So I rolled up a 6th level Thunder and Fang Skirmisher Ranger. I chose to use the Weapon and Shield Combat Style, since it skips some pointless prereqs for a Thunder and Fang build, Improved Shield Bash I'm looking at you.
I chose Shield Slam at level 6, and once the GM found out he pronounced that I must be mistaken, "Look it up" is my response. He checked both HeroLab and the APG.
He immediatly houseruled against me using it, because "a Fighter has to wait five more levels to get that feat." I explained to him the entire point of Combat Styles is to skip prereqs and get feats early but he has already made up his mind.
The thing is he even admitted that he didn't think it was unbalanced; just that it "bugged him" that the Ranger got it so early compaired to a Fighter
...Ugh...
So in the same way he house rules that rangers can't get improved precise shot at 6th level because fighters (also read: anyone else) have to wait 5 more levels to get it, the same is true for the zen archer monk and the improved precise shot, correct?
Anyway, what is his problem exactly? the fact that rangers get it earlier than everyone else or the fact that the class who has the word "fight" in it's name has to wait?
He also threw a Swashbuckler with a polearm at me, and ruled that you can take a 5 foot step at any time if you havent already used it that turn, because it's a no action. Next time I fight a single melee Fighter I'm going to use a five foot step away every time the foe move actions adjacent to me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else in the group suffer from this sort of harassment? These sorts of rulings... On the spot changes to the way the game works by default that come specifically at you... Don't bode well.
If you like the GM, I'd talk it out and find out if there's some underlying issue.
If they're no one to you, I'd bail. It sounds like they're messing with you in a very bad way.
It's not a no-action, it's a miscellaneous action. It would have to be a free or immediate action to work like that.
He also threw a Swashbuckler with a polearm at me, and ruled that you can take a 5 foot step at any time if you havent already used it that turn, because it's a no action.
No, 5 foot step is usually* a free action, which means that you can use it when it's your turn. Don't take it the wrong way, he might just be confused/misremembering the rule, did you tell him (preferably during a break) that this isn't how 5 foot step works (isn't a no action)?
*there some feats and effects that might change that assumptions
@Petty Alchemy
There isn't a catecory of miscellaneous actions in PF.
I pointed out it makes feats like Step Up and Sidestep pointless... He said that those feats suck...
Also the rules dont even state you can use a free action during another players turn.
The guy can actually be an amazing GM, in fact he ran my first ever PF game.
Well if you completely ignore the rules and let people take a 5' step at any time, then Sidestep and Step Up do indeed suck.
I know that Rule 0 is a thing. Still, repeatedly changing things on the fly (or not telling your players about a change until it comes into effect) is pretty terrible behavior on the part of a GM.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the GM just wants to do what he wants do to. However he does not realize that "surprise" rules are annoying, and that is what needs to be explained to him.
I think the GM just wants to do what he wants do to. However he does not realize that "surprise" rules are annoying, and that is what needs to be explained to him.
While you are at it explain that balancing around the Fighter is a terrible idea and that he should try balancing around the Paladin instead. Or if he wants the ultimate balance point, the Psychic Warrior.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
when people do this, ask him if you can redo your character since you made the character with the assumption that you would be getting X at level Y. if they're not even willing to do that, it's an easy signal it's your time to leave.(idk, that's probably a bit harsh, but you should be allowed to do things the books say, especially with regards to what your character can and cannot do.)
While it might not be the optimal build, you can get Shield Slam by level 6 on a Fighter. Some I'm really not sure what your DM was thinking.
Thought 5 foot step was a "not an action" on page 183 of the core rulebook? Still only usable on your turn, hence step up feat line. Ask the gm to think of the consequences a house rule carries before just changing things willy nilly. Some of us have learned that house rules almost always have a ripple effect.
Also the rules dont even state you can use a free action during another players turn.
Yes i know that but my question was, did you ask him to show you where in the rules the 5 foot step is a no action instead of a free action (or what happened when you showed him that 5 foot step isn't a no action but a free action instead). Really this really can be a case of knowing a rule wrong.
EDIT: Ok i was wrong, the 5 foot step is a no action and not a free action, in fact here is the relevant rules. And i can see how the DM might be confused, you see because the rules use the word round instead of turn he assumes that the "before, during or after the rest of his action" to mean anytime during the initiative. It doesn't mean that but i can see how someone might be confused.
The 5' step thing I get how he could have been confused. Telling you that you don't get class features when you're supposed to is inexcusable though. If he doesn't renege, ask him to rewrite every class the way he'd like them to work so you can pick a class without worrying whether its features will change each time you level.
|
Tell him to make a character that is acceptable to him for you to use. Also explain that if you show anything like competence in the game you would like to be nerfed immediately with houserules that target your adequacy to reduce your abilities. The other option is to tell him he sucks as a GM after talking to the rest of the players and start your own game. A bad game is not acceptable. Free time is precious and life is stressful. The game should be fun, not a power-trip for a bad GM.
The 5' step thing I get how he could have been confused. Telling you that you don't get class features when you're supposed to is inexcusable though. If he doesn't renege, ask him to rewrite every class the way he'd like them to work so you can pick a class without worrying whether its features will change each time you level.
I agree with you, that's why i have asked what is the exact thing that bugs his DM about the ranger's ability to take shield master* earlier.
If his problem is the fact that the ranger gets to ignore feat pre-requisites then you can't do anything about it, it's his opinion for one feature of a specific class.On the other hand, if his problem is that the ranger can get a powerful feat 5 levels before the class that actully has the word "fight" in it's name then you have a problem, becuase by that logic he will (probably) be bugged by other things that the ranger can do, and the barbarian, and the paladin and pretty much every full BAB class (with the possible exception of the cavalier**) and possibly other classes that can fight just as well as the fighter but can do other things too.
*i am assuming that the OP mistyped and wanted to say shield master, becuase that is the feat that the ranger can get 5 levels before the fighter and not shield slam, which the figther can get by level 6.
**i haven't really studied the cavalier class so i don't know exactly where it stands
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've also had to have the talk with DMs that they're not allowed to make surprise houserules in the middle of a campaign. If they're (the houserules) not made crystal clear at the onset of a game, then they don't happen.
I disagree with that.
In principle i am with you all the way but there is a good chance that you will notice something mid campaign, or you will see that you had not judged something right, and that's when you need to make a house rule mid campaign, these things can happen to anyone and i don't think that anyone would want their game to crush because of this. The thing is that if and when this thing happens then you offer the players affected by your new house rule a complete rebuild.
shield master is probably the feat he means, and that is really the only reason to take the sword and board style for ranger. I would also argue with the DM over this ruling, The early access of a few very important feats from the rangers combat style is one of the few benefits of playing a ranger over any other full bab class. The early access is not game breaking in any realistic way, it is just a little bit of style that is unique to the ranger.
From a DM standpoint I can kinda side with reserving the ability to introduce a houserule for something mid campaign, but only for extreme cases of things that would actually break the game and/or ruin the fun of multiple parties involved. In such a case(it's happened once or twice in my own games) I've done it between sessions, made my reasons clear and thankfully(because I play with a very reasonable group of guys) gotten agreement and offered to let them either just make a different choice or allowed a full rebuild or character change.
PSY
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From Paizo's own:
"The Most Important Rule
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt."
I'm definitely with PSY850 for houseruling in mid campaign especially when it comes to new material which oh by the way comes out every month. so I instituted a rule of when a campaign starts you can only use existing material and can never use anything new that comes out during the campaign.
It's not the GM's job to know how every feat and archetype work in every single circumstance and it's not the player's job to act like a CO-GM.
A GM in my book only needs to know the basics of the core rulebook and a desire to tell a great story.. the rest is just so much noise.
|
I've also had to have the talk with DMs that they're not allowed to make surprise houserules in the middle of a campaign. If they're (the houserules) not made crystal clear at the onset of a game, then they don't happen.
I disagree with that.
In principle i am with you all the way but there is a good chance that you will notice something mid campaign, or you will see that you had not judged something right, and that's when you need to make a house rule mid campaign, these things can happen to anyone and i don't think that anyone would want their game to crush because of this. The thing is that if and when this thing happens then you offer the players affected by your new house rule a complete rebuild.
This. Not everybody has every stupid broken rule or unplayable mess of an option that Paizo has published memorized.
That's a huge fopa. If it was me, I would ask for one of three things.
1) GM not to house-rule invalidate my character (I pre-build beforehand so making up build changing rules would probably mess up my whole character)
2) Let me reroll my character at no penalty
3) Let me leave the table (probably not something you need to ask for, but politely excussing yourself is the least you can do).
Grin and bare it may be an option for most people, but my time is a little bit more important than that. Surprise build-mechanic changes is not something I'll tolerate (I also show my GM my 1-20 progression before I even play the character and get everything approved beforehand). Either state it beforehand or let me play my character.
GM is God at his table and his word is the rules, but that doesn't mean you have to play their game.
Explain that you have followed the Paizo published rules for character creation, as well as those for leveling up. Be firm and tell him that this is the *legal* character that you are playing. Give him a chance to compromise before you throw in the towel or say something stupid in anger.
There are things that "bug me" too when newer options come out, but I also maintain that anything in print that says Paizo on it is part of the rules, same as everything in the core rule book. In the past, I have banned specific books I am not familiar with, but when a player has asked permission to use something specific from one of those books, I have made it a point to always say yes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
S'okay to call it fopa in Mer'ca
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From Paizo's own:
"The Most Important Rule
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt."I'm definitely with PSY850 for houseruling in mid campaign especially when it comes to new material which oh by the way comes out every month. so I instituted a rule of when a campaign starts you can only use existing material and can never use anything new that comes out during the campaign.
It's not the GM's job to know how every feat and archetype work in every single circumstance and it's not the player's job to act like a CO-GM.
A GM in my book only needs to know the basics of the core rulebook and a desire to tell a great story.. the rest is just so much noise.
I think the problem here was on the on the spot ruling for no good reason, and making arbitrary changes without telling anyone. That is not good if it is a sign of things to come.
As a GM I always try to give the players one week notice if I change a rule mid-campaign, and I give houserules up front. There is not really much of an excuse for this.
S'okay to call it fopa in Mer'ca
qft
The 5' step thing I get how he could have been confused. Telling you that you don't get class features when you're supposed to is inexcusable though. If he doesn't renege, ask him to rewrite every class the way he'd like them to work so you can pick a class without worrying whether its features will change each time you level.I agree with you, that's why i have asked what is the exact thing that bugs his DM about the ranger's ability to take shield master* earlier.
If his problem is the fact that the ranger gets to ignore feat pre-requisites then you can't do anything about it, it's his opinion for one feature of a specific class.
On the other hand, if his problem is that the ranger can get a powerful feat 5 levels before the class that actully has the word "fight" in it's name then you have a problem, becuase by that logic he will (probably) be bugged by other things that the ranger can do, and the barbarian, and the paladin and pretty much every full BAB class (with the possible exception of the cavalier**) and possibly other classes that can fight just as well as the fighter but can do other things too.*i am assuming that the OP mistyped and wanted to say shield master, becuase that is the feat that the ranger can get 5 levels before the fighter and not shield slam, which the figther can get by level 6.
**i haven't really studied the cavalier class so i don't know exactly where it stands
I did mean shield master sorry
Any news?
Yeah...the handling of the house ruling here seems pretty sloppy. Part of a GMs job is to know the rules relevant to his players/NPCs/Antagonists; this is only polite, as he'll be playing said NPCs/Antagonists. Altering those rules is fine, but it should be done with some degree of transparency. Adding a new rule to an NPC/Antagonist? Cool - use it consistently, don't change it on the fly, and maybe even share it with your players if/when it doesn't have to be a secret any more (maybe they succeeded on a Knowledge check, maybe they killed the unique monster using the rule).
For houserules that affect players, ideally these are discussed before the session even starts. Sometimes, though, we forget or something comes up. In those cases, I've found it best to wait for a natural break in the action, such as when everyone at the table needs to pee or a pizza run is about to happen. Bring it up and discuss it maturely. That's what happened when my group thought we could initiate Tome of Battle strikes instead of Attacks of Opportunity and then later in the session the DM discovered otherwise; we found a natural pause, he showed us the rules, and said he'd like to undo the houserule. Nods all around and we're off to get pizza and then keep gaming.
It's not hard to handle these things maturely and with a minimal disruption of playtime.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From Paizo's own:
"The Most Important Rule
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt."I'm definitely with PSY850 for houseruling in mid campaign especially when it comes to new material which oh by the way comes out every month. so I instituted a rule of when a campaign starts you can only use existing material and can never use anything new that comes out during the campaign.
It's not the GM's job to know how every feat and archetype work in every single circumstance and it's not the player's job to act like a CO-GM.
A GM in my book only needs to know the basics of the core rulebook and a desire to tell a great story.. the rest is just so much noise.I think the problem here was on the on the spot ruling for no good reason, and making arbitrary changes without telling anyone. That is not good if it is a sign of things to come.
As a GM I always try to give the players one week notice if I change a rule mid-campaign, and I give houserules up front. There is not really much of an excuse for this.
I'll second Wraithstrike on this point. While a GM should be able to make house rules mid-campaign to deal with critical issues, that's the kind of thing that should be done very carefully. There's a big difference between between a GM making a mid-campaign house rule to deal with a game-breaking problem, and a GM arbitrarily taking away class features mid-game because those features bug him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This. Not everybody has every stupid broken rule or unplayable mess of an option that Paizo has published memorized.
I've also had to have the talk with DMs that they're not allowed to make surprise houserules in the middle of a campaign. If they're (the houserules) not made crystal clear at the onset of a game, then they don't happen.
I disagree with that.
In principle i am with you all the way but there is a good chance that you will notice something mid campaign, or you will see that you had not judged something right, and that's when you need to make a house rule mid campaign, these things can happen to anyone and i don't think that anyone would want their game to crush because of this. The thing is that if and when this thing happens then you offer the players affected by your new house rule a complete rebuild.
SO NOT THIS.
There's a big difference between "surprise house rules" and making a ruling. Rulings generally keep the game flowing, and help make up for gaps in the rules. House rules are revisions (sometimes additions) to existing rules due to a difference of taste.
House rules should most definitely not be sprung mid-game. That breaks the unspoken rule of "playing by the same rules." If they are needed at all, they should be declared clearly at the start of the campaign, and if they must be included later on, it should only be done in between games after discussing it with the players to see if it is something everyone would enjoy.
No, no one can know all the rules all the time, but that's no excuse to run ram-shod all over peoples' fun and do whatever you want. That's what civilized adults often refer to as "a juvenile power trip."
It really depends on the player too.
IF the player tends to be someone who makes everyone's life miserable at the table by trying to twist and turn rules and show "rules mastery"...then I think the other players may applaud a DM who made an on the spot ruling to nerf someone's power build that had no real RP reason and was just simply a powerbuild to be a powerbuild.
On the otherhand, if the DM makes a houserule that nerfs someone's build, the player should be allowed to rebuild the character from the ground up on the spot to accommodate the DM's ruling also, as others have stated.
UNLESS...of course, they are the above abuser of rules and other players (no one likes someone who is a jerk at the table...applies to player and DMs both), then the other players get to cheer for once as the powergamer's powerbuild gets nerfed.
Truthfully, normally the only times I've seen something like the above is when a player is being a jerk with their character, OR the DM honestly didn't know the rule and it didn't jive with their view of their game. With number 2 normally everyone is cool with it and some sort of compromise can be made (even if it's to build up another character from the ground up type compromise).
#1 normally ends with kicking, screaming, and the "injured" player storming off, the rest of us kind of pretending we aren't there, and then happy that we don't have to deal with the angry player later.
That said, from what was stated in the original post, it doesn't appear that there was an abuse of the rules going on (hard to say without the entire build being posted, but as long as it's not some of the craziness that some of the powerbuilders do with rules twisting, munckinism, rules lawyering, and rules twisting...it's probably not that), so perhaps it just doesn't go with the flow of how the DM wants his/her game to go.
From the sounds of what you described the DM's actions being, it could be that in their game fighters are supposed to be the ultimate fighting machine in whichever form they choose...which probably should be clarified by the players discussing it with the DM. If that's the DM's intent, perhaps at least holding off until the session was over and then enforcing the rule would have been more apt.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really depends on the player too.
IF the player tends to be someone who makes everyone's life miserable at the table by trying to twist and turn rules and show "rules mastery"...then I think the other players may applaud a DM who made an on the spot ruling to nerf someone's power build that had no real RP reason and was just simply a powerbuild to be a powerbuild.
On the otherhand, if the DM makes a houserule that nerfs someone's build, the player should be allowed to rebuild the character from the ground up on the spot to accommodate the DM's ruling also, as others have stated.
UNLESS...of course, they are the above abuser of rules and other players (no one likes someone who is a jerk at the table...applies to player and DMs both), then the other players get to cheer for once as the powergamer's powerbuild gets nerfed.
Truthfully, normally the only times I've seen something like the above is when a player is being a jerk with their character, OR the DM honestly didn't know the rule and it didn't jive with their view of their game. With number 2 normally everyone is cool with it and some sort of compromise can be made (even if it's to build up another character from the ground up type compromise).
#1 normally ends with kicking, screaming, and the "injured" player storming off, the rest of us kind of pretending we aren't there, and then happy that we don't have to deal with the angry player later.
It's still poor behavior on the part of the GM. If you have a truly problematic player, you should look for in-game solutions to behavior first. If that doesn't work, you should talk to him OOC and try to resolve whatever behavior is going on. You should definitely not passive-aggressively target him in game by unfairly changing the rules to nerf his character with no warning.
If you can't resolve problems either in-game or OOC, then that player is probably not a good fit for your game. In most cases though, even if in-game solutions fail, opening up an OOC line of communication between the GM and player will let you sort through things and resolve the problem -- you are, in most cases, friends (or at least individuals with a shared hobby) who are getting together to have a good time, so you have a lot of common ground to work from.
I am kinda wondering what progression and play style you were figuring on going? Is it perhaps you may have a history of "gaming the rules" and the GM was just looking ahead and stopping your character before it got out of hand?
Your post is very 1 sided as far as info goes, and with out method to the GM's madness I doubt anyone can really give you advice that would be fair to both parties (always two sides to a story). So for now, play a straight ranger, just deal with it and have fun, or stop playing and start your own group and GM your own way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It really depends on the player too.
No it doesn't. If they enjoy powerful builds what's the problem? If they're being a jerk and refusing to work with the party that's an out of game problem. Solve it by talking out of game like reasonable adults. Trying to solve out of game problems in game is always a bad idea, and usually a sign of extreme immaturity. Nerfing someone to make the game less fun until someone leaves is just passive aggressive cowardice. If the player was bad enough that they're making "everyone else miserable" talk it out and as a last resort ban them.
Also the idea that there is some level of rules mastery that make someone "deserve" to no longer have fun is toxic. That sort of attitude is the worst part of this community. It is just as bad as the idea that people who have difficulty with the rules need to "suck it up", and needs to leave just as badly if we are to have a healthy gaming community.
...It really depends on the player too.
IF the player tends to be someone who makes everyone's life miserable at the table by trying to twist and turn rules and show "rules mastery"...then I think the other players may applaud a DM who made an on the spot ruling to nerf someone's power build that had no real RP reason and was just simply a powerbuild to be a powerbuild.
On the otherhand, if the DM makes a houserule that nerfs someone's build, the player should be allowed to rebuild the character from the ground up on the spot to accommodate the DM's ruling also, as others have stated.
UNLESS...of course, they are the above abuser of rules and other players (no one likes someone who is a jerk at the table...applies to player and DMs both), then the other players get to cheer for once as the powergamer's powerbuild gets nerfed.
Truthfully, normally the only times I've seen something like the above is when a player is being a jerk with their character, OR the DM honestly didn't know the rule and it didn't jive with their view of their game. With number 2 normally everyone is cool with it and some sort of compromise can be made (even if it's to build up another character from the ground up type compromise).
#1 normally ends with kicking, screaming, and the "injured" player storming off, the rest of us kind of pretending we aren't there, and then happy that we don't have to deal with the angry player later.
That said, from what was stated in the original post, it doesn't appear that there was an abuse of the rules going on (hard to say without the entire build being posted, but as long as it's not some of the craziness that some of the powerbuilders do with rules twisting, munckinism, rules lawyering, and rules twisting...it's probably not that), so perhaps it just doesn't go with the flow of how the DM wants his/her game to go.
From the sounds of what you described the DM's actions being, it could be that in their game fighters are supposed to be the ultimate
Sooooo....
You don't play with anyone?
Because if you would boot every player from your house except the jerk...you end up with the jerk and no one else.
There are many that I see that indicate they have no problem with abusing and being jerks at the tables. Why they think this is the norm, I have no idea. I simply know that normally we don't play with people who are abusers of the rules and other players.
Most people I know don't like playing with jerks, but we are NORMALLY polite enough to let them get away with it.
However, if they are a jerk, and the DM makes an on the spot ruling against their jerkiness and powerbuild abuse...
Heck yeah, we're going to cheer and be happy about it.
Sorry, but I have no idea why anyone would defend jerks at the table...
And from some of the posts about optimization, I'm pretty certain most others are polite enough to let some play, but won't lift a finger to stop the DM from houseruling against that player.
They may defend a bad houseruling against someone who is a nice and normal player, but a jerk...
We may be polite enough to let them play...
But don't expect us to defend them against the DM's houserulings on the spot. That's totally justified. Just remember, ALL the players fall under the houseruling, so it's fair across the board. The only difference is the jerk storms off because their "perfect build" to "crush the other players fun" has been dealt with, and the rest of the players just want to play a game.
PS: By cheering, I'm not meaning we throw a party...but inwardly...most players are going to be happy to see a jerk leave or the jerk's attempts to make the game unfun for you be undone, because that means the players actually get to have FUN. That's what I mean by cheer. Because finally, we don't have to put up wit the shenanigans of a jerk! Most players are polite about it, so yeah, they are going to let him play...and no, they aren't vocally cheering, but cheering on the inside is natural when someone gets put in their place after they've been trying to ruin everyone else's fun.
It really depends on the player too.
No it doesn't. If they enjoy powerful builds what's the problem? If they're being a jerk and refusing to work with the party that's an out of game problem. Solve it by talking out of game like reasonable adults. Trying to solve out of game problems in game is always a bad idea, and usually a sign of extreme immaturity. Nerfing someone to make the game less fun until someone leaves is just passive aggressive cowardice. If the player was bad enough that they're making "everyone else miserable" talk it out and as a last resort ban them.
Also the idea that there is some level of rules mastery that make someone "deserve" to no longer have fun is toxic. That sort of attitude is the worst part of this community. It is just as bad as the idea that people who have difficulty with the rules need to "suck it up", and needs to leave just as badly if we are to have a healthy gaming community.
There's a difference between a jerk and someone who optimizes. There's a difference between powerful builds, and powerbuilding for the sake of powerbuilding.
A prime example is a story someone posted of their group a while back. They were playing a roguelike who liked to steal. One evening, they waited for everyone to sleep, then started killing them while they slept, turned ethereal so it was harder to hit them when the characters started to wake, and abused a few rules to TPK the party.
Understandably everyone else was upset...but the player who killed them all didn't understand why. Afterall, they used the rules and roleplayed exactly what type of character they were...some jerk who would kill their fellow party members and steal their stuff.
Personally, if the DM started making houseruling such as, they get a roll to suddenly wake up if they feel some sort of threat, and then automatically hit ethereal creatures or some nonsense....as a player I'd probably be relieved.
It was probably obvious the rest of the players were letting that jerk play due to being polite...but you think they shouldn't be upset about that players actions?
Sure, it showed mastery of the rules...but it was also, and more importantly and abuse of the rules to destroy the other players fun.
A DM making houserulings on the spot to stop something stupid like that...would probably have made that one player who TPK'd his party stomp off in anger...but I'm also betting the rest of the players would be a LOT happier at the results.
THIS is the difference between knowing the rules and playing them...and being a powerbuilder that abuses the rules and the players (note I use the abuse of BOTH as the defining thing...it's not just the rules...or someone who is a jerk to others in general, but a combination of both is toxic to the group).
It really depends on the player too.
No it doesn't. If they enjoy powerful builds what's the problem? If they're being a jerk and refusing to work with the party that's an out of game problem. Solve it by talking out of game like reasonable adults. Trying to solve out of game problems in game is always a bad idea, and usually a sign of extreme immaturity. Nerfing someone to make the game less fun until someone leaves is just passive aggressive cowardice. If the player was bad enough that they're making "everyone else miserable" talk it out and as a last resort ban them.
Also the idea that there is some level of rules mastery that make someone "deserve" to no longer have fun is toxic. That sort of attitude is the worst part of this community. It is just as bad as the idea that people who have difficulty with the rules need to "suck it up", and needs to leave just as badly if we are to have a healthy gaming community.
There's a difference between a jerk and someone who optimizes. There's a difference between powerful builds, and powerbuilding for the sake of powerbuilding.
A prime example is a story someone posted of their group a while back. They were playing a roguelike who liked to steal. One evening, they waited for everyone to sleep, then started killing them while they slept, turned ethereal so it was harder to hit them when the characters started to wake, and abused a few rules to TPK the party.
Understandably everyone else was upset...but the player who killed them all didn't understand why. Afterall, they used the rules and roleplayed exactly what type of character they were...some jerk who would kill their fellow party members and steal their stuff.
Personally, if the DM started making houseruling such as, they get a roll to suddenly wake up if they feel some sort of threat, and then automatically hit ethereal creatures or some nonsense....as a player I'd probably be relieved.
It was probably obvious the rest...
Except these are very different situations. One is a person wanting to play a class that's in the core rulebook. The other is killing the rest of the party.
The player should have been taken aside and talked to. Ask them why they think their fun is more important that everyone else's and why they think it's acceptable to kill the rest of the party. You really to leave the game itself behind for a bit to understand why there is such a dramatic class of priorities.
The issue is that the player is a jerk. Someone bad at builds trying to TPK the part and failin miserably is sure to generate similar OOC conflict (though perhaps not as extreme). In game fixes won't help when the issue is clearly a player's personality, or at least what they think is acceptable at the game table.
It's the same as if someone has a character that makes other players uncomfortable. You shouldn't be nerfing the character or giving in world reasons they can't exist. You should instead talk to them about why it isn't socially acceptable.