Sure you can fix and exclude it but there is an assumption that when you say "We're playing pathfinder" that the rules will be the pathfinder rules and if you want people to play with you there's this thing called achieving a consensus which people who actually want to be successful as a DM do.
False - the GMG clearly encourages and outlines ways to create your own world and how to change things to how you the GM want them to be in YOUR world.If a GM doesn't want something in their game - they have ALWAYS been encouraged to either fix it or exclude it. The CRB and all other supplements can be cherry picked so long as there is a clear written set of Table rules to explain where things differ from the books.
The problem is that they won't follow the rules themselves, but they make damn sure I do, and I've been taking it. I have to submit a carefully written application for all rules decisions, and god help me if I want to house rule, where as every single one of their characters is RAW illegal and they've been lying to me about what's in a supplement that they wouldn't let me ban.
I feel humiliated over this whole thing. I let them stand there and yell at me until I allowed things I didn't want to allow and I let them do things that are completely RAW illegal, and I accepted the fact that they gave themselves the authority to overrule any and all GM decisions, no matter what they are.
And PbP's are awesome. But they don't carry the same real time 'in the moment' feel that you get at a table. You can replicate that feeling with chat/gametable.
If you're interested, you'd be more than welcome to sit in on my weekly chat game that a friend DM's to see how it works :)
EDIT: and after I get that post written she deletes her own... odd...
Huh? I didn't delete it.
And now my post vanished... weird...
Anyways, what I was saying, is that PbP's are awesome, but they can't generate the same 'in the moment' feel that you get at a table.
Chat/Gametable games can.
If you'd like, you're certainly welcome to sit in on the weekly chat game a friend of mine runs (in which I play) to see what it's like :)
I think I'll do PBP. That should help me with my rule-fu, as it gives me time to pull up the SRD and double check things before posting.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Kelsey,
Take what others have said to heart. You're not stupid, or an idiot. Technically you're ignorant, but only in the classical sense of the term. The fact that you're here learning will help fix that. Heck, see those titles after my name? Now go look at my recent posts. I'm still asking questions, why shouldn't you?
As to the game. I think the offer of sitting in/playing chat games and society games would be helpful. The chat will introduce you to people who aren't (always) Jerks, and by playing Society (if you can make it to a game) it will help you better learn the basic mechanics so you can be more confident. Then you start modding the hell out of the rules. Heck I'm still coming up with stuff.
Hope that helps.
Did you take time to read over what they wanted or just let them explain it to you? You shouldn't blindly trust players even with reasonable players; you should be on the same page as everyone. They could misread something or forget a rule, to say nothing of wanton disregard.
If the players yell at you and you can't say no stop DMing. If you really must play, deal with the lack of house rules. If you don't want to lose the rules and don't want to DM, find someone else in the group to DM. If no one else wants to DM, stop playing the game.
Simply lay down the rule that, as PCs level, they need to justify what they learn. For example, you can't take a level in Monk unless you train for 5 years with a master.
This is one of my pet peeves, "you need to train X amount of time to learn ANYTHING from this class or the one you are in", to which I always ask the question, "Then how did they create that class in the first place?" and never get an answer for it.
"Oh no, the sorcerer dipped a level into Monk, so he won't get greased as easily as he normally would." YOU ARE THE GM, YOU HAVE VIRTUALLY INFINITE POWER, AND I THINK YOU WILL SURVIVE ONE CHARACTER BEING POWERFUL. THE WHOLE PARTY COULD BE INCREDIBLY POWERFUL AND I'M PRETTY SURE IT WILL ONLY INSPIRE BIGGER, BADDER MONSTERS, AND BETTER PLANNING ON YOUR BEHALF. I'd go so far as to say you should have your players build meaner characters, that way you can figure out how to deal with them, that much faster.
|
Simply lay down the rule that, as PCs level, they need to justify what they learn. For example, you can't take a level in Monk unless you train for 5 years with a master.This is one of my pet peeves, "you need to train X amount of time to learn ANYTHING from this class or the one you are in", to which I always ask the question, "Then how did they create that class in the first place?" and never get an answer for it.
"Oh no, the sorcerer dipped a level into Monk, so he won't get greased as easily as he normally would." YOU ARE THE GM, YOU HAVE VIRTUALLY INFINITE POWER, AND I THINK YOU WILL SURVIVE ONE CHARACTER BEING POWERFUL. THE WHOLE PARTY COULD BE INCREDIBLY POWERFUL AND I'M PRETTY SURE IT WILL ONLY INSPIRE BIGGER, BADDER MONSTERS, AND BETTER PLANNING ON YOUR BEHALF. I'd go so far as to say you should have your players build meaner characters, that way you can figure out how to deal with them, that much faster.
You're really good at reading threads sir.
I think it's more the players I always end up with. I like the whole idea of the GM having full power to modify rules and a responsibility to work with and not against the players (except when I get mad at them).
Seriously, given your other posts on here, stop DMing and/or find a new set of players. Unless your a masochist, in which case keep on your current path.
Seriously you make it sound like your gaming situation is terrible.
Sometimes not playing IS the better alternative. It sounds like gaming is making you annoyed, irrasible and just a bit petty and I doubt that is what you really want.
In any event DUMP THE BULLIES YOUR PLAYING WITH!!! NO ONE should put up with that sort of social abuse. NO ONE.
You're really good at reading threads sir.
Hush, you. I called it a pet peeve for a reason, I can assure you, it's not because I act rationally about it.
I think it's more the players I always end up with. I like the whole idea of the GM having full power to modify rules and a responsibility to work with and not against the players (except when I get mad at them).Seriously, given your other posts on here, stop DMing and/or find a new set of players. Unless your a masochist, in which case keep on your current path.
Seriously you make it sound like your gaming situation is terrible.
Sometimes not playing IS the better alternative. It sounds like gaming is making you annoyed, irrasible and just a bit petty and I doubt that is what you really want.
In any event DUMP THE BULLIES YOUR PLAYING WITH!!! NO ONE should put up with that sort of social abuse. NO ONE.
I know I can be petty. To be honest it scares me a bit.
For now, PBPs with assistant GMs are my plan. If I had someone experienced to tell me when I'm being too strict or not strict enough, and time to think rules through and talk to players OOC (which is what is great about PBP), I might have a much better experience.
|
I think I'll write an universal FAQ thread for DMs having problems, and about how to handle them. Your examples of cheese are so stupid that I can not honestly say if people who read them in the FAQ will know they happened in real life, before they read it afterhand.That would be so appreciated.
Almost done. ;)
EDIT: Aaaand done.
|
He lost 3 levels of sorcerer, 3 levels of spellcasting progression, and could not Full Attack with Imbue Arrow because the spellcasting takes the normal action and you shoot the arrow as part of that. (So if he was willing to eat the +4 spell levels he could Quicken a second Imbued Arrow)Nope, the spells were all free actions, and only the first one per round counted against his spells per day.
...Gods, I'm an idiot.
arcane archer could never do that, you specifically needed 13 levels of the 3.5 edition duskblade class from PHB2 to do that.
|
I know I can be petty. To be honest it scares me a bit.
For now, PBPs with assistant GMs are my plan. If I had someone experienced to tell me when I'm being too strict or not strict enough, and time to think rules through and talk to players OOC (which is what is great about PBP), I might have a much better experience.
The problem (and I use the term loosely here) is that you are a kind person. A person who is willing to give of themselves so that others have more fun. I'm sure you realize that no one deserves to have fun at your expense, but it can be hard to stand up for yourself when you aren't used to doing it. Especially if you've convinced yourself that a crap game is better than no game.
I think you are absolutely correct that PbP is a good next step. PbP has enough of a detachment between the characters and the players that you can get used to asserting yourself without having to worry so much about someone yelling in your face until you back down.
As for how to get rid of your players, I favor the passive-aggresive approach. Just stop showing up for game. Or better yet, show up but do something else. When they ask what's up, tell them they didn't need you anyway. They don't need a GM when they're making up the rules as they go. It's a jerk thing to do, but it might be easier for you right now than a direct confrontation.
A GM can get away with fudging things during play, but should never make contradictory rulings mid-session. Having the houserules written down prevents you from making this GM no-no.
+1
I cannot stand 'GMs' that play favorites and run 'air' rules that change constantly. Having suffered through your problem under 3.0, I hacked the first level riches to bits, limiting the goodies to higher levels. Not the best solution, but it worked until PF came along.
It's pretty simple in any game I run. You as a player are allowed two base classes and one prestige class, and if I'm running in my homebrew setting certain classes, such as Monk, Paladin, or Cavalier require an RP reason for you to take them, also there are racial restrictions for certain classes
If your group is a stickler for making you follow RAW just drop the GM Fiat rule. It's printed clearly in the book in the CRB.
GM Fiat: The GM is the law of the game. His reading of the rules should be respected and adhered to. It's easy to get hung up on complicated aspects of the game during play, but the game is never enhanced by long, drawn-out arguments over these complications between players and GM. When complications involving rules interpretations occur, listen to the player and make the decision as quickly as you can on how to resolve the situation. If the rule in question isn't one you're familiar with, you can go with the player's interpretation but with the knowledge that after the game you'll read up on the rules and, with the next session, will have an official ruling in play. Alternatively, you can simply rule that something works in a way that helps the story move on, despite the most logical or impassioned arguments from the players. Even then, you owe it to your players to spend time after the game researching the rule to make sure your ruling was fair - and if not, make amends the next game as necessary.
So, next time the claim for you to show them how/why you're ruling something just direct them there and state that you're only using your rules-given authority as GM.
Also, the general rule of thumb is that if your character can do something that is "insta-pwn" then they're doing it wrong, unless it's a level 20 versus level 1 type situation, just saying. Pathfinder is a very balanced system and as such there really aren't any situations that let characters of equal level and resources to completely negate each other, if the goal is to kill each other, that is. So, if they're doing such things make them show you the rules and feats that you don't understand. It's super common at my table that if I try to do something that either doesn't seem right or that my GM doesn't understand that the books get opened and appropriate sections are read aloud to the entire table. This generally keeps things honest and new knowledge gets shared at the table so now everyone knows something new.
|
Also, the general rule of thumb is that if your character can do something that is "insta-pwn" then they're doing it wrong, unless it's a level 20 versus level 1 type situation, just saying. Pathfinder is a very balanced system and as such there really aren't any situations that let characters of equal level and resources to completely negate each other, if the goal is to kill each other, that is...
Ehh....I wouldn't go that far.
A 1st-level barbarian can drop most 1st-level d8 PCs from full up to negative CON about 50% of the time in one hit.
Also, the general rule of thumb is that if your character can do something that is "insta-pwn" then they're doing it wrong, unless it's a level 20 versus level 1 type situation, just saying. Pathfinder is a very balanced system and as such there really aren't any situations that let characters of equal level and resources to completely negate each other, if the goal is to kill each other, that is...Ehh....I wouldn't go that far.
A 1st-level barbarian can drop most 1st-level d8 PCs from full up to negative CON about 50% of the time in one hit.
That's the case in all classes at first level. I built a battle oracle who could do 1d10+5 damage with a positive attack mod. The same is true for any combat types. For casters, it's not as pronounced but I can do a damn-near guaranteed coupe de gras in the 2nd round with a 1st level Witch with Slumber. In that scenario I could outright kill your barb if you fail your fort save, assuming I won initiative or initiated combat to begin with. The fact all first level characters have crap for HP is a balancing factor. Besides, the rule of the game for first level is to survive to second level. All other rules are secondary. ;)
The point though is that for the barb you still have to hit, which is possible, but not guaranteed. Also, for my Witch, you have to fail on two different saves or you die but in either case it's not instant nor guaranteed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What level dips do make sense, ie a backstory would be acceptable?
What level dips do not make sense, ie a backstory is unacceptable?
OR What ones just plain feel wrong to the DM?
DM:
"No you can not be a rogue/paladin, that is stupid!"
I don't ever see this having a valid in-game reason. The ebb and flow of one's life experiences are unique and therefore anything is possible. I like the earlier description where someone (sorry! I don't remember your name) stated they don't see their characters in terms of classes. They have a certain set of abilities and that's simply who they are. If a pally figures out how to be stealthy and deliver sneak attacks, so be it. For mechanics that may require a level in rogue but he's still not "a rogue" to me. He's still my pally but can just do other stuff as well. If you notice the character samples practically all multiclass. That doesn't mean they have to be one thing or the other. That's just who they are and the classes prescribed to them simply describe what mechanically-given abilities they have.
If your group is a stickler for making you follow RAW just drop the GM Fiat rule. It's printed clearly in the book in the CRB.
Alternatively, drop a Mirror of Opposition in front of them and then play the duplicates with exactly the same (illegal) skills and tactics that they use themselves, only against them.
I have used that once or twice in extreme circumstances to demonstrate that everything a PC is allowed, NPCs are also allowed (in my games at least), but then I have a wicked streak, I'm afraid.
I'll chime in here too late to really impact the discussion, but I like the sound of my own keyboard so whatever.
1. I hate level dipping too.
More in practice, though, than in principle. If a character takes some time to train to pick up a level in something, or perhaps if they experience some life-changing event, then that's fine. It makes sense story-wise (at least potentially) and satisfies my own personal sense of verisimilitude.
What ends up happening, though, is players level up in the middle of adventures (mine are long...not much time is spent "in town"), and oh, hey! Suddenly they want to be able to rage, or read magic, or disable devices, despite the fact that they haven't been exposed to anything that would impart that knowledge upon them or practiced any of those things. This violates my sense of verisimilitude. But...
2. It's just a game.
Relax. Take a deep breath. You're playing a game with (presumably) friends, and you're all very different people with differing ideas of what the game should be. Their verisimilitude is different than yours, assuming realism or believability is even important to them at all. For some people it really is just a game, and they want to be able to exploit all the options afforded them by the rules to meet their objectives. This may not be how you view the game (and it's not how I view it either), but as GM you are responsible for fostering an environment where everyone, including yourself, can find some enjoyment.
To this end I recommend what many others on this thread have already said: initiate the conversation about level-dipping up front, before the campaign starts. Just say, look, when you take a level in a different class, you must do the following: [insert criteria here, such as provide a GM-approved in-story justification, commit to taking additional levels in the same class later on, etc.]. If you allow it at all. That way, if players aren't interested in playing your kind of game, they can get out while the getting is good.
If you've already started the campaign, suck it up and enjoy the ride. Your game won't be ruined, it will just be different than what you expected or hoped for. There is still enjoyment to be had.
Just...be laid back. Players in my game frequently do stuff that rubs me the wrong way. There is give and take. We compromise all the time. It's not the story I wanted it to be, but it's our story, and a damn good one. Good enough that we keep getting together for three hours once a week and have a blast.
That's all that really matters.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
A 1st-level barbarian can drop most 1st-level d8 PCs from full up to negative CON about 50% of the time in one hit.18 damage on average at 1st level? I've never seen that.
You can get close:
20 STR, Power Attack, greatsword2d6 (average 7) + 7 (STR mod) + 3 (Power Attack) = 17 average.
I have used that once or twice in extreme circumstances to demonstrate that everything a PC is allowed, NPCs are also allowed
This.
Just the threat often deters players from exploiting certain loopholes. The conversation usually goes as follows:
Player: Hey, I can do this, right?
GM: Sure. So can I.
Player: Never mind.
There was a house rule we had that evolved out necessity in a D&D 3.5 game I played in several years back. We had two players that cherry picked abilities, feats, abilities, etc, from across 7 books each. But that wasn't the problem.
The problem came from the fact that they bogged down game-play constantly as they were always looking up what their abilities did.
So we voted on the house-rule, "If you want it, it has to be thoroughly detailed on your character sheet and I don't care how many pages it takes." This had the dual benefit of speeding up game-play and making the players much less-likely to let power-creep affect their characters.
As for multi-classing, just keep in mind that the rules cut both ways. Sure, a player could have a 10th level PC that is 5th level Fighter and 5th level Wizard. But that player would still have the abilities of a 5th level fighter and a 5th level wizard. Add to the fact the arcane failure penalty of most armor can make it hard to even cast the simple spells can ruin someone's day.
The penalties for multi-classing aren't as harsh in Pathfinder as they were in D&D 3x, but penalties are still there.
Personally, I usually don't allow rules and classes from sups that I don't own in games I run on the principle that, as GM, I need to understand who Rule X or ability Y affects the whole. When I do allow such rules in, the players understand that it affects everyone.
Who are these people that you are playing with? I seriously thank the dice gods every day that I game with my actual friends ... If players jump all over you for house rules presented prior to the game, time for new players. No game is worth that headache.
That said if you find a new group that you actually like and would like to limit level dipping, House rule back in the 3.5 favored class rules (except without favored classes). You take an xp hit if you have 2 non-prestige classes you dont level up evenly.
|
|
Assumming you just don't walk away from these jerks there is always the old tried and true: Do unto them what they have done to you. Basically have them fight themselves or a close variant and have then on the receiving end of the cheating. Paybacks can be hell.
Walking away is probably your best bet though, anything causing this much stress isn't worth it especially when it's supposed to be stress relieving.
I don't want it. Imagine a Wisdom Sorcerer (there is an arcana that allows this) with a level of Monk. Imagine a Druid with a level of Monk, for that matter. Imagine a Wizard with a level of Crossblooded Sorcerer. I want none of these things. So, how do I ban this in a way that does not overstep my bonds as GM?
I love doing this. I make it work flavor wise. I'm currently playing a "Paladin" with 2 Levels of Paladin and X Levels of Sorcerer.
If I were in your campaign, and you banned/nerfed/etc a level or two dip, I wouldn't be in your campaign.
The Most Important Rule
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
Pretty much all you need right there. Discuss your problem and their perspective on it, come to agreed terms/compromise, and game on.
Best of luck.
I don't want it. Imagine a Wisdom Sorcerer (there is an arcana that allows this) with a level of Monk. Imagine a Druid with a level of Monk, for that matter. Imagine a Wizard with a level of Crossblooded Sorcerer. I want none of these things. So, how do I ban this in a way that does not overstep my bonds as GM?I love doing this. I make it work flavor wise. I'm currently playing a "Paladin" with 2 Levels of Paladin and X Levels of Sorcerer.
If I were in your campaign, and you banned/nerfed/etc a level or two dip, I wouldn't be in your campaign.
Yea, I've figured out that level dipping isn't my problem, PCs who aren't following the rules are. They keep overriding my decisions to do things that are 15 different kinds of illegal, and I'm enough of a worthless pussy that I didn't stop them. I just let them yell at me until I backed down and let them have their way.
Yea, I've figured out that level dipping isn't my problem, PCs who aren't following the rules are. They keep overriding my decisions to do things that are 15 different kinds of illegal, and I'm enough of a worthless pussy that I didn't stop them. I just let them yell at me until I backed down and let them have their way.
If your players are yelling at you and you're berating yourself, then you should quit running for them, lose the stress and take a lengthy break, and find some adults to play with later on.
Yea, I've figured out that level dipping isn't my problem, PCs who aren't following the rules are. They keep overriding my decisions to do things that are 15 different kinds of illegal, and I'm enough of a worthless pussy that I didn't stop them. I just let them yell at me until I backed down and let them have their way.If your players are yelling at you and you're berating yourself, then you should quit running for them, lose the stress and take a lengthy break, and find some adults to play with later on.
+ an eight knocked on its side.
Seriously, RPGs are a SOCIAL thing. If you couldn't imagine yourself spending time with the people you game with in other social situations, dont game with those people.
Yea, I've figured out that level dipping isn't my problem, PCs who aren't following the rules are. They keep overriding my decisions to do things that are 15 different kinds of illegal, and I'm enough of a worthless pussy that I didn't stop them. I just let them yell at me until I backed down and let them have their way.If your players are yelling at you and you're berating yourself, then you should quit running for them, lose the stress and take a lengthy break, and find some adults to play with later on.
Agreed,
Leave the children (a**-Hole players) alone (so they complain to each other),and find a more mature group to play with.
I don't want it. Imagine a Wisdom Sorcerer (there is an arcana that allows this) with a level of Monk. Imagine a Druid with a level of Monk, for that matter. Imagine a Wizard with a level of Crossblooded Sorcerer. I want none of these things. So, how do I ban this in a way that does not overstep my bonds as GM?
I would limit the sources material depending on how well that material has been playtested.
Anything form CRB.
Anything form campaign specific sources.
Stuff From APG, UM and UC are subject to GM discretion.
Anything Non pathfinder official subject to GM intense scrutiny.
3.5 varies because the playtesting was dependent upon a different system.
Seriously Kelsey, please stop dissing on yourself. Yes you might have trouble asserting yourself and taking a strong stance, but that doesn't make you worthless, nor does it make you genitalia (or a coward, however you view that term.)Yea, I've figured out that level dipping isn't my problem, PCs who aren't following the rules are. They keep overriding my decisions to do things that are 15 different kinds of illegal, and I'm enough of a worthless pussy that I didn't stop them. I just let them yell at me until I backed down and let them have their way.If your players are yelling at you and you're berating yourself, then you should quit running for them, lose the stress and take a lengthy break, and find some adults to play with later on.
I know. I'm just really rattled. I'm former military, for Gods' sake, and I may reenlist at a later date. I shouldn't be letting myself get intimidated like this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The behavior you've described is inappropriate on many levels.
End the campaign. Not with an in-game rockfall, but with an out of game whisper.
Tell the players that if they want to play, they'll have to either run a game, or be prepared to leave their validated sheets with you. Limit it to the CRB. Hell, limit it to the Beginner Box. Then add powers on a line-item-veto basis.
A GM needs to be able to control the PCs in order to balance the game and keep it fun.
Ditch these losers and game with your friends (even if you have to teach). If they're your "friends" tell them to start acting like it, or get new friends.
... The player's house rules were written specifically to prevent the GM from acting on whims...
I don't have the time right now to read this whole thing, but this sounds like a big part of the problem.
Player don't write house rules to decide what the GM can do with the game. The GM write any house rules desired.
Of course, the players have the option to ask for a change or even to not play.
|
|
Kelsey, you must stand up to your players. they cheat against you because being as timid as you are, they abuse you by forcing thier will against you.
here is my suggestion, take those cheating munchkin PCs and force them to fight each other in the gladitorial arena, and you play the role of the emperor, the spectators, and the guards. when they escape your plan, railroad them with fudged numbers and lusicrously overpowered guards. let them cheat against each other and get into a BS war as you sit there as the emperor eating grapes. (eat real grapes for bonus RP points, especially if they are the kind a Greco Roman Emperor would eat) and talk a lot about a prize, never say what it is, only that it's great, only to reveal when it's too late that the prize is death.