Well, I can relate to this GM, I think. I made a similar mistake in my campaign (25pts though, not 36! woo!)
With 36 point characters, not only is the listed CR a useless tool (which makes it harder to GM) but certain classes like the monk and paladin will shine brighter when they don't have to divide their resources to get +3 or more in multiple attributes. That's you. You are shining too brightly.
If I were this GM, I would probably ask the whole party to take a voluntary cut on abilities so that I could use the listed CR more effectively. They would probably all agree, but if the result wasn't unanimous, I would start increasing the listed challenges by 3-6 CR. With those stats and that gear, you'll actually be appropriate fighting CR 12 or 13 creatures at 9th most of the time. If your party is large, you can actually fight lots of these critters.
A lot of GMs are overdependent on CR and think a CR 9 should be challenging a 9th level party without looking at the other big factors: Abilities, Equipment, player competence, and environment, and party size.
A good GM will always look at these factors and increase (or decrease) the party level accordingly. In my experience, you hit the mark when the players actually consider retreating from 1/3 of encounters. My players don't actually retreat that often, but they consider it. Hitting that sweet spot means that people get to feel heroic, instead of blessed.
Well, I can relate to this GM, I think. I made a similar mistake in my campaign (25pts though, not 36! woo!)
With 36 point characters, not only is the listed CR a useless tool (which makes it harder to GM) but certain classes like the monk and paladin will shine brighter when they don't have to divide their resources to get +3 or more in multiple attributes. That's you. You are shining too brightly.
If I were this GM, I would probably ask the whole party to take a voluntary cut on abilities so that I could use the listed CR more effectively. They would probably all agree, but if the result wasn't unanimous, I would start increasing the listed challenges by 3-6 CR. With those stats and that gear, you'll actually be appropriate fighting CR 12 or 13 creatures at 9th most of the time. If your party is large, you can actually fight lots of these critters.
A lot of GMs are overdependent on CR and think a CR 9 should be challenging a 9th level party without looking at the other big factors: Abilities, Equipment, player competence, and environment, and party size.
A good GM will always look at these factors and increase (or decrease) the party level accordingly. In my experience, you hit the mark when the players actually consider retreating from 1/3 of encounters. My players don't actually retreat that often, but they consider it. Hitting that sweet spot means that people get to feel heroic, instead of blessed.
And this i believe is the sign of a good GM. You made a mistake (we all do) you try to fix it in an amicable across the board fashion, rather then going after a single player for your mistake.
And for me the sweet spot is simple, since my group doesnt retreat very often at all. The players THINK they are going to die in a hard fight, but they dont. The wizard is out of spells, the rogue is in single digit HP, using his backup weapon the fighter finally strikes the final blow on the big bad...and I am a happy DM.
What bothers me about this DM is that he decided to change how a class works to nerf 1 PLAYER! That seems to me a pretty good indication that the DM doesn't know why his game is out of whack (other than it has something to do with the monks flurry). That is troubling. I mean, yes you have a lot attacks but that's still not a heck of a lot, damage-wise. An AC 31 at 9th level when you spend a ki point isn't that ridiculous either.
Find another game, man. You will be happier in the long run.
I think you need to sit down and talk to your DM, and explain that the monk is one of the weakest melee classes there is. If he is being challenged by your monk, something is seriously wrong somewhere other than with the monk. Maybe it's your optimization-fu that's way better than everyone elses, maybe the points allocated is just way too high, whatever, but you need to talk if you want this game to work.
I think you need to sit down and talk to your DM, and explain that the monk is one of the weakest melee classes there is. If he is being challenged by your monk, something is seriously wrong somewhere other than with the monk. Maybe it's your optimization-fu that's way better than everyone elses, maybe the points allocated is just way too high, whatever, but you need to talk if you want this game to work.
I may be a little dramatic about this, but this game ain't gonna work, no matter what you say to the GM. If the GM has already told you that "as a person" you aren't playing an alignment right, and that he has to nerf you because do too much damage, with an archery ranger in the party doing as much or more, then its not going to get better.
My guess is that the GM is controlling and the poster argued with him. If it really was about attributes or damage or AC, why isn't the whole party getting the smack down? Seems to me like the DM got something in his craw and decided to be a d!ck about it.
I'm about to start GMing my first actual PF game with 32-point buy. From what I'm reading here I take it that I should expect to have problems?
|
I'm about to start GMing my first actual PF game with 32-point buy. From what I'm reading here I take it that I should expect to have problems?
well not if your good at estimating challenges without really using CR, if you can adapt to the fact that your party is going to be really strong, then you're fine. But if you're not capable of adjusting to the fact that they can take on challenges 3-4 CRs higher than their level and face the standard 4 fights per day, then your game is gonna be a cakewalk for the players.
I'm about to start GMing my first actual PF game with 32-point buy. From what I'm reading here I take it that I should expect to have problems?
Are you aware that the point buy system is different between 3.5 and pathfinder? And that a 32 point buy in 3.5 is roughly equivalent to a 25 point buy in pathfinder?
I'm about to start GMing my first actual PF game with 32-point buy. From what I'm reading here I take it that I should expect to have problems?
well, kinda. 30 points is a 14 in every attribute. If you are using the CR system, you will need to bump the average party level up a few because your players are likely to have their primary attributes in the low 20's. That's going to be about twice the attribute bonus the game expects. Could I talk you into running it with 20 points? so far that is my favorite amount. Not too high, not too low. It makes racial attribute bonuses matter, since they may be the only way to get to an 18 in a stat. 25 point buy is not that bad either, but my DM says that he does have to kick encounter up a notch.
The system used the pathfinder system for points.
The DM is my a personal freind that i've known for a couple of years and I do not want to just leave in a poor fashion (ei rage quit) cause I don't wish to break a freindship over a game.
I snuck a peak at the ranger's attacks at 17 / 12 at level ten. He has a +3 weapon aswell and eighteen dex + eighteen strenght. So when he goes rapid shot he goes at 15 times two (multishot)/15/10 at pretty much the same as me. That does not include deadly aim or favoured enemy human. So the ranger has the same to hit as me and is ranged ( you know doesn't really take damage as much and stays out of danger while still sending his griffin to attack). I guess he does less damage though at 1d10 + 7 (+ 6 deadly aim + 1 point blank shot) vs my 2d6 + 7.
The strenght thing= 20 at lvl one. + 2 strenght via leveling to level eight. And a + 2 strenght Item.
Again I do want to say that he is not a bad person although this incident has irrated me. The reason for him not wanting me playing the LG alignment is cause I am percieved a chaotic player who serves himself. Although I don't see this character doing anything chaotic in the slightest and I do think i can play LG if I try it although that is not very important to me.
I guess I'll just have to talk to him and see what I can do to "salvage my character" otherwise the general concensus is that I should leave the game.
I would strongly recommend using at 20 or 15 point buy system if you guys are gong to dm.
I'm about to start GMing my first actual PF game with 32-point buy. From what I'm reading here I take it that I should expect to have problems?Are you aware that the point buy system is different between 3.5 and pathfinder? And that a 32 point buy in 3.5 is roughly equivalent to a 25 point buy in pathfinder?
I'm responding to the fact that MAD characters (specifically melee characters) need better stats in more places to be effective. I wanted to provide enough points for characters to buy, for example, three 16s. But what I'm hearing is that the characters will have it laughably easy?
I'm responding to the fact that MAD characters (specifically melee characters) need better stats in more places to be effective. I wanted to provide enough points for characters to buy, for example, three 16s. But what I'm hearing is that the characters will have it laughably easy?I'm about to start GMing my first actual PF game with 32-point buy. From what I'm reading here I take it that I should expect to have problems?Are you aware that the point buy system is different between 3.5 and pathfinder? And that a 32 point buy in 3.5 is roughly equivalent to a 25 point buy in pathfinder?
Yes.
Unless you adjust CR to increase the challenge.
15 or 20 point is the sweet spot in Pathfinder RPG.
You want:
With these things you will be able to use CR as printed. Increase any of these things by much, and you'll need to bump the effective APL for the "intended" level of challenge. The more you increase, the more you have to adjust the challenge.
That's not a bad thing, mind you, but something you should definitely be aware of.
I'm responding to the fact that MAD characters (specifically melee characters) need better stats in more places to be effective. I wanted to provide enough points for characters to buy, for example, three 16s. But what I'm hearing is that the characters will have it laughably easy?
I would say that they would be VERY powerful, and while some would have 3 16's others are going to have a 20. At first level. This is borderline gamebreaking depending on the players. If you want to make MAD characters more playable, I would suggest an ability array. Something like 15, 14, 14, 12, 12, 10. After race, that could be a respectable 17, 16, 14, 12, 10, 10.
I would advise against going above 25 point buy. Some will find 15 too restrictive, 20 is the standard for Pathfinder Organised Play.
|
One the DM's that I play with, is going to "downgrade" my monk.
My flurry is 14 14 9 9 at 2d6 + 7 and my saves are really good.
Well the dm feels that I'm too good so he decided make me flurry of my dex (+3 instead of + 7) so that I am now at 11 11 6 6 (lvl 9) when I melee flurry. And on top of that he is removing my wisdom to my cmd. When I asked him if I could modify my stats so that I could have more dex instead of str in order to hit more he said no.
I feel kind of screwed here when I just played by the rules in the book and get...
Shajir,
I ran a monk in the second darkness campaign and I must say that I am very happy that my DM worked with me. He also noticed that he could not challenge me without tpk'ing the rest of the party.
And I also noticed that I was way to bad ass according to the rules, and this was before the new pathfinder rules came out. When I adjusted for those, I was even more of a powerhouse.
However, he did work with me, and we stayed true to the original concept of the character, and he allowed me to change feats and such when something happened that he felt was really overballanced. It seems our DM's were good in thier perception of how the gamewas rolling along, but mine was a tad more understanding. I revamped mine so drastically that I went from a monk/enlightened fist to a monk/crane-shen combo that had no arcane ability. It was easy to enact this in game as taking someones arcane abilities away can be done so many ways, but in the end, I loved the crane shen prestige class from dragon magazine, and the character turned out much bettter because of it (RP wise).
It sounds like you have a DM that just wants to make things easy on himself. I would start looking elsewhere to game, if it were me in your situation.
I ran a monk in the second darkness campaign and I must say that I am very happy that my DM worked with me. He also noticed that he could not challenge me without tpk'ing the rest of the party.
Lightning strikes twice?
The monk is defensively very good; his AC and hit points are not awesome but in all other ways they have excellent defences. The way to challenge the monk is to force them to fight where they aren't strong - at range, or against a melee tank with high AC - or to have an enemy that can ignore their attacks from having high DR and/or AC.
The monk is defensively very good; his AC and hit points are not awesome but in all other ways they have excellent defences. The way to challenge the monk is to force them to fight where they aren't strong - at range, or against a melee tank with high AC - or to have an enemy that can ignore their attacks from having high DR and/or AC.
And the HP are a big deal. I can't see a 9th level character with 90 HP lasting super long against stone giants. Even with the high stats, i am just not seeing this monk as being OP compared to the other members of the party. Hell the ranger is doing more damage if they come up against his favored enemy. A good 8-16 points more per full attack.
Move some of those points from Strength to wisdom/intelligence/charisma? Be more of the artist than the martial?
GM screamed at me after I told him I wouldn't play with his new rules and asked to play a new character. So that's the end of that game.
GM screamed at me after I told him I wouldn't play with his new rules and asked to play a new character. So that's the end of that game.
Screamed how?
As in raised his voice and told me that I shouldn't compare my 3/4 bab melee character vs the ranged full bab character when I started to compare the two. It's a good thing I'm moving out of here in july as he just officially embarrassed me infront my freinds in my own house. After the other players leave I'm going to give him a piece of my mind. I'm going out to the movies now instead of playing dnd.
Sorry to hear that things went south like that!
At least you tried, and hey, there are lots of other GM's out there who won't scream at you at all.
Good Luck!
PS - Maybe let things cool off overnight. Gaming isn't worth losing a friend over.
As in raised his voice and told me that I shouldn't compare my 3/4 bab melee character vs the ranged full bab character when I started to compare the two. It's a good thing I'm moving out of here in july as he just officially embarrassed me infront my freinds in my own house. After the other players leave I'm going to give him a piece of my mind. I'm going out to the movies now instead of playing dnd.
Tell him one thing though. IT IS fair to compare your FULL BAB Monk, to the FULL BAB ranger. Cause when you flurry, that's what you get. And from what I'm getting, that's the way you should compare it.
On a side note, tell him to make the ranger attack through strength. It's only fair really, if he is changing the attacks to be dex based.
As in raised his voice and told me that I shouldn't compare my 3/4 bab melee character vs the ranged full bab character when I started to compare the two. It's a good thing I'm moving out of here in july as he just officially embarrassed me infront my freinds in my own house. After the other players leave I'm going to give him a piece of my mind. I'm going out to the movies now instead of playing dnd.Tell him one thing though. IT IS fair to compare your FULL BAB Monk, to the FULL BAB ranger. Cause when you flurry, that's what you get. And from what I'm getting, that's the way you should compare it.
On a side note, tell him to make the ranger attack through strength. It's only fair really, if he is changing the attacks to be dex based.
Not worth the effort; He is being pig headed and gaming is the least of worries now.
A GM who is threatened by the PCs in his game does not possess the confidence to run properly. His response reinforces this.
The fault does not seem to lie with you and you seem to have come up with a fine solution, happy viewing!
|
As in raised his voice and told me that I shouldn't compare my 3/4 bab melee character vs the ranged full bab character when I started to compare the two. It's a good thing I'm moving out of here in july as he just officially embarrassed me infront my freinds in my own house. After the other players leave I'm going to give him a piece of my mind. I'm going out to the movies now instead of playing dnd.
More likely he made an ass of himself.
The way I see it house rules aren't terrible but making a house rule that significantly effects a character and not giving the player options to work around it is being an ass.
so after reading through this and a lot of reflection and some terrifying moments where I had flash backs (oh dear g-d not high school)
If he flipped like that you definitely need space, whether the friendship is lost or not is up in the air.
I will say that 36 point buy with pathfinder rules is asking for trouble.
If the GM doesn't want you min maxing they need to state that at the beginning, for instance I am running a Oriental adventures game that I have upgraded to pathfinder (both AEG rokugan, and Oriental adventure book) I told the players that I am planning to run a game where they will need some charisma, and probably at least one guy that can hold his own at the emperors palace, surrounded by the elite of the empire.
To AvlonXQ I would say this if you want them to have a couple of 16's simply tell them your interest in such a use of these extra points you have awarded them. I have consistently been well rewarded when I make my goals clear to my players, accept for the time I ask them to go from mercs to heroes, that ended in half the continent belonging to the Gnome king, who next semester became the main villain, and was defeated by the new players since he was not in that game anymore, he was an impressive villain.
Always make the best of gaming, that way when you have to back out of a game you at least know you gave it your best. Either way if you are moving soon you would probably have to find a new group anyways, wherever you move to I advise finding all the gaming shops and asking around for groups, as well as Meetup.com I know of lots of rpg groups that advertise their existence on those sights, or if you are in a college town then there is usually at least one gaming group hiding somewhere.
Good luck and may the dice be with you.
Punch him.
Right in the throat.
Like, ok, you know his throat?
Visualize it.
Now visualize yourself punching it.
Alright, now go to your game. And when you see that throat?
Punch it
Wow... this guy needs to take his GM hat, douse it in ketchup, and eat it.
My lv6 party has a Sword&Board dual-wield fighter that has +14 base to hit. After the basic party-buffs from the wizard and the cleric (Prayer, Bless, Haste), he has five attacks at +19/+19/+16/+14/+11, meaning he can safely power-attack and deal 1d8+15 or so with main hand, and 1d8+9 or so with off-hand. On top of that, his AC is great, and his CMD is even better.
How do I deal with this monster without spemming mind-controls? Grease on his sword, keep monsters out of full attack range, use terrain, sneaky foes with spring attack, touch attacks, ray of enfeeblement etc etc etc.
tl;dr: Crap GM is crap, fighters are easy. - A real GM
Have to say that thats one of the saddest gaming stories I've read in 36 years of playing this game.
You need to walk..he needs to get a sense of perspective.
As in raised his voice and told me that I shouldn't compare my 3/4 bab melee character vs the ranged full bab character when I started to compare the two. It's a good thing I'm moving out of here in july as he just officially embarrassed me infront my freinds in my own house. After the other players leave I'm going to give him a piece of my mind. I'm going out to the movies now instead of playing dnd.
I think you will find that it isn't you that he embarrassed. How old is he - 11? 12? It's how old he's acting, anyway.
Walk, don't argue, keep your dignity, and find a new group to game with. There's plenty of good on-line games right here, too! If you were staying in that area, my advice would be to set up your own game with a reasonable point buy (20-25) and call all the other players and invite them in. I'm willing to bet that he'd be gaming alone within a month, at which point you can invite him and show him how it's done.
Ok Hold on, he gave a 36 point buy? Is this the pathfinder system or the old 3.5 one?
It's 36 purchase, i.e. the Pathfinder system (I hacked the numbers into my purchase/point buy chart and it came out as 36 purchase, and 50-something point buy.
I mean seriously, 36? Not to beat a dead horse
You don't beat dead horses. You skin them and sell their hide and meat.
or anything but who gives 36 points and then wants to nerf a charater? And the monk of all things? I guess the insane point buy helps it out alot with some of its limitations but still, its one of the weaker classes in the game.
Well, it's all about perceptions: I'm playing a monk, and I'd agree that the monk's not warrior enough to be described as a warrior in the core rules.
The GM, though, told me that no other character annoys him as much. Of course, my Pathf-Fu is strong, but still.
You guys might be a bit hard on the DM hehe, sure he might be a rookie DM but give him a chance to get better.
It's a big chance. I usually play it save and put down GMs like this before they do any serious damage, but whatever.
You might want to suggest a different way of point buy.
Seconded. My suggestion: One right out of the book. That means PF purchase system with 25 points at the very most.
you got 1 ability point too many by the way
Nah, it's spot-on. 36 purchase (or 42 point buy - the 7 doesn't do anything for you, though, as you can't get points by going below 8 in that system, at least not officially)
I dunno.
Usually if someone is too powerful for whatever reason, the boards council the DM talking to the PC and working out how the fix the problem.
The problem can be due to the PC making rules mistakes, or the DM being a rookie, or whatever.. but for *whatever* reason- a PC who is too powerful is too powerful..
That seems to be the case here. Regardless of the rest of the party- the DM seems to think this monk is OP.. and from his perspective, he is. So why the DM hate? Why isn't the DM right for taking the problem by the horns and talking with the PC person to person and dealing with this in a professional manner?
The DM found a problem and fixed it. I don't think that makes him "bad". It might make him new and with some learning to do, sure.. but "Bad"? I don't know.
It sounds like he's doing his job..
-S
In fairness to your DM it sounds like he gave everyone high point buy expecting everyone to make strong stats all around and then you instead dumped any non-relevant stat to boost your good stats, which is why he says you powergamed your character.
He still plays a MAD class. Others can focus on 1-2, maybe three stats, while he needs 4 (And that's a focussed monk - If he wanted to be really good at tripping or disarming, he'd need int 13, though that is the game's fault).
I could play a wizard with those stats
Str 9
Dex 16
Con 16
Int 20
Wis 10
Cha 10
Hot damn!
Ask him if instead of doing class nerfs you can take some points from your str and your wis and boost your int and cha. That way you're working with him
From the way it sounds he'll also have to change his class to commoner because that GM is bonkers.
You aren't in the wrong here, but you should be willing to accept some weakening so that he as DM doesn't have to wrack his brain or nerf you to challenge the party.
Nah, he should stop playing because that GM is incompetent.
but at the same time this will also boost your weaker stats so it's not like his nerfs to the rules where you loose out without gaining anything.
Nah, it's exactly like that. The two stats do nothing for him. Are the other characters forced to distribute the points across all the stats, not just the one or two they need?
That seems to be the case here. Regardless of the rest of the party- the DM seems to think this monk is OP.. and from his perspective, he is. So why the DM hate? Why isn't the DM right for taking the problem by the horns and talking with the PC person to person and dealing with this in a professional manner?
Primarily because it doesn't seem like he has been dealing with it in a professional manner, instead he has been arbitrarily changing the rules for how a Monk deals damage (Dex instead of Str), refusing the player the chance to rebuild his character in light of the new rules, and refusing the player the chance to create a new character.
Also because the Monk isn't the first character of the player in question that has apparently been OP as far as the DM is concerned (constant mind control on the player's previous character, for instance).
Granted, it may very well be that the DM's side of this story would be very different, but at this point the player's side is all we have.
I dunno.
Usually if someone is too powerful for whatever reason, the boards council the DM talking to the PC and working out how the fix the problem.
The problem can be due to the PC making rules mistakes, or the DM being a rookie, or whatever.. but for *whatever* reason- a PC who is too powerful is too powerful..That seems to be the case here. Regardless of the rest of the party- the DM seems to think this monk is OP.. and from his perspective, he is. So why the DM hate? Why isn't the DM right for taking the problem by the horns and talking with the PC person to person and dealing with this in a professional manner?
The DM found a problem and fixed it. I don't think that makes him "bad". It might make him new and with some learning to do, sure.. but "Bad"? I don't know.
It sounds like he's doing his job..
-S
I'm sorry man, but did you read the thread? The DM made his own problem by allowing a crazy point buy system, and his "fix" was to make arbitrary rules changes for a SINGLE player who has a perfectly reasonably built character within the DM's rules that the DM established, with no similar restrictions to the other players. The player even offered to just create a new character instead, and the DM wouldn't allow him.
And then when the player brought it up with him (we can only hope civilly), the DM threw a hissy fit in the player's own home. Based on the OP's perspective, there is absolutely nothing that suggests the DM did anything "professional."
That's a bad DM in my book, any day. In fact, if I had a dictionary of gaming, that DM's picture would be next to "bad DM."
DM's make mistakes, but you don't make up for them by punishing your players for your goof. Ever.
Now, the DM shows up here and tells us an entirely different story, I'm willing to listen. But I also want to hear why he allowed 36 point buy, and why he didn't just drop it down to a standard point buy when character stats started skewing the game more than he expected, rather than just start picking on one player, who's only crime as far as I can tell was having tactical sense.
I dunno.
Usually if someone is too powerful for whatever reason, the boards council the DM talking to the PC and working out how the fix the problem.
The problem can be due to the PC making rules mistakes, or the DM being a rookie, or whatever.. but for *whatever* reason- a PC who is too powerful is too powerful..That seems to be the case here. Regardless of the rest of the party- the DM seems to think this monk is OP.. and from his perspective, he is. So why the DM hate? Why isn't the DM right for taking the problem by the horns and talking with the PC person to person and dealing with this in a professional manner?
The DM found a problem and fixed it. I don't think that makes him "bad". It might make him new and with some learning to do, sure.. but "Bad"? I don't know.
It sounds like he's doing his job..
-S
While we only have the player's version of events to go on, the DM shouting at his player and refusing to discuss the matter isn't in the realm of 'talking to the player and working out how the fix the problem' as far as I can see.
Edit: edited above as I don't talk to PCs. I talk to players ;)
Sorry, but from what we're being told, this DM is already a fruitcake. Paladins aren't allowed because "nobody can role-play LG". Um. Huh.He didn't say that, he said the specific player can't.
The guy considers monks too powerful. I wouldn't bet a penny on any of his assessments.
These are usually the same people who ban certain alignments at the start of the game (the other type being people who have seen games fall apart because of a douchebag player using alignment as an excuse).
I had that. But I don't ban alignments. I ban attitudes. Works way better. (Though if intend to play CE, you better have a strong case.)
With 36 point characters, not only is the listed CR a useless tool (which makes it harder to GM) but certain classes like the monk and paladin will shine brighter when they don't have to divide their resources to get +3 or more in multiple attributes. That's you. You are shining too brightly.
Bah. He still needs 4 abilities to work. The others can work with two or three. You know, you can get two 18s and a 12 (before racial adjustments). That's a fighter in heavy armour who can both dish out and buy metric gigatonnes of damage. Or a wizard with more HP than a fighter in a game with normal stats.
Or you go 18/16/16/10/10/9, which is really cool for, well, everyone.
And on the matter of "shining too brightly": If we play with 15 points and I want to play a monk, will I get an extra +2 to half my ability scores because I'm not nearly shining brightly enough?