Derek Dalton wrote: Spacelard is saying what I have said a couple of times in this post. It' obvious your GM is inexperienced. it sounds like you have experience so here's another idea, have you run something all new all pathfinder with him helping you. Run modules or something with him studying them and the rules until everyone feels comfortable enough to let him try again as GM. The issue also seems that this player wants to play stuff as powerful as allowed and shows no sense of moderation. Mixing rules from different editions (games, really) he got an almost un-hittable character. The GM not realizing this would have been an issue initially allowed it then went back on his decision and from what the player reports did it the wrong way.
Again I point out the fact we only have one version about this story, but the problem seems to be the GM is inexperienced AND one player is willing to build game breaking characters in a group that's clearly not equipped to handle them and him.
In short the player's "style of play", the GM's and the rest of the group don't go well together.
if they stuck to pathfinder only material none of this would be an issue
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lady-J wrote: if they stuck to pathfinder only material none of this would be an issue Several FAQs would indicate otherwise.
This player wants always on Greater Invisibility, and seems to justify it to every person that does not agree. He constantly blames his GM for allowing this blatantly abusive character (total concealment at L1 is wrong), even if he told the GM that the combo might be powerful. If the player was honestly concerned that it might be an issue he would NOT have built this character. Yes others in the campaign are bending/using other rule sets to do similar things and they are allowed, but does not make what they are doing right either.
Stick to the rules, play in other groups that follow the same set of rules, and stop trying to use outside sources to be better than everyone else. These things will give your games more balance and have less fairness issues. I don't know a GM that would welcome you into a game if they saw how you complain about your current GM and other players in your group. Stop crying foul and start enjoying the game, even a L1 gnome torchbearer can be fun...not powerful, but fun.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
wintersrage wrote: Steve Geddes wrote: You say .... ...
I was trying to play my character within the rules he allowed.
...
it is the fact he acted like a child throwing a tantrum when what he allowed he could not and did not want to handle, after the fact
......
as i didn't see the need for pathfinder to remove the reach quality from it.
....
All i got from him was that i like to build game breaking character, can you tell me how a Goliath specializing in tripping using a large spiked chain is game... To me the whole tread looks like there isn't only one person throwing a tantrum. posting ~ 40 times in ~ 5 hours only repeating the same text over and over. This doesn't seem to me that you are even trying to understand the suggestions other people are making. This impression is reinforced by comments like "as i didn't see the need for pathfinder to remove the reach quality from it"
Obviously the DM has an issue with game breaking characters but I feel that this doesn't reach you. At least he's trying not to repeat his mistakes.
My strong advice would be for you to take your time and really read what you wrote and what people replied. Then think about it for a few days. It might tell you a few things about the way the communication is running in your group and in this discussion.
In general the DM obvioulsy is overwhelmed by the situation and most propably lacking the experience to handle the situation he got himself into properly.
It would really be enlightenning to hear from him or other players in that group. Unfortunatly that often gets the discussion locked quite fast due to rising levels of aggression.
Edit: Post #62 shortened by me
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Rhaleroad wrote: This player wants always on Greater Invisibility, and seems to justify it to every person that does not agree. He constantly blames his GM for allowing this blatantly abusive character (total concealment at L1 is wrong), even if he told the GM that the combo might be powerful. If the player was honestly concerned that it might be an issue he would NOT have built this character.
...
Here's the thing.
The GM approved it.
If the player was deliberately sneaking broken stuff past the GM, then that would be one thing. They aren't. The player is very clearly expressing their desires, and being totally up front with the potential problems their desires might cause. From there, the GM has been given the information they need to do their job. If they then make the wrong call, that is their fault. The GM is the one who is empowered with the ability to make the final call, and with that comes the responsibility to make the right call. As the defacto head of the game, the buck ultimately stops with them.
Now, it is certainly true that things would have gone better if the OP had *not* suggested taking a broken template at the start of the game. Even if it is the GM's responsibility to not screw up, there is wisdom in not giving them the opportunity to screw up in the first place. So the OP was not very wise. On the flip side, the GM made an unwise decision by approving the OP's character. That's OK. Mistakes happen. So long as the the mistake is fixed in a reasonable way, then nobody really did anything bad. The real issue, and the thing that sets off major alarm bells in my book, is how the GM tried to resolve their mistake.
So far, we have a player who made an unwise decision, but deferred responsibility to the GM. The GM also made an unwise decision. Both made a mistake, the GM screwed up somewhat more because the buck stops with them, but neither did anything seriously bad...right up until the GM tried to fix an out of character problem that they created with blatant GM fiat and by heavy handedly screwing with a (mostly) innocent player, which is a classic example of terrible GMing. That is why the fault lies overwhelmingly with the GM. When faced with a serious but relatively fixable problem (which they were responsible for), they handled it by being terrible. This makes their behavior deplorable, and dwarfs the relatively minor errors made beforehand by both themselves and the OP.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Some thoughts (I only skimmed the last 20 posts or so):
Age is not a good factor for determining someone's maturity and experience as a GM (or player, for that matter). Adults can suck at communicating negative emotion (like, say, frustration at a player for bypassing a plot) just as much as children. Adults should know better, but speaking from bitter personal experience, I didn't learn to communicate effectively about negative emotions until I was in my mid-30s, and I still fall back sometimes, 7 years later.
I agree that a GM has the right to say "okay, I said yes, it was a bad move, let's review", but he should start with that, not use the rules (particularly Rule 0) to screw with the PC.
OP: so, the GM is about 10 years younger than you, but he's still an adult. Rather than getting pissy that he's artificially negating your character's abilities, please talk to him about it and suggest (politely) that you review the situation together.
To the OP's GM: Looks like you made a mistake allowing some of these rules combos. It happens. I let a player character turn invisible and fly at will 25 years ago (that character is still a going concern, and still has those abilities, actually). You need to either learn to roll with the punches (which is what I did), or talk to your player. Using Rule 0 on the fly to "fix" an error you made is not the way to handle it.
Good luck.
Chemlak wrote: Some thoughts (I only skimmed the last 20 posts or so):
Age is not a good factor for determining someone's maturity and experience as a GM (or player, for that matter). Adults can suck at communicating negative emotion (like, say, frustration at a player for bypassing a plot) just as much as children. Adults should know better, but speaking from bitter personal experience, I didn't learn to communicate effectively about negative emotions until I was in my mid-30s, and I still fall back sometimes, 7 years later.
I agree that a GM has the right to say "okay, I said yes, it was a bad move, let's review", but he should start with that, not use the rules (particularly Rule 0) to screw with the PC.
OP: so, the GM is about 10 years younger than you, but he's still an adult. Rather than getting pissy that he's artificially negating your character's abilities, please talk to him about it and suggest (politely) that you review the situation together.
To the OP's GM: Looks like you made a mistake allowing some of these rules combos. It happens. I let a player character turn invisible and fly at will 25 years ago (that character is still a going concern, and still has those abilities, actually). You need to either learn to roll with the punches (which is what I did), or talk to your player. Using Rule 0 on the fly to "fix" an error you made is not the way to handle it.
Good luck.
He didn't just he gate my ability he killed me after I got out of the cell he had my character was in. I would have been OK if he asked be to rebuild my character, or build a new 1, but he didn't.
I have been a DM myself in the past and if I allowed something that was op, I would live with it I made the decision to allow it after reading it, so it is my fault.
If the player showed concern about the game being unbalanced and wanted to rebuild his character, I would allow it.
That is how I would have handled it.
Did you ever consider to ask what game the GM was playing? Pathfinder as a base system doesn't allow things like Epic Level characters (20+ levels) or granting templates to PCs to provide power creep. The factor that the GM went well outside of the base Pathfinder system should've been a red flag that the GM's expectations are way out of the Pathfinder reservation.
If you're going to a game with the expectation that it's Pathfinder, and the GM pitches all of these rules that are vastly different from what Pathfinder actually is, (whether they're better is debatable, though by your experience they clearly aren't,) then you were doomed well before you even sat down to play at the table. It also doesn't help that the GM decided to give you a power boost without considering the ramifications of that power boost. It's the same as a GM allowing a Ring of True Strike that constantly functions because a player has crappy to-hit.
This is really not much different than a player sitting down at a table with X assumption, progress with gameplay, and then the GM pitches Y expectation at the PC, even though the rulebook clearly says X, and the GM didn't say that he was running with Y expectation before the game even started, causing associated players to be frustrated and not enjoy the game. In extreme cases, said players would be violent towards the GM (physically or otherwise), leave the table, or both.
If you've already talked to the GM and found he decided a "Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies" answer was the only solution (when clearly there was much better options to take), then quite frankly hardly anybody here will blame you for taking the extreme case of leaving the table, because it's perhaps the most prudent course of action for you.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: Did you ever consider to ask what game the GM was playing? Pathfinder as a base system doesn't allow things like Epic Level characters (20+ levels) or granting templates to PCs to provide power creep. The factor that the GM went well outside of the base Pathfinder system should've been a red flag that the GM's expectations are way out of the Pathfinder reservation.
If you're going to a game with the expectation that it's Pathfinder, and the GM pitches all of these rules that are vastly different from what Pathfinder actually is, (whether they're better is debatable, though by your experience they clearly aren't,) then you were doomed well before you even sat down to play at the table. It also doesn't help that the GM decided to give you a power boost without considering the ramifications of that power boost. It's the same as a GM allowing a Ring of True Strike that constantly functions because a player has crappy to-hit.
This is really not much different than a player sitting down at a table with X assumption, progress with gameplay, and then the GM pitches Y expectation at the PC, even though the rulebook clearly says X, and the GM didn't say that he was running with Y expectation before the game even started, causing associated players to be frustrated and not enjoy the game. In extreme cases, said players would be violent towards the GM (physically or otherwise), leave the table, or both.
If you've already talked to the GM and found he decided a "Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies" answer was the only solution (when clearly there was much better options to take), then quite frankly hardly anybody here will blame you for taking the extreme case of leaving the table, because it's perhaps the most prudent course of action for you.
As I agree to much of what you said, can you show me explicitly where it says you can't take templates, I know templates are a GM'S depression, but I have yet to see that you can not take them at player characters.
Let's talk about lycanthropy are you telling me if a player gets mailed by a waretiger for not knowing that the tiger that attacked them during a full moon was her husband, that player would not become a waretiger if he failed his save. That is a template that is either inherited from birth or acquired from said lycanthrop.
wintersrage wrote: As I agree to much of what you said, can you show me explicitly where it says you can't take templates, I know templates are a GM'S depression, but I have yet to see that you can not take them at player characters.
Let's talk about lycanthropy are you telling me if a player gets mailed by a waretiger for not knowing that the tiger that attacked them during a full moon was her husband, that player would not become a waretiger if he failed his save. That is a template that is either inherited from birth or acquired from said lycanthrop.
Yakman covered that on the last page.
Yakman wrote: This is from the PRD:
Templates
A template is a set of rules that you apply to a monster to transform it into a different monster. It gives precise directions on how to change the original monster's statistics to transform it into the new monster.
Acquired Templates: This kind of template is added to a creature well after its birth or creation.
Inherited Templates: This kind of template is part of a creature from the beginning of its existence. Creatures are born or created with these templates already in place, and have never known life without them.
It's clearly intended to be used to handle MONSTERS. Not PCs.
Lycanthropy is a pretty good example. Lycanthropy has two versions, a more powerful one that happens from birth, and an acquired one. The designers set it up so that enemy werewolves could be more powerful, but that when the PCs got injured and infected, they wouldn't become too strong as a result. Acquiring the template requires the GM to throw a specific creature against you, so it's still up to the GM.
Even if you aren't convinced by the rules text quoted above, it is generally accepted practice that PCs don't usually get templates, with exceptions made when that's the point of the game. That's because templates (as you've experienced first hand) are unbalancing and can be problematic. Paizo has a few published ways to acquire templates. The recently released Fungal Pilgrim Druid archetype trades away all of Wild Shape just to give its animal companion a part of a +1 CR template, and their level 20 capstone is completing that template. Acquiring the half-fiend template requires: consigning your soul to the Abyss, a year of service to a demon lord, casting a fifth level spell, the sacrifice of a blood relative, a DC 20 skill check, a full quest as determined by aforementioned demon lord that is hopeless at your present level, weekly devotions and committing atrocities (generally attacking/sacrificing innocents and betraying allies), at least a dozen additional people sacrificed, and a DC 30 skill check.
It's definitely true that most templates are intended for monsters. In my experience running games with them, the templates best-suited for players tend to be those with no (or minor) ability score adjustments, and generally scale over time. The Psychic Creature template (from the Advanced Bestiary) is a good example of something that's generally appropriate for a character to have, although most ought to trade in at least one character level for it.
QuidEst wrote: wintersrage wrote: As I agree to much of what you said, can you show me explicitly where it says you can't take templates, I know templates are a GM'S depression, but I have yet to see that you can not take them at player characters.
Let's talk about lycanthropy are you telling me if a player gets mailed by a waretiger for not knowing that the tiger that attacked them during a full moon was her husband, that player would not become a waretiger if he failed his save. That is a template that is either inherited from birth or acquired from said lycanthrop.
Yakman covered that on the last page.
Yakman wrote: This is from the PRD:
Templates
A template is a set of rules that you apply to a monster to transform it into a different monster. It gives precise directions on how to change the original monster's statistics to transform it into the new monster.
Acquired Templates: This kind of template is added to a creature well after its birth or creation.
Inherited Templates: This kind of template is part of a creature from the beginning of its existence. Creatures are born or created with these templates already in place, and have never known life without them.
It's clearly intended to be used to handle MONSTERS. Not PCs.
Lycanthropy is a pretty good example. Lycanthropy has two versions, a more powerful one that happens from birth, and an acquired one. The designers set it up so that enemy werewolves could be more powerful, but that when the PCs got injured and infected, they wouldn't become too strong as a result. Acquiring the template requires the GM to throw a specific creature against you, so it's still up to the GM.
Even if you aren't convinced by the rules text quoted above, it is generally accepted practice that PCs don't usually get templates, with exceptions made when that's the point of the game. That's because templates (as you've experienced first hand) are unbalancing and can be problematic. Paizo has a few published ways to acquire templates. The... How would you have handled a player who as born on the plane of shadow as his home is in a part of the world where the shadow plane is always coterminus with the prime material plane, and my home is in the plane of shadow. Also I spent a lot of my youth growing up on the plane of shadow
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
wintersrage wrote: How would you have handled a player who as born on the plane of shadow as his home is in a part of the world where the shadow plane is always coterminus with the prime material plane, and my home is in the plane of shadow. Also I spent a lot of my youth growing up on the plane of shadow I think you can handle that pretty much with "play a Fetchling", maybe with the "Deep Shadow Explorer" and "Boundary Walker" alternative racial traits. There's also rules in the recent player companion book "Blood of the Shadows" for alternative racial traits for Elves, Humans, Dwarves, etc. who grew up close to or within the shadow plane (i.e. "Shadowborn").
It's also entirely valid to have things in your backstory that aren't really represented in the mechanics. Just get the stuff out that's not in a statblock via roleplaying.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Play a Fetchling or a Darkstalker race. Fetchlings with their racial traits and feats cover that perfectly. Of course this is from official pathfinder rules not your GMs rules. There is a book dedicated to races and classes that exists only in darkness as well.
I am curious to hear from your GM on everything you have said about your character and the other players. He might actually be okay with everything except your character. He might have been wrong about how he has dealt with your character. However you yourself have admitted "I like to make characters that break the game." To me that is like saying if my character isn't the most powerful character in the game I'm unhappy and am going to whine and complain.
What is the name of the book in question.
Fetchlings are from the Advanced Race Guide, and additional options for shadowy characters can be found in Pathfinder Player Companion: Blood of Shadows.
Derek Dalton wrote: Play a Fetchling or a Darkstalker race. Fetchlings with their racial traits and feats cover that perfectly. Of course this is from official pathfinder rules not your GMs rules. There is a book dedicated to races and classes that exists only in darkness as well.
I am curious to hear from your GM on everything you have said about your character and the other players. He might actually be okay with everything except your character. He might have been wrong about how he has dealt with your character. However you yourself have admitted "I like to make characters that break the game." To me that is like saying if my character isn't the most powerful character in the game I'm unhappy and am going to whine and complain.
I would have played the character without the shadow creature template if he said no or remake your character, but he didn't, he just disregarded the ability without telling me first, and then when I got out of the jail I was in he killed me. It is not the fact he didn't want me to play with the template after he realized it was going to be a problem for his campagine, he couldn't figure out how to deal with my character in a way that a GM should. When a GM gets pissy at a character for making a suitation in game not go the way he intended, that is just the mark of a bad dm, learn to deal with suitations not through a tantrum.
I believe Book of Shadows. You can find it on most of the Pazio websites. If not the book itself most of it's materials can be found on the D20 website. While the Race Guide has little actual game mechanic materials it is useful for description of the various races including a section on Fetchlings.
disgust! sounds like someone built a game breaking PC for his DMs game and when the DM realized it. the player would not catch the hint to retire the OP game breaking PC (in the gm's view). thus forcing the GM to get heavy handed in an attempt to save his campaign by dropping a rock on the OPgbPC's head. then he came here to to complain.
next time you make a PC OP you sit down with your GM and explain what your PC can do and how your PC is getting it. the perfect GM is all knowing and perfect in reasoning. and since no one is perfect that means some of their reasoning will be faulty and most GMs will not have all the information that is needed or has fragmented knowledge from older editions.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Sounds to me like a GM ran out of patience with a disruptive player/character. Seeing as the other players want to finish the campaign, I would say they appear to be enjoying themselves.
Some groups play pretty fast and loose with the rules. One of my old GMs liked to apply the "Cool Rule". If it sounded cool and fun, he would allow it. But if you took the cool things he let you have and started to disrupt the game, making it less fun for others, he would smack you down. Best GM I've ever had.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Humans of the Human race in real life have a HUGE tendency to overestimate their own abilities.
Prof. "It'll take you days to write this paper, you can't do it the night before"
students "challenge accepted."
have you ever heard of this or something similar? Yeah, it's something we do. SO a new GM is going to have no ideas and will more overestimate than a good experienced GM. This new guy thought the template wouldn't be a problem. Do you know how much thought he put into it? Probably 0. You asked, he said yes. Maybe because he thought you wouldn't abuse it, maybe cause he figured he'd be able to deal with it. Who knows why, but I bet you he didn't take a good look at it, all the synergies it would have with your class features and how that would impact the story he was wanting to have play out. So realistically having a GM say Yes to something and then go back against that is something to accept and expect as possible (especially for new GMs).
So No, I don't blame the GM for giving you something and now going back on that.
Yes, I do agree that the way he's dealing with it isn't the best. But He's probably has a mental view that he can't talk to you and take it away because that would show weakness, and admit that he couldn't handle it, and have you feel bad that he's taking away your toy.
So if you and him HADN'T talked about your template VERY SOON after you started noticing him being "out to get you" Then I don't blame him for having the arms race escalate to "rocks fall, everyone dies." Yes, him talking to you when a problem came up would have been best. But the correct thing for you to have done is once you noticed the targeting, to bring it up with him and talk about how your template might have been to strong and what may need to be done to move forward, potentially removing it or allowing retraining, etc.
So I don't blame him for saying yes and then backtracking.
Slight blame for not talking to you when it was first an issue.
blame for you not talking to him when you noticed it was being an issue.
blame for both for letting it escalate.
No blame for having a character die as a result.
I have to ask how is playing the character I was allowed to build with the GM having full knowledge ahead of time of what it could do so that he could accommodate the abilities and make specific monsters to come after my character, I told him about the feat from 3.5 that gives monsters with telepathy the ability to find hidden characters that can't be detected with blindsight, blindsense tremorsense and scent, the feat I believe from 3.5 was called mindsense, how is that disruptive, when you tell the GM how to go about dealing with your character, so he doesn't have to spend extra time trying to figure it out himself.
I gave him as a GM more info on how to deal with my character then a player should have to do, or need to do, all because the GM either didn't want to or didn't have the imagination to do so.
wintersrage wrote: I have to ask how is playing the character I was allowed to build with the GM having full knowledge ahead of time of what it could do so that he could accommodate the abilities and make specific monsters to come after my character, I told him about the feat from 3.5 that gives monsters with telepathy the ability to find hidden characters that can't be detected with blindsight, blindsense tremorsense and scent, the feat I believe from 3.5 was called mindsense, how is that disruptive, when you tell the GM how to go about dealing with your character, so he doesn't have to spend extra time trying to figure it out himself.
I gave him as a GM more info on how to deal with my character then a player should have to do, or need to do, all because the GM either didn't want to or didn't have the imagination to do so.
Because your GM was too inexperienced to tell you NO.
And you seem too inexperienced to recognize that the GM should have told you NO.
The GM made a mistake. He's trying to fix that mistake, though probably not going about it the correct way. The real question is:
Why aren't you trying to fix your mistake of asking for the template in the first place?
Out of curiosity: how did he kill your character?
_Ozy_ wrote: wintersrage wrote: I have to ask how is playing the character I was allowed to build with the GM having full knowledge ahead of time of what it could do so that he could accommodate the abilities and make specific monsters to come after my character, I told him about the feat from 3.5 that gives monsters with telepathy the ability to find hidden characters that can't be detected with blindsight, blindsense tremorsense and scent, the feat I believe from 3.5 was called mindsense, how is that disruptive, when you tell the GM how to go about dealing with your character, so he doesn't have to spend extra time trying to figure it out himself.
I gave him as a GM more info on how to deal with my character then a player should have to do, or need to do, all because the GM either didn't want to or didn't have the imagination to do so.
Because your GM was too inexperienced to tell you NO.
And you seem too inexperienced to recognize that the GM should have told you NO.
The GM made a mistake. He's trying to fix that mistake, though probably not going about it the correct way. The real question is:
Why aren't you trying to fix your mistake of asking for the template in the first place? I asked for the template in the fist place for my character concept of being from the plane of shadow, I forgot about the Fetchling, duties I didn't know about the players companion dealing with creatures from places of shadows and creatures with the blood of people from the plane of shadow.
Also when I asked I didn't think he would say yes after I xplained to him about what the template would do for a rogue character.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
wintersrage wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: wintersrage wrote: I have to ask how is playing the character I was allowed to build with the GM having full knowledge ahead of time of what it could do so that he could accommodate the abilities and make specific monsters to come after my character, I told him about the feat from 3.5 that gives monsters with telepathy the ability to find hidden characters that can't be detected with blindsight, blindsense tremorsense and scent, the feat I believe from 3.5 was called mindsense, how is that disruptive, when you tell the GM how to go about dealing with your character, so he doesn't have to spend extra time trying to figure it out himself.
I gave him as a GM more info on how to deal with my character then a player should have to do, or need to do, all because the GM either didn't want to or didn't have the imagination to do so.
Because your GM was too inexperienced to tell you NO.
And you seem too inexperienced to recognize that the GM should have told you NO.
The GM made a mistake. He's trying to fix that mistake, though probably not going about it the correct way. The real question is:
Why aren't you trying to fix your mistake of asking for the template in the first place? I asked for the template in the fist place for my character concept of being from the plane of shadow, I forgot about the Fetchling, duties I didn't know about the players companion dealing with creatures from places of shadows and creatures with the blood of people from the plane of shadow.
Also when I asked I didn't think he would say yes after I xplained to him about what the template would do for a rogue character. That doesn't answer my question.
Either you realized from the beginning, or you realize now, that your character is unbalancing and harming the game.
So fix it. Your GM doesn't have the experience to fix it without pissing you off, you fix it yourself. Change your character.
Dalindra wrote: Out of curiosity: how did he kill your character? Well the 3.5 version of the shadow creature template allows for a player to get plane shift to and from the plane of shadow once per day, when I shifted to the plane of shadow, so we where locked in 2 separate cells, I was playing the dvati so 2 people 1 character. I used plane shift to get out of the cell and when we got to the plane of shadow, he just said that we where killed by some creatures, that because of the racial ability and the darkstalker feat from 3.5 I should not have been able to be detected, he didn't give me a chance to even try and do anything, no combat or otherwise.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
wintersrage wrote: I have to ask how is playing the character I was allowed to build with the GM having full knowledge ahead of time of what it could do so that he could accommodate the abilities and make specific monsters to come after my character, I told him about the feat from 3.5 that gives monsters with telepathy the ability to find hidden characters that can't be detected with blindsight, blindsense tremorsense and scent, the feat I believe from 3.5 was called mindsense, how is that disruptive, when you tell the GM how to go about dealing with your character, so he doesn't have to spend extra time trying to figure it out himself.
I gave him as a GM more info on how to deal with my character then a player should have to do, or need to do, all because the GM either didn't want to or didn't have the imagination to do so.
I don't want to assume too much here, but it sounds like you were given multiple hints to be a responsible player and tone down your character.
When that failed, nudges, pushes, hammer blows, and then eventually death were applied. Sounds like there was ample warning.
I was in a game about 2 years ago where the GM handed out some magic items off a random treasure chart. My character ended up with a weapon that worked so well for him it could have potentially broken the game. After a couple sessions I had a talk with the GM. We discussed giving the weapon to another character that would not synergize so well with it. We ended up just quietly removing the item from the game. Then the campaign went on and everyone continued to enjoy themselves.
It is not just the GMs responsibility to make the game fun. If your character is messing things up for others, take a step back and maybe give up one of your treasured little powers, abilities, items or whatnot. Or maybe just cut back on how much you use it.
As people have mentioned earlier, it's not about winning, it's about having fun.
wintersrage wrote: Dalindra wrote: Out of curiosity: how did he kill your character? Well the 3.5 version of the shadow creature template allows for a player to get plane shift to and from the plane of shadow once per day, when I shifted to the plane of shadow, so we where locked in 2 separate cells, I was playing the dvati so 2 people 1 character. I used plane shift to get out of the cell and when we got to the plane of shadow, he just said that we where killed by some creatures, that because of the racial ability and the darkstalker feat from 3.5 I should not have been able to be detected, he didn't give me a chance to even try and do anything, no combat or otherwise. I offered to rebuild the character or build a new 1 but he said no.
wintersrage wrote: wintersrage wrote: Dalindra wrote: Out of curiosity: how did he kill your character? Well the 3.5 version of the shadow creature template allows for a player to get plane shift to and from the plane of shadow once per day, when I shifted to the plane of shadow, so we where locked in 2 separate cells, I was playing the dvati so 2 people 1 character. I used plane shift to get out of the cell and when we got to the plane of shadow, he just said that we where killed by some creatures, that because of the racial ability and the darkstalker feat from 3.5 I should not have been able to be detected, he didn't give me a chance to even try and do anything, no combat or otherwise. I offered to rebuild the character or build a new 1 but he said no. That's the thing none of the other players had an issue with my character, only the GM had an issue.
wintersrage wrote: I have a DM who allowed me to take the shadow creature template as a rogue who's race was dvati from the dragon compendium. At first he allowed the ability shadow blend work the way it is supposed to, then he would have the dungeon which was filled with illithids and drow, he had the place filled with daylight torches. Then when I attacked a guard whome I knew was in league with doppelganger who have infiltrated this city, this person was standing by a fire at night, he said I could not shadow dlend as the fire would not let it. This fire was nothing more that non magical bone fires.
He said after I brought up about the shadow blend ability should work, said he made a mistake letting me take the shadow creature template, so he with out telling me made the ability basically useless.
Then the next session I was 8th level and was traded in a cell and because I had 8 hit dice I took plane shift. So he killed my character because I escape the cells my character was in, the plane shift shifted me to the plane of shadow.
Instead of asking me to make a new character or taking me aside and asking me to remake my character with out the template. All he said was the ability was to Powerful and when I found was of getting out of the cells I was in he got angry and just killed my character.
How should I deal with this DM besides not playing.
He also allows the other players to do things they should not be able to do, like have 4 racial hit dice and 8 class levels and an ECL of +2 saying they are only 10th level jot 14th.
Any advice on how to deal with him.
Just quit the group. If you think the GM is picking on you and is unfair then don't stay in the game. It sounds like he is a nice guy (pushover) who said yes to you/others in the campaign when he should have told everyone no.
My advice would be to start a game where you let the players acquire all these templates and powers, then try to build an interesting story with unique challenges for said party. Once you see how hard, nearly impossible it is to challenge the overpowered party without killing them it will give you some sympathy for the GM who is being "unfair" to you.
Not that I can sayanything about the first part... But by RAW, Racial Creatures loss 1 Level Adjustment per 3 levels, up to half the creatures original LA. Am I wrong?
Daniel_Clark wrote: wintersrage wrote: I have a DM who allowed me to take the shadow creature template as a rogue who's race was dvati from the dragon compendium. At first he allowed the ability shadow blend work the way it is supposed to, then he would have the dungeon which was filled with illithids and drow, he had the place filled with daylight torches. Then when I attacked a guard whome I knew was in league with doppelganger who have infiltrated this city, this person was standing by a fire at night, he said I could not shadow dlend as the fire would not let it. This fire was nothing more that non magical bone fires.
He said after I brought up about the shadow blend ability should work, said he made a mistake letting me take the shadow creature template, so he with out telling me made the ability basically useless.
Then the next session I was 8th level and was traded in a cell and because I had 8 hit dice I took plane shift. So he killed my character because I escape the cells my character was in, the plane shift shifted me to the plane of shadow.
Instead of asking me to make a new character or taking me aside and asking me to remake my character with out the template. All he said was the ability was to Powerful and when I found was of getting out of the cells I was in he got angry and just killed my character.
How should I deal with this DM besides not playing.
He also allows the other players to do things they should not be able to do, like have 4 racial hit dice and 8 class levels and an ECL of +2 saying they are only 10th level jot 14th.
Any advice on how to deal with him.
Just quit the group. If you think the GM is picking on you and is unfair then don't stay in the game. It sounds like he is a nice guy (pushover) who said yes to you/others in the campaign when he should have told everyone no.
My advice would be to start a game where you let the players acquire all these templates and powers, then try to build an interesting story with unique challenges for said party. Once you see... I only wanted the template for my characters racial and geographical background, my family living on the plane of shadow for generations. Yes it came to mind about how powerful the class and template would syngerize, but I was only really thinking about my character racial and geographical concept.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
_Ozy_ wrote: wintersrage wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: wintersrage wrote: I have to ask how is playing the character I was allowed to build with the GM having full knowledge ahead of time of what it could do so that he could accommodate the abilities and make specific monsters to come after my character, I told him about the feat from 3.5 that gives monsters with telepathy the ability to find hidden characters that can't be detected with blindsight, blindsense tremorsense and scent, the feat I believe from 3.5 was called mindsense, how is that disruptive, when you tell the GM how to go about dealing with your character, so he doesn't have to spend extra time trying to figure it out himself.
I gave him as a GM more info on how to deal with my character then a player should have to do, or need to do, all because the GM either didn't want to or didn't have the imagination to do so.
Because your GM was too inexperienced to tell you NO.
And you seem too inexperienced to recognize that the GM should have told you NO.
The GM made a mistake. He's trying to fix that mistake, though probably not going about it the correct way. The real question is:
Why aren't you trying to fix your mistake of asking for the template in the first place? I asked for the template in the fist place for my character concept of being from the plane of shadow, I forgot about the Fetchling, duties I didn't know about the players companion dealing with creatures from places of shadows and creatures with the blood of people from the plane of shadow.
Also when I asked I didn't think he would say yes after I xplained to him about what the template would do for a rogue character. That doesn't answer my question.
Either you realized from the beginning, or you realize now, that your character is unbalancing and harming the game.
So fix it. Your GM doesn't have the experience to fix it without pissing you off, you fix it yourself. Change your character. This. You have explained at length and repeatedly why you did what you did with the knowledge you possessed at the time, of both the game rules and the GM's ability to cope.
You now have new knowledge. It no longer matters why you did what you did. The past is over. It's time to make new choices based on new knowledge so that you can move forward--unless your cup of tea is arguing about the game rather than actually playing the game.
Edit: I don't get the impression that anyone is indicting for your actions, it's just that you've reached an impasse. Without changing something, you're not getting anywhere.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
TheMonkeyFish wrote: Not that I can sayanything about the first part... But by RAW, Racial Creatures loss 1 Level Adjustment per 3 levels, up to half the creatures original LA. Am I wrong? That's an optional rule, so up to the GM.
born_of_fire wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: wintersrage wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: wintersrage wrote: I have to ask how is playing the character I was allowed to build with the GM having full knowledge ahead of time of what it could do so that he could accommodate the abilities and make specific monsters to come after my character, I told him about the feat from 3.5 that gives monsters with telepathy the ability to find hidden characters that can't be detected with blindsight, blindsense tremorsense and scent, the feat I believe from 3.5 was called mindsense, how is that disruptive, when you tell the GM how to go about dealing with your character, so he doesn't have to spend extra time trying to figure it out himself.
I gave him as a GM more info on how to deal with my character then a player should have to do, or need to do, all because the GM either didn't want to or didn't have the imagination to do so.
Because your GM was too inexperienced to tell you NO.
And you seem too inexperienced to recognize that the GM should have told you NO.
The GM made a mistake. He's trying to fix that mistake, though probably not going about it the correct way. The real question is:
Why aren't you trying to fix your mistake of asking for the template in the first place? I asked for the template in the fist place for my character concept of being from the plane of shadow, I forgot about the Fetchling, duties I didn't know about the players companion dealing with creatures from places of shadows and creatures with the blood of people from the plane of shadow.
Also when I asked I didn't think he would say yes after I xplained to him about what the template would do for a rogue character. That doesn't answer my question.
Either you realized from the beginning, or you realize now, that your character is unbalancing and harming the game.
So fix it. Your GM doesn't have the experience to fix it without pissing you off, you fix it yourself. Change your character. This. You have explained... I tried to fix it but he wouldn't let me rebuild the character or make a new 1, so I decided after he killed me to not play with him again as a GM.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
My two cents, OP: you built a character you knew would be overpowered and disruptive and took advantage (whether knowingly or not) of your DM's inexperience and relaxed approach. That is on you.
The DM seems to have a poor grasp of the rules and is mixing editions willy-nilly with little control or handle on things, and when presented with your latest unexpected ability, he/she lost control and just did away with your character. That is on him/her.
So, as others have said, there are problems on both sides, and it would seem like the lines of appropriate adult communication are closed (and may never have been open to start). Realistically, I don't see the situation ending well, and think you should move on, for everyone's sake.
Just my two cents. I'd also add that you may as well stop seeking endorsement and justification for your approach, as you're obviously not getting a lot of positive feedback on your play style here. You can keep repeating yourself, but the responses aren't going to suddenly change.
Best of luck, and hopefully you can find a group that you mesh with better.
Why he refused to let you create a new character is interesting. But if I were him I'd be leery. You said it several times. I like to make characters that break the game. That's not min maxing that's I wanna be the star of the adventure. I've been playing with a group that min maxes. As a GM I expect this and plan for it. Monsters in my games all have mx HP not average. I change useless spells for spells that will hurt or kill the party. Magic items in a treasure I roll get used by the monster if he can. This isn't me picking on the party this is me balancing the game against min maxers. The group doesn't go out of it's way to break the game, you said you do. You should consider this. Your goliath character Trip all the time at fifteen feet back. The GM probably can't consider this or won't. I would and plan accordingly or to save myself the headache just say NO!
Again your word versus them and no one from that group is on the post. I do think their are issue here with the GM and the rest of the group since you said one player is doing a ritual in order to become a demonic type race. It sounds from your viewpoint the GM doesn't know about it. I'm curious if he is and has planned accordingly. I seriously doubt it but I could be wrong.
Advice has been given to Talk to your GM and group. This is a problem for you obviously but there maybe other issues this group needs to address. If a reasonable intelligent conversation isn't possible leave the group.
Derek Dalton wrote: Why he refused to let you create a new character is interesting. But if I were him I'd be leery. You said it several times. I like to make characters that break the game. That's not min maxing that's I wanna be the star of the adventure. I've been playing with a group that min maxes. As a GM I expect this and plan for it. Monsters in my games all have mx HP not average. I change useless spells for spells that will hurt or kill the party. Magic items in a treasure I roll get used by the monster if he can. This isn't me picking on the party this is me balancing the game against min maxers. The group doesn't go out of it's way to break the game, you said you do. You should consider this. Your goliath character Trip all the time at fifteen feet back. The GM probably can't consider this or won't. I would and plan accordingly or to save myself the headache just say NO!
Again your word versus them and no one from that group is on the post. I do think their are issue here with the GM and the rest of the group since you said one player is doing a ritual in order to become a demonic type race. It sounds from your viewpoint the GM doesn't know about it. I'm curious if he is and has planned accordingly. I seriously doubt it but I could be wrong.
Advice has been given to Talk to your GM and group. This is a problem for you obviously but there maybe other issues this group needs to address. If a reasonable intelligent conversation isn't possible leave the group.
I tried to talk it out with him a few times, and when he refused to let me try and fix the problem he seamed to find in my character, I took it as he was OK with it, then when he killed my character I said that's it I'm done, I'm not going back as long as he is the GM.
I will apologise for venting on the forums, but it just grinds my gears when someone does something like that.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ok, it sounds like you did offer to fix it yourself by rebuilding / making a new character, so good on you for realizing the issue and offering an easy solution. With the GM denying you that solution and then killing off your character... all I can do is echo what others are saying and do not play with this person as the GM anymore. Have someone else GM the same group, or walk completely and find a different group. It seems like the GM is unwilling to work with you when there are myriad solutions to the problem, and that isn't something that can be solved by people offering you advice on the forums.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I think you did right, Wintersage. Let's see the big picture:
You build an OP character and you tell to your GM. He says OK. Well, although your character seems to be OP, maybe in that campaign he is not. Maybe it is a political campaign, or there are lots of mooks with Truesight, or... Well, there can be a lot of reasons. If the GM says OK it's his responsability.
You GM is wrong. Your character is OP and he is breaking the campaign. OK, everyone can make a mistake. No problem, time to fix it. You offer to rebuild the character or make a new one. That's all you can do. GM says no. Well, maybe from now on the story will be so that your character stops being OP. As I have said, there can be a lot of reasons.
GM kills your character because you didn't bite the railroad. Bad move. GM kills your character with the equivalent of "Rocks fall, you die". Dick move.
I think you did everything you could. You built an OP character and when you started breaking the campaign you offered to rebuild it or to change it. It was the right thing to do.
Despite it, your GM and you should speak about it out of the game. These things can end a friendship very fast and friendship should be the first. I hope you can fix it.
There are a couple of things that jump out to me.
1- I find it interesting that "he refused to let me try and fix the problem he seamed to find in my character" or that "he wouldn't let me rebuild the character or make a new 1". This implies there was more wrong than just a new DM and a broken character. I don't recall from reading this thread, but has anyone else from the group told the other side of the story?
2- wintersrage, you keep repeating "... I xplained to him about what the template would do for a rogue character" in 1 form or another the whole thread. Then you say "...when I asked I didn't think he would say yes". You knew this would be extremely potent and broken, and yet you did it anyway.
I think you probably made a good decision to leave. If I was to guess, I would guess you and the DM were probably having a personality conflict. Just a guess.
It sort of reminds me of a superhero character I played. He had world wide teleport powers via wormholes. I did not originally give him time travel powers, but the DM gave me time&extradimensional travel powers. I tried my best to not use time travel, until the DM introduced a time traveling villain who shot my characters girlfriend. The Time War was on.
TheMonkeyFish wrote: Not that I can sayanything about the first part... But by RAW, Racial Creatures loss 1 Level Adjustment per 3 levels, up to half the creatures original LA. Am I wrong? every 2.5 levels up to half the creatures cr cost however template cr can be bought out completly
Valandil Ancalime wrote: There are a couple of things that jump out to me.
1- I find it interesting that "he refused to let me try and fix the problem he seamed to find in my character" or that "he wouldn't let me rebuild the character or make a new 1". This implies there was more wrong than just a new DM and a broken character. I don't recall from reading this thread, but has anyone else from the group told the other side of the story?
2- wintersrage, you keep repeating "... I xplained to him about what the template would do for a rogue character" in 1 form or another the whole thread. Then you say "...when I asked I didn't think he would say yes". You knew this would be extremely potent and broken, and yet you did it anyway.
I think you probably made a good decision to leave. If I was to guess, I would guess you and the DM were probably having a personality conflict. Just a guess.
It sort of reminds me of a superhero character I played. He had world wide teleport powers via wormholes. I did not originally give him time travel powers, but the DM gave me time&extradimensional travel powers. I tried my best to not use time travel, until the DM introduced a time traveling villain who shot my characters girlfriend. The Time War was on.
After looking at the Fetchling and Wayang, the shadow blend is only a little more powerful then their racial ability, the only difference is shadow blend gives total concealment in 3.5 and just regular concealment in pathfinder.
But yes he didn't much like me but because we were where playing at a local hobby shop, he didn't have any way to through me out.
Winter I have a few questions for you. Have you and how long have you been a GM? I saw your age but didn't see anything about you being a GM, if I missed this I apologize. The reason why I ask is would you have allowed a broken character like this in your campaign? You yourself regularly make broken characters. If you've been a GM have you put a stop to this have you allowed this playing killer GM, what? It's one thing to have a powerful character we all like having one. It's another to go I'm going to create a character that's screws the game up just because I can. That attitude is more like me versus the GM. That is never a good attitude for games. Most players like this tend to get booted or leave a group because of this. To me a player like this is never welcomed or wanted mostly because they cause the most friction in a group.
Derek Dalton wrote: Winter I have a few questions for you. Have you and how long have you been a GM? I saw your age but didn't see anything about you being a GM, if I missed this I apologize. The reason why I ask is would you have allowed a broken character like this in your campaign? You yourself regularly make broken characters. If you've been a GM have you put a stop to this have you allowed this playing killer GM, what? It's one thing to have a powerful character we all like having one. It's another to go I'm going to create a character that's screws the game up just because I can. That attitude is more like me versus the GM. That is never a good attitude for games. Most players like this tend to get booted or leave a group because of this. To me a player like this is never welcomed or wanted mostly because they cause the most friction in a group. Yes I have been a GM for a few games over the years, I ran rise of the rune lords, and it's sequel, I can't remember what it is called, the one I am talking about is the adventure path that ties directly into rise of the rune lords, I ran the tyranny of dragons in 5th edition, and the iron gods adventure path.
I would have looked at it in regards to the campagine, and I would have asked the other players if they where OK with a character like that, which the people in the group I was in, didn't seem to have an issue with my character, they were actually willing to put themselves in harms way to get me out of the cell I was in.
If I had said yes, I would have lived with the decision, and I would have put some monster in that make it so the always on total concealment wouldn't have been that much of an issue, a telepathy with mindsense feat from 3.5 would have gotten around the total concealment and darkstalker feat.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I wish I could have observed those conversations you had with your GM. I absolutely cannot imagine how that took place....
"Can I play a character that is almost invincible, potentially breaking the campaign unless the enemies you throw at us have that one feat from another game? Well, it's the same game I picked that template from."
"Sure, go ahead - that sounds reasonable!"
Later...
"I feel like my character is too strong. You have to bend the rules in order to challenge me and therefore the whole group. You are not using that feat, mindsense, at all and I do not enjoy that abilities my character obtained from rules of another game are rendered useless. Therefore I want to rebuild him in a way it merges to the rules of the game we actually play and doesnt outshine other characters while giving you the opportunity to throw regular encounters at the group without me stomping them all."
"Mhh... naaay, that does not at all sound reasonable, I want you to stick to the character you built, even though you used rules from star wars D20 or whatever game that was and broke the campaign so far because otherwise I might lose immersion."
Another occasion...
"Hey! I found that spiked chain in Pathfinder RPG too weak, so I checked other versions of other games and - you wouldnt believe - in D&D3.5 the spiked chain was broken as fcuk! Hence I assumed it should be allowed in our game - here's my character sheet!"
"I don't know... that looks kinda unbalanced."
"Oh, well then, here's a way to extend my reach even further! Combining stuff from different games allows me to make this character even more powerful, let me fix that character sheet right quick!"
Wasum wrote: I wish I could have observed those conversations you had with your GM. I absolutely cannot imagine how that took place....
"Can I play a character that is almost invincible, potentially breaking the campaign unless the enemies you throw at us have that one feat from another game? Well, it's the same game I picked that template from."
"Sure, go ahead - that sounds reasonable!"
Later...
"I feel like my character is too strong. You have to bend the rules in order to challenge me and therefore the whole group. You are not using that feat, mindsense, at all and I do not enjoy that abilities my character obtained from rules of another game are rendered useless. Therefore I want to rebuild him in a way it merges to the rules of the game we actually play and doesnt outshine other characters while giving you the opportunity to throw regular encounters at the group without me stomping them all."
"Mhh... naaay, that does not at all sound reasonable, I want you to stick to the character you built, even though you used rules from star wars D20 or whatever game that was and broke the campaign so far because otherwise I might lose immersion."
Another occasion...
"Hey! I found that spiked chain in Pathfinder RPG too weak, so I checked other versions of other games and - you wouldnt believe - in D&D3.5 the spiked chain was broken as fcuk! Hence I assumed it should be allowed in our game - here's my character sheet!"
"I don't know... that looks kinda unbalanced."
"Oh, well then, here's a way to extend my reach even further! Combining stuff from different games allows me to make this character even more powerful, let me fix that character sheet right quick!"
In regards to the darkstalker and mindsense feat, they are not broken in pathfinder, I believe there is a rogue archetype that gets something very close to darkstalker feat built into the class, if I had know that at the time I would have taken that archetype.
In regards to the spiked chain, I was using my tablet to build my character and I only had the 3.5 books on it, I thought we where going to be playing 3.5 so that WHT I put on it. He said as another person had the book, and the hobby shop we were playing at didn't have open WiFi, so I didn't have a connection to the Internet, so the DM said go ahead and create your character and because i thought all of the weapons where the same, I used the 3.5 edition players handbook to pick my weapon.
The goliath I don't think and no one else at the table thought would be op. Can someone tell me how a goliath with a reach spiked chain, has 15ft reach?
I also was unaware of sorcerer at the time as I try and stay away from spell casters, having long Arms built into one of their bloodlines at 3rd level, so it is not entirely broken.
|
