Who's tell who is playing the game wrong?!? I'm, saying what your playing isn't RAW. Not that it's wrong. In fact YOUR the one calling people who think that giving an imp your soul on a silver plater and having the imp do what it's SUPPOSE to do is playing it wrong and we are killer GMs or player-screw happy.
However, there is nothing stating that, that is the imp's ONLY goal. It even supports the idea that it will let Hama go on for an entire adventuring career, collecting as many collateral souls as possible along the way.I'm not arguing against how imps SHOULD act. I'm arguing against how some people say the game should be run. It seems to me many people are player-screw happy.
I never once used the word "wrong" in my post.
I just think there are better ways to handle the situation, to the enjoyment of all. Turning a player's resource against them, or ignoring how a creature would normally act will ruin the player's fun or the GM's fun respectively. I never said anyone was doing it "wrong." I merely proposed an alternative/compromise that didn't make the player feel cheated, and let the imp act as an imp should in the end.
Chill out.
|
Who's tell who is playing the game wrong?!? I'm, saying what your playing isn't RAW. Not that it's wrong. In fact YOUR the one calling people who think that giving an imp your soul on a silver plater and having the imp do what it's SUPPOSE to do is playing it wrong and we are killer GMs or player-screw happy.
However, there is nothing stating that, that is the imp's ONLY goal. It even supports the idea that it will let Hama go on for an entire adventuring career, collecting as many collateral souls as possible along the way.I'm not arguing against how imps SHOULD act. I'm arguing against how some people say the game should be run. It seems to me many people are player-screw happy.
I never once used the word "wrong" in my post.
I just think there are better ways to handle the situation, to the enjoyment of all. Turning a player's resource against them, or ignoring how a creature would normally act will ruin the player's fun or the GM's fun respectively. I never said anyone was doing it "wrong." I merely proposed an alternative/compromise that didn't make the player feel cheated, and let the imp act as an imp should in the end.
Chill out.
Yeah you don't specifically say the word wrong...but what you just said is you telling me, seeker, zurai and wraithstrike that we ARE playing it wrong. And anyone else who agree with us.
Congratulations!
The Maruts will be by to discuss your new method of immortality with you shortly. Please stand by.
I'd like the maruts to explain, using their +6 Diplomacy and +10 Knowledge Religion, why gods apparently get a pass on the whole "immortality" and "raising the dead" business but the forces of law get their knickers in a knot if mortals do the same thing. If the answer is any variation of "Because" or "Look, I don't make the rules, that's just the way it is" then ask if they would please explain how this is rather obvious double standard is not hypocrisy. And if/when they admit that it is hypocrisy, point out that they are hypocrites and therefore cannot be Lawful Neutral as they say, since hypocrisy is evil, and indeed, in Golarion, it is an older evil than undeath, since there were hypocrites long before Urgathoa ever fled the Boneyard.
If this doesn't cause the maruts to short out and scream about "Does not compute! Does not compute!" I'll summon some malebranches to cart these obvious and admitted hypocrites off to the appropriate circle of Hell, because malebranches have dominion over hypocrites and these are obviously very fine examples.
There's your answer! Go to The Cleaves and earn your godhood.
I have to warn you, there will soon be a Kitsune after the same prize.The Cleaves is in the Homebrew section and you should post like crazy so it's useable before your time runs out.
You could also talk to some death clerics about becoming a Reaper.
I think we've taken the OP to it's conclusion a while ago. The immortality scheme is unworkable unless you go with the custom Magic Item.
And even it was spell only your character would still be aging minutes / hours every time she got bounced. Not so much stopping the clock as hitting the snooze alarm.
Seems to me that an imp in possession of a corrupt soul might like to treat it like a fine wine, that is, to let age and gain more flavor, and to only pop the cork when its hit its peak.
If Hama is capable of greater evil and corruption, its in the imps best interest to keep hama in the game.
I am still of the opinion once that Imp has your soul all gift wrapped and everything he is done, and so are you.
The player was well foolish and banked on his GM allowing him to control the imp and it not do what it always meant to do. Damn his soul to hell. He banked on metagaming and the GM's good will not what the imp would really do.
It is not being mean to the player or ruining his fun, it is doing what imps do. The player caused the conflict and stopped his own fun, not the GM. This is no different then your level 20 pc, going naked and charging a whole army by himself.
You did something very, very, very foolish and the GM just allowed it to play out. Your fault not his.
I am still of the opinion once that Imp has your soul all gift wrapped and everything he is done, and so are you.
The player was well foolish and banked on his GM allowing him to control the imp and it not do what it always meant to do. Damn his soul to hell. He banked on metagaming and the GM's good will not what the imp would really do.
It is not being mean to the player or ruining his fun, it is doing what imps do. The player caused the conflict and stopped his own fun, not the GM. This is no different then your level 20 pc, going naked and charging a whole army by himself.
You did something very, very, very foolish and the GM just allowed it to play out. Your fault not his.
You are speaking metaphorically, right?
My GM did (and will do) none of these things.
That's on him, I and many others would have the imp be an imp. I am not saying your GM is playing wrong man, but a good deal of people would do just as I have said.
You gave the imp the very thing he wanted, the very thing he has been working for. So yeah most of us it seems thinks he would call it a job well done and head home.
I'm going to play devil's advocate here because this touches on a problem I see with the way a lot do GMs want devils to be played as some curious combination of omniscience and having all the impulse control of a three-year-old with ADHD in a candy store.
First off, we've got the question of the imp's loyalty: Is it to Hama, to his Hellish Masters, or to himself? Is it possible for the imp, while he thinks Hama is an idiot, likes his cushy job as her familiar and so gives Hama extra rope at times, rather than taking her soul to Hell ASAP and then being given a new assignment which in all probability will be nowhere near as cushy? Is it possible that the imp is paranoid, and while he's pretty sure he's got his former mistress's soul in a magic jar, all gift wrapped and ready to take to Hell, she does have magic at her command, including Limited Wish, and it would be a devious and devilish thing to only make him think that he has the soul so as to test his loyalties, not to mention the horrible thought of what happens when he takes the jar to his Hellish Masters and there's no soul inside?
And even if we go with the imp being utterly loyal to Hell and not to Hama, and moreover guesses right that this is the actual mage's soul in the jar and not some cruel trick, and takes it back to his Hellish Masters, it's the GM's call as to what the devil behind the desk does. Does he automatically omnisciently know that it's really Hama's soul in the jar and not some nasty trick by a sorceress who was testing the imp's loyalty and the devil's competence as boss? Does he just go, "Ho ho! Throw it in the box with all the other foolish mages' souls. Let me pat you on the head for being such a wicked little imp. Here, have a habanero lollipop too and by the way, I have your next assignment ready!"? Does he perhaps say, "Whose soul is that? Hama's? Go put it back, you foolish imp! Put it back at once! I've already told my Hellish Masters that we have plans for her being a lich, and if we cash out early, the old gentlemen with the pitchforks will be very displeased!"
In other words, who is Hell being run by these days? Mephistopheles from Faust? Pantomime devils? The type of Hell imagined in Sunday School twaddle?
The ball is in the GM's court but then again, the ball is always in the GM's court. I myself prefer Hell to be little more subtle and devious, so if a mage gets an imp as a familiar, there's a lot more free will and a lot less omniscience going on. Which means that in my world, the plan could work, but not necessarily.
I've seen some Hellraiser movies.
A limited wish ciould let a soul in a jar take over the spare clone of someone important and trusted. All the better if the soul is a first class dork. Lawful evil treats all sentient beings as chess pieces.
|
I haven’t read all of the posts on this extensive thread so apologies if I’m duplicating. The original question you asked was “Please tell me if the following is rules legal or not.”
I believe this would not be within the bounds of a Pathfinder Society character as there are too many pre-scenario requisites. These are the universal, turn up at any table rules... However, within “regular” play there are sufficient points on either side of the argument to make this at least a hazy interpretation of the rules, but not one that could not be reasonably argued. However one has to ask how this fits in with your GM’s game...
There are two opposing factors at play here:
Does having an immortal player affect game balance for your GM or the gaming group as a whole?
Is being immortal central to your character or important to you as a player?
The Gamemastery Guide states the following in the “Getting Started” section:
Despite a pervasive myth, roleplaying games are not about pitting the Game Master against the players.
Many groups maintain a set of house rules for their games, and the Game Master has the final say on particular interpretations and arbitrations of rules (though everyone in the group should be aware of any house rules beforehand).
Normally this kind of questions arise when a player wishes to do something the GM disapproves of, the player then quoting the rules at the GM, instead of allowing the GM to interpret the rules as they see fit.
If your GM is fine with it then it does not seem to be far outside the rules, if at all. If on the other hand your GM is not fine with it and it spoils the game for them and other players then the options that the various “Killer GM’s” suggest will come into play, or they will deem it outside of the rules as various people on this board have.
If the GM lets you know in advance that it isn’t appropriate for the game to be immortal and indestructible and you turn up for the session with your immortal, indestructible mage, magic jarred into an advanced troll, don’t be surprised if “one of the above” happens. Its not killer GMing its maintaining play balance.
However, if you agree your character is a powerful sorcerer, who takes precautions and has the resources to prepare before a session in this way, then it is entirely inappropriate for the various player killing options to be taken.
At the end of the day the game is about everyone having fun, not descending into a rules debate, one player dominating a session with an inappropriate character, or unfairly killing characters.
I've seen some Hellraiser movies.
A limited wish could let a soul in a jar take over the spare clone of someone important and trusted. All the better if the soul is a first class dork. Lawful evil treats all sentient beings as chess pieces.
off topic: I have been rewatching the series recently, and I think Pinhead would make an excellent advanced chain devil(kyton).
I haven’t read all of the posts on this extensive thread so apologies if I’m duplicating. The original question you asked was “Please tell me if the following is rules legal or not.”
I believe this would not be within the bounds of a Pathfinder Society character as there are too many pre-scenario requisites. These are the universal, turn up at any table rules... However, within “regular” play there are sufficient points on either side of the argument to make this at least a hazy interpretation of the rules, but not one that could not be reasonably argued. However one has to ask how this fits in with your GM’s game...
There are two opposing factors at play here:
Does having an immortal player affect game balance for your GM or the gaming group as a whole?
Is being immortal central to your character or important to you as a player?The Gamemastery Guide states the following in the “Getting Started” section:
Despite a pervasive myth, roleplaying games are not about pitting the Game Master against the players.
Many groups maintain a set of house rules for their games, and the Game Master has the final say on particular interpretations and arbitrations of rules (though everyone in the group should be aware of any house rules beforehand).Normally this kind of questions arise when a player wishes to do something the GM disapproves of, the player then quoting the rules at the GM, instead of allowing the GM to interpret the rules as they see fit.
If your GM is fine with it then it does not seem to be far outside the rules, if at all. If on the other hand your GM is not fine with it and it spoils the game for them and other players then the options that the various “Killer GM’s” suggest will come into play, or they will deem it outside of the rules as various people on this board have.
If the GM lets you know in advance that it isn’t appropriate for the game to be immortal and indestructible and you turn up for the session with your immortal, indestructible mage, magic jarred into an...
I would allow my players the chance to try to become immortal and what not, but I would also tell them that it was not guaranteed, and that losing the character is a very real possibility in their quest for power.
In other words the power is there to be gained, but their(the PC's) soul/life is also there to be taken.
If the DM let on my imp cabin boy was angling to betray me, I'd swap him out for a trustworthy mephit.
Why does everyone have such a hard-on for quashing immortality? It doesn't have an in game benefit. Reincarnate does the trick anyway.
I was speaking to everything the lich gets. Most games don't last long enough for immortality to matter so unless we played a game like Kingmaker that might last decades I probably would not care, and therefore not make it as hard, if immortality was all they wanted. The rules don't clarify whether your lifespan goes by how long the body has been alive or by how long "you" have been alive so reincarnation may not work.
If the DM let on my imp cabin boy was angling to betray me, I'd swap him out for a trustworthy mephit.
Why does everyone have such a hard-on for quashing immortality? It doesn't have an in game benefit. Reincarnate does the trick anyway.
It does when you dumped all your physical stats to 7, declared your character 'venerable' to get the mental stat boosts (and further reducing your physical stats), and now want immortality that includes taking on a physical form that, purely by coincidence I'm sure *eyeroll*, has tremendous physical stats. Not to mention, regeneration, BAB, etc.
Schemes like this belong purely in the area of BigBads, one on one campaigns, or when all the PCs receive a similar boost.
Reincarnate does not work if the subject was slain by death magic.
Not sure why.
Also 2 negitive levels or 2 lost constitution points.
If the DM let on my imp cabin boy was angling to betray me, I'd swap him out for a trustworthy mephit.
Why does everyone have such a hard-on for quashing immortality? It doesn't have an in game benefit. Reincarnate does the trick anyway.
It does when you dumped all your physical stats to 7, declared your character 'venerable' to get the mental stat boosts (and further reducing your physical stats), and now want immortality that includes taking on a physical form that, purely by coincidence I'm sure *eyeroll*, has tremendous physical stats. Not to mention, regeneration, BAB, etc.
Schemes like this belong purely in the area of BigBads, one on one campaigns, or when all the PCs receive a similar boost.
I myself thought it was pretty damn creative and full of possibilities for story hooks. As has been mentioned, the character is in the GMs hands. Its not hard to throw in caveats that prevent this convoluted chain of spells from being a pass on having debilitating physical scores. Perhaps without her meat-body, Hama begins to loose he confidence and sense of self, suffering a slow loss of charisma to balance with her new more physically capable body. If Hama's spell DCs are so gawd awful strong, the trade off might be something she (and the GM) can live with. And If she can't she switches back.
The imp also has to wonder what its live would be like if hama dies (which usually kills a familiar, doesn't it?) Said imp may not want to die and return back to being the lowest run on the ladder without possession of a mighty evil soul to trade for some promotions. I see the imp viewing this as an investment plan that is going to some time to grow.
Can it be abused? sure. But Hama is also a high level sorcerer. These kind of schemes happen when sorcerers and wizards get to high levels. Its also why epic level play tends to break down. Its the GMs job to make this more than an exploit and turn it into a story hook, with its attending challenges and dangers. Its also the GMs job to reward the player to some extent for such a devious plan.
If the DM let on my imp cabin boy was angling to betray me, I'd swap him out for a trustworthy mephit.
Why does everyone have such a hard-on for quashing immortality? It doesn't have an in game benefit. Reincarnate does the trick anyway.
It does when you dumped all your physical stats to 7, declared your character 'venerable' to get the mental stat boosts (and further reducing your physical stats), and now want immortality that includes taking on a physical form that, purely by coincidence I'm sure *eyeroll*, has tremendous physical stats. Not to mention, regeneration, BAB, etc.
Schemes like this belong purely in the area of BigBads, one on one campaigns, or when all the PCs receive a similar boost.
Honestly, in the case of templates that make you undead, I think your existing Con score should be taken and distributed among your other stats as your "life energy" goes to bolster everything else. Follow whatever system you use for character creation for weighting distribution, but this would make it so that people with high Con who become liches or vampires don't lose out relative to their already frail and sickly brethren, and moreover, players who want to have characters who become undead won't build these wheezing basketcases who've twinked their stats to the Nth degree.
Note that this would be balanced as part of the stat bonuses the templates give you.
Hama is physically frail because the very concept of Hama requires her to be physically frail.
However, this does not extend to her Constitution. She can hardly move due to her low strength and clumsy "old lady" nature, but she had a 16 base constitution in her youth. That's a LOT for a sorcerer.
I hate that people keep implying that I've gamed the stats to optimally serve me for when I become a lich. That just isn't true. Becoming a lich would mean losing the awesome constitution score and STILL being stuck with crap strength and dexterity.
The only thing anyone can justifiably accuse me of is using the point buy system to my advantage, as I did dump strength and dexterity for charisma, but you know what? Hama's a friggin' SORCERER. You ever see a straight-classed sorcerer with high strength and dexterity, but low charisma? Thought not.
Now please stop with the negative implications.
If the DM let on my imp cabin boy was angling to betray me, I'd swap him out for a trustworthy mephit.
Why does everyone have such a hard-on for quashing immortality? It doesn't have an in game benefit. Reincarnate does the trick anyway.
It does when you dumped all your physical stats to 7, declared your character 'venerable' to get the mental stat boosts (and further reducing your physical stats), and now want immortality that includes taking on a physical form that, purely by coincidence I'm sure *eyeroll*, has tremendous physical stats. Not to mention, regeneration, BAB, etc.
Schemes like this belong purely in the area of BigBads, one on one campaigns, or when all the PCs receive a similar boost.
I myself thought it was pretty damn creative and full of possibilities for story hooks. As has been mentioned, the character is in the GMs hands. Its not hard to throw in caveats that prevent this convoluted chain of spells from being a pass on having debilitating physical scores. Perhaps without her meat-body, Hama begins to loose he confidence and sense of self, suffering a slow loss of charisma to balance with her new more physically capable body. If Hama's spell DCs are so gawd awful strong, the trade off might be something she (and the GM) can live with. And If she can't she switches back.
The imp also has to wonder what its live would be like if hama dies (which usually kills a familiar, doesn't it?) Said imp may not want to die and return back to being the lowest run on the ladder without possession of a mighty evil soul to trade for some promotions. I see the imp viewing this as an investment plan that is going to some time to grow.
Can it be abused? sure. But Hama is also a high level sorcerer. These kind of schemes happen when sorcerers and wizards get to high levels. Its also why epic level play tends to break down. Its the GMs job to make this more than an exploit and turn it into a story hook, with its attending...
The caster's death does not kill the familiar. It just returns to being a normal specimen of its type. The imp would most likely become less powerful than before, but the imp's ultimate goal would be to collect souls to get promoted to a higher form of devil. Taking a step back in order to eventually take a step forward is not something I think the imp would mind doing. I think the imp would allow the lich to continue to become more perverted, maybe even after the campaign ends. If were DM'ing the hard part would be actually making it to the lich stage. The only way the imp would go against the caster before that would be if the imp was worried about the caster becoming soft(becoming good). In that case I(as the imp) would try to turn him back to evil or get him killed before he made it back to neutral.
|
@Ravingdork - I think your concept is pretty damn cool. Next week, I'll finally get the chance to play as a necromancer, and immortality (not lichdom) is something that may be on his 'to-do' list. This thread is definitely helping me come up with something outside of lichdom, as that just seems boring to me otherwise. I'm worried of dying before I get to that point where he can get to that point, my character's gonna be a half-orc, with ridiculously low stats. NPC stats are better than his =/
Sorry for the tangent..
My guess on Hama's starting stats at 1st level:
Strength 4
Dex 4
Charisma 23
My guess on Hama's starting stats at 1st level:
Strength 4
Dex 4
Charisma 23
We were using 25 point buy, if I'm not mistaken. It took a little reverse engineering, but Hama's base stats at first level were...
Str 8
Dex 12
Con 16
Int 9
Wis 9
Cha 18
...before taking into account any modifiers at all.
She was a very attractive and charismatic ditz in her youth, who married the mayor of an insignificant little town and lived most of her life as an herbalist and apothecary before she suffered a stroke, which served to cripple her physically (represented by her extremely low physical scores) and unlock her latent sorcerer potential, which would only serve to corrupt her.
Her final scores at level 10 are...
Str 2
Dex 6
Con 10
Int 12
Wis 12
Cha 27
...for putting everything into Charisma and also for having a headband of charisma +2 (which is horrible at 10th level, but the GM was being stingy with the wealth for a long time).
So basically...jake was right is what your saying....
He was right about the Charisma score anyway. What of it?
First Level stats after age modifiers and race bounus, i.e. what the character started play with:
S 2
D 6
C 10
I 12
W 12
Ch 23
Stats at level 10 after gaining a Troll's body (forever, if the DM rules that his/her plan works):
S 21
D 14
C 23
I 12
W 12
Ch 27
First Level stats after age modifiers and race bounus, i.e. what the character started play with:
S 2
D 6
C 10
I 12
W 12
Ch 23Stats at level 10 after gaining a Troll's body (forever, if the DM rules that his/her plan works):
S 21
D 14
C 23
I 12
W 12
Ch 27
Ah. I was wondering what you were leading up to.
And yes, should I be able to find and successfully magic jar a troll, then, yes, you are correct.
What is your point exactly? That I was trying to make a powerful sorcerer? That I'm an optimizer? Ooh, what a terrible crime!
Please note that with OUR group's interpretation of magic jar, ANY spellcaster capable of casting the spell would be capable of doing the same thing to similar effect (how many wizards and sorcerers do you see with great physical stats in your games?). I haven't broken any rules (though I'm sure you will call our interpretation of the spell "wrong" as you so often do). Just because you don't like the way I have fun with my friends, doesn't give you the right to antagonize me in a public forum.
In response to the first post, because i did not read the whole thread, the hardest item I can think of to destroy is a -2 sword, cursed.
Oh boo hoo so your strength was 2 lower and dex 2 higher...big whoop. He's comment was about how min/maxed that is.
Min/maxing is not exactly an uncommon practice around these parts.
Are you and Jake implying that min/maxers are somehow bad?
Wrong/bad/fun maybe. :P
|
|
Please note that with OUR group's interpretation of magic jar, ANY spellcaster capable of casting the spell would be capable of doing the same thing to similar effect (how many wizards and sorcerers do you see with great physical stats in your games?). I haven't broken any rules (though I'm sure you will call our interpretation of the spell "wrong" as you so often do). Just because you don't like the way I have fun with my friends, doesn't give you the right to antagonize me in a public forum.
If I remember how the other players in the game reacted, I don't think they were exactly having fun. YOU were having fun I'm sure...and can't speak for the DM...but what you posted about how the other players were reacting does not sound like somebody having fun. In fact this anamosity, spoken or not, eventually caused you to retire the character. And yes the DM coddled the hell out of the encounters so your glaring obvious weakness didn't get you killed. The reason that most venerable wizards with horrible phsyical stats don't take over troll bodies is that in most games, they would die a horrible and sudden death on the adventure to find a troll to take over as most DM would not coddle their players nearly as much as yours did.
Also you probably did break a rule since lasarX points out that one spell you wanted to carry your body requires a living creature...and not an object. Since it's not a PF core or APG spell, can't really confirm that.
|
|
Oh boo hoo so your strength was 2 lower and dex 2 higher...big whoop. He's comment was about how min/maxed that is.Min/maxing is not exactly an uncommon practice around these parts.
Are you and Jake implying that min/maxers are somehow bad?
Wrong/bad/fun maybe. :P
Yes min/maxers are bad...it gives optimizers a bad name.
If I remember how the other players in the game reacted, I don't think they were exactly having fun. YOU were having fun I'm sure...and can't speak for the DM...but what you posted about how the other players were reacting does not sound like somebody having fun. In fact this anamosity, spoken or not, eventually caused you to retire the character. And yes the DM coddled the hell out of the encounters so your glaring obvious weakness didn't get you killed. The reason that most venerable wizards with horrible phsyical stats don't take over troll bodies is that in most games, they would die a horrible and sudden death on the adventure to find a troll to take over as most DM would not coddle their players nearly as much as yours did.
Wow. You got your facts mixed up buddy! Allow me to make a few points/clarifications:
The other players were reacting to the possibility of Hama becoming a lich (which they feared for in-game reasons), not because of the way she used magic jar (which she had for all of one level before being retired).
I did not retire the character due to ANY animosity. The PvP nature of the game wasn't fun for me. It was a conflict of gaming styles, nothing more. As experienced roleplayers, you all should well know that not everyone's idea of fun is the same. This very discussion is a good example. It seems to me that my play style threatens all of you for some reason, and so you feel you have to attack it with gusto.
Our GM did not coddle us. She kept the game "real." She was concerned about the enemies and situations coming off as convincing--none of this gamist ideology where everyone focus fires the wizard just because he wore Jedi robes, and instead spread out attacks in hopes of taking us out quickly (like swat teams sometimes do in real life). They would only change tactics AFTER the wizard did something incredible or the first volley was wholly ineffective against the party. If a specific character was targeted, it was for a realistic reason such as because the character did something to warrant the attention, or because the enemies had prior knowledge of the party and their capabilities and knew who the best target was. There was none of this metagamey "I should attack X character first because he can do the most damage" BS that I see a lot of other GMs do.
Also you probably did break a rule since lasarX points out that one spell you wanted to carry your body requires a living creature...and not an object. Since it's not a PF core or APG spell, can't really confirm that.
If I had already done that in the game, why on earth would I have started this thread asking if I COULD do it?
I'm tired of posters telling outright LIES in order to paint me in a negative light and "win" the discussion. It's unbecoming and doesn't exactly make this community a better place.
Yes min/maxers are bad...it gives optimizers a bad name.
Semantics. They are all the same. To say otherwise is to risk coming off as an elitist.
|
|
Our GM did not coddle us. At worst, you could say she was new at it, but that only made the campaign great and memorable, unlike what I've experienced under a few veteran GMs. She was concerned about the enemies and situations coming off as "real" or "convincing"--none of this gamist ideology where everyone focus fires the wizard just because he is an old man in robes and a pointy hat, and instead spread out attacks in hopes of taking us out quickly (like swat teams sometimes do in real life).
Umm yeah no, that IS coddling. Sorry but real life swat tactics do not work when you have ZERO chance to take down the frail old man with one arrow...much less the tank in full plate armor. Hell even in REAL life combat, they used focus fire back then. They would focuse all the arrows on the knights of old because they were the biggest threat and you could not bring him down with one arrow barring an extremely lucky shot. And if wizards existed back then, you bet they would be riddled full of arrows before the knights. So yeah you were coddled...BIG time.
Semantics. They are all the same. To say otherwise is to risk coming off as an elitist.
Sorry, but muchkins are not min/maxers and min/maxers are not optimizers. No optimizer worthy of the name would ever make a character like Hama with such glaring weakness other then as a thought exercise.
Umm yeah no, that IS coddling. Sorry but real life swat tactics do not work when you have ZERO chance to take down the frail old man with one arrow...much less the tank in full plate armor. Hell even in REAL life combat, they used focus fire back then. They would focuse all the arrows on the knights of old because they were the biggest threat and you could not bring him down with one arrow barring an extremely lucky shot. And if wizards existed back then, you bet they would be riddled full of arrows before the knights. So yeah you were coddled...BIG time.
Except the characters don't have big glowing numbers over their head that say how tough they are or what level they are. The SWAT team only has what (1) they were told by others and (2) what they can see.
For the first half of our career, we were unknowns, so that just left #2. As for focus fire on armored targets, that makes sense, and is something our GM frequently did. Our full plate cleric went down quite a bit as he looked extremely powerful and dangerous (being an overt cleric of war and destruction) when compared to:
- the venerable peasent woman
- the woodsman with a bow
- the mangy orc
The GM threw a LOT of tough encounters (5+ CR over us at times) and the only reason we survived was by making the enemy underestimate us (and running away). That does not strike me as having been coddled.
Sorry, but muchkins are not min/maxers and min/maxers are not optimizers. No optimizer worthy of the name would ever make a character like Hama with such glaring weakness other then as a thought exercise.
WORTHY OF THE NAME?
Do you have any idea how elitist that sounds?
I'll tell you what a thought exercise is: Pun Pun was a thought exercise. The Hulking Hurler was a though exercise. Hama was a CHARACTER. Just because you don't like her numbers doesn't somehow make her less than that. She was always concept first, mechanics second (not that it would matter in the slightest if it was the other way around).
|
|
Umm yeah no, that IS coddling. Sorry but real life swat tactics do not work when you have ZERO chance to take down the frail old man with one arrow...much less the tank in full plate armor. Hell even in REAL life combat, they used focus fire back then. They would focuse all the arrows on the knights of old because they were the biggest threat and you could not bring him down with one arrow barring an extremely lucky shot. And if wizards existed back then, you bet they would be riddled full of arrows before the knights. So yeah you were coddled...BIG time.Except the characters don't have big glowing numbers over their head that say how tough they are or what level they are. The SWAT team only has what (1) they were told by others and (2) what they can see.
For the first half of our career, we were unknowns, so that just left #2. As for focus fire on armored targets, that makes sense, and is something our GM frequently did. Our full plate cleric went down quite a bit as he looked extremely powerful and dangerous (being an overt cleric of war and destruction) when compared to:
- the venerable peasent woman
- the woodsman with a bow
- the mangy orcThe GM threw a LOT of tough encounters (5+ CR over us at times) and the only reason we survived was by making the enemy underestimate us (and running away). That does not strike me as having been coddled.
Sorry, but muchkins are not min/maxers and min/maxers are not optimizers. No optimizer worthy of the name would ever make a character like Hama with such glaring weakness other then as a thought exercise.WORTHY OF THE NAME?
Do you have any idea how elitist that sounds?
CR5+ should be characters death. The cleric, as he looks the most powerful should have been dropped in round one. With Hama being target number 2 if she casts a spell in round 1. No if and or buts about it. I have CR -2 critters that because they are played intelligently pose a real threat of killing my players. The fact that your boasting about having everyone walk away from CR 5+ critters (templated druids if memory serves)...yes you were coddled...big time. When I pull punches with even my piddly mooks, my players know I started to play them dumb...kinda surprised you can't see with when your walking away from certain death.
As for terms. If you actively warp the rules to make yourself powerful, your not a min/maxer, your a munchkin. If you make characters with glaring hit me here to kill me signs, then your a min/maxer and not an optimzer.
I haven't broken any rules (though I'm sure you will call our interpretation of the spell "wrong" as you so often do). Just because you don't like the way I have fun with my friends, doesn't give you the right to antagonize me in a public forum.
1. Your "interpretation" of the 2nd level invisibility spell allowed for it to cover the caster, a multi-headed undead hydra, a wagon, and four more party members. While I try to avoid saying that anyone is wrong (I prefer to use phrases like "I believe you are mistaken," or "I believe this is incorrect," or even "I really don't think it works that way"), your "interpretations" are, in fact, often bizarre enough to qualify as just plain "wrong".
2. If you don't want your campaign, characters, or motivations to be discussed, then perhaps you should avoid bringing up the subject in a public forum. You still have that list of the 60+ people you email when someone disagrees with you, right? The one where you plead with them to come to your "defense"? Maybe they'd be a less critical audience.
3. Given the number of posts where you complain about your party and/or DM disagreeing with you, I suspect that I'd find little to argue with them about.
Nice move, tho, trying to tie me to the "bad/wrong fun" label. Doesn't really fit, since I've always been a proponent of "Play as you will shall be the whole of the Law" crowd. The difference is, I recognize where my games vary from the rules as written. I accept responsibility for whatever problems arise from that. What I don't do, is try to bend or manipulate the rules to accommodate my every whim. Nor do I feel compelled to convince others to follow me down every "broken" rabbit hole that I find.
In summary, your motivation seems, to me, clearly to be to build the most powerful character possible, without regard for the effect on the campaign or other players. A DM's job is much more comprehensive than that. I speak from a DM's perspective.
From a DM's perspective, your build/plan was/is a complete non-starter. Immortal Sorcerers with a Troll's stats/abilities are solidly in the realm of Epic/BBEG/one on one campaigns/equal boosts to all players. If you can't see that, then I'm not sure anyone here can help.
*
*
*
Special Mention: "I haven't broken any rules...."
The "Rules," much like the table for creating new magic items, are the second step. The first step, for a DM, is, "Will this help or hurt the campaign?" Only your DM can answer. Good Luck with that.
|
|
No optimizer worthy of the name would ever make a character like Hama with such glaring weakness other then as a thought exercise.So wait is this arguing that he went overboard in his quest for power or did not go far enough or what because I can read that last sentence in more than one way. I could guess but I would not want to form an unjustified opinion of someone.
No it's HOW he got there is the issue. He basically made a bunch of kill me weaknesses and then hedge his bet that the DM would have kiddie gloves as a new DM to make it work. An optimized Hama would not have such glaring weaknesses...but would also be weaker at spellcasting. Certain death in exchange for spell power is rather meaningless after all. Optimized character are good at what they should be doing...and they may even have some weaknesses...but nothing so glaring as what Hama had.
WTH...now I'm agreeing with Jake?!?
I know! Weird, right?
So much to take in...
CR5+ should be characters death. The cleric, as he looks the most powerful should have been dropped in round one. With Hama being target number 2 if she casts a spell in round 1. No if and or buts about it.
Hama frequently used silent/stilled/eschewed spells and as such rarely showed any outward signs of spellcasting at all.
1. Your "interpretation" of the 2nd level invisibility spell allowed for it to cover the caster, a multi-headed undead hydra, a wagon, and four more party members. While I try to avoid saying that anyone is wrong (I prefer to use phrases like "I believe you are mistaken," or "I believe this is incorrect," or even "I really don't think it works that way"), your "interpretations" are, in fact, often bizarre enough to qualify as just plain "wrong".
This? Again? Baiting is against the CoC you know.
2. If you don't want your campaign, characters, or motivations to be discussed, then perhaps you should avoid bringing up the subject in a public forum. You still have that list of the 60+ people you email when someone disagrees with you, right? The one where you plead with them to come to your "defense"? Maybe they'd be a less critical audience.
It's a ROLEPLAYING forum. Like everyone else I'm GOING to discuss my games and campaigns from time to time. I don't mind people discussing them. However, I DO mind people attacking them with little to no justification (I mean REALLY? What do you get out of calling my play style "wrong?").
3. Given the number of posts where you complain about your party and/or DM disagreeing with you, I suspect that I'd find little to argue with them about.
I don't know if you noticed, but complaint threads get a lot more responses than other threads do.
Nice move, tho, trying to tie me to the "bad/wrong fun" label. Doesn't really fit, since I've always been a proponent of "Play as you will shall be the whole of the Law" crowd.
I think perhaps you misunderstood me. If anything the B/W/F label was being applied to myself.
The difference is, I recognize where my games vary from the rules as written. I accept responsibility for whatever problems arise from that.
Well, you THINK you do. I think the same thing. That's the funny thing about interpretations. No one is necessarily wrong.
What I don't do, is try to bend or manipulate the rules to accommodate my every whim. Nor do I feel compelled to convince others to follow me down every "broken" rabbit hole that I find.
I like to play devil's advocate from time to time. So what?
In summary, your motivation seems, to me, clearly to be to build the most powerful character possible, without regard for the effect on the campaign or other players. A DM's job is much more comprehensive than that. I speak from a DM's perspective.
Though its true I like powerful characters, I would NEVER create and play a character that would negatively effect the campaign or the players therein.
From a DM's perspective, your build/plan was/is a complete non-starter. Immortal Sorcerers with a Troll's stats/abilities are solidly in the realm of Epic/BBEG/one on one campaigns/equal boosts to all players. If you can't see that, then I'm not sure anyone here can help.
You keep trying to frame it like we need your help to fix our broken game. We simply don't (our game isn't broken). For the most part we have fun. If you're posting in this thread, all you need to be doing is discussing the OP's question.
Special Mention: "I haven't broken any rules...."
The "Rules," much like table for creating new magic items, are the second step. The first step, for a DM, is, "Will this help or hurt the campaign?" Only your DM can answer. Good Luck with that.
If you believe nothing else I say, at least believe this: I've done absolutely nothing to hurt the campaign.
No it's HOW he got there is the issue. He basically made a bunch of kill me weaknesses and then hedge his bet that the DM would have kiddie gloves as a new DM to make it work. An optimized Hama would not have such glaring weaknesses...but would also be weaker at spellcasting. Certain death in exchange for spell power is rather meaningless after all. Optimized character are good at what they should be doing...and they may even have some weaknesses...but nothing so glaring as what Hama had.
You keep wanting to make this an "issue," but its really not. As best as I can tell, its your own insecurities that push you to condemn my actions (and even some actions that I have not committed), though I don't know why you would be insecure about a game.
Furthermore, an optimized Hama would not be Hama at all. Hama is a physically frail old lady with powerful sorceress powers. If she was optimized to have few or no weaknesses, the character concept would fail altogether. What she lacks in HP, AC, and other stats she instead relies on a special defense mechanism (see below).
I was not relying on the GM to coddle us in order to survive. I built Hama to be deceptively unassuming as her defense mechanism. When that failed, she relied on her powerful allies (which, thanks to her enchantment focus, wasn't always limited to the PCs).
Hama evolved as we played. I did not originally plan on becoming a lich, or taking magic jar, or any of this other stuff that you so condemn. That desire came about through sincere roleplaying and developing the character throughout the campaign.
So you never advocate challenging onessself with optimization under a set of parameters. I have always found such a challenge interesting as the balancing act adds an additional twist to what is otherwise a routine job. Not to mention that without parameters it can get a bit boring to always play exactly the same character at all times since doing anything less would not be optimal.
I think you just hit the nail on the head as to why I do what I do.
Making character with such glaring strengths/weaknesses makes for an interesting challenge (as well as an interesting character).
|
|
So you never advocate challenging onessself with optimization under a set of parameters. I have always found such a challenge interesting as the balancing act adds an additional twist to what is otherwise a routine job. Not to mention that without parameters it can get a bit boring to always play exactly the same character at all times since doing anything less would not be optimal.
That would be a thought exercise and can be quite fun.
|
|
So much to take in...
CR5+ should be characters death. The cleric, as he looks the most powerful should have been dropped in round one. With Hama being target number 2 if she casts a spell in round 1. No if and or buts about it.
Hama frequently used silent/stilled/eschewed spells and as such rarely showed any outward signs of spellcasting at all.
Which is against RAW as NONE of those feats actually prevent anyone from figuring out that your casting a spell. You know the RAW that you say you haven't broken. And if the group decided to houserule that it does...was it at your instigation/behest or did the new DM go well you just cast a still/silent/eschew spell so I rule that they can't detect the spell casting with not ONE peep out of you? Consider the other thread you had about this, I'm guessing you were the pushing force for that in your game. Not to mention that by RAW your still silent echew sorcerer spell takes 3 rounds to cast or can't be done at all. The metamagic casting section specifically says A (as in one, singular...not all that you want) metamagic can be applied for a longer cast time. So you apply one to full round, the second becomes 2 rounds, 3 becomes 3 rounds. Or you can only apply one at all...which would seriously nerf the sorcerer and make the bonus echew material feat rather useless.
Furthermore, an optimized Hama would not be Hama at all. Hama is a physically frail old lady with powerful sorceress powers. If she was optimized to have few or no weaknesses, the character concept would fail altogether. What she lacks in HP, AC, and other stats she instead relies on a special defense mechanism
The point wasn't that you can't have weaknesses...it was that you can't have glaring "why are you not dead as an adventurer weaknesses". It's like making a character for a court intrigue game with no social skills or charisma or wisdom or int and using your strength to crush anyone who opposes you. At some point you have to go...umm why isn't he being charmed? Or dominated? Or made into a nice meat puppet? And the answer to that is because the DM is coddling that player so they can have their fun...which is fine if it wasn't causing problems in your game. The fact that your game became more PvP (without the game with a stated purpose of PvP) means there were issues in your game...and you blightly ignored it...like how you blightly ignore CR 5+ critters being played like morons so you all can live.
And as for Hama being Hama...no your Hama is not like the waterbender Hama. That one was smart and wise and patient. Never was she a ditzy girl. Nor was she weak in her old age. You made your stats and made up a story to fit those stats. You certainly did not make a character then do the stats.
|
|
That would be a thought exercise and can be quite fun.
So you never advocate challenging onessself with optimization under a set of parameters. I have always found such a challenge interesting as the balancing act adds an additional twist to what is otherwise a routine job. Not to mention that without parameters it can get a bit boring to always play exactly the same character at all times since doing anything less would not be optimal.Oh come now one can say the same about any character as any character can be made as a thought exercise. But if one restricts the characters that they will pay to only those that can not be constructed as a thought exercise no character can be played.
Alternatively if one only plays the optimal character then there is only one character that can ever be played unless one accepts playing with restrictions. But if one accepts playing with restrictions then any character can be the one depending on the restrictions.
And that depends on what you mean by set parameters anyways. ALL characters are made within set parameters of the ruleset. You can toss in additional parameters because of GM houserule of course. Your basically playing at a word game here. So I'll return in kind.