Forced to Play a Class No Longer Wanted or an NPC? Seriously?


Advice

Sovereign Court

I don't normally post in this region of the site, but here goes.

I normally DM but recently found myself playing in a Pathfinder update of the Legacy of Fire AP. Because it looked interesting and I was fairly certain no sane DM would allow it, I asked to play a Tengu Artificer(the class is from Tome of Secrets and is SRD but not Paizo content). The DM allowed it, even though it allows a character to effectively cast one spell per level simultaneously.

I tried it out for three levels and realized even a player with the best of intentions can't make something incredibly broken function without self-gimping to the point of not being fun anymore. So I asked if I could rebuild the character as something similar, like an alchemist, but was told I could keep playing as is or I would have to play an NPC that already showed up. At least until the end of the first volume.

My biggest concern was that this class was just not fun anymore since the temptation to make a broken character was too great and getting into a power level arms race with the DM is never fun, especially not for the rest of the group who chose acceptable classes and can't cast multiple spells simultaneously at 3rd level.

Now, in an effort to redeem the class, the DM has rewritten the class with severe limitations(likely justified) and is offering them as his solution to my problem with the Artificer. Instead of allowing a class swap, he is actually forcing me to play a different version of the Artificer that he designed, for reasons that pass my understanding.

Am I being selfish for just wanting to swap out my levels for something else? Is my DM being difficult by forcing me to play something I just don't want to play anymore? What would you do if you were either of us?


It can be rather annoying for a DM when a player decides he wants to change characters once a game has started, especially if the DM has already planned background and plot elements linked to that character. Simply having the character change class is slightly easier, and as you are only level three I would probably just hand-wave it. The best solution from my point of view would be to retire your tengu artificer (which I probably would not have allowed in the first place) and find a way of introducing a new character (I am not familiar with Legacy of Fire, so I have no idea how easy or hard that would be). The main objective of the game is for people to have fun and if you are not having fun playing your character the best solution would be to change it. I am sure, if you work with your DM, you can come up with an interesting way of introducing a new character.

Dark Archive

Warforged Gardener wrote:
What would you do if you were either of us?

If I'm not enjoying the game, I'd leave.


You seem to be a little bit selfish, I think. First you ask to play a very "strange" thing. Then you worry about overpowering it unintentionally (or by temptation), and now you DM hast powered it down, and you still have a problem with it?

That being said, player-fun should be a priority, and he should just let you change if it doesn't work out. My campaigns normally include a point-of-no-return for such things after the first 1-2 sessions.

I think that your DM wants to teach you a lesson, so that you will play a standard character next time.

Altough I also think that rewriting someones class after he chose it, isn't fair of the DM either. That should be a reason to ask for a non-modified standard class of Pathfinder, such as alchemist.

And by the way, I once had a similiar problem: I played a sorcerer and after two sessions we played times of troubles of Forgotten realms, so 90% of my spells failed all the time. I asked the DM to change the character, but he wouldn't allow it :(

Silver Crusade

It sounds to me that your DM is probably into the verisimilitude of the campaign and wants to have changes to the character roster make sense in the game world (at least that's what it sounds like as he seems ok with switching characters after this volume). To an extent I could see not wanting a brand new PC as from what I recall of Legacy of Fire there aren't many opportunities for new ones at the beginning. I can't post much more on that without potential spoilers but suffice it to say that if that is the case I can understand at least where he is coming from. He is, in a way, attempting to maintain verisimilitude in the campaign.

That being said, I've had problems in my game before with players being unsatisfied with their PCs for a myriad of reasons (from lost character sheets to disinterest of said character) and as a DM personally I am all about the players. I run my games for their fun and if they aren't having fun, then I'm "doing it wrong". I would go out of my way to create circumstances to allow you to play a different character or at least let you switch your levels.

In short, I think you are fine for wanting to play another character to balance the party. It doesn't sound like you are the type to abuse said privilege and you genuinely didn't know precisely what you were getting into. I would be more than happy to allow you to change characters and I think primarily he's hung up on making sure the character doesn't change by enforcing the character's class. I may come from a different school but personality and roleplaying make the character, not their class levels and abilities. As long as your character remains interested in magic items and potions and such, I don't really see any change as being harmful to the campaign, just a different flavor for the same character.

Liberty's Edge

I am currently running Monte Cook's Dragon's Delve from DungeonADay.com with a group of five players. Most of them decided to try something new and most of them ended up dissatisfied in one way or another. I want my players to have fun. If they aren't then what's the point of playing. I am in the process of working out changes for all but one of them. As a GM this can be a bit of a pain but I would rather do this than have somebody sitting at my table that isn't getting into the game.

Good Luck with your GM.
Eric


Have a talk with your GM to see what his reasons for forcing a character are, and why you would want to change said character.

I'm running LoF myself, and there are plenty of possibilities for new characters, depending on how far into the AP you are - lots of minor NPC's that can be modified or substituted by your own without major impact on the general storyline and easy way of getting a new character into the action, in case your GM is just reluctant to wing it or wants to do things "by the book".

Possible replacements:
Off the top of my head, NPC's that can be replaced or modified in Howl of the Carrion King - classes and all other minor details can be reworked with next to no trouble:

  • Any of Almah's mercenaries
  • Oxwald
  • Felliped
  • Any other member of Lions of Senara or some other prisoner of the Kulldis that does not officially exist.
  • Haleen, may need some work if some of the other players has the trait linked to her.

Most importantly, you have to make clear that you don't enjoy playing your character the way it is, and you still want to play your character in the event of it getting changed - the most important thing in a game is to have fun, after all.


Warforged Gardener wrote:

I don't normally post in this region of the site, but here goes.

I normally DM but recently found myself playing in a Pathfinder update of the Legacy of Fire AP. Because it looked interesting and I was fairly certain no sane DM would allow it, I asked to play a Tengu Artificer(the class is from Tome of Secrets and is SRD but not Paizo content). The DM allowed it, even though it allows a character to effectively cast one spell per level simultaneously.

I tried it out for three levels and realized even a player with the best of intentions can't make something incredibly broken function without self-gimping to the point of not being fun anymore. So I asked if I could rebuild the character as something similar, like an alchemist, but was told I could keep playing as is or I would have to play an NPC that already showed up. At least until the end of the first volume.

My biggest concern was that this class was just not fun anymore since the temptation to make a broken character was too great and getting into a power level arms race with the DM is never fun, especially not for the rest of the group who chose acceptable classes and can't cast multiple spells simultaneously at 3rd level.

Now, in an effort to redeem the class, the DM has rewritten the class with severe limitations(likely justified) and is offering them as his solution to my problem with the Artificer. Instead of allowing a class swap, he is actually forcing me to play a different version of the Artificer that he designed, for reasons that pass my understanding.

Am I being selfish for just wanting to swap out my levels for something else? Is my DM being difficult by forcing me to play something I just don't want to play anymore? What would you do if you were either of us?

The errata to the class is on the boards here somewhere. The mechanics are wonky, and somewhat confusing. I see it as broken, but in the other direction assuming I read it right.

To answer your question: I would suck it up until level 3. He may have a reason he does not want you to switch out yet. Assuming the party moves at a decent pace it will only take two session to finish a book.

Sovereign Court

I would tell your GM that you just want to play a standard race and class and that you're willing to play the tengu until the GM can find a good opportunity to slot in the new character.
I would then show him/her the character sheet for the new character so that he/she can see that this is going to be a character that fits the party better and will be easy to GM.

Liberty's Edge

From how I read things the OP is not wanting to play a new character, but to change the class the character is built with for something similar.

If that is the case, it might be worth explaining that clearly to your GM, his bit about sticking with your current PC or playing an NPC makes me think he believes you want to change character and he doesn't want to have to contrive reasons why one character leaves and another joins.

But if you are just changing your class (and its not to something totally different) then no in game change has occured, its only the metagame mechanics that will have.


wraithstrike wrote:
Warforged Gardener wrote:

I don't normally post in this region of the site, but here goes.

I normally DM but recently found myself playing in a Pathfinder update of the Legacy of Fire AP. Because it looked interesting and I was fairly certain no sane DM would allow it, I asked to play a Tengu Artificer(the class is from Tome of Secrets and is SRD but not Paizo content). The DM allowed it, even though it allows a character to effectively cast one spell per level simultaneously.

I tried it out for three levels and realized even a player with the best of intentions can't make something incredibly broken function without self-gimping to the point of not being fun anymore. So I asked if I could rebuild the character as something similar, like an alchemist, but was told I could keep playing as is or I would have to play an NPC that already showed up. At least until the end of the first volume.

My biggest concern was that this class was just not fun anymore since the temptation to make a broken character was too great and getting into a power level arms race with the DM is never fun, especially not for the rest of the group who chose acceptable classes and can't cast multiple spells simultaneously at 3rd level.

Now, in an effort to redeem the class, the DM has rewritten the class with severe limitations(likely justified) and is offering them as his solution to my problem with the Artificer. Instead of allowing a class swap, he is actually forcing me to play a different version of the Artificer that he designed, for reasons that pass my understanding.

Am I being selfish for just wanting to swap out my levels for something else? Is my DM being difficult by forcing me to play something I just don't want to play anymore? What would you do if you were either of us?

The errata to the class is on the boards here somewhere. The mechanics are wonky, and somewhat confusing. I see it as broken, but in the other direction assuming I read it right.

To answer your question: I would suck it up...

I did not notice when you asked how I would handle it as a DM. I am pretty good at making up believable reasons for one character to leave and another to enter the game so I am sure I could have thought of something, but if he has had an issue with character switching in the past that might be why he is making you wait to make sure you pick something you know you want this time, instead of something you might want.


I would be fine with the change. Artificer and Alchemist are not that far apart, so taking over the Name/background and whatnot should be easy.

I always allow my players to change their chars if they are unhappy with their choice - so far noone has abused this - because playing a char that is no fun for you is simply not working.

In any case, your GM should seek agreement with you over the changes or else let you switch to alchemist.

Sovereign Court

Thanks everyone for your feedback. I had many of the same thoughts and objections to the arbitrary class changes and fun is the most important factor for me. I like trying new things and the Artificer was a strange new thing that sounded fun if it was properly balanced(it really wasn't, although the errata made me think it was). I had never played with this particular DM for any length of time, but I'm told by others that he tends to play overpowered characters himself. When I first expressed concern(I'm at 3rd level and this is the first level where I built my devices using damage spells instead of buffs), he thought the class was fine as is and that he could "make sure" it doesn't overpower things. Some of his rulings on the class(spells with touch attacks only use one attack roll, even if there are multiple spells with attack rolls) only served to overpower it farther and now that he's insisting on rewriting the class, it is a little annoying for me.

Better communication is very important here and I want to thank everyone who pointed me toward finding out what his reasoning is.


Richard Leonhart wrote:
I think that your DM wants to teach you a lesson, so that you will play a standard character next time.

Perhaps, and, if so, there lies part of the problem. It's not the DM's job to teach lessons. It's the DM's job to run the game in such a way that it maximizes the fun of the entire group. DM's who want to teach lessons should volunteer at the nearest church's Sunday school program.

Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games

Sczarni

just to chime in...

yeah, I'd pick his brain for exact reasons & whatnot. You never know if he's got some super secret plot trick coming down the pipe soon.

That being said, if you approached me and said "this class is just too powerful, can I swap it out?" I would say yes, and then target your current character to the exclusion of all other PC's.

Once dead (not hard with some mean targetting in LoF early on), move on with a "rescued prisoner" "desert wanderer" "teleportation accident" or other plot contrivance to get your new PC into the game.

the only really sticky point is the PC to PC interaction, but that's part of the fun of bringing new people (or characters) into an existing group.

good luck


If you are going to retcon the changes to the class anyways.. then I don't see a problem with a retcon to the Alchemist class. You can very easily change the fluff text from "potions" to "infusions" or even "magical clockwork" to get your spell effects. The class already makes "bombs" from basically nothing (no components required, other than fluff), so.. yeah.

If I were the player, I'd probably ask to play a class similar enough that we can hand-wave that it was always like this.
As DM, if things started to get wonky, my "fix" would be to do the same, or offer to have a new character introduced at the earliest convenience (I like verisimilitude).

My brother was DMing a game where a player was not liking their Sorcerer. Since at level 3, there wasn't really a difference in the spellcasting between Sorcerer and Summoner, he let her switch over.
Story-wise, it was a new manifestation of the story elements behind her abilities (sorcerer magic to making this demon creature appear to protect her).
This sounds very analogous to your situation.


psionichamster wrote:
Once dead (not hard with some mean targetting in LoF early on), move on with a "rescued prisoner" "desert wanderer" "teleportation accident" or other plot contrivance to get your new PC into the game.

I think this is exactly what the DM is trying to avoid, with his restriction of keeping the same PC or switching to an existing NPC.

I have to admit that I'm not crazy about "parachute PCs". It kills the mood, sometimes.

"Hey, here's a complete stranger that I'm going to trust instantly because he has the letters 'PC' tattooed on his forehead!"

Sovereign Court

hogarth wrote:
psionichamster wrote:
Once dead (not hard with some mean targetting in LoF early on), move on with a "rescued prisoner" "desert wanderer" "teleportation accident" or other plot contrivance to get your new PC into the game.

I think this is exactly what the DM is trying to avoid, with his restriction of keeping the same PC or switching to an existing NPC.

I have to admit that I'm not crazy about "parachute PCs". It kills the mood, sometimes.

"Hey, here's a complete stranger that I'm going to trust instantly because he has the letters 'PC' tattooed on his forehead!"

Agreed. I didn't want to become a new character for that reason altogether. The character interaction is the only fun thing about what I'm playing now and it would suck to just abandon everything ive built with the other characters unless it can't be helped. I mean, all I had to do if I wanted to play something new just for the sake of ditching the current character is go off alone and get myself killed. I don't want that. I just want a mechanically sound version of the character I have now(rather than an identical cousin who pops up like the infinite bards in Dorkness Rising).

I'm starting to wonder if the DM has misunderstood what my problem was altogether and I just sent him an email trying to clarify both of our reasonings. Artificer just isn't fun. It feels overpowered, incomplete, and hasn't been playing well for me. Being able to touch a creature at third level and do 30ish points of damage is sort of uninteresting and will only get worse as I have to either dial it back or endure the DM and party's inevitable frustration as I kill things with no effort or get them killed when enemies start sporting globe of invulnerability amulets(which the DM has said is his backup plan).

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm currently GMing a campaign arch for 4 players. (Fiance, Buddy, and my two younger brothers.) One of my brothers was playing a drow rogue (I probably shouldn't have allowed the drow part).

Suffice to say about 2 sessions into the story, it was more than obvious from both player and GM perspective that he was
1)Couldn't get a rogue mentality for beans
2)he didn't quite get what it meant to be drow.

So after session 2 I took him aside and we rewrote his character. For all intents and purposes his character was the same person, background, personal traits etc. Except we put him into something he was more mentally suited for.

When my smart @X^ other brother decided to try and push the issue just to be a turd. I explained to him, and the other two players that for the sake of the campaign integrity we're blind to the fact that there ever was a drow, and that all previous rogueish activities were being badly performed, because he wasn't a rogue, but a fighter. When he tried to pull well, he's now a light skinned character I replied "Ben, are you rascist? Is all you can see skin deep?" Shut him up right quick. hehehe

10 or so sessions later the entire party has not had an issue with anyone needing to change anything that a retraining from 3.5 PHB2 rule couldn't fix. We're Level 5 heading into the next major chapter of the arch.

So moral of this story. A GM who is creative, or not, can still correct a character and move forward with the story, and as long as the players don't make an issue of it, no one will care. Even then, most objections can be overcome unless someone tries to be a turd about it.


Having a player that wishes to change up a character because they feel overpowered is something your GM should jump up and down all day for. Perhaps you should take it to the other players? This can be a bit dicey (super pun) if your GM feels like he is being ganged up on by the players. Bring it up at the table. Ultimately if the other players are behind or against you it will help you determine your best course of action.

If they think it's cool that you want to match up power levels with them, then I say keep pressing the issue. However, your GM sounds a bit control oriented so it may well blow up in all your faces.

If they really don't want to deal with a character change mid-adventure then you should consider their fun as well. If they have bought in to the show thus far, you may just have to be broken until you get to the point set by your GM where you could swap PC's.

Part of the pain of being GM regularly is that your need to fix things as a player becomes an urge that proves hard to deny. Ask any of my players how annoying it is to GM for me when I start to critique rulings mid goblin-smash ("You know back in the day we had this situation crop up when Ace wanted to use a halfling as a bludgeoning weapon so we handled it with...."). However, your job as a player is to add to everyone's good time and eat enough cheesey poofs that you swear you'll never buy them again.

Therefore I think your best course of action with the least friction associated with it would be to lump it for the remainder of the adventure and then swap out to a new character. Your GM has already essentially provided you this out, and all it will require on your end is a little patience. You are only in the first of six parts of LoF...no sense creating player-GM drama at level 3. Save it for level 10 where it belongs :)

Of course all this has been my rambling opinion so your mileage my vary by a factor of one million or more.


I read over the class, and the only thing that looks overpowered to me is the ability to stack enchantments and have them all go off at once.

If I were the DM, I would move the ability to put multiple enchants on an item to 10th level, and say you choose one available spell to go off when it activates (more like a staff).

Activating multiples at once would be a higher level class ability, and couldn't be done by other characters. I would probably say that at 15th you could activate 2 and at 20th you could activate 3. Since the class only gets up to the equivalent of 4th level spells, that sounds close to balanced in my head, though there might need to be a cap on total spell levels that can go off at once. Either that or require a UMD check each time as if you were using the extra activations rule.

Sovereign Court

Eric Jarman wrote:

I read over the class, and the only thing that looks overpowered to me is the ability to stack enchantments and have them all go off at once.

If I were the DM, I would move the ability to put multiple enchants on an item to 10th level, and say you choose one available spell to go off when it activates (more like a staff).

Activating multiples at once would be a higher level class ability, and couldn't be done by other characters. I would probably say that at 15th you could activate 2 and at 20th you could activate 3. Since the class only gets up to the equivalent of 4th level spells, that sounds close to balanced in my head, though there might need to be a cap on total spell levels that can go off at once. Either that or require a UMD check each time as if you were using the extra activations rule.

Yes, well having multiple spells go off at once is the most overpowered thing about the class and is also the main ability of the class. Without that, it's a wizard who can learn and cast one spell per level. I appreciate the advice on remaking the class, but the DM already beat you to that. If he'd suggested changes to me before I played one of these for three levels, I might have decided to play something else then...but he didn't think it was overpowered until I said the class wasn't balanced or fun to play. Both your ideas to revise the class and his don't tip it back in the direction of fun, which is highly subjective anyway. Never played an artificer before, thought it would be fun, turned out it was not. All I want now is to play something that's normal.

Of course, as the DM is refusing to speak to me via text or email, that may be a moot point.

Shadow Lodge

Warforged Gardener wrote:


Of course, as the DM is refusing to speak to me via text or email, that may be a moot point.

A whole lot of people have given you good advice on dealing with a reasonable DM. It sounds as if you may not have one of those. If that is case either leave or stay until third level. For what it is worth, you are being reasonable and trying to be helpful.

Perhaps the last thing you could do is direct the DM to this discussion or have a friend do it if he won't respond to you. He will ether see it as treasonus in which case you don't want to play with him anyway, or he might be reasonable.

All the Best,

Kerney

Shadow Lodge

If it were my group I would probably ask the player to play the NPC also, letting the player do some upgrades to the NPC character, then swap out when there is an appropriate chance. It's possible you could do an alchemist as a drop in replacement for an artificer, I'm just not sure because I'm not familiar with the artificer class. Seems like there is a pretty big gap there.

I can't answer for what's best or reasonable for your group because I don't really know what's going on.


The DM is always right ... you just have to decide whether you can live with it.

Just curious, would the NPC be allowed to be an alchemist? (So you just don't have your own character background and description.) Or has he already used class abilities too much to make that possible?


I actually don't see that much of a problem with the DM's handling of this issue. He asked the OP to wait until the end of the current module before making these changes, which makes sense for several reasons. If the DM likes his campaigns to function without needing to suspend disbelief too much, then that is a reasonable request (maybe he wants the OP to change his class via some form of retraining rules, which can't conceivably be done while adventuring in the wilderness).


Pinky's Brain wrote:
The DM is always right...

This statement derails every thread I have seen it on. Instead of countering it I will just ask you to do some searches on these boards.


Are wrote:
I actually don't see that much of a problem with the DM's handling of this issue. He asked the OP to wait until the end of the current module before making these changes, which makes sense for several reasons. If the DM likes his campaigns to function without needing to suspend disbelief too much, then that is a reasonable request (maybe he wants the OP to change his class via some form of retraining rules, which can't conceivably be done while adventuring in the wilderness).

I agree. "Wait" is a lot better than "no".


wraithstrike wrote:
I agree. "Wait" is a lot better than "no".

As my own children never seem to tire of being reminded, "There is a difference between 'Not right now' and 'No'."

Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

I'm weighing in late, but...

As a player, I would first be clear to the GM that I don't want to change characters completely, I want to rebuild the one I am playing (because the GM may be fearing how to rewrite a new character into the story). If he still said no--if I liked the NPC, I might take it on, and if not, probably I would multiclass the character out into something else and just tweak my concept from there. This is assuming that overall the GM is a reasonable and nice person.

If the GM's just being a jerk (which if he's not answering texts or emails, it sounds like he could be being unreasonable, although perhaps there are other circumstances contributing to this), then I'd leave the game. ETA: I would also make it clear that I am not leaving because I can't play the character I want, but because the GM is an uncommunicative asshat.

As a GM, I discourage changing characters just because it makes it harder on me to build the story and challenges with people changing halfway through, but I allow ONE full rebuild or new character per player. I've seen people build stuff that just wasn't working out for whatever reason, and then they get frustrated with themselves, and a frustrated player is a player that doesn't contribute well to the group. If a rebuild eliminates that frustration and allows the game to progress without drama, then that's likely the best choice for all of us. Now, on the other hand, I never would have allowed the Artificer class to begin with, but if I allowed it, then that's my lookout. I shouldn't "punish" the player for my poor decision to allow such a thing in the first place. I may ask the player to tone it down if I see it's getting out of line, but if the player ASKS to tone it down by switching out, then by all means I would encourage it as the easiest solution to the problem.

(ETA: It also occurs to me after re-reading my post that maybe the reason why the GM is acting weird is that he's embarrassed he allowed an overpowered class. It may seem silly, but I've seen gamers get weirdly defensive about stuff like that; in a way it would be he's admitting he was "wrong" to let you take the class, so he's trying to contrive an odd solution instead, where he has more control over the outcome. Please note this is entirely speculation and may actually have no bearing whatsoever in reality.)

Sovereign Court

wraithstrike wrote:
Are wrote:
I actually don't see that much of a problem with the DM's handling of this issue. He asked the OP to wait until the end of the current module before making these changes, which makes sense for several reasons. If the DM likes his campaigns to function without needing to suspend disbelief too much, then that is a reasonable request (maybe he wants the OP to change his class via some form of retraining rules, which can't conceivably be done while adventuring in the wilderness).
I agree. "Wait" is a lot better than "no".

I would readily agree if it wasn't an immediate problem. The class is so unbalanced that he has felt a need to rewrite it...which, to me, completely contradicted his initial "wait" until it's realistic approach. Realism may be an issue for him, but since he has also said he would rather use globe of invulnerability to counter the class and it's abilities where necessary, I don't think realism is a huge issue for him...or at least, he's a little selective about when and where he wants to apply it to my situation.

I brought this issue to him, and his response has been: there's not a problem, so play an NPC or wait until later(a little galling, but I still had a choice), there is a problem, so here are some changes I expect you to make to the character(with no further offer of changing to something else implied), to no communication whatsoever.


Warforged Gardener wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Are wrote:
I actually don't see that much of a problem with the DM's handling of this issue. He asked the OP to wait until the end of the current module before making these changes, which makes sense for several reasons. If the DM likes his campaigns to function without needing to suspend disbelief too much, then that is a reasonable request (maybe he wants the OP to change his class via some form of retraining rules, which can't conceivably be done while adventuring in the wilderness).
I agree. "Wait" is a lot better than "no".

I would readily agree if it wasn't an immediate problem. The class is so unbalanced that he has felt a need to rewrite it...which, to me, completely contradicted his initial "wait" until it's realistic approach. Realism may be an issue for him, but since he has also said he would rather use globe of invulnerability to counter the class and it's abilities where necessary, I don't think realism is a huge issue for him...or at least, he's a little selective about when and where he wants to apply it to my situation.

I brought this issue to him, and his response has been: there's not a problem, so play an NPC or wait until later(a little galling, but I still had a choice), there is a problem, so here are some changes I expect you to make to the character(with no further offer of changing to something else implied), to no communication whatsoever.

He may be very non-combative, and like to avoid issues. That is the only reason I can think of for avoiding you, but as a DM you have to get used to these things popping up. I would just wait it out. It seems the DM is not giving you any other options.

Sovereign Court

wraithstrike wrote:
Pinky's Brain wrote:
The DM is always right...
This statement derails every thread I have seen it on. Instead of countering it I will just ask you to do some searches on these boards.

I'm a GM myself in a long campaign and I understand both the necessity of players respecting the GM's every decision and the necessity of the GM respecting his/her players enough to be flexible when possible and avoid forcing things that affect the players' enjoyment. I'm sure there's an argument for and against the statement, but I prefer to think it as Shrodinger's Cat. Can't know which argument is correct without opening the box, which in the case of GM case law and authority is capable of laying waste to entire gaming groups if opened.

Sovereign Court

The course most likely for me with 24 hours until game time and no idea what the GM's ultimate decision or reasoning is, is to take my accumulated XP and level to 4th and simply try to make the best of my remaining choices. I don't want to start something new three levels behind the group, so I will branch off to fighter and use the obscenely broken abilities to buff and support myself as a vanilla fighter. I will construct my own gear per the abilities of the class(craft most magic items with just a craft check to decide if I can, even if I'm way below appropriate caster level? sure, whatever), and hope I can cobble out something that isn't a complete drag to play or die an honorable death.

If I do die and he still tries to make me play an NPC instead of a character of my own choosing, I will refrain from posting my feelings on the subject. I feel like I've done enough whining already.


I feel you should have just played the broken character and rein yourself in. You would have had less of a hassle.

Only bring out big guns when Party fights CR +4 their level (boss/overpowering type).

It is always possible to restrict self.


Sorry Gardener, you sound like a good player. It's one thing to say "I'm bored with this character" and another to say "well, this is breaking the game and mechanically wonky, can I tone it down to X"

My kneejerk reaction is to say "well, fine, then break the game" but that's going to spoil it for everyone. But, to be honest, it sounds like he's a new DM, and, to be honest, it's really easy to fall for the stick up the butt "NO MY VERISIMILITUDE" attitude. All I can say is, GMing sometimes requires little sacrifices to make the game run smoothly.

So, lemme ask, is this character concept something you really want to stick with? I mean, you haven't talked a lot about his personality. If you really are tied to a tengu, or to this specific character's personality, then I would ask the DM if your character can go through a bit of retraining or something to become something similar/toned down. The thing is, it really sucks to be stuck with choices you don't like FOREVER in a game like this that has such a steep learning curve.

As for starting a new character, I'd much rather be a level 1 in a group of level 4s than be stuck with a character I don't like. It doesn't take much time to level, as long as you can survive. Alternately, maybe the GM would be happier with letting you run an hour or two of sidequest to get your experience caught up a bit.


do something stupid on purpose and die. Problem fixed.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Yerv Kinkash wrote:
do something stupid on purpose and die. Problem fixed.

It's an amusing thought, but likely would create more problems than fix (or do nothing).

- It's passive aggressive, and would not engender good relations between the OP and GM. Plus passive aggression is just bad. Sorry. IMO Half of most folks' inability to communicate like sane adults is due to people accepting passive aggression as a legitimate means of communicating, when all it does is breed contempt.

- If the GM is dead set on keeping his character in the game for a certain period of time for story purposes, he might not let his character die. I've known a lot of GMs that won't actually kill your character at low levels even if you die, do the 1 free resurrect rule, etc. And especially if he feels the OP was doing it just to get out of playing the character (which he would be), that's all the more reason he would just refuse to let the character die. (Passive aggression leads to only more passive aggression or straight up aggression.)

- The GM would say, "Fine, your character's dead, so now you can only play the NPC I wrote up. Nyeah." (See above.)

The OP is doing the right thing by considering the options and trying to clarify his position with the GM and discussing it openly. If it isn't getting anywhere, better to get out and start with a clean slate than stoop to underhanded dirty tricks that ultimately won't resolve the situation.


DeathQuaker wrote:
Yerv Kinkash wrote:
do something stupid on purpose and die. Problem fixed.

It's an amusing thought, but likely would create more problems than fix (or do nothing).

- It's passive aggressive, and would not engender good relations between the OP and GM. Plus passive aggression is just bad. Sorry. IMO Half of most folks' inability to communicate like sane adults is due to people accepting passive aggression as a legitimate means of communicating, when all it does is breed contempt.

- If the GM is dead set on keeping his character in the game for a certain period of time for story purposes, he might not let his character die. I've known a lot of GMs that won't actually kill your character at low levels even if you die, do the 1 free resurrect rule, etc. And especially if he feels the OP was doing it just to get out of playing the character (which he would be), that's all the more reason he would just refuse to let the character die. (Passive aggression leads to only more passive aggression or straight up aggression.)

- The GM would say, "Fine, your character's dead, so now you can only play the NPC I wrote up. Nyeah." (See above.)

The OP is doing the right thing by considering the options and trying to clarify his position with the GM and discussing it openly. If it isn't getting anywhere, better to get out and start with a clean slate than stoop to underhanded dirty tricks that ultimately won't resolve the situation.

Just seemed the only true fix to th OP's problem. Pc dies you roll a new one. If the GM forces a NPC on him for death then he should quit the game because that is not a good game to play in. Seems like the GM is abusing his power by forcing a player who was only looking out for the GMs game (He did see how the class was gioing to break it and asked for the switch prior to it actually happening) and the other players enjoyment to have a bad time. The player has little control over the game but death is one of the factors he controls. He should not make the death a glaring I hate this PC and want him to die moment but he could fail to drink that healing potion or go into meli aginst a beast that will crush him. Lots of ways to die and the GM does not need to be any the wiser. If his PC is important to the story then it is the idea not the stats and he should be allowed to play the class he wants of ues his options to get rid of said PC. Now because he was looking towards others fun he himself is not having any.


Ya know, I have to be honest, under normal circumstances I would think it was passive aggressive. But the DM's just being a dick at this point. After a certain point, I think dickery deserves dickery. When you've hit that point is up to you, but I'd have hit it at the dm refusing to communicate.

Sovereign Court

Starbuck_II wrote:

I feel you should have just played the broken character and rein yourself in. You would have had less of a hassle.

Only bring out big guns when Party fights CR +4 their level (boss/overpowering type).

It is always possible to restrict self.

It is, but it's more difficult when you don't know when and how the gM is going to bend the rules to balance you or what CR each encounter is.

Sovereign Court

Tonight's game went fine. I don't know that the DM is ignoring emails on purpose or because he's flakey or what. When I said I would just multiclass for now and focus on buff spells for the devices, he reiterated that I could rebuild the character at the end of the current volume but made no effort to explain why(which my email politely asked). As someone else suggested, I will stick it out and suck it up until I can rebuild the character without three levels in broken third party stuff that should have been disallowed in the first place.

Thanks again for everyone who chimed in with advice or criticism. I do appreciate the time and effort.


Changing class - especially if you're just level 2 - really isn't that big of a deal.

You aren't really making a full different character, anyways. It's still the same tengu. This has nothing to do with verisiwhatever.

Sounds like your DM is just a bit of a prick.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Forced to Play a Class No Longer Wanted or an NPC? Seriously? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.