Dave the DM's page

With everything said on this 6 pages of thread, things are getting fixed. Hopefully everyone will be happy and have a great game.

I would like to thank everyone who took part in this thread to help give me some perspective. I'm sorry that this turned into a semi drama display, but being an optimist, things will be fine.

With the advice given I am seriously thinking of just letting the players play what they want, maybe limit the books a bit more for personal growth and experience until I get comfortable enough, but still keep the story as it was. My players are basically family and this is a game about fun. If it works out, it works out. If it falls flat it doesn't mean giving up on it.

You all have a great night, thank you again for 6 pages of perspective.

Happy Gaming!!

Paul, just a clarification.
Yes I have been on here for like 3 pages now. Not once had I written that it was something that "cannot work", but I have stated it verbally in the presence of Nighttrain.

To be clear:
You opened a thread to get advice/rulings/venting. You asked me to take a look at it. I came on an learned/explained/advised/apologuised. Nighttrain came on here and was defending me/explaining things. No rights, no wrongs, just learning and hopefully moving on to having a great game for everyone.

This is not a matter of taking sides, but rather an explanation that should have you on the same page of understanding. You both should be on the same page now. There are no issues on you playing the summoner, everything is worked out.

Internal squabbling back and forth between players and DM before a game has even began just makes things less and less fun all around for everyone. The whole point of this is to have fun.

Me guessing-->So the GM said you will need A, B, C, and D. Paul says I will use ____ to do D. The GM did not want ___ to do D because he did not felt like it would fit. Paul trying to do use _____ to do D is the source of the problem.

Is that correct?

edit:I am reading Dave the GM's post so this post may not have any merit.

Your absolutely right. That was in my thought process. But as I said... I didn't tell him no... I suggested other classes. So with his technicality and wording of unchallengable lengths... he fails to understand he can use the Summoner, a back up is in place just in case.

What I don't understand, and I am assuming Paul does not either is why does it matter if he does the job by using a summoner instead of "traditional" full BAB character?

If I use the bard archaeologist instead of the rogue to find and disable traps, while being the party face does it really matter that I did not play a rogue.

It is not that we are trying to be judgemental. We just don't understand why it matters that Paul is using a summoner. There was a mention of certain mechanics requiring a specific type of tank. Is that due to house rules or an understanding of the game that has not been presented.

Paul did you intentionally mispresent Nighttrain or were you paraphrasing what you thought he meant? I only ask because you have admitted to being passive-aggressive at times.

I had explained this before. My views led me to believe that the summoner was not up to par. I admitted fault in the wording of a spell. I'm giving it a chance, but having a back up just in case. I don't go fully by the book, I don't give all the details to my players for story sake, pathfinder and D&D are too limiting for my creative purposes. My players all know this. Every game I run is to purely be fun, except this one which I have with held information and given answers to questions in yes or no fashion because I don't want to give anything away. So yea I said the summoner didn't fit, but I didn't say he couldn't use it. I gave suggestions instead. I've even listed suggestions to help. The sad thing of it all is I asked for the players as a team to talk things out to come to decisions. I know for a fact there has been more talk on this forum between two of the players then in any other fashion. Yes I'm new to pathfinder, yes As every other DM out there I add a personal touch.

Another player is reading this thread, and asks a line of questions to Nighttrain:

Okay, we get that you have a big problem with the summoner class as a Tank. But, what is the specific problem that you have with it? Can you give examples?

You keep saying, "It cannot work", "it does not work", "it is not a tank"

Why is this an unacceptable thing?

We have a 100+ posts saying the opposite, in this thread alone.

What is wrong with this build? It is not your sterotypical tank that people think of. But, it does not stop it from doing its job.

How does it not fulfill the roll, that we are not seeing?

/other player quote

To the other player, assuming I know which one it is: I'm done doing this on a public forum to stroke Pauls ego. Call me or what not. Done period, end of story. So frustrating answering the same questions.

Being that the game is schedule dependant on availability the first session was rules and concepts. Next week will be the second session for more concepts until everyone submits the information asked for review. If all is reviewed and no issues arise, then the third session should actually be game.

The main point of review is so I can familiarize myself with what to expect as well as make sure there weren't any overlooked areas or mistakes.

To make an adjustment to the module for the players sake, I didn't place any traps for ease, but still have puzzles that could be damaging on a small scale unless figured out. Anexample of this would be:

Synchronized pressure plates to open a large door.

Paul, the leave as a ranged and me having to find a front liner is something different.
He decided to drop game, then later you decided to drop game. Me being friends to both ofyou, I wanted you both in the game. Only real way to do it was to lock in a 5th player to fill the front line fighter/tank (before this thread was started) so you could continue the summoner and we don't lose anyone. This was also a way to give a chance to show me what the summoner could do, while having someone else take on what I thought was more towards my concept of tank. The game module was originally designed for 5 players anyways, so going back to original notes was a snap for me.

Shaman?

sounds like an attempt at a spontaneous druid to me.

Its a utility build, doesn't take away the shine of other classes, yet it has it's own uniqueness. I allowed the Shaman and a created class of my own, stating they were testing options to see how they compare to other classes.

The areas of concern with the Shaman are already on the table. Without having started the game, it was agreed that if they are overpowered or have some major issues then a character change would correct it.

In response of Caster not listed in roles... it was discussed at the table... it fell into the ranged role. That was what I stated. Twist the words or use the technicalities, but don't sugar coat it.

Yes I could have gone and written up a bunch of pages to go in depth. Your not stupid Paul, I shouldn't have to hold your hand and stroke your hair. Your a big boy. So picking me apart in such a manner in juvenile.

Maxximilius wrote:

And like a lot of people said, there is no argument to have about this spell : you are right. The spell does allow you to summon your eidolon back from the dead from it's home plane (as both are the consequence of too much HP damage).

In case of doubt when dealing with the rules of a game you are not used to, always trust the 100% confident guys with some thousand posts on the official game's messageboards.

... so tempting to tie politics into this...

But, on a serious note, i have yet to find anything online that disagrees with us. It is his interpretation. I wish he would he either, accept the fact that this is the way it works, or just drop the ban hammer.

Accept the rulings, house-rule others, or bring the boom.

Easy, simple.

I have not, as stated earlier in the thread, banned the summoner.

Truthfully, i would prefer a GM fiat. God says "This spell does not exist" I am okay with that.

But him and I are arguing about the wording of the spell.

We are not arguing over the wording of the spell. I already admitted I was wrong.

Dave,

Pretty much everyone most likely told you everything, but consider this a friendly advice only which wants to help you improve the gameplay experience, try making some campaign/scenario/module without assigning roles and see how it goes along. It doesn't have to be this scenario, but I would just keep it in mind in future.

Note on Summoner: He is beast. His AC and durability is almost legendary to be honest. Summons are just a tip of iceberg.

Happy gaming!

Thanks. I'm contemplating re-evaluating the books available and their contents. The roles I may ditch completely, then re-do the module that I created. Games hasn't started, but I have an obligation to make sure my players have a blast.

I'm done. I looked through this thread at Paul's request, I joined the site to give a different perspective. Granted I learned a lot from just reading and responding, but I didn't come on here to be picked apart by a good friend because he'd rather jam a justified rule stick down my throat and challenge me, despite trying to help him after I admitted to being wrong.

You all have a great night/day. Thanks again for your feedback and questions. I greatly appreciate it. Happy gaming.

Dave the DM wrote:

Paul on a technical aspect as much as you love technical and wording... what about ability damage? If its returned home with Con Damage, does it mean, in case of summon eidolon spell, that its dead upon summons or a wasted spell?

I'm just putting it out there as a serious question since I'm apparantly reading it wrong.

I think they come back in the condition they would be in if you had been able to wait a day and summon them via the ritual then. Taking some developer quotes that I recall seeing but cannot find at the time, the eidolon would return with the constitution score it had from ability damage (minimum 1, since an eidolon cannot actually die and thus cannot lose that last point of constitution) and half the maximum hit points that it would have at its adjusted constitution.

Thank you. So in this case it normally has say 80 hit points. If the Con is dropped to 1 he would lose roughly 40 hit points. So ability damage alone doesn't send it away. But on summon per spell would it then come back at 20 or 40 hit points?

Paul, as some advice to help you:

1) Have the summoner take craft feats to cut down your item costs.
2) Give the eidolon crafted magic items to boost it.
3) Evolution Points would probably be better spent on reach for natural attacks.
4) Lose the multiple arms to free up Evo Points.
5) There is a tunic that the Eidolon can wear that if slain, it stays on the current plane.

Dave the DM wrote:

Paul, from what you posted.

If the eidolon is sent back to its home plane due to death, it cannot be summoned again until the following day.

How much clearer does it get?

That's pretty clear, for the ritual. The spell Summon Eidolon doesn't seem to have that problem though, as far as I can tell.

The spell wording is correct. I apparantly read it wrong.

Paul on a technical aspect as much as you love technical and wording... what about ability damage? If its returned home with Con Damage, does it mean, in case of summon eidolon spell, that its dead upon summons or a wasted spell?

I'm just putting it out there as a serious question since I'm apparantly reading it wrong.

Okay Dave, I gotta ask once, and be done with it:

Why assigned roles?

By the way, I did not know this was a one shot.

Granted the players talk it out to fill a role, the main reason for assigned roles or limiting a role to singles seems natural to me. In ever D&D game I have ever played, roles were required. Whether it be a tank, melee, caster, healer or trap finder. Roles are what I'm use to. If I put together a one shot that I want to see go successful, I'd like the party to have someone who can heal well, take hits well, do massive damage, cast craziness. I don't like the idea of jack of all trades, master of none. And this is the first game I've ever ran where I was specific to roles, why? To give a sense of new and shiny and challenge to the players who do the same to me every time we game.

If its a crime to want positive things for my players at a small expense without the power gaming, munchkinness, get away with murder aspects of the players to try and make it funand exciting for them... then I'll hang my DM dice bag over to someone else.

Dave the DM wrote:

Icyshadow wrote:

Better a temporarily dead Eidolon than a dead Player Character.

Your right. But as I mentioned before the module I'm running takes less then 24 hours. A dead eidolon on a 24 hour count down between the beginning and near end of it could lead to PC deaths. I'm concerned with the longevity of the run.

I could just be underestimating the class, which in turn leads to me underestimating a really good player. Of which I don't doubt Paul as a player, so therefore I should not doubt his chosen class.

So in a way, thank you all for seeing my side of the equasion and giving a new perspective to a new pathfinder DM.

And if I played a "real" tank and I die....

"Anyone have 5,000 gp worth of diamonds?"
"..."
"No?"
"Oh well, wait until we get back to town"

vs.

Do not progress.... just wait.

If you played a real tank and die... the teamwork comes into play, the loot yer body, snap off a finger, hit town, sell yet stuff, and resurrect you. J/K

Killing players I look down on, but I have done it on rarity. A pet/eidolon causes no spark of hesitation to kill it. I guess I'd rather see you play a character rather then playing a character who is also playing a character. In any case, you play what you want, how you want, but don't complain about rulings.

Paul, from what you posted.
If the eidolon is sent back to its home plane due to death, it cannot be summoned again until the following day.

How much clearer does it get?

Better a temporarily dead Eidolon than a dead Player Character.

Your right. But as I mentioned before the module I'm running takes less then 24 hours. A dead eidolon on a 24 hour count down between the beginning and near end of it could lead to PC deaths. I'm concerned with the longevity of the run.

I could just be underestimating the class, which in turn leads to me underestimating a really good player. Of which I don't doubt Paul as a player, so therefore I should not doubt his chosen class.

So in a way, thank you all for seeing my side of the equasion and giving a new perspective to a new pathfinder DM.

To make it clear... there is no "aggro" method in pathfinder. It comes down to DM styles.
A. Jerk DM- the monsters ignore everything that isn't the direct target of a player kill.
B. Meh DM- the monsters attack on a random scale.
C. Tactile DM- the monsters follow a guideline method for attacks. Or reasons.
D. Standard DM- the monsters attack what they want as long as its justified in their mind.

I like to follow a sense of C. It brings forth role play potential and is easily learn able by players in a story based game.

Paul, again, let me say that the summon eidolon spell in conjunction with the information I showed you in the book, doesn't work if your eidolon is put to negatives equal to it's constitution score. The 24 hour thing is still in effect.

As a helpful note, if you take the standard action of banishing the eidolon when its at 0 or in negatives not reaching constitution score, then use the summon eidolon spell, that keeps it happy and around longer.

Anyone else feel free to chime in on this if you feel my ruling is incorrect.

Dave the DM wrote:

If there are any questions for me, please ask. I'm only on here to make things easy for a concerned player.

I really only have one, why not allow a summoner then? Combined with the spell I linked you player, as well as the antagonize feat on the beasty, he could be a seriously good tank, pulling aggro and having a super high ac.

The summoner is allowed. He's still playing it to my knowledge.

The proposed character can't do what you think it can. Bodyguard is an incredibly worthless feat. All it does is have a chance of increasing an adjacent ally's AC by 2 against a single attack, at a cost of an attack of opportunity. It doesn't protect them.

Your right. I was mistaken on my interpretation. But even still 2 AC can be a difference. Either way its in learning.

As far as giving pointers and suggestions to Paul, I will admit that as much bagging on the class he chose and how it doesn't fit to what I view as adequate, I haven't given enough effort to helping him in his decision.

Dave the DM wrote:

My idea of a tank as a role is something that can effectively protect it's party members, can take more than a few hits, has a high AC, something that can't be immediately eliminated from an encounter scenario.

If your asking my view on the Summoner/Eidolon, then here it is: The health potential is mediocre since as Paul informed me would be 40 without CON, if it reaches neg constitution score it becomes useless for 24 hours, it would need to burn it's feats to wield/wear equipment to gain effective AC.

In my honest opinion it is better as a disposible beat stick from which I have already informed Paul as how to essentially keep it going without worry of healing it as a damage dealer.

Mind you, he still gets to play what he wants.

Riiiight. So care to elaborate as to how a Sword/board fighter effectively protects it's party members. Trust me that's not an actual question because that isn't actually possible.

As for the Eidolon it's not hard to have one with a high AC/HP at all you should have instead asked Paul if he could think of any ways to make it tankier.

To be perfectly honest, from my own perspective, a sword and board fighter is better at it by feat selections. It has the proficiencies to get it started of which the Eidolon doesn't.

An example tank I created using all the same restrictions given was a human/samurai who utilizes tower shield and katana. AC 37 - 40 depending. Feats including:

Combat Expertise, Dodge, Shield Focus, Tower Shield Proficiency, Combat Reflexes, Bodyguard, and Improved Critical.

We will be using a modified Hero Point system as well. The modified being challenged based to get 1-3 hero points back. Over 10 challenges total.

Paul is always good to have at the table. I enjoy his ups and downs and sideways as he let's his character personality flow. As with all the players on board they give me perspective.

To put it bluntly and not give much of the opening module away. Its a 24 hour event that will be used to challenge the player's mind and put their abilities to the limit.

Dave the DM wrote:

If there are any questions for me, please ask. I'm only on here to make things easy for a concerned player.

Define your idea of tank. -> Problem solved -> ??? -> Profit.

My idea of a tank as a role is something that can effectively protect it's party members, can take more than a few hits, has a high AC, something that can't be immediately eliminated from an encounter scenario.

If your asking my view on the Summoner/Eidolon, then here it is: The health potential is mediocre since as Paul informed me would be 40 without CON, if it reaches neg constitution score it becomes useless for 24 hours, it would need to burn it's feats to wield/wear equipment to gain effective AC.

In my honest opinion it is better as a disposible beat stick from which I have already informed Paul as how to essentially keep it going without worry of healing it as a damage dealer.

Mind you, he still gets to play what he wants.

If there are any questions for me, please ask. I'm only on here to make things easy for a concerned player.

Hey everyone. This is Paul the Dork's DM. I had been asked by Paul to look this thread over. First and foremost, I love all my players and the way they go about playing the games I DM for them.
Before I begin answering some of the questions that were posed I would like to say that this is my first time running a Pathfinder game. I have run 3.5 and 4.0 in the past, but the biggest thing for when I run a game for my players is to make sure they are having fun. I also have a tendency of adding odd and unusual things to the games as well.
For instance, this campaign was stated to be using a self designed team work system. The players are to work as a team. (This doesn't happen often). The players were given instruction to decide amongst the group who was filling what role. I asked for a tank, melee dmg, range/caster dmg, and a healer. (The healer is generally a role no one in my games enjoys playing.)
The added flare to this was in depth mechanics to utilize team work, and a stat system that could result in 19s before race ability mods.

The questions:
Why would the DM make decisions about your build?
I don't make decisions on their builds. I give my opinion or suggestions.
Is he/she playing it? Is it a NPC?
No and possibly using a mirror of it for an encounter.
No ultimate magic? Why?
I'm learning. Limitations for smoother game since it's new to me.
What about PCs that don't fit the roles. Are they banned?
If I was going to hamstring my players, then I would have given a list of qualifications.
Why the role restrictions?
Cause I like the idea of covering the bases. Also gives the players perspective.
If this PC dies, must your next PC take the same role?
I don't plan on killing my PCs. It's about story not how many players I can screw over.
What he wants to accomplish with assigning roles?
I hope to accomplish a game with the players working as a unit instead of individuals out for personal gains.