

    It's hard being the only one with any sense.

    Grand Lodge

    Pax Veritas wrote:

    Here's how you cope with it. Recognize he is the GM. Recognize he puts in time, effort and energy to prep the game and execute it. Realize you're not the GM. Appreciate that he has been open about his house rules and the type of game he will be running.

    Next, ask yourself if you GM that often? Ask yourself if you'd be willing or capable to do the same or better? Then, try running games yourself. Over time you may realize that you have your own house rules that will help make it the game you wish to run and play.

    After that type of soul-searching--see if you still feel as hostile toward your GM over a few minor changes?

    With more years of experience as either a player or a GM you may come to appreciate that sometimes changes or house rules, or the execution style of GMing doesn't please everyone at the table. However, with that experience you may also discover that the GM serves the campaign first, the story second, and the players third.

    Decide for yourself if you have a reason why you can't still enjoy the game, participate fully, and realize these changes are just 1/100000th of the multitudes of facets to the game.

    My guess is once you are calm and accept these rulings, you may discover a great campaign experience of which this is only on part.

    Good luck to you.
    -Pax

    So...I'm gonna assume you failed to actually read this thread....

    Please read the thread you are repling to before you do so unless you LIKE to look like a fool. The OP has played with this DM before...he did NOT have fun and is pondering if he wants to go through that again. That is 100% his right to do and you have no right to tell him he is over-reacting as...well it's HIS fun...not yours. The DM was not forthcoming about the houserule. The OP does in fact run his own game.

    The only valid comment was about DM priority. The one you have is your opinion...just know that many do not agree with that. That includes those of us who DM a lot. MY priority is players and me first (if we are not having fun, what the hell are we doing showing up every week?), campaign second and story third.


    Is it strange that I, a full-time 4 nights a week on average since I was 12 GM, get genuinely upset when I read posts in which someone says "the GM puts in time, effort and energy to prep the game," or anything else that puts the GM at some higher tier of importance than the players?

    I mean, yes - I put in time perusing rule books, skimming adventures to see if I want to use them, thinking up plot lines, calculating travel times and thinking up weather patterns and "side events" that would enhance the world feel for my campaign... and the players don't.

    I enjoy those moments - similarly, the players don't... they like the end result, but none of them like the process of doing all of those.

    How is it fair for me to act like I am more important just because I have more pieces of the role-playing hobby that I gain enjoyment from?

    I guess it comes down to me always likening playing an RPG to playing any other sort of game - like Monopoly, or Poker - sure, you need one of the people involved to take on a little more responsibility (and be the banker or the dealer or whatever), but that doesn't mean that one person suddenly gets the power to make decisions by himself that no one else can question.

    "Alright Harry, it's your deal... what? No we aren't going to take all the aces out of the deck just because you don't like them!"


    AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
    "Alright Harry, it's your deal... what? No we aren't going to take all the aces out of the deck just because you don't like them!"

    Actually, whenever I play cards the game is dealer's choice - if it's my turn to deal and I decide to play Indian Poker, that's what we're playing. If you don't like Indian poker, when it's your turn to deal you can deal Hold 'Em. As long as the odds are fair, it's up to the dealer's discretion (of course, if they know everyone else hates a certain game then they'll probably have the grace not to choose it.)


    DeathQuaker wrote:

    I am assuming you're responding to my post above yours.

    Chaos_Scion wrote:
    But if your caster is taking a attack of opportunity followed by a full attack on the melee chars turn-you will die long before the flanked melee char most of the time.

    As I noted in my post, you can avoid that by either casting defensively (see below) or having other members of your party provoke AOOs so that they have run out of AOOs by the time you cast.

    Anyone who has abilities to render a character flat-footed also helps -- you can't make AOOs when you're flat-footed.

    Quote:


    If your dm often attacks your casters and archers in melee with heavy hitters you might have a higher opinion of the 5 foot step.

    My GM doesn't often attack casters and archers in melee with heavy hitters very often, because the casters and archers in our party are smart enough to stay away from melee range if they can at all help it, and our meleers are smart enough to engage the heavy hitters and keep them from moving toward the casters and archers (Stand Still is awesome for that, although it's not often a priority feat). Not to mention, if the GM really wants to avoid me taking a 5 foot step, rather than bother with Step Up, he's going to attack me with a creature with reach, where a 5 foot step will not take me out of a threatened area.

    There ARE times that you are going to unavoidably be in melee combat, and you should be prepared for that in any number of ways, but in a party playing with good tactics, that should be the exception to circumstances rather than the rule.

    Also, archers in particular have a few ways of not provoking AOOs in melee with some feats and class abilities in the APG -- and further any decent archer should be able to still have enough weapon skill to switch off to a melee weapon if they are in close quarters or unexpectedly find themselves cornered.

    Quote:
    Yeah casting defensively can work most of the time but you still risk taking a devastating attack to get of your spell
    ...

    Ok the casting defensively was my bad. Since we don't have that rule it rarely comes up and the last time it did there was a spell breaker fighter around so I made an unfounded assumption about how the rule works...

    As for being smart enough to avoid the attacks that is highly dependent on the gm. My gm love confined spaces filled with enemies that makes it difficult to avoid without defensive casting or 5 foot steps. There are a lot of ways for many chars to avoid AOO but a lot of them don't come into play until higher lvls either because of requirements or other feats you naturally take first.

    The rule doesn't kill the game but it forces you to play it a certain way. Forcing the archer to frequently switch to melee instead of being able to back away and shoot. Make the caster maximize for defensive casting. Make your melee chars focus on builds with things like stand still to more effectively protect the casters. All I'm saying is it feels like the dm is pigeon holing his players into certain builds. I usually play in lower lvl campaigns so maybe I don't see mages as so much more powerful and needing to be nerfed.

    51 to 100 of 173 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
    Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Advice / DM's house rules - frustrated All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.

    ©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.