|
I agree; I don't have any problem with homebrewed monsters, as long as they obey "the laws of D&D nature".I hate that kind of metagaming, and as a player like being surprised with monster capabilities. I have never had a problem with a dm changing around monsters as they see fit, as long as it has some foundation in the rule set. Want to give it a new ability, or beef up it's hd? Awesome, I'll roll a few knowledge checks and see what my character knows. But if you just arbitrarily start fiddling with numbers without accounting for the rest of the system (IE raising saves or ac without adjusting HD, ability scores, CR etc) I get annoyed.
Monsters with abilities I've never seen or heard of before? Aeseome. Monsters with arbitrarily set numbers that dont account for how monsters are made i the system? That I dont like.
This!!!!
|
I hate it when DM's create house rules based on real world physics but only regarding non-magic.
falling a certain distance auto kills, or lava auto kills.
or it doesn't matter how high you rolled on your acrobatics a real person cant jump that far without magic.
On the lava one.. yeah, I have to agree. Unless you have some sort of defense against heat, yeah, you fall into lava you ain't swimming out of it. However, to me that's the same as being in a cave in underground, or being caught in a tsunami, or having an anchor tied to your feet and being dumped over an ocean trench. There are certain things in the environment that just autokill you.
A fall from extreme height? It's possible to survive. Getting hit by a flash flood? Yeah, you can survive that. Fall off a cliff? Yeah, possible.
Get hit by a flash flood that knocks you off a cliff and into an active lava flow? Uh... no.
I had a monk get bullrushed into the lava flow they were fighting a dragon over. The next round he airwalked out of it, seriously burnt. I try to stick to just the dice on that and falling and the like, because those are usually deadly enough.
Otherwise, I have to start thinking about rules for the damage a character would take from convection as they stand right next to the lava, and for broken bones from the fall, and why a fighter can survive getting hit with a fist the size of a dumpster without moving more than a foot.
If my players get to a level where they have enough HP to survive those things, I give it to them. If I don't want unrealistic things like that to happen, I keep them at low levels.
Otherwise, I have to start thinking about rules for the damage a character would take from convection as they stand right next to the lava, and for broken bones from the fall, and why a fighter can survive getting hit with a fist the size of a dumpster without moving more than a foot.
There's already rules for stuff like this. Endure Elements negates the convection stuff (it's a hot environment). Alternately, you treat everything within 10 feet of the lava as if it were a wall of flame. Simple enough.
Different strokes of course, but, to me, there are certain levels of versamilitude I can accept, and certain things I can't. If you've got Fire Resistence up and fall in lava, I can see you lasting long enough to drag yourself out (if you hurry). Or if you're polymorphed into an earth or fire elemental. Got flight? No worries, use it to avoid the lava. Contingency DD? Good to go.
But falling head first into a lava flow... no. Now, I might have allowed a reflex save to drop prone instead of being bullrushed back, maybe take lava damage as you flail on the edge and your foot get's into the lava, but if you went into the lava, then you turned into a crispy critter.
|
|
Well, as long as I keep in mind what rules you're playing with when we game, things will be fine. :) *makes note to always get energy resistance in mdt's game ASAP*
I completely forgot one. This is the rule I hated above all: In combat, whoever struck the killing blow against a creature or foe received ALL of the XP for it. A fighter could do 100 points of damage to something, and then a wizard trips and falls into it taking away its one remaining hitpoint. The wizard receives the entire award and the fighter gets bupkus.
Our current DM can't gauge encounter CR's very well, and has no idea what our characters are capable of. Our average level is around 8 now, and he continually throws CR 11's, 13's, etc at us. Unless we use every spell on our spell lists, have half our gear sundered and at least 2 deaths each encounter, he thinks we're too powerful and that he doesn't know how to challenge us.
That, and with his over-powered CR's, he tells us after each fight that we "could've just ran away, you didn't have to fight it..." Sure. We're in the middle of the desert, being chased by a dragon. On foot. Yeah, let's just run away, he'll never catch us...
I completely forgot one. This is the rule I hated above all: In combat, whoever struck the killing blow against a creature or foe received ALL of the XP for it. A fighter could do 100 points of damage to something, and then a wizard trips and falls into it taking away its one remaining hitpoint. The wizard receives the entire award and the fighter gets bupkus.
I've heard that one before...I *think* it's from Rolemaster.
Our current DM can't gauge encounter CR's very well, and has no idea what our characters are capable of. Our average level is around 8 now, and he continually throws CR 11's, 13's, etc at us. Unless we use every spell on our spell lists, have half our gear sundered and at least 2 deaths each encounter, he thinks we're too powerful and that he doesn't know how to challenge us.
That, and with his over-powered CR's, he tells us after each fight that we "could've just ran away, you didn't have to fight it..." Sure. We're in the middle of the desert, being chased by a dragon. On foot. Yeah, let's just run away, he'll never catch us...
Damn you. I'm having nimblewrights flashbacks.
What do you mean they crit on a '12-20'? And we're fighting 7 of them? Fuuuuuuuuu....... Yeah, only a 1/3rd of us survived that encounter.
If I don't want unrealistic things like that to happen, I keep them at low levels.
It's not unrealistic. It's cinematic!
'findel
I completely forgot one. This is the rule I hated above all: In combat, whoever struck the killing blow against a creature or foe received ALL of the XP for it. A fighter could do 100 points of damage to something, and then a wizard trips and falls into it taking away its one remaining hitpoint. The wizard receives the entire award and the fighter gets bupkus.I've heard that one before...I *think* it's from Rolemaster.
Rolemaster gives out a *bonus* XP for delivering the killing blow, not all of the XPs... Actually, Rolemaster attributes XPs for a lot of things, including receiving damage (technically only criticals, but as most blows inflict some level of critical in Rolemasters...)
I don't think so, I try to do so myself, and I run 90% more than I play. However, for those that have the problem, I have no issue with them putting ranks in Knowledge (Whatever) to represent that knowledge. What I have trouble with is people who refuse to do so, but still want to know all that knowledge OOC and use it IC.
While a valid point, it is important to remember that many DMs are players too, at least occasionally, and expecting them to just turn off their knowledge of the bestiary is a bit unfair.
I did mention that such people needed to be careful about blending player knowledge and character knowledge. Putting ranks in knowledge skills is what I tend to do precisely for this reason. I agree that people who refuse to do so, and still try to use player knowledge in game are a problem, but just having the player have that knowledge isn't a problem in and of itself. How they handle it is where the problem can come in if not handled right.
|
|
I completely forgot one. This is the rule I hated above all: In combat, whoever struck the killing blow against a creature or foe received ALL of the XP for it. A fighter could do 100 points of damage to something, and then a wizard trips and falls into it taking away its one remaining hitpoint. The wizard receives the entire award and the fighter gets bupkus.I've heard that one before...I *think* it's from Rolemaster.
They actually did that in an RPG video game, Drakken. One of the many reasons I wanted to call in an air strike on that game.
EDIT : And that's even way less irritating than the guy I had in my game one time that would bring his own set of rule books and when they encountered something would look up every detail of it and read it off to the other players when it wasn't his turn.
That is a major, MAJOR transgression at my gaming group's table. It's worthy of stopping a campaign cold in it's tracks, and even getting someone kicked out of the group. Outside of gaming, sure, we pass around Monster Manuals and Bestiaries, looking up info on race templates, half-breeds, etc. No prob. But during an encounter, nobody has the nerve to even open one of those books, let alone sit and read details out loud.
Seriously, that's a game-stopper.
Our current DM can't gauge encounter CR's very well, and has no idea what our characters are capable of. Our average level is around 8 now, and he continually throws CR 11's, 13's, etc at us. Unless we use every spell on our spell lists, have half our gear sundered and at least 2 deaths each encounter, he thinks we're too powerful and that he doesn't know how to challenge us.
That, and with his over-powered CR's, he tells us after each fight that we "could've just ran away, you didn't have to fight it..." Sure. We're in the middle of the desert, being chased by a dragon. On foot. Yeah, let's just run away, he'll never catch us...
Damn you. I'm having nimblewrights flashbacks.
What do you mean they crit on a '12-20'? And we're fighting 7 of them? Fuuuuuuuuu....... Yeah, only a 1/3rd of us survived that encounter.
For Urizen, insider knowledge.
Dude, this time it was an ADULT Emerald Dragon. We got whooped pretty hard. Brad even stepped up and delivered a critical, smiting, power attack in the first round, and this thing proceeded to beat the snot out of us. My tank is toast(went out at -20), so now I'm working up various Dragon Slayers.
Damn you. I'm having nimblewrights flashbacks.
What do you mean they crit on a '12-20'? And we're fighting 7 of them? Fuuuuuuuuu....... Yeah, only a 1/3rd of us survived that encounter.
Yeah my party was thankful they got errata'd.
As for bad GMs? Well anytime someone brings up a new game to our group we spend a lot of time discussing it and rules associated to it. Many a game never started because the group smelled something fishy.
Damn you. I'm having nimblewrights flashbacks.
What do you mean they crit on a '12-20'? And we're fighting 7 of them? Fuuuuuuuuu....... Yeah, only a 1/3rd of us survived that encounter.
For Urizen, insider knowledge.
** spoiler omitted **
Damn you. I'm having nimblewrights flashbacks.
What do you mean they crit on a '12-20'? And we're fighting 7 of them? Fuuuuuuuuu....... Yeah, only a 1/3rd of us survived that encounter.
Yeah my party was thankful they got errata'd.
There's a 3.5 errata for them? I've missed that. I'm insanely curious (and I suspect Jandrem would be too).
As to the first one, that's an interesting one that has actually happened to me in play before. The DM did say though, "If you choose to resist roll a save." So we had the choice. That's kind of an interesting thing, that does crop up every once in a while with magical chambers, or magical artifacts. Unless you can make a swift Knowledge Arcana, or Spellcraft check, it's more a less a crap-shoot.
It's a harmless spell. They feel different. That's why you only roll a save if you want to, instead of automatically.
As to the elves and sleeping, I've gone around and around with my players on this one, and I know this isn't really the thread to answer it, but I thought I'd bring it up anyway, because I'm kind of chaotic that way. Has there ever been a developer answer to whether or not elves need 8 hours of rest?
This was in a Forgotten Realms game under 3.0 or 3.5. The situation there was completely clear.
Even the the d20pfsrd says the rules are vague.
Doesn't mean anything. That site is anything but official.
One of the strangest house rules I've played under was instituted by my friend Ken, after some over-serious contemplation. In Ken's campaign, sex would sometimes lead to women being pregnant, as usual, but once the fetus came to term, it would teleport into the abdomen of the nearest male, and then be born.In retospect, my question would be: out of what orifice?
Do you really, really want to know?
Don't answer at once. Think it over.
Otherwise, I have to start thinking about rules for the damage a character would take from convection as they stand right next to the lava, and for broken bones from the fall, and why a fighter can survive getting hit with a fist the size of a dumpster without moving more than a foot.There's already rules for stuff like this. Endure Elements negates the convection stuff (it's a hot environment). Alternately, you treat everything within 10 feet of the lava as if it were a wall of flame. Simple enough.
Different strokes of course, but, to me, there are certain levels of versamilitude I can accept, and certain things I can't. If you've got Fire Resistence up and fall in lava, I can see you lasting long enough to drag yourself out (if you hurry). Or if you're polymorphed into an earth or fire elemental. Got flight? No worries, use it to avoid the lava. Contingency DD? Good to go.
But falling head first into a lava flow... no. Now, I might have allowed a reflex save to drop prone instead of being bullrushed back, maybe take lava damage as you flail on the edge and your foot get's into the lava, but if you went into the lava, then you turned into a crispy critter.
From the 3.5 Rules Compendium
Lava deals 2d6 points of fire damage per round of exposure, except in the case of total immersion, which deals 20d6 points of fire damage per round. Damage from lava continues for 1d3 rounds after exposure ceases, but this additional damage is only half of that dealt during actual contact.A creature immune to fire might still suffocate (see page 141) if completely immersed in lava.
There's a 3.5 errata for them? I've missed that. I'm insanely curious (and I suspect Jandrem would be too).
Well technically it wasn't a 3.5 errata it's the 3.5 update of the monster manual 2. Monster manual 2 is actually a 3.0 book in case you didn't know. You can find the update here.
Basically they have a 15-20 critical range instead.
I loved that game! (When I was seven.)
"Floor is made of lava. Sometimes you called it something else, like the floor is electrified, or whatever, but no matter what you called it, it all meant the same thing: Your were poor." - Daniel Tosh
If you're OK with being able to fly through the air and shoot lightning from your hands, swimming through a pool of lava should be fair game as well in my book.
There's a 3.5 errata for them? I've missed that. I'm insanely curious (and I suspect Jandrem would be too).
Well technically it wasn't a 3.5 errata it's the 3.5 update of the monster manual 2. Monster manual 2 is actually a 3.0 book in case you didn't know. You can find the update here.
Basically they have a 15-20 critical range instead.
15-20 makes a lot more sense. For what it's worth, even if our DM had been using the updated 3.5 version, we were still doomed. We were a group of 6 players, average level was around 7. The DM threw 7 Nimblewrights at us. For some reason(upthread I mention he can't gauge a CR to save his life) he thought seven CR7's was only a CR9... Hell, ONE of those things would've been a challenge. Seven was a slaughter.
I loved that game! (When I was seven.)"Floor is made of lava. Sometimes you called it something else, like the floor is electrified, or whatever, but no matter what you called it, it all meant the same thing: Your were poor." - Daniel Tosh
If you're OK with being able to fly through the air and shoot lightning from your hands, swimming through a pool of lava should be fair game as well in my book.
Fly through Air : Spell
Shoot lightning from hands : SpellSwim through Lava : We don't need no stinking spell!
One of these is not like the others.
|
|
I had a a Wizard character with a fire theme. All his spells were the same as other mages beyond that. Magic Missles looked like darts of fire. Mage Armor was made out of fire etc. I told the DM that other spellcasters can recognize my spells as the fire effects were cosmetic rather than to conceal what the spells were. He insisted every game session that I take Spell Thematics as a feat which I refused to because it would have been a wasted feat slot. I could undestand if I was trying to make my spells harder to identify. I just wanted my spelle effects to just be different of other gneenric mages. In the end I kept the spells as is and a short while later his game fell apart.
Another DM in a 4E game insisted mages had to wear some sort of special garb and at the time I thought nothing of it now it just seemed to me that the DM disliked mages and wanted everyone in his game world to see them coming several miles away.
There's a 3.5 errata for them? I've missed that. I'm insanely curious (and I suspect Jandrem would be too).
Well technically it wasn't a 3.5 errata it's the 3.5 update of the monster manual 2. Monster manual 2 is actually a 3.0 book in case you didn't know. You can find the update here.
Basically they have a 15-20 critical range instead.
That's what I figured it was (i.e. 3.5 update of 3.0 material) ... and hot damn! Thanks, Max. \m/
15-20 makes a lot more sense. For what it's worth, even if our DM had been using the updated 3.5 version, we were still doomed. We were a group of 6 players, average level was around 7. The DM threw 7 Nimblewrights at us. For some reason(upthread I mention he can't gauge a CR to save his life) he thought seven CR7's was only a CR9... Hell, ONE of those things would've been a challenge. Seven was a slaughter.
You're not kidding. If I hadn't leveled and gotten greater invisibility to go along with the ring of the darkhidden, I suspect I'd been dead too.
Some people believe lava should be a Death-No-Save effect. :)
+1
I spent a while trying to figure out how I should actually handle lava in my game. After a while looking at lava sites and pics of lava burn survivors, I learned several things.
A) people have survived lava burns.
b) Lava is quite often so viscous that talk of "swimming" through it or falling "into" it is kind of silly. Not impossible in some cases, but it is molten rock and so even when a pyroclastic flow is moving at high speed a significant amount of the falling damage is actually from impact. So, for a few rounds at least, it's more like you've landed "on" lava... like a big muddy skillet, and you're being cooked alive. Sometimes. Depending on the lava. The important thing to remember is that there are different kinds.
Now, it still is crazy lethal stuff, but so are swords and great heights, so Hit Points are a big part of the realism problem surrounding lava. The inherent difficulty in submerging someone/thing entirely in molten rock, then, can serve as a part of your description when trying to worm your way out of a realistic incineration because of hit points.
James said something in his Q&A thread recently about falling damage to effect of : "It's easy to make it more realistic, but then it's the one lethally realistic thing in the game." I thought that was interesting. Most people are just "okay" with surviving 8 direct hits with a greatsword... but lava, oh noes!
And that's what I've got to say about that.
I would make a "Crazy RAW rules spinoff thread", but that's already like half the forums, innit?
A few house rules our DM uses in our Pathfinder campaign
1) Bards can only cast cantrips because "that's how it used to be".
??? When? Even the one that debuted back in the Strategic Review (predecessor to Dragon) had up to 7th level magic-user spells.
5) No Sorceror class. It's wizard or nothing.
That's actually a reasonable flavor rule... if he wants to have wizard-style magic fit a certain kind of behavior. I'll almost never ding a DM for disallowing a particular character class, particularly when its role can be filled by others. That's more of a flavor thing than a major rules thing.
4) If you roll a 1 it's a fumble, but instead of using fumble tables the DM decides the result of the fumble.5) No Sorceror class. It's wizard or nothing.
These two are perfectly reasonable. The first is what I do. The second is clearly a fluff choice.
A few house rules our DM uses in our Pathfinder campaign
1) Bards can only cast cantrips because "that's how it used to be".
2) Barbarians can not control their rage. Who they attack is at DM discretion, and the player can't choose to end a rage.
3) Wizards can't have anything made of iron or steel on their person or their spells mess up.
Less reasonable. The third I can almost see, but these are insane.
Most people are just "okay" with surviving 8 direct hits with a greatsword... but lava, oh noes!
"Direct"?
A direct hit is a FATAL hit. You don't roleplay every hit with a greataxe as a hit to the face.
I had a a Wizard character with a fire theme. All his spells were the same as other mages beyond that. Magic Missles looked like darts of fire. Mage Armor was made out of fire etc. I told the DM that other spellcasters can recognize my spells as the fire effects were cosmetic rather than to conceal what the spells were. He insisted every game session that I take Spell Thematics as a feat which I refused to because it would have been a wasted feat slot. I could undestand if I was trying to make my spells harder to identify. I just wanted my spelle effects to just be different of other gneenric mages. In the end I kept the spells as is and a short while later his game fell apart.
Yea thats just silly if you aren't trying to conceal what you are casting.
Another DM in a 4E game insisted mages had to wear some sort of special garb and at the time I thought nothing of it now it just seemed to me that the DM disliked mages and wanted everyone in his game world to see them coming several miles away.
In a PF/3.5 setting I could easily see any sort of semi organized kingdom, empire, or the like requiring a walking artillery piece capable of altering reality to thier whims to clearly identify themselves by specific garb (the wizards hat being the most common), to avoid uncessiary loss of life limb and property. But that may be biased by my love of Terry Pratchett who arguably handles magic in a semi-midieval society as far as social ramifications with the most "realistic" approach I've seen.
I would make a "Crazy RAW rules spinoff thread", but that's already like half the forums, innit?
Or half the Internet, for that matter.
Most people are just "okay" with surviving 8 direct hits with a greatsword... but lava, oh noes!"Direct"?
A direct hit is a FATAL hit. You don't roleplay every hit with a greataxe as a hit to the face.
Alright KC, I'll play along.
How do you hit someone indirectly with a greatsword? If I roll a 12 out of 12 on damage, it's hard to see how I could have hit more directly. I clearly hit the guy too, I'm way past his touch AC.
How do you damage someone at all with a club the size of a tree-trunk if not by hitting them with it?
Furthermore, not every direct hit is a fatal hit. In real life, people lose limbs and such from these weapons.
I don't offer any of this as a case for changing HP! All I'm saying is that falling and lava should not be magical exceptions to the silliness that is HP.
Lava works fine. It's fine. It's all fine.
That's what I figured it was (i.e. 3.5 update of 3.0 material) ... and hot damn! Thanks, Max. \m/
No problem. Nimblewrights are perhaps my favorite constructs in 3.0/3.5. What can I say I typically played swashbuckler/rogues, so they thematically fit classes I like :p
No problem. Nimblewrights are perhaps my favorite constructs in 3.0/3.5. What can I say I typically played swashbuckler/rogues, so they thematically fit classes I like :p
That's what I figured it was (i.e. 3.5 update of 3.0 material) ... and hot damn! Thanks, Max. \m/
From the ruthless GM's side? Certainly. From the unsuspecting player's side? Ehhh.....not so much (as you may likely surmise from exchanges between Jandrem and myself. Heh.).
Most people are just "okay" with surviving 8 direct hits with a greatsword... but lava, oh noes!"Direct"?
A direct hit is a FATAL hit. You don't roleplay every hit with a greataxe as a hit to the face.Alright KC, I'll play along.
How do you hit someone indirectly with a greatsword? If I roll a 12 out of 12 on damage, it's hard to see how I could have hit more directly. I clearly hit the guy too, I'm way past his touch AC.
How do you damage someone at all with a club the size of a tree-trunk if not by hitting them with it?
By grazing them. By nicking their arm, clipping their foot. Maybe it got mostly blocked by their armor. If realism isn't a priority for your game, I'm not going to bug you about it. I'm just saying that it's possible for physics to apply without changing the rules. :P
EDIT: Oh, by the way, is it really "playing along" when you still disagree?
I don't offer any of this as a case for changing HP! All I'm saying is that falling and lava should not be magical exceptions to the silliness that is HP.Lava works fine. It's fine. It's all fine.
I think there may be some misunderstandings here. It started off as 'I fall into lava'. To me, that means I've got a pool of molten lava and someone fell into it. Not someone got an arm into it, not "OMG it's hot standing next to it", not "I'm walking on crusted over lava". I fell into a pit of molten lava.
If you fall into a pit of molten lava in my game without magic to survive, you're dead. There's no one on earth that has fallen into molten lava and survived. Everyone that's been burned by lava and survived fell on still cooling but crusted lava, or broke through the crust and shoved a foot into cooling lava, or fell down and had an arm or something touch the molten stuff.
So, to recap. In my game, if you fall into molten lava, you die if you don't have magical protection. If you fall down on crusted over lava, you get burned very badly (possibly fatally, depends on the dice). If your arm get's shoved into lava, you get burned horribly (possibly fatally, depends on the dice of damage). If you are walking on crusted over lava, and it breaks through, your foot get's burned horribly (possibly fatally, depends on the dice of damage).
However, short of magic, you are not going to fall head first into molten lava and survive.
From the ruthless GM's side? Certainly. From the unsuspecting player's side? Ehhh.....not so much (as you may likely surmise from exchanges between Jandrem and myself. Heh.).
Yeah I've been following... I was never that evil with them. The first time I used them was a singular one they had to fight. The only time I ever used them in greater numbers was when the party was much higher level. I think they were probably 10-12ish, which just turned them into decent lower level damage dealers.
EDIT: Oh and on the issue of lava being talked about. I'd run it straight by the book... very little in Pathfinder is exactly realistic. Being submerged is still a ton of damage that will probably kill you, so I'm content with it.
From the ruthless GM's side? Certainly. From the unsuspecting player's side? Ehhh.....not so much (as you may likely surmise from exchanges between Jandrem and myself. Heh.).
Yeah I've been following... I was never that evil with them. The first time I used them was a singular one they had to fight. The only time I ever used them in greater numbers was when the party was much higher level. I think they were probably 10-12ish, which just turned them into decent lower level damage dealers.
EDIT: Oh and on the issue of lava being talked about. I'd run it straight by the book... very little in Pathfinder is exactly realistic. Being submerged is still a ton of damage that will probably kill you, so I'm content with it.
In an older Ravenloft campaign I ran, I had a Nimblewright NPC disguised as a champion fencer, who took the PC's off guard with his mechanical, inhuman dexterity and finesse. It was a fun character to portray. :)
In an older Ravenloft campaign I ran, I had a Nimblewright NPC disguised as a champion fencer, who took the PC's off guard with his mechanical, inhuman dexterity and finesse. It was a fun character to portray. :)
I had a heavy construct campaign where I used them as infiltrators due to their ability to hide in human populations.
I definitely like the idea of a fencer! Might have to steal that for my next game...
>.>
A few house rules our DM uses in our Pathfinder campaign
1) Bards can only cast cantrips because "that's how it used to be".
2) Barbarians can not control their rage. Who they attack is at DM discretion, and the player can't choose to end a rage.
3) Wizards can't have anything made of iron or steel on their person or their spells mess up.
4) If you roll a 1 it's a fumble, but instead of using fumble tables the DM decides the result of the fumble.
5) No Sorceror class. It's wizard or nothing.
1) So? People used to live in caves. Get the heck out of this house.
When I hate one thing it's people living in the past. We never used to do that when we were young! ;-)
Did you point out that when it used to be like that, bards had other things to compensate and/or completely sucked?
It's all well for him to close his eyes to change, but then he shouldn't play Pathfinder. He should play whatever he thinks about. By himself.
2) Control issues, eh? Wants to lay the characters for the players?
Did you mention that it really, really sucks when you're not allowed to play your own character at all? And taking control over a martial class in each combat amounts to taking total control of the character.
3) One more control freak thing. The sort of micromanagement this requires from wizard players far outweighs any pretence at "realistic" magic this could possibly entail. And it's one of those stone age things again. Pathfinder moved away from stupid rules like that for a reason, after all.
4) Yet more control freakery. So he has to control your characters in as many ways as possible, or he'll lose?
What are usual outcomes of these fumbles, and have you noticed the situation (and how close you come to defeating the GM's pet NPCs) having an impact on the severity of the fumbles?
Do you get to dictate what happens when the enemies fumble? :D
5) Generally I wouldn't begrudge GMs the right to band classes wholesale if they can give me a decent explanation about why they're not in his game. But in this case, I'm quite sure he does it because sorcerers are new.
I had a a Wizard character with a fire theme. All his spells were the same as other mages beyond that. Magic Missles looked like darts of fire. Mage Armor was made out of fire etc. I told the DM that other spellcasters can recognize my spells as the fire effects were cosmetic rather than to conceal what the spells were. He insisted every game session that I take Spell Thematics as a feat which I refused to because it would have been a wasted feat slot.
Just stupid. The game actually encourages you to find a theme for your magic. Not everyone's magic missiles are supposed to look the same, and the same goes for other spells.
The rules are supposed to be baselines, not restrictions.
Another DM in a 4E game insisted mages had to wear some sort of special garb and at the time I thought nothing of it now it just seemed to me that the DM disliked mages and wanted everyone in his game world to see them coming several miles away.In a PF/3.5 setting I could easily see any sort of semi organized kingdom, empire, or the like requiring a walking artillery piece capable of altering reality to thier whims to clearly identify themselves by specific garb
This didn't sound like some kingdom had a rule about it. It sounded like the game had a rule that wizards couldn't function without the garb.
So instead of a wizard not wearing the stuff committing an offence, it's wizards without the stuff being unable to cast at all.
And that's just crappy design. Unless he had a really good reason that was sufficiently explained.
But that may be biased by my love of Terry Pratchett who arguably handles magic in a semi-midieval society as far as social ramifications with the most "realistic" approach I've seen.
Well, but in Pratchett, you didn't need your jammies and long, pointy hat to cast. You just needed them to be a wizard. Without them, you were just some guy who knew magic.
The robes didn't pack the arcane ammo or anything.
I think there may be some misunderstandings here. It started off as 'I fall into lava'. To me, that means I've got a pool of molten lava and someone fell into it. Not someone got an arm into it, not "OMG it's hot standing next to it", not "I'm walking on crusted over lava". I fell into a pit of molten lava.
If you fall into a pit of molten lava in my game without magic to survive, you're dead. There's no one on earth that has fallen into molten lava and survived. Everyone that's been burned by lava and survived fell on still cooling but crusted lava, or broke through the crust and shoved a foot into cooling lava, or fell down and had an arm or something touch the molten stuff.
I think this is where the crux of the issue lies. HP are an abstract which includes luck, destiny, divine blessing etc on top of pure physical hardiness.
If I'm a high-level character sitting on 100+ HP, I fell into a pit of molten lava probably translates more to I fell into a pit of molten lava, surviving by the skin of my teeth as I managed to hook an arm onto one of the pieces that was hardened and pull my burned body up.
I don't want to go through the translation process each time, which equivalently would mean describing every sword hit in terms of fatigue and lucky dodges, progressing to minor wounds, ending in a sword through the chest...A 12HP Sword hit is different for a character with 40 HP than a character with 2 HP, just as a fall into lava is a different thing at low HP than high HP.
It's just simpler for me to tag the damage, and move on. YMMV.