|
The background:
My DM is hosting a bi-weekly 3.5 D&D game, in which, at the moment, our characters are 6th level. This is a core only game.
He uses a few 'home' rules. When rolling for ability scores, during character creation, we roll 4d6 and drop the lowest. Then we add 2 to each of the 6 numbers we ended up with, maxing out at 18, before racial modifiers are applied.
XP is given, equally, to all characters. He averages the party's level, and awards EVERYONE the same XP.
Also, on attack rolls, 1 is a 'fumble'. A fumble can have any random, hindering, or even lethal effect. One such fumble could mean that you just provoked an AoO from the enemies surrounding you. Yes, this is an actual rule in his game, a fumble has a chance of provoking an AoO.
Now, I've spoken with him about the last two rules (xp and fumbles), and he's not willing to budge. So, I can either suck it up, or walk away. For the moment, I'm going to suck it up.
With that said, I have a couple options in regards to the 'fumbles'. Since I sit at the opposite end, and use a dice tower, I could simply fudge my rolls. I'd be loathe to do that however.
I could present the option of a feat that will allow salvation from a fumble.
Or, I could make a character that 'breaks the game', and simply play that character.
I'm inclined to go the 'game-breaking character' route. What do you say? What should I do?
The background:
My DM is hosting a bi-weekly 3.5 D&D game, in which, at the moment, our characters are 6th level. This is a core only game.
He uses a few 'home' rules. When rolling for ability scores, during character creation, we roll 4d6 and drop the lowest. Then we add 2 to each of the 6 numbers we ended up with, maxing out at 18, before racial modifiers are applied.
XP is given, equally, to all characters. He averages the party's level, and awards EVERYONE the same XP.
Also, on attack rolls, 1 is a 'fumble'. A fumble can have any random, hindering, or even lethal effect. One such fumble could mean that you just provoked an AoO from the enemies surrounding you. Yes, this is an actual rule in his game, a fumble has a chance of provoking an AoO.Now, I've spoken with him about the last two rules (xp and fumbles), and he's not willing to budge. So, I can either suck it up, or walk away. For the moment, I'm going to suck it up.
With that said, I have a couple options in regards to the 'fumbles'. Since I sit at the opposite end, and use a dice tower, I could simply fudge my rolls. I'd be loathe to do that however.
I could present the option of a feat that will allow salvation from a fumble.
Or, I could make a character that 'breaks the game', and simply play that character.I'm inclined to go the 'game-breaking character' route. What do you say? What should I do?
There is a thread about fumbles around here some where. Most of us who play with fumbles require the fumble to be confirmed just like critical hit are confirmed(IE roll again and if you miss on the second roll then it is a fumble).
The XP thing is a tough one. On one hand you want to reward RP and special actions. On the other hand it is a major PITA to DM a group of mixed levels.
You might suggest using an action point system where the DM can reward players with APs instead of XP, and you can use APs to negate a fumble.
In my experience, the passive aggressive option never ends well.
About these fumbles, do you have to confirm them the same as a crit? That's how we play it and I find that it prevents crazy wrong one-shots, mostly. I had the legendarily unlucky character Cinnamon the Barbarian who ended up after a whole series of critical fumbles over about six sessions rolled three ones in a row and cut herself in half with her own weapon. By that time it was a mercy kill and the story has provided much amusement over the years. But aside from that one character, the critical fumbles kinda spice up the game, add a little extra suspense. Obviously your GM is one of the people who like it. If he won't give them up ask if they can at least be confirmed like a crit for fairness sake. If he's being a jerk about it, well, then that sounds like a not very fun game and you'll have to really think about whether it's worth playing if it isn't fun. But don't piss off the rest of the table and ruin everyone else's fun too. That's not cool.
The background:
My DM is hosting a bi-weekly 3.5 D&D game, in which, at the moment, our characters are 6th level. This is a core only game.
He uses a few 'home' rules. When rolling for ability scores, during character creation, we roll 4d6 and drop the lowest. Then we add 2 to each of the 6 numbers we ended up with, maxing out at 18, before racial modifiers are applied.
XP is given, equally, to all characters. He averages the party's level, and awards EVERYONE the same XP.
Also, on attack rolls, 1 is a 'fumble'. A fumble can have any random, hindering, or even lethal effect. One such fumble could mean that you just provoked an AoO from the enemies surrounding you. Yes, this is an actual rule in his game, a fumble has a chance of provoking an AoO.Now, I've spoken with him about the last two rules (xp and fumbles), and he's not willing to budge. So, I can either suck it up, or walk away. For the moment, I'm going to suck it up.
With that said, I have a couple options in regards to the 'fumbles'. Since I sit at the opposite end, and use a dice tower, I could simply fudge my rolls. I'd be loathe to do that however.
I could present the option of a feat that will allow salvation from a fumble.
Or, I could make a character that 'breaks the game', and simply play that character.I'm inclined to go the 'game-breaking character' route. What do you say? What should I do?
First, critical fumbles aren't some unheard of rule, they're a fairly common game addition that can add fun and chaos to the battle. If you don't like them, nothing wrong with that, but I'm not understanding the "OMG is he really doing this?!" vibe.
Also, what's the big deal about even split xp? That's another very common house rule that makes bookkeeping and party balancing easier for a GM.
I don't see how cheating or ruining the game with a broken character is an appropriate response to not being satisfied with the house rules.
If you truly cannot stand playing with these rules (which are not even close to as unreasonable as you seem to think) then find a new game. Wrecking the current one because you don't like the play-style is a childish and inappropriate response.
The background:
XP is given, equally, to all characters. He averages the party's level, and awards EVERYONE the same XP.
Also, on attack rolls, 1 is a 'fumble'. A fumble can have any random, hindering, or even lethal effect. One such fumble could mean that you just provoked an AoO from the enemies surrounding you. Yes, this is an actual rule in his game, a fumble has a chance of provoking an AoO.With that said, I have a couple options in regards to the 'fumbles'. Since I sit at the opposite end, and use a dice tower, I could simply fudge my rolls. I'd be loathe to do that however.
I could present the option of a feat that will allow salvation from a fumble.
Or, I could make a character that 'breaks the game', and simply play that character.I'm inclined to go the 'game-breaking character' route. What do you say? What should I do?
XP:
I know DM's that do this. I don't, but my differences are minor. I give a bonus 50 XP for arriving ON TIME, another 25 XP for "best of session", and another 25 XP for bringing your mini. If you take away the "bonus XP" for being prepared (on-time and having a mini), You're only looking at a difference of 25 XP between players per session. And since "best of" doesn't necessarily mean combat, that bonus will rotate between players that make the game a better experience for everyone.
I think you'll find that most DM's want to be equal with the XP distribution to avoid having a snowball effect where 1 character earns more XP, gets better (higher level) than his companions, earns more XP because of it, and gets even better...
Fumbles:
Man, I would really like to see you propose a new feat, rather than do either of the other options.
Making a game-breaking character sounds like a revenge tactic. That's only going to have 1 of 2 outcomes. Either the DM will ask you to leave the group, or he'll find a way in-game to hobble your character.
Fudgeing dice rolls is the same as cheating. Eventually someone will catch on, and you will end up with one of the two possible outcomes above. If it was my game and I caught you cheating, I wouldn't invite you back.
Here is another option. Propose to your DM that fumbles need to be confirmed, just like crits need to be confirmed. If he still wants to do it his way, you can either propose the feat you mentioned, play as you have been, play a wizard or sorcerer (less attack rolls), or leave the group.
|
|
I would stick to a character that makes few, if any, attack rolls. Certain spellcasters, using cones, area of effect, auto-hit or targeted spells (such as sleep, hold person, magic missile, color spray, burning hands, grease, etc.) would be fine, and not have to worry about ever 'rolling a 1.'
This sort of system is most punitive when applied to large groups of mooks (which the GM will generally be using more than the players, unless you play a necromancer, someone with leadership or a summoning-specialist), and to characters with multiple attacks (monks, two-weapon fighters, many monsters, etc.). Make sure that the PCs use single big attacks (two-handed weapons), or even take advantage of some defensive options (a fighter with Combat Expertise and a Tower Shield, going into Total Defense, could allow a half-dozen goblin attackers to critically fumble themselves to death, while they attempt to hurt him, as 5 attackers means that there is a 25% chance each round that one will fumble, and either provoke an AoO or perhaps in some other way get itself bumped off). The funnest foes are going to be those who have many small-damage attacks. A housecat, for example, is going to have three chances a round to fumble. Fur will fly! Keep that in mind while playing a Summoner, as a Dire Wolf, with one attack per round, is that much less likely to tear itself into shreds than a Leopard, with three (or more, if it pounce/rakes).
If you want to use a melee class, instead of a spellcaster, you can minimize the chance of a critical fumble by taking single large attacks, instead of tons of smaller attacks. Two-handed weapons, instead of two-weapon fighting, for example. Single attacks that strike many targets with one attack roll, such as Whirlwind Attack or Manyshot, are going to be far 'safer' to use than Two-Weapon Fighting, Rapid Shot, etc. Barbarian Rage and Power Attack will remain useful choices, while Cleave and Flurry of Blows could be death-traps, doubling your chances of a spectacular fumble each round.
|
|
My issue with the fumbles isn't that they exist, it's that they have the potential to make you provoke an AoO. I would've been frustrated, but okay, with numerous alternatives. Hit/Crit myself or an ally, armour, weapon,or shield, trip and fall prone, or an AC penalty I would've been okay with. But provoking an AoO?
My only real issue with the XP thing is that I'm 2k xp behind, and there's no real way to catch up to the rest of the group with his current system.
Edit: Also with XP, if one person does something amazing in-game, the whole group gets XP for it evenly. If one person really roleplays his character very well, again everyone gets XP for it.
I would ask that you describe the problems that you have with the rules that you mention.
Right now, it seems like you just listed a few of a GMs house rules and, because of the those house rules, you may be forced to leave, have considered cheating, and may attempt to try to break the game.
GMs are allowed to have house rules, even one's you disagree with. If they are really that bad for you, I would suggest you find a different group to play in or just try to learn to enjoy the game despite the house rules.
My issue with the fumbles isn't that they exist, it's that they have the potential to make you provoke an AoO. I would've been frustrated, but okay, with numerous alternatives. Hit/Crit myself or an ally, armour, weapon,or shield, trip and fall prone, or an AC penalty I would've been okay with. But provoking an AoO?
I'm uncertain what the issue is as I would describe pretty much all the alternatives as being worse than provoking an AoO.
It makes Combat Reflexes better, but that doesn't really make it a bad thing.
My only real issue with the XP thing is that I'm 2k xp behind, and there's no real way to catch up to the rest of the group with his current system.
If you are the same level as the fellow party members, I would suggest that you have caught up already. As the levels go up, it will probably become increasingly unlikely that the party will get just enough experience to level, leaving you behind.
|
|
Assuming a understand you right, basically you are saying. For example everyone would earn 500xp after a game session, correct?
Well for the XP it in the long run is not much of a issue. If you get the same XP you will always be 2k xp behind but as you level that soon won't mean a whole lot. Eventually it will just mean the other PC's level a game session sooner than you is all. I mean look at it from the flip side the other PC's earned that 2k xp, they might be miffed if you got more xp for having not earned it.
Honestly while at low levels the xp might be a small issue once you level up a bit, it will have almost no effect so i honestly wouldn't worry about it.
Them AoO fumble is possibly very dangerous fumble. Depends on how often you can fumble and how often that fumble can come up.
There is only one thing you can do if you have tried talking to him ... don't play.
I know it sounds drastic, but basically, fumbles nerf fighting classes and his other rules just penalise anyone putting effort in. In fact, most of the DMs I play under hardly bother with XP - we just level up when they feel it is appropriate.
|
|
Fudging dice rolls is out. That's just an all-around bad idea. I won't do that.
While I won't make a game-breaking character, I will make a backup character, as his game is lethal enough as it is.
I have proposed the idea of a feat to potentially negate the fumble, and have yet to hear a reply. Also, though I'm irritated with the XP rules, i can deal with it.
I just didn't realize a single fumble could kill me on the spot, till last game. That's what really set me off.
|
|
There is only one thing you can do if you have tried talking to him ... don't play.
I know it sounds drastic, but basically, fumbles nerf fighting classes and his other rules just penalise anyone putting effort in. In fact, most of the DMs I play under hardly bother with XP - we just level up when they feel it is appropriate.
Which is wierd, given that most of the enemies he throws at us are fighting types.
|
|
Assuming a understand you right, basically you are saying. For example everyone would earn 500xp after a game session, correct?
He averages the party level, then awards xp as appropriate. For example, if I'm 5th level, and the other 7 players are 6th level, he's going to look in the XP chart under 6th level characters, divide the amount it says by 8 and give everyone that xp. He usually gives out RP XP also, but it's usually a smaller amount, and everyone gets the same amount as well.
Since your GM likes them, you might be able to meet him halfway and (hopefully) decrease the lethal effects of fumbles. Pick up the Paizo Gamemastery Critical Fumble Deck. That should encourage the interesting effects of fumbles without being (quite) so brutal.
|
|
Assuming a understand you right, basically you are saying. For example everyone would earn 500xp after a game session, correct?He averages the party level, then awards xp as appropriate. For example, if I'm 5th level, and the other 7 players are 6th level, he's going to look in the XP chart under 6th level characters, divide the amount it says by 8 and give everyone that xp. He usually gives out RP XP also, but it's usually a smaller amount, and everyone gets the same amount as well.
Ok so thats what I thought then. If one person gets 1200xp then everyone does other than the much smaller RP amount. That's actually pretty common in my experience.
Since your GM likes them, you might be able to meet him halfway and (hopefully) decrease the lethal effects of fumbles. Pick up the Paizo Gamemastery Critical Fumble Deck. That should encourage the interesting effects of fumbles without being (quite) so brutal.
I hate to be critical, but in our game we have a fumble result in an AoO and we found that the deck was far, far more punishing than the AoO. (Had a monk roll a fumble and get nauseated while fighting numerous skeletons... he went down in a hurry.)
|
wow...seriously? These houserules just absolutely ruin the whole entire experience of hanging out with your "friends" and trying to have a good time and being social and just plain having fun? Really?
I suspect that there is a LOT more causing you to have such a miserable time that you would consider cheating of ruining everyone else's fun. I think you should maybe try to figure out what the REAL reason is you hate the game and hanging out with your "friends" so much that you would consider making them miserable just so they acquiesce to your wants.
And no I am NOT saying that there is anything wrong with YOU. Far from it. I have played in games and realized I just didn't like the people I was hanging out with. In those games I had similar feelings about the game and came to realize it wasn't the game at all, it was the "friends" I was hanging out with. That is why I put "friends" in quotes above.
Maybe it is something else entirely... I'm no shrink, but it just "feels" like there is more likely to be some other problem here.
And come on, really, how many of us can say we have NEVER played with a group of annoying people before?
OR I could be entirely wrong and it really IS these rules and you love your friends to pieces... in which case just call me a looser and flip me off as a jerk :)
Spellcaster with no spells that require attack rolls. Better yet, ... bard.
|
|
wow...seriously? These houserules just absolutely ruin the whole entire experience of hanging out with your "friends" and trying to have a good time and being social and just plain having fun? Really?
I suspect that there is a LOT more causing you to have such a miserable time that you would consider cheating of ruining everyone else's fun. I think you should maybe try to figure out what the REAL reason is you hate the game and hanging out with your "friends" so much that you would consider making them miserable just so they acquiesce to your wants.
And no I am NOT saying that there is anything wrong with YOU. Far from it. I have played in games and realized I just didn't like the people I was hanging out with. In those games I had similar feelings about the game and came to realize it wasn't the game at all, it was the "friends" I was hanging out with. That is why I put "friends" in quotes above.
Maybe it is something else entirely... I'm no shrink, but it just "feels" like there is more likely to be some other problem here.
And come on, really, how many of us can say we have NEVER played with a group of annoying people before?
OR I could be entirely wrong and it really IS these rules and you love your friends to pieces... in which case just call me a looser and flip me off as a jerk :)
Actually, I only met this group through my cousin's bf. His friend is the DM. He also has a bunch of friends that he introduced to this DM. The whole reason for 5 of the 8 people there is because of my cousin's bf. Yet, he decided he didn't want to show up. So, we all were introduced under an odd set of circumstances.
The DM claims he's the "best DM in the area" (that IS a direct quote), yet to me, he seems like he's only done this sort of thing once before. He seems inexperienced. He also absolutely loves the fact that I come to the game. I've also got nearly half the players looking to me about advice on what skills/feats/spells to take, help about rules, and ideas they want to work out.
I did just move here several months ago. It took me a while to even find this current group. I left a group that's been gaming for nearly 10 years (this is my family group, even my dad plays still, and no i'm not in my teens, i'm 28 almost), as well as another group that's been gaming for years before (a couple of amazing friends that are very knowledgeable about games). I went from experienced players to, well, newbies. Perhaps that's my issue.
wow...seriously? These houserules just absolutely ruin the whole entire experience of hanging out with your "friends" and trying to have a good time and being social and just plain having fun? Really?
I suspect that there is a LOT more causing you to have such a miserable time that you would consider cheating of ruining everyone else's fun. I think you should maybe try to figure out what the REAL reason is you hate the game and hanging out with your "friends" so much that you would consider making them miserable just so they acquiesce to your wants.
And no I am NOT saying that there is anything wrong with YOU. Far from it. I have played in games and realized I just didn't like the people I was hanging out with. In those games I had similar feelings about the game and came to realize it wasn't the game at all, it was the "friends" I was hanging out with. That is why I put "friends" in quotes above.
Maybe it is something else entirely... I'm no shrink, but it just "feels" like there is more likely to be some other problem here.
And come on, really, how many of us can say we have NEVER played with a group of annoying people before?
OR I could be entirely wrong and it really IS these rules and you love your friends to pieces... in which case just call me a looser and flip me off as a jerk :)
Actually, I only met this group through my cousin's bf. His friend is the DM. He also has a bunch of friends that he introduced to this DM. The whole reason for 5 of the 8 people there is because of my cousin's bf. Yet, he decided he didn't want to show up. So, we all were introduced under an odd set of circumstances.
The DM claims he's the "best DM in the area" (that IS a direct quote), yet to me, he seems like he's only done this sort of thing once before. He seems inexperienced. He also absolutely loves the fact that I come to the game. I've also got nearly half the players looking to me about advice on what skills/feats/spells to take, help about rules, and...
Drop some (not so) subtle hints that you'd be "willing" to take the DM's chair, you know to let the DM get a chance to play for a change *wink, wink*. Then school him on how it is done.
He actually mentioned once, that if he were to let anyone DM ..."... if he were to let ..." ????
He fails to understand that he is only one part of the Group at the table. It's a typical power-trip for lower-caliber DMs. Per his claim, he may indeed be the "best DM in the area", but then again he may be the only one as well ... "best" is not synonymous with "good".
I still say walk. If others follow (and from your backstory in post #21 it sounds like several might), then you have a new Group.
R.
My suggestion is to start another game at a different non-competing time and let the whole group know, in case any want to join including the DM. Then after a few sessions suggest that the time it takes you to prepare is drawing time away from you playing and you'll have to drop out of his game.
Since your GM likes them, you might be able to meet him halfway and (hopefully) decrease the lethal effects of fumbles. Pick up the Paizo Gamemastery Critical Fumble Deck. That should encourage the interesting effects of fumbles without being (quite) so brutal.
A gigantic +1 for this. In my games(homebrew and not) I give out 50XP for a critical fumble card and 50XP for a critical hit card.
Actually, I only met this group through my cousin's bf. His friend is the DM. He also has a bunch of friends that he introduced to this DM. The whole reason for 5 of the 8 people there is because of my cousin's bf. Yet, he decided he didn't want to show up. So, we all were introduced under an odd set of circumstances.
I had a similar experience with my last group.
I responded to a note in a game store looking for players. The guy that left the note invited me to the game session (he was not the DM), then he never showed up for the game. He also didn't show up to the next session, or the one after that. In fact, it's now 8 years later, and I still haven't met the guy (wierdo).
However, the rest of the group became good friends of mine, and the whole situation turned out great. I hope you have a similar experience.
I had a similar experience with my last group.
I responded to a note in a game store looking for players. The guy that left the note invited me to the game session (he was not the DM), then he never showed up for the game. He also didn't show up to the next session, or the one after that. In fact, it's now 8 years later, and I still haven't met the guy (wierdo).
However, the rest of the group became good friends of mine, and the whole situation turned out great. I hope you have a similar experience.
Slightly off topic, but it sounds like the person who invited you was planning on leaving the group anyway, and felt bad about dropping the group without a replacement. I've met some people who go to rather extreme lengths to avoid confrontation so that just may have been his way of (not) handling it.
Drop some (not so) subtle hints that you'd be "willing" to take the DM's chair, you know to let the DM get a chance to play for a change *wink, wink*. Then school him on how it is done.
I agree with this. My group is a bunch of seasoned players, yet up until recently, the only time they were ever willing to try anything new (psionics, epic levels, action points, Eberron, point buy, etc.) is if I introduced it as a DM. In fact, my group used to deal with XP the same way your group does, and it wasn't until I showed them how the XP system as written gives lower level characters a chance to catch up to their higher level counterparts that they started to implement it themselves.
I think if you want to show players how you think the game should be played, the only way to do that is to DM yourself. If the players like your style of game, or if they like certain elements of it, then they'll adapt it for themselves. If they don't, then they'll politely play in your game until it's their turn to DM. Until then, suck it up and recognize that it's supposed to be an enjoyable game. If you can't do that, then move on.
I can either suck it up, or walk away. For the moment, I'm going to suck it up.
SNIP
I'm inclined to go the 'game-breaking character' route. What do you say? What should I do?Walk.
You're not going to enjoy the game. "Breaking" it is petty and spiteful and childish. You still won't have fun, but you will make certain that no one else will.
Absolutely agree with Rez here, but I would also add the advice that you not take it so seriously. Which sounds like it's trivializing the problems with it, but if that's all you have available, just don't get too into the character, since you're pretty apt to lose it every time you roll dice.
I've had games like this. I wasn't having fun. I wanted to play D&D for the things I liked about D&D, and fumble rules, skewed advancement, and an egomaniacal DM made it unpleasant. But, if you just want to hang out a table and throw some dice around, and maybe watch some really big numbers come up on damage rolls (yours or the monsters'), just view it as a beer & pretzels game (or coke and pretzels, depending on your age and the venue), and roll with it.
There's a joke about a guy who loved poker, who joined a game and got fleeced every time. His friend told him the game was rigged, and he said, "Yeah, but it's the only game in town."
I've been there. You've talked to the guy. Now, you have two choices. You take it for what it is, or you stop showing up.
The DM claims he's the "best DM in the area" (that IS a direct quote), yet to me, he seems like he's only done this sort of thing once before. He seems inexperienced. He also absolutely loves the fact that I come to the game. I've also got nearly half the players looking to me about advice on what skills/feats/spells to take, help about rules, and...
I've done this before. It can be soooo frustrating. But you know what? Eventually they DO figure out how to do it for themselves. Mostly. With a few false starts. :)
Playing with newbies can sometimes make you want to put your head through a wall, especially a newbie DM. I guess it's still just about whether you're having fun or not.
|
|
Absolutely agree with Rez here, but I would also add the advice that you not take it so seriously. Which sounds like it's trivializing the problems with it, but if that's all you have available, just don't get too into the character, since you're pretty apt to lose it every time you roll dice.I've had games like this. I wasn't having fun. I wanted to play D&D for the things I liked about D&D, and fumble rules, skewed advancement, and an egomaniacal DM made it unpleasant. But, if you just want to hang out a table and throw some dice around, and maybe watch some really big numbers come up on damage rolls (yours or the monsters'), just view it as a beer & pretzels game (or coke and pretzels, depending on your age and the venue), and roll with it.
There's a joke about a guy who loved poker, who joined a game and got fleeced every time. His friend told him the game was rigged, and he said, "Yeah, but it's the only game in town."
I've been there. You've talked to the guy. Now, you have two choices. You take it for what it is, or you stop showing up.
Good idea. Maybe it's not the game I was hoping for, but it is a game. The only one I know of, at that. So, maybe I shouldn't take it too seriously. I realize, after re-reading my post, that perhaps I am. It may not be the kind of game I'm used to playing before I moved here, but I'll have to adapt if I want to keep playing.
Next game I won't take too seriously, and if i still have a problem, I'll stop going.
I do want to thank everyone for taking the time to read my frustration, whining, and ranting. :)
Good idea. Maybe it's not the game I was hoping for, but it is a game. The only one I know of, at that. So, maybe I shouldn't take it too seriously. I realize, after re-reading my post, that perhaps I am. It may not be the kind of game I'm used to playing before I moved here, but I'll have to adapt if I want to keep playing.
Next game I won't take too seriously, and if i still have a problem, I'll stop going.
I do want to thank everyone for taking the time to read my frustration, whining, and ranting. :)
Also, let me clarify that I'm not saying that you're too wound up and you should stop complaining. I HAVE in fact stopped showing up for a game kind of like this, although a little more skewed. It was 2nd edition. The DM started my wife and me at 8th level, despite the fact that all three of his regular players were 14th-15th. I still have no idea how he arrived at 8 as being a good level to start us at. And then he awarded XP based on how much of a (damage/control) contribution the character made to the combat. When the DM asked us our actions it seemed dismissive. "What do you do? OK it doesn't work." Which was usually followed by one of the other players taking down 3 enemies with a single blow. We had a marginal effect on the game at best, and decided that watching three other people have a great game just wasn't our idea of a well-spent Sunday afternoon. At least with a flat XP share, you can EVENTUALLY catch up to the rest of the party, although they'll nearly always level several encounters before you.
|
|
Ja, it seems like i get all excited about the game, then when i get to it, it's nothing but disappointment. It's a bunch of little things, all piling up. After each session, I just want to not show up again. And the cycle repeats.
Now, I realize that doing the same thing repeatedly, expecting different results each time, is the definition of insanity. However, I do talk to the DM, and he's usually understanding. This time he just won't budge, and say's that's just how he DMs.
For now, I'll accept it and move on. And, as I said before, if next game proves to be the same, I'll just stop going.
wow...seriously? These houserules just absolutely ruin the whole entire experience of hanging out with your "friends" and trying to have a good time and being social and just plain having fun? Really?
QFT.
|
|
As far as the feat idea goes, he proposed the following feat:
Flawless [General]
Prerequisites: Character level 3rd
When you roll a natural '1' on an attack roll, your character misses as normal but does not have to roll to check for a fumble.
As far as the XP issue, he did say he was going to alter it so lower level PCs can catch up to the higher ones. This is due to his 'pc death' rule, in that, when your character dies, your next character starts one level behind.
I'm not going to comment with my feelings on any of this at the moment. Just wanted to hear your thoughts.
That feat is a good idea.
I also suggest that if you haven't, mention the fumble confirmation rules that most GMs (myself included use). It's about balancing mechanics--if you have to confirm a crit, you have to confirm a fumble.
As for provoking AOOs, learn to turn this to your advantage, if that's the specific thing bugging you. Not many monsters have Combat Reflexes (and Combat Reflexes is limited to Dex). If you provoke an AOO that means for the rest of the round the enemy can't make another AOO, and so it becomes much easier after that point for the rest of the party to flank, for casters to walk up and poke the enemy with a touch spell, etc.
And while we're at him, remind him that indeed one can only strike with an AOO a round, doesn't matter what's provoking, without Combat Reflexes. In the party I run, the Rogue, who has crazy AC especially with Mobility, dives in, intentionally provokes AOOs (as there's a good chance the attacker will miss) so that no AOOs will go off from that creature for the rest of the round. Of course sometimes I throw creatures with Combat Reflexes at them, but not all creatures make sense to have that. So if you've got someone with a high AC and Mobility, you might just chuck them in to provoke and then you can't provoke if you fumble.
I also do the uniform XP thing, but I asked the players first to make sure they're okay with it. I try to remember to reward an especially amazing act by a player with something in game, like an extra item or choice piece of information or a boost in local reputation, etc.
In the party I run, the Rogue, who has crazy AC especially with Mobility, dives in, intentionally provokes AOOs (as there's a good chance the attacker will miss) so that no AOOs will go off from that creature for the rest of the round. Of course sometimes I throw creatures with Combat Reflexes at them, but not all creatures make sense to have that. So if you've got someone with a high AC and Mobility, you might just chuck them in to provoke and then you can't provoke if you fumble.
Just remember there is nothing forcing someone to use their only AoO on the very first option. So the rogue bouncing saying, "Come on hit me!" might not get attacked, but the next person. This especially makes sense if this particular foe has witness the rogue's trick before.
In the party I run, the Rogue, who has crazy AC especially with Mobility, dives in, intentionally provokes AOOs (as there's a good chance the attacker will miss) so that no AOOs will go off from that creature for the rest of the round. Of course sometimes I throw creatures with Combat Reflexes at them, but not all creatures make sense to have that. So if you've got someone with a high AC and Mobility, you might just chuck them in to provoke and then you can't provoke if you fumble.Just remember there is nothing forcing someone to use their only AoO on the very first option. So the rogue bouncing saying, "Come on hit me!" might not get attacked, but the next person. This especially makes sense if this particular foe has witness the rogue's trick before.
That rogue's pretty good at annoying things into striking at him. And he does it so my cleric can close with an enemy and hit the offending creature with harm or destruction. It works well as a tactic, as he's not as squishy as I am. So I make sure that there are no witnesses for a repeat performance;) And if it's not me, it's the eldritch knight who makes sure we don't have to pull the same stunt twice.
Just remember there is nothing forcing someone to use their only AoO on the very first option. So the rogue bouncing saying, "Come on hit me!" might not get attacked, but the next person. This especially makes sense if this particular foe has witness the rogue's trick before.
Of course an intelligent foe may refrain from attacking. Do I actually have to qualify that? Please give me some credit. Or is the desire to nitpick everything so overwhelming that it must be done whenever possible, even when derailing the point of both the original post and the greater context of my own?
I had no intention of presenting the tactic as something that worked every time. (Is there a tactic that does? Are there people here so lacking in common sense that I actually have to explicitly write that out? Goodness, I hope not.) But it's a tactic that circumstantially makes sense. And if a combatant is presenting himself as a notable threat, an opponent may indeed take the opportunity to attack that combatant rather than wait and miss that opportunity.
It was part of my greater assertion that--if the GM is trying to find freebie ways of making PCs provoke attacks of opportunity, both he and the players should be reminded that most creatures are limited in how many AOOs they can perform in a round.
Lathiira: tell Alleywraith: be sure there's chocolate tomorrow.
|
|
Update:
Just got home from finishing the next session. I've worked things out, and calmed down considerably. Mostly I realized I was over-reacting due to a couple fellow players disrupting the game in many ways, and I was taking it out on the DM. This session was missing the disruptive players, and everyone (not just me) noticed a considerable increase in their enjoyment of the game. What happens next session is anyone's guess, but I certainly had fun, as well as everyone else (that was there).
XP is given, equally, to all characters. He averages the party's level, and awards EVERYONE the same XP.
I do the same.
Or, I could make a character that 'breaks the game', and simply play that character.I'm inclined to go the 'game-breaking character' route. What do you say? What should I do?
You should not be a jerk. So you disagree with his house rules? You don't like it? Tell him that, and if you're not having fun, quit the game.
If you're trying to make the game stop being fun for the rest of the group, you'll piss them all off. I don't know whether you're friends with those people or not, but after that, you will no longer be.
You might get beaten up by the group.
Wait, the last sentence was not quite right: You should get beaten up by the group! ;-P
|
|
XP is given, equally, to all characters. He averages the party's level, and awards EVERYONE the same XP.I do the same.
Or, I could make a character that 'breaks the game', and simply play that character.I'm inclined to go the 'game-breaking character' route. What do you say? What should I do?
You should not be a jerk. So you disagree with his house rules? You don't like it? Tell him that, and if you're not having fun, quit the game.
If you're trying to make the game stop being fun for the rest of the group, you'll piss them all off. I don't know whether you're friends with those people or not, but after that, you will no longer be.
You might get beaten up by the group.
Wait, the last sentence was not quite right: You should get beaten up by the group! ;-P
Everything is okay now. It's been resolved. See my previous message :)