If you know me well, you'd know that I abhor playing anything "typical". I once played a fighter-type character with my STR as my lowest stat. My favorite character of all time was a necromancer that hated undead (he was good at his job, just hated doing it).
My current character is a bard/cleric, 3.0 rules. (I'd prefer to play a wizard, but one thing I learned the hard way is to never play an arcane caster in a homebrew setting. I have yet to see a homebrew not feel the need to nerf arcanists to the point where they're not fun. But that's another rant.) My character took a vow of not dealing lethal damage, or if he does, he must heal it himself. I'd call that a pretty stiff penalty in DnD, but I'm a role player, I want something interesting. I built my character around trip attacks. Whip, high dex, STR not shabby, but lower than your standard cleric, improved trip, you get the idea.
We've played 2 sessions thus far. 1st session, I tripped the DMs custom big, bad monsters and the fighter types cut them down pretty quick. At the end of the 2nd session, my character's whip got disintegrated by some unknown magic that the NPC had. We were facing off against some kind of powerful NPC (I believe he's suppose to be the BBEG of this chapter of the story). Well, the DM actually told me afterwards he did that because trip is to powerful. He says he wants to change the trip rules so its not so easy. I explained that I built my character to be a "one trick pony" (yes, I did say those words). But why do DMs feel the need to nerf my character ideas. I build them with a single powerful attack, one that is not common for most players. But then my idea gets nerfed and now I am useless. I've asked to rebuild my character if any rules get changed.
Disclaimer: this is the first game with this DM. I have had similar experiences with other DMs with my ideas.
|
I've asked to rebuild my character if any rules get changed.
I'll be honest I would tell him to go boil his head and just quit the game I mean I honestly dont see why he felt the need to nerf you're character (I mean if he considers that overpowerd god help him if you decide to do some of the stuff you see on char optimisation boards.) From your description it sounds like sour grapes from him because your character dared to do something that put his custom creatures at a disadvantage.
I'll be honest I would tell him to go boil his head and just quit the game
That actually I'm not going to do. Besides that one complaint, the game is fun, more fun than any other D&D game I've seen in a while. One that is not all about combat. One that encourages role playing.
Since then, the DM gave me a new whip (might even be magical, IDK) and we're talking about how to handle this within the rules.
I guess the only thing I can suggest is to talk over your character concept with your DM before play. If he doesn't like your character concept, then you know before you play, and you can suggest something else he approves.
I usually DM, and it can be kind of frustrating to have your BBEG nerfed by good PC design...but as DM, you get to design a whole bunch of BBEGs, so occasionally it's FUN to have them nerfed. For example, I recently ran an encounter with a BBEG cleric and some pretty tough spiked chain fighter and rage mage minions. The goliath monk PC took the cleric on 1 on 1, and when I hit him with a maximized poison spell, he shook it off because high level monks are immune to poison. I was like "Darn it! I wanted to do 10 points of Con damage at once!" I DID get to nerf his grapple by using the Travel domain power. That was fun....for 1 round.
my character's whip got disintegrated by some unknown magic that the NPC had
I much prefer it when the DM discusses issues with me before whipping out "unknown disintegration magic"! I sympathize with his opinion on tripping, though; it gets kind of tedious to have one character making trip attempts over and over and over and over again.
|
|
I'll be honest I would tell him to go boil his head and just quit the gameThat actually I'm not going to do. Besides that one complaint, the game is fun, more fun than any other D&D game I've seen in a while. One that is not all about combat. One that encourages role playing.
Since then, the DM gave me a new whip (might even be magical, IDK) and we're talking about how to handle this within the rules.
Fair enough. Although I still don't see what the problem is (Assuming that 3.0 rules are mostly the same as 3.5) Trip in the grand scheme of things is not that powerful Yeah you get the guy on the ground but you don't do any damage to him and he can still act to fight back. Also if I remember correctly trip becomes a lot less useful at higher lvl.
I think trying to be a one trick pony is the problem. You have created a binary situation where either your plan works flawlessly or does not work at all. The GM is faced with a choice. He can let your set up work 90% of the time, which will become boring. Or he can nerf it, which makes your character pointless.
How much fun would you have if all combats boiled down to Trip, Trip, Trip, Hold while companions finish opponent. Rinse. Repeat.
Update: DM and I came to an agreement where I made a few suggestions on how to build a few monsters.
In this case, I am a one trick pony. My necromancer that hated undead dropped ability scores like no one's business. That was his thing. Sickening, feeblemind, ray of clumsiness, vampiric touch, etc. That was what he did. I always build my character around a single theme. In this case, trip attacks.
Fair enough. Although I still don't see what the problem is (Assuming that 3.0 rules are mostly the same as 3.5)
The big difference is in the whip. 3.0 its a ranged weapon. 3.5 its a melee weapon. 3.0 uses dex for the touch attack, and can't be reversed tripped if the trip attempt fails.
Trip in the grand scheme of things is not that powerful
-4 to AC, -4 to melee attacks, cannot make ranged attacks, standing up provokes AoO. Powerful enough.
As soon as you switch to Pathfinder rules, the problem with tripping as the superior fighter strategy evaporates, because you hit MAD (Dex to attack, Str to trip, unless you burn a feat on Agile Maneuvers), the base DC is much harder (15 + CMB instead of opposed rolls), and you get a lot less bonus from Improved Trip (+2 instead of +4 and no AoO unless you spend another feat on it after you hit BAB +6). My 5th level trip-specialist playtest monk in Last Baron was way out of his depth facing three 1st level warrior mooks (yes, I'm serious).
Update: DM and I came to an agreement where I made a few suggestions on how to build a few monsters.
Probably the best solution.
One good thing (IMO) about 3.x is that no single tactic, no matter how "overpowered," will work all the time against every opponent (yes, even the mobile artillery/SoD/SoS spellcaster). There is a serious amount of rock-paper-scissors tactics-and-counters inherent in the rules.
One thing I always do as a DM is to vary the tactics of different opponents. One time they'll face a melee-damage brute, next time might be a grappler, or a hit-and-run ranged attacker, or a status-effect/summoner spellcaster, or something else. A group composed of highly specialized ("one-trick pony") characters will find things "swingy" when I run a game, while a group of somewhat specialized, prepared characters who use teamwork will do well.
IMO, if a DM feels tempted to "nerf" a character or ability, they need to look a bit more closely at the rules and their "standard tactics," since there is almost guaranteed to be a counter (they just need to use it). Many times a DM will "nerf" tactics that interfere with the way they like to run encounters, rather than for any other reason.
Even the specialized tripping build you are using (bard/cleric) is more than a "one trick pony" with all of the party support abilities (Bardic Music, buffs, healing, etc.) you can use, as well.
|
|
Seems to me that's an example right here of player-DM mismatch. A player like you McCoy who will want to play a one-trick poney will rub an arbitrary, not-so-confident DM (the type that disintegrates whips and changes trip rules because one PC causes "problems" with it) in no time.
My advice is to change character and not try to play the rules. Try to focus on the RP and the flavor of the character. Try to make the PC not rule-dependant. You will feel much better for it. If you don't like the idea and/or can't deal with it, you're out of luck: that DM will not let you have fun this way because that directly threatens his control over the game table (it's not true, I know, but it is in the eye of the beholder).
Seems to me that's an example right here of player-DM mismatch. A player like you McCoy who will want to play a one-trick poney will rub an arbitrary, not-so-confident DM (the type that disintegrates whips and changes trip rules because one PC causes "problems" with it) in no time.
My advice is to change character and not try to play the rules. Try to focus on the RP and the flavor of the character. Try to make the PC not rule-dependant. You will feel much better for it. If you don't like the idea and/or can't deal with it, you're out of luck: that DM will not let you have fun this way because that directly threatens his control over the game table (it's not true, I know, but it is in the eye of the beholder).
:: odd look ::
He's not min/maxed, and he's not rules lawyering... his character refuses to do lethal damage, but uses a trip in a (single) combat. Next combat the whip is destroyed. He didn't even have a chance to become a one trick pony. He got nerfed right out of the gate.
And why is it wrong for him to want to have a single solid tactic? It works for the two handed fighters, why shouldn't it do the same for a tripper?
This isn't a player problem this is a DM with a stick stuck somewhere problem. "Oh look a creative person making a character that does something other than hack'n'slash! PUNISH THE UNBELIEVER!"
EDIT:
Instead of relying on the whip, just go ahead and trip with something else.
Wow. As someone who DM's pretty regularly, I'd say busting out the ol' "uh, the NPC casts a spell and disintegrates your whip" sound pretty passive aggressive, although, it's good your DM and you discussed it further eventually. ("But wait, I thought he was a fighter?" "uh... he cast it... from a potion...")
I can see trip attack after trip attack getting annoying but not broken. Not by a long shot. Is a bard who trips as his "primary attack" really that different from a fighter who does two-handed power attack every round? Or a monk and flurry of blows? No, not in my opinion. Every character has his "thing". It's what makes them unique!
Perhaps you could pitch the character concept as a challenge to DM? At least that's how I always see it. If a player makes a very unique or specialized character that I think is perhaps, a little difficult to deal with in normal situations, I just make NPCs who can go toe-to-toe with him. Of course, it would be cheap to have every NPC be impervious to the character's abilities, but at least one or two who could but the fear of death in the player would be fine... such as a huge fiendish spider. (Eight cheers for multiple legs!)
EDIT: Abraham actually made the same point about the two-handed fighter above. Didn't see it.
EDIT2: ...and Dragonchess made the same point about dealing with specialized characters, so... my post is really just repeating things that have already been said :)
I recommend disarming to go with your tripping - both of which benefit a character set up to make use of a whip, and do not care about the whip's crummy damage output.
If anything, a whip - or a specially enchanted one - should be able to deliver touch attacks, or could be, or something.
Just sayin'...
Not discounting any previous comments (and not specifically commenting on your characters or this situation directly) I do have this to say.
In my experience (as a GM, a player and as an observer) one trick ponies are a bad idea.
A highly super specialized characters (one trick pony) either
A) walk through an encounter with ease
or
B) die a gruesome death to the first lowly creature that is resistant (or immune) to their 'trick'
Situation 'A' leads to GM frustration. Situation 'B' leads to player frustration.
|
|
:: odd look ::He's not min/maxed, and he's not rules lawyering... his character refuses to do lethal damage, but uses a trip in a (single) combat. Next combat the whip is destroyed. He didn't even have a chance to become a one trick pony. He got nerfed right out of the gate.
And why is it wrong for him to want to have a single solid tactic? It works for the two handed fighters, why shouldn't it do the same for a tripper?
This isn't a player problem this is a DM with a stick stuck somewhere problem. "Oh look a creative person making a character that does something other than hack'n'slash! PUNISH THE UNBELIEVER!"
*odd look*
Err... Yes. You are right. And?
I mean: I really totally agree with you here. I'm sorry if my post made you believe I thought otherwise.
That doesn't change the problem. This particular DM is not going to change his mind on this one. I've known too many insecure DMs like this to tell you that right off the bat.
Ok. Since we know he won't change his mind, McCoy from there has two option: 1/ play a character not based off rules application, i.e. avoid clashes with the DM, or 2/ not play. The third option consisting of playing crunchy characters over and over, and being faced with the same response, changes of rules, and other crap from the DM over and over again.
That's all I meant.
|
|
Fair enough. Although I still don't see what the problem is (Assuming that 3.0 rules are mostly the same as 3.5)The big difference is in the whip. 3.0 its a ranged weapon. 3.5 its a melee weapon. 3.0 uses dex for the touch attack, and can't be reversed tripped if the trip attempt fails.
Trip in the grand scheme of things is not that powerful-4 to AC, -4 to melee attacks, cannot make ranged attacks, standing up provokes AoO. Powerful enough.
No worse than a spell like hold person
Not discounting any previous comments (and not specifically commenting on your characters or this situation directly) I do have this to say.
In my experience (as a GM, a player and as an observer) one trick ponies are a bad idea.
A highly super specialized characters (one trick pony) either
A) walk through an encounter with ease
or
B) die a gruesome death to the first lowly creature that is resistant (or immune) to their 'trick'Situation 'A' leads to GM frustration. Situation 'B' leads to player frustration.
Agreed.
|
Here's a DM's input:
I can sympathize with your DM in the case of running into a rule (in this case tripping) that he was unprepared for.
I think the disintegration of your whip was a little uncalled for, but it seemed to me like he panicked.
If I was in your DM's position, I would've let the tripping go for one session. When the game was over, I would've talked to you about it. I.E., "I think this tripping thing is more powerful than I thought it was going to be. Let's talk about making some compromises on it."
Of course, I would be more than willing to let you retcon your character concept. Long story short, it sucks that your DM couldn't handle your character concept, but a good DM and a good player should be able to work something out to satisfy both parties.
...and it sounds like that's exactly what you did. :)
Here's a DM's input:
I can sympathize with your DM in the case of running into a rule (in this case tripping) that he was unprepared for.
I think the disintegration of your whip was a little uncalled for, but it seemed to me like he panicked.If I was in your DM's position, I would've let the tripping go for one session. When the game was over, I would've talked to you about it. I.E., "I think this tripping thing is more powerful than I thought it was going to be. Let's talk about making some compromises on it."
Of course, I would be more than willing to let you retcon your character concept. Long story short, it sucks that your DM couldn't handle your character concept, but a good DM and a good player should be able to work something out to satisfy both parties.
...and it sounds like that's exactly what you did. :)
Hmmm ... I don't think panic fits, since he waited until the second session to disintegrate the whip ...
But I am glad he was willing to discuss it with the OP, so they could both be happy in the situation :)
I mean: I really totally agree with you here. I'm sorry if my post made you believe I thought otherwise.
Yeah I misunderstood you... darn internet with its lack of contextual evidence!
We've played 2 sessions thus far. 1st session, I tripped the DMs custom big, bad monsters and the fighter types cut them down pretty quick. At the end of the 2nd session, my character's whip got disintegrated by some unknown magic that the NPC had. We were facing off against some kind of powerful NPC (I believe he's suppose to be the BBEG of this chapter of the story). Well, the DM actually told me afterwards he did that because trip is to powerful. He says he wants to change the trip rules so its not so easy. I explained that I built my character to be a "one trick pony" (yes, I did say those words). But why do DMs feel the need to nerf my character ideas. I build them with a single powerful attack, one that is not common for most players. But then my idea gets nerfed and now I am useless. I've asked to rebuild my character if any rules get changed.
Having only played with two groups in my gaming life and the second group was eduacated by me and another close friend on proper DnD, I can only say that destroying your weapon is pretty weak DM-ing.
Hope it works out for you.
... proper DnD...
Please define.
Why does every character I ever play need to be "nerfed" / I explained that I built my character to be a "one trick pony" (yes, I did say those words). / I always build my character around a single theme. / I have had similar experiences with other DMs with my ideas.
Wow. And you can't see any correlations? Sounds like you're, at least partially, the author of your own demise so to speak. (I'm certainly not saying that you're getting what you deserve, but there aren't any coincidences here.)
The first time, it could be considered unfair. The second, you're still hard done by. By the third and subsequent DMs a clear pattern is emerging - it's you, not them.
Another poster said it well - 'one trick ponies' eventually end up with either DM or player frustration... and often, in the end, both.
... proper DnD...Please define.
Hehehe, I must be getting wiser because I don't think I'll bite.
The more correct term would be: Proper DnD according to Darkjoy (tm), which defining trait is that everything should be fair and fun, but actions do have consequences.
I would not destroy someone's whip just to prevent them from tripping my monster, that is not fair nor fun. Grabbing their whip and a disarm attempt is however fair and fun.
Bottomline, player punishment is bad. I don't want to experience it as a player so as a DM I don't do it.
Wow. And you can't see any correlations? Sounds like you're, at least partially, the author of your own demise so to speak. (I'm certainly not saying that you're getting what you deserve, but there aren't any coincidences here.)
The first time, it could be considered unfair. The second, you're still hard done by. By the third and subsequent DMs a clear pattern is emerging - it's you, not them.
Another poster said it well - 'one trick ponies' eventually end up with either DM or player frustration... and often, in the end, both.
This time I made a one trick pony. I don't normally do that. But in this case I did.
I always go with characters that are very unusual. Doing the same thing thats been done 10 billion times over is VERY boring to me. Elf Fighter/Wizard, pleeeeease, I did that when I was 10. I have no interest in doing that when I am 30. If I'm going to make an elf wizard, its going to be something like a counterspell specialist. How many times has anyone seen one? I've never even heard of anyone playing one. But you bet the first time a DM encounters it, they're going to realize the power of having their every spell from a divine/arcane/shadow/etc caster shut down by me. Standard human knee jerk reaction: shut it down. More enlightened human reaction: how can I work with this. I haven't seen the 2nd to often. I have seen it, but not often.
Tripping a spellcaster is often not very helpful, especially if you are not damaging them. You cast spells (including rays) just fine from the prone position. In fact for many spellcasters this may even be a desireable position as it gives you a +4 AC from ranged attacks (including rays). A teleport/dimension door for when foes get within melee and your looking at a nice tactic fairly often.
You might consider going with a merciful weapon eventually (maybe flail or some such if you have invested feats into improved trip), that way you can do damage subdually.
Interestingly enough I had a similar problem crop up in my game. One of my players, known as Wiz in my campaign journal, made a similar character. The major difference here was that it wasn't his character who was doing the tripping. It was his cohort/familiar Blinkdog that was doing it. Now the Blinkdog had a lot of advantages that a player wouldn't (+7 strength mod, size large, ability to teleport to the enemy every time).
When he started doing it I thought back to this thread. There was a post that paizo ate for this thread in which I said that I wouldn't have had a problem with your character. I still hold by that. I did have a problem with a minion who could teleport in and trip with a +15 bonus every round. The player has agreed to drop the tripping thankfully. I was not intending for a cohort to be that game changing, and I can see how as a DM it will get annoying quick.
I do recommend that you make your characters a bit less of a one trick pony. If it is an especially powerful trick than the GM has two choices. Make the battle much easier than intended by letting the trick work, or making your character irrelevent for the fight by putting in things that keep your trick from working 90% of the time.
In this case, I am a one trick pony. My necromancer that hated undead dropped ability scores like no one's business. That was his thing. Sickening, feeblemind, ray of clumsiness, vampiric touch, etc. That was what he did. I always build my character around a single theme.
My wife had a similar character, an aristocrat/sorcerer/eldritch knight/cleric of Wee Jas. Her character was basically a noble version of Rogue (from X-Men), who "accidentally" drained a guy of strength (this is how she learned of her "powers"). She almost always took Necro spells but avoided anything to do with animating undead. She worshipped Wee Jas being LN herself (Wee Jas was the god of proper death, while Nerull was the god of undeath in my game, Wee Jas did use undead but usually only to guard sacred locations like cementaries and such). Eventually my wife's character was asked to act as a priestess of Wee Jas by some local clergy, which she accepted (despite the fact that she was like 17th level by then and 1 cleric level didn't do squat for her). I think it was one of her favorite characters specificly because it wasn't all min-maxed out.
I do recommend that you make your characters a bit less of a one trick pony. If it is an especially powerful trick than the GM has two choices. Make the battle much easier than intended by letting the trick work, or making your character irrelevent for the fight by putting in things that keep your trick from working 90% of the time.
Well, since my first weapon went up in smoke, I took a hard look at my character sheet. I have a decent disarm. I originally designed him to focus more on spellcasting and turning than tripping, its just that all the enemies thus far we have encountered, tripping is better than spellcasting. Until recently, arcane spellcasting was nerfed (again, different rant about why must homebrewers nerf arcane???) so all my bard spells were effectly out. But since I am a bard and could maybe still cast arcane spells, I kept myself to light armor and a high dex. So standard cleric tank idea is out (see above about doing stuff done 10 billion times over). I don't have enough bard levels for bardic music to help much. We've encountered undead once so extra turning thus far has been a waste. (yes I did ask the DM if we'd be encountering alot of undead before the game started.) But even then, the DM raised the zombie's HD to 4, when I had 2 cleric levels. So out of 4 turn attempts that battle, I successfully turned once.
Could it be possible the more enlightened human reaction is to build more balanced characters that are not intentionally a thorn in the side of any GM?
Could it be possible the more enlightened human reaction is to build more balanced characters that are not intentionally a thorn in the side of any GM?
Your question is about intent. Do I intend to be a pain in the rear of a DM? No. I want a new challenge for myself. I want to shake up what has been done many times over and come up with something that is not done often to keep myself interested. That requires mechanics that are not used often or using them in a different way. Net result: the DM must adjust their standard tactics to fit the group.
So which should happen? Should the players conform to the exact vision of the campaign that the DM has before starting the game or should the DM adjust the game to fit the players? The enlightened answer: a little of both. My half of the compromise: despite having Improved Trip and its requisite Expert feat, I'm not going to use it that often. Plus since we have not encounterd much undead and the few have been far to powerful for us to not require the 20+ level NPC the group is (was) travelling with, my extra turning feat is not that useful. Net result: 100% of my feats are near useless. Have I compromised enough yet?
Final straw is the DMPC. Ditch this game.
|
|
the OP is one example On why I Hate house rules.
Every house rule I have ever seen was to Gimp,reduce,or lower an ability.. I never seen an house rule to make the game go smoothly...
As an example I had a DM once Who Hated that my rogue was always able to get sneak attack of... so he made it I could no longer use flanking to get sneak attack off... then he hated how I always went first and changed the flat footed rules in the beginning of combat so I could not get sneak attack off.. He basically only allowed me to sneak attack if something was totally immobile... I left that game.
I can certainly empathize with the DM. I detest one-trick pony characters. I find them exceedingly boring, both as a fellow player and as a DM.
But I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with trip. Once you start dealing with more large or quadrupedal opponents, you'll be a lot less effective.
Ok, I see something I failed to properly communicate. My core character concept: Buffer/Debuffer. Whip trip attack: debuffer of fighter types, Bardic Music: Buffer/Debuffer, Cleric spell choices: Buffer/Debuffer, Charm Domain power increases my CHA by +4 (personal buff) Bard spells known: Flare (-1 to opponent's attacks), Songbird (increases my CHA under certain circumstances). I'm not going the dusgustingly overpowered cleric route that 3.0 is known for, but just being someone that adds lots of modifiers for my side and against the other side.
As previously mentioned, the whip trip has worked best with the encounters chosen thus far, hense why I used it so much thus far. So effectively in the DM's world I have been a 1 trick pony simply due to sheer virtue of the way things have turned out.
My character's WIS is an 19 vs his STR is a 12 (after the level 4 stat bump). For Trip to work, I had to take improved trip. That ate up 2 feats. So yea, I should use that a bit. Alternative would be the disgustingly overpowered 3.0 bow cleric (which has been done to death ... see above).
I usually like to build characters for versatility, but at low levels, you're kind of stuck being one- or few-trick ponies because of the limited number of feats and skills and spells you have.
I once played a gestalt bard//cleric, and I felt totally nerfed because the DM altered the spell lists so much....and my feat choices ended up being sub-optimal. I was good at turning undead, but once that was demonstrated, no more undead. I eventually moved onto another character, but the DM made that experience frustrating, and since I didn't trust the DM not to mess with my PCs, I ended up quitting that group. He was one of those DMs who thought D&D was a story, and the PCs were supposed to act out his narratives.
As a side note, you might ask if you can use the alternative turning rules in Complete Divine (do positive energy damage to undead within 30ft). I find this alternative rule works great for multiclass clerics as it still makes their turns worthwhile (for more than taking feats that let you convert turns into stuff).
the OP is one example On why I Hate house rules.
Every house rule I have ever seen was to Gimp,reduce,or lower an ability.. I never seen an house rule to make the game go smoothly...
As an example I had a DM once Who Hated that my rogue was always able to get sneak attack of... so he made it I could no longer use flanking to get sneak attack off... then he hated how I always went first and changed the flat footed rules in the beginning of combat so I could not get sneak attack off.. He basically only allowed me to sneak attack if something was totally immobile... I left that game.
For the record, my current house rules include. +2 skill points per level, listen and spot are class skills for all classes. Feats every odd level instead of every 3rd. Item creations feats have been mostly removed, instead you only need the minimum caster level to qualify for the feat. It is possible to pay people to train you for extra feats. Each person gets 1 benny per game session they show up for, bennies can be spent to reroll 1 die or heal 1d6 hp immediately. The healing actually adds a lot of flavor as a character can get dropped to negative only to rally themselves a few rounds later and stand up to fight again.
Not all house rules screw people. That's a case of bad GMs, not a problem with the concept of house rules.
|
Every house rule I have ever seen was to Gimp,reduce,or lower an ability.. I never seen an house rule to make the game go smoothly...
Long long ago...my 1ED Illusionist 1 was limited to one 1st level spell per day. So I cast "Phantom Armor" (1ED UA) on myself in the morning and spent the rest of the day fighting melee with my dagger and AC0 (way too good for 1HD goblins and orcs to hit on anything but a nat 20).
The DM was outraged and docked me XP so long as I continued to play my Illusionist as a melee hitter. :-/
Not all house rules screw people. That's a case of bad GMs, not a problem with the concept of house rules.That's a mighty sharp avatar you have there, Cap'n. ;-)
That it is, that it is.
Let me back track a little and state that I do not agree with the way your GM handled the situation. If I had been in your GM’s position, I would have taken you aside and explained how your strategy may be adversely affecting the campaign and sought out a mutually agreeable solution. That is, assuming this trip strategy was proving problematic for me.
I am not your GM and your GM did not come here looking for advice for this situation. Therefore, I am attempting to offer very broad advice that you can use. Jumping on the yes-man bandwagon and agreeing with how much your GM sucks is unproductive. It might make you feel better in the short term but does little to resolve the issue.
I can not fathom that it is impossible to build an interesting and novel character that is not a one trick pony.
Is wasting your feats and feeling your character is useless compromise enough? In that there is obviously still a problem, I do not think a mutually agreeable compromise has been reached.
I sense other issues at work here. I suggest you sit down with your GM and you both explicitly state what it is you want out of your gaming experience. Determine if there is enough common ground for both of you to continue enjoying gaming together.
When I saw the title of the thread, my first assumption was that Cato Novus had posted it. :)
The problem is known as dominance in game theory. I've seen it play out in many forms, usually because the DM (me in most cases) makes an error or bad assumption which cascades out in unexpected ways. In some cases, sitting down with the player and discussing how the dominant strategy is warping the game has resulted in a happy compromise. In other cases, I've had a player that simply couldn't break the habit (it was part of his mind set--and he was good at it). No matter how many times the dominance was corrected, he would seek out a new dominant strategy. Fortunately, the problem never broke up our friendship or the game, but it was often frustrating for both parties.
It often manifests in D&D as the Scry-Buff-Teleport strategy. Or, in the current game in which I am a player, the Knock strategy. My DM hates [i]knock[/], and he let's us know every time I use it. But from a player perspective, it's a life saver. We just keep reminding him that it's a good thing it doesn't work in D&D like it does in Neverwinter Nights.
Not all house rules screw people. That's a case of bad GMs, not a problem with the concept of house rules.
I don't mind house rules. But what I don't like is the DM stopping the game in the middle and making up a house rule on the spur of the moment.
In my opinion, the time to set down rules is at the beginning of the campaign (much preferred!) or at least at the beginning or the end of a session.
Agreed. We always announced new changes at the start of a session. Unless it would have an impact on core abilities, in which it waited for a new campaign.
The best way for a DM to counter over-used strategies (it's only abused if you let it be) is to have the bad guys learn. Oh yes, that BBEG does not have to be stupid. They could learn form their mistakes. Try new tactics. if they know you like to cast silence on a stone and lob it at spellcasters, they he could have them behind a force wall or have illusions of them to provide a false target.
my point is that there are hundreds of BETTER options than the "insta-distengrate-your-SuPaR-Weapon" option. Which is best left unused.
Not all house rules screw people. That's a case of bad GMs, not a problem with the concept of house rules.I don't mind house rules. But what I don't like is the DM stopping the game in the middle and making up a house rule on the spur of the moment.
In my opinion, the time to set down rules is at the beginning of the campaign (much preferred!) or at least at the beginning or the end of a session.
HELL YES!!!! I despise that soooo much. Especially since 99% of the time its because the GM wants a new way to screw the PCs. The only thing that pisses me off as much I think is when the GM makes up house rules but won't let the PCs know what they are. I had a GM who had been running for years and years, but I could never get a list of house rules from him. I had to find out the hard way, generally when I wanted to do something he didn't want me doing.
|
|
I think also the "nerf the player" comes from a DM with the mind set that they "against" the players. I think players should be rewarded for thinking outside the box. After all RPG's are all about thinking. As DM you have unlimited resources, so one bad guy gets toasted faster than you would have liked. Well as DM have the son-of-bad guy turn up sometime, annoyed and knowledgeable of the dirty PC tricks. Or do the cheesy movie thing and have "it was the double who died" thing going. DM is the coolest job to have, who would want to be a player? As DM you are there to engage your players in tales of imaginary adventure, not see how many Orcs it takes to cause a PC fatality. Having said that sometimes the rules "loop-holes" can be a complete pain in the butt. I just keep in mind that whatever things the PC's can do critters can do also... Wolves anyone?
2 cents,
S.