Instead of ignoring the words from mine like you've done time and time again (yes, twice actually)? Turn about is fair play.
Apart from the time contemplating fall out which is an hour, maybe two after each game, if it happens at all, the time commitment is split by all. Players still devote hours upon hours to actual play over a large amount of time. To dismiss them like unwashed masses is, frankly, bullshit.
You must also have some pretty shallow players because my circle has character with backgrounds and motivations, spend entire weeks contemplating their next moves and so on. Quite usually they will mull over concepts and piece together their character over those months leading up to the campaign. Once the game is on I would say the time spent on the game at the table or away from it is damn near equal.
The time before I chose to do of my own free will and as I said they also more often than not they're devoting time pouring over the books coming up with a character they invest themselves in. They didn't in any way force me to make a campaign so, again, I deserve nothing more than they do.
Glad you enjoyed it.
If you want to internalize the argument make it about you that's your right.When someone says certain GMs that include me shouldn't be GMing, you can't expect me not to take it personally. If he didn't mean I shouldn't be GMing, then he shouldn't have said that.
Doing extra work to support characters is the GMs primary job.I'm here to have fun, not do extra work to support characters I didn't want in the first place.
If you let in an "x class here" into a "x class unfriendly campaign here" and don't change anything up all you're doing is setting a player up to be disappointed.Er... yeah. You're the one arguing that I should let "x class here" into a "x class unfriendly campaign", though.
Sorry for responding late. Once I leave and some replies rack up I tend to move on so as not to bog down the thread. It's something new I'm trying to do. But, I think this leaves an important nuance to be explained.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying these things should be explained ideally well before character creation begins. I've said it here and you can look way back in my posting history if you'd like to check. The GM designs the world. I can't see anyone disputing this.
As it relates to this thread, the synthesist archetype, I do strongly argue against the view that's it's in any way inherently too powerful or somehow broken and therefore that shouldn't be a reason to ban it. If there's a valid story reason according to the GM then so be it.
However, if I was given the "too powerful" reason if I was new to a table/GM I would quite likely visibly roll my eyes and give a perturbed "whatever" as I moved on to the next class idea. This is because I know the archetype very well and I can see what other archetypes do and it simply makes zero sense. It actually hurts my brain similar to a confusion spell would affect a character. In all honesty, the base wizard is the most broken of all classes in sheer "what they are capable of" style potential. Wish trumps all. Ultimate Magic even says so: "If your spell is better than wish, you're trying to play god." If another archetype got wish in addition to a bunch of toys like the ninja, gunslinger or synthesist I would call foul. But, the wizard remains the epitome of power that no other class even comes close to even sorcerers as they are limited in their selection and a wizard inherently is not.
Given enough time and money a wizard could very decently set himself up to non-god deity that never dies, has unlimited power that only a deity could trump, unlimited wealth, unlimited earthly power, etc. Seriously, look a ancient Thassilon. Do some reading. Maybe I'm as passionate about this as I am because I'm GMing Shattered Star which goes deep into that ethos. But, basically, greatest single empire EVER was lead by an Azlanti wizard who had taken steps to ensure those exact things. The only fault the man had was putting some faith in underlings that ended up betraying him. Otherwise in all respects he was the undisputed master and ruler of people and magic during that time period. No other being has had such accomplishment short of Aroden who was an actual god. The only reason you don't read more about Thassilon is because it's time ended about 10,000 years and is ancient history.
No, it wouldn't be rude. I would be a human being relating an emotion. Being rude would be arguing about it, trying to pick a fight about it, insulting someone over it, etc. Expressing how I feel in a non-confrontational manner would not.
You're not focused on the right objective, then, and have a narrow view of power. It seems regardless of what I say you just want to further an argument.
I've said it once; I'll say it again. The synthesist archetype is not broken or "too" powerful and should not be the reason it's banned from games. I would love to play with a GM who says it is and show him how "broken" other archetypes can be since the end-all, be-all measure for such a thing is apparently DPR and AC: two things that are ridiculously easy to gain in the PFRPG regardless of class. It's all a matter of *how,* not *if.*
No, it wouldn't be rude.Actually yes, rolling your eyes and replying 'whatever' IS rude. It would certainly get me counseled for disrespect to a non-commissioned officer if I did so to one of my leaders.
Agreed, at a place of work, it'd get me written up.
On a more personal note, if someone showed up to a first game in my home, and pulled something like this, and I didn't know them from Adam, my response would be to blink in shock for a few minutes, and then invite them to leave. No need to waste time trying to make friends with someone who'd act like this in a strangers home the first day they meet.
I've said it once; I'll say it again. The synthesist archetype is not broken or "too" powerful and should not be the reason it's banned from games. I would love to play with a GM who says it is and show him how "broken" other archetypes can be since the end-all, be-all measure for such a thing is apparently DPR and AC: two things that are ridiculously easy to gain in the PFRPG regardless of class. It's all a matter of *how,* not *if.*
So, what you're saying in essence is, if any GM dare object to anything you want, you'll destroy his game intentionally by trying to break it.
Yeah, nice job.
You two must live in a pretty strict part of the world. I can't relate to that. I've also never been in the military. Looks like we're just from different worlds.
If removing the synthesist archetype removes any power issues they were concerned about then what would be the problem, mdt? The problem is already gone, right? The boogeyman is vanquished.
If there is a strict middle-line requirement for capability then it should be posted. "No AC above x, no to-hit greater y" and so forth. Otherwise, I intend to fully use the rules to fit whatever concept I would have next. I can't see anyone else doing something less.
You two must live in a pretty strict part of the world. I can't relate to that. I've also never been in the military. Looks like we're just from different worlds.
If removing the synthesist archetype removes any power issues they were concerned about then what would be the problem, mdt? The problem is already gone, right? The boogeyman is vanquished.
If there is a strict middle-line requirement for capability then it should be posted. "No AC above x, no to-hit greater y" and so forth. Otherwise, I intend to fully use the rules to fit whatever concept I would have next. I can't see anyone else doing something less.
Most games I've run, and most games I've played in, people tried to work together, and anyone who threw a hissy fit and told the GM 'Whatever' on the first day would have been run off by everyone, not the GM by himself.
Most groups I've run with have attempted to work with each other to have a good game, not tried to throw hissy fits and break the game intentionally because they didn't get their precious precious.
It's not about throwing a hissy fit. As I said, I'd move on. If I were, I'd press the issue. If I did that, I would totally expect to essentially be thrown out. But, being ejected at merely voicing a dissenting view? That's really rather harsh. I wonder how this carries over into play. This is my own musing, sure, but I see such a group always coming to 100% consensus before taking in-game actions and no one ever does anything unexpected or unique which would mean a hell-a-ton of metagaming, something I don't enjoy. So, no, I probably would not enjoy playing with your group if that were true.
I would work with the group to make a character. While I don't believe in the typified MMO roles I wouldn't want to make another evoker wizard if one already existed. Regardless of the end concept I would try to make a strong character. One as strong as the system and any homebrew changes allow. I honestly can't believe that's a shocker to you.
You two must live in a pretty strict part of the world.America is strict?
Compared to your version of existence it's much more strict than mine is.
It's not about throwing a hissy fit. As I said, I'd move on. If I were, I'd press the issue. If I did that, I would totally expect to essentially be thrown out. But, being ejected at merely voicing a dissenting view? That's really rather harsh.
Oh?
The synthesist archetype is not broken or "too" powerful and should not be the reason it's banned from games. I would love to play with a GM who says it is and show him how "broken" other archetypes can be since the end-all, be-all measure for such a thing is apparently DPR and AC: two things that are ridiculously easy to gain in the PFRPG regardless of class. It's all a matter of *how,* not *if.*
Seems to me you would do that. Your own words say you would.
And yeah, people who can't be bothered to show common courtesy in the first 15 minutes of meeting me are not worth wasting my time on. Most people I know feel the same way.
That'd be my first instinct, anyway. But, glad we got that settled.
|
.. If there's a valid story reason according to the GM then so be it....
(and a bunch of other stuff in other posts).
Who determines valid? As a player, I think the GM does.
As a GM, I think I do.
That is me, though.
You might determine valid, differently. However, if you come to my table- your view doesn't matter- however civil I try to be about it or tactfully I make you feel like it does. In the end, if you are at my table, my definition trumps yours. My reasons and motives trump yours and I'll always fall back on the 'last resort' of 'go find another table'.
I'd ultimately expect NO LESS if I came to your table- as a result, if you told me rogues were banned or magic enchanting feats, etc, I may or may not ask why. I also wouldn't bother pushing the issue once I got your answer: whatever it was. I *personally* don't care what your reason is as GM or allowing or disallowing something. Basically, if I dislike the way someone else is running a game- I can always leave that game and make my own the way -I- want it. I just don't care enough about other peoples motives, thoughts, etc, when it comes to GMing to bother getting into their reasons and thought processes beyond how it relates to me playing and enjoying the game. I don't consider playing and enjoying to be direct relatives of what is and is not allowed, though they may be indirectly.
If I bar a class and my reasoning is poor (to you), tough. If I don't give you that reasoning, I don't have to reveal how poor my thought process were when doing it. My being right or wrong (by whoever's standards) simply don't matter if I don't tell anybody, nor do they matter since I am the GM and it is my world so what I choose is what goes in that world...if you dislike the world or my lack of explaining myself please re-read the first full paragraph above.
In essence, *just about* everything you have posted, at least the WAY it was posted, I all truthfully disagree with. There were a few exceptions, though.
I don't expect everyone to view things the same. I understand that at your table and in your group, there are requirements that supersede willpower and personal choice (or maybe I misunderstood) but no such requirements or 'have to' and 'should' and the like exist in any gaming groups I have had the opportunity to play with. I come to each game open minded and as prepared as I can be. I don't see it as an issue of who owes who what, or who has to have who have what, or anything like that that has been brought up. It's silly (to me) and pointless, really. Nobody has to do anything they don't want to. If I don't want you playing class X and you want to play it and ask me why and I don't want to tell you, it doesn't HAVE to go any further than that by anybodies rule or interpretation of understanding. Because either person can just move on to another game/player right then and there. This isn't about being rude or civil or anything like that. I can tell you 'no' and it not be a big deal unless you choose to take it as one. My previous players haven't. Maybe you or your group would (which seems likely from your posts). And that's ok.
I could and probably would play in a game run by you and have a great time. When you run, I follow your rules. If your rules are: I have input, I'm a collaborator, etc, cool. I would probably thoroughly enjoy myself. You might come to my game and have just as much fun- or hate it (and me). Cool. Different tastes, you know?
I'm not going to sit here and tell you that as a GM, I SHOULDN'T be a collaborator in your game because I am a player, or nit pick over definitions. You know what the heck you're doing(I'm giving the benefit of the doubt). I'm sure as heck not going to impose my point of view on your game, style, etc. Maybe another player will- that's fine too. But it SEEMS like you are arguing to prove that your point of view on the 'GM's should' and 'people have to's' is somehow right when it fundamentally and quit irrevocably just is not.
It is ONLY right for you and your group and whoever else it happens to be right for-at various times.
The same is true for MDT and my groups and many, many other GM's. This is why there are different games, different campaigns, different players and different gm's. You can always find the game (combination of people and mechanics, style, rules and flavor) that you enjoy at that time.
It is up to the GM. I said according to the GM. As I've shown though, players' views do matter even according to the published materials.
As I said, mdt, TOZ, you, and I seem to simply come from different walks in life. This is readily apparent.
I do whole heartedly believe that GMs should work with players to help them understand. If this means hashing through personal preference and play history so be it. It's a game. I'm not going to anyone's table to be dictated to. I have a job that comes with a boss. I don't need another one. I also have a wife. You're not her. However, should I come to your table I admit I concede largely to play by your rules. However, again, I generally expect to have some input when things get questionable even if it's just to voice my own opinion and ask questions. Since you et al treat 'respect' so highly at your table then when someone asks a question they generally deserve a response, no? What I find utterly ridiculous is the view that simply because I'm a player and not the 'almighty GM' I have to sit down, shut up and 'take it' while saying 'thank you, sir.'
I'm not a robot. I have my own thoughts. If I'm curious about something I ask questions. If I disagree I voice my view. If that alone bars me from yours or others tables' I will gladly abstain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually do allow summoners, even synthesist summoners in my game, with a huge caveat. On my world, summoners are hated and reviled in most of the civilized lands, and in many areas summoning an eidolon is punishable by death. (Even conjurers can get the stink eye if they are a bit free with their summonings.)
A few hundred years ago, a kingom discovered the secret of summoning eidolons. They used this secret knowledge to become very powerful, taking over huge swaths of land. However, what no one realized is that the ritual that created the eidolons was in fact calling on small slivers of a being of chaos from beyond the dark tapestry. When enough of the bits came into existance, the eidolons became fully free willed and turned on their masters. The kingdom was destroyed and became home to many monsters and other creatures. After 20 years of hard fighting, neighboring kingdoms kiled enough of the eidolons that the remaining vanished, or at least weren't seen again.
So to get the rituals needed to summon eidolons, you had to be crazy enough to sneak into a monster infested former kingdom to find the ritual or lucky enough to find copy from someone who survived the betrayal and fled the kingdom, call upon a creature that is now known to sometimes turn and kill their master and everyone nearby, and threaten other kingdoms with what is essentially a weapon of mass destruction. There are almost no good or lawful summoners, and few neutral ones. And there are rumors that the dark being of chaos still sits in the palace of the former kingdom, waiting for enough summoners to call upon him once more.
Needless to say, no one has taken me up on the offer to play a summoner.
Guess it depends on the person. Your description had me salivating to play one. Then again, I didn't read that as 'socially restricted character.' I read it as 'role playing challenge requiring a summoner with bluff skills and a few deception spells.'
Regarding the OP, I think the reason Synth Summoners (and Summoners in general) get banned so much is that the builds themselves encourage behavior that most people don't want to see at their table. Synths and Summoners tend to be easy to powergame with, and the complex rules mean that it would be easy any player who wasn't completely honest to make a 'mistake' that favored their character.
This is on top of the extra rule reading, any honest mistakes, and the 'doing someone else's job better than they can' aspects.
In my mind, any player who wanted to play a Summoner (of any kind) in a party larger than one or two characters would have to have the following requirements:
1. Be aware of the roles that other characters are trying to fill, and be willing not to outshine them.
2. Know the rules that affect your character build extremely well, and be self policing. OR have a GM who is willing to spend the extra time looking over rules and policing one of their players.
2a. Know the 'styles' of magic use (blasting, battlefield control, buffing, debuffing, and general utility) and how your character will use their style.
3. Be familiar with: 1- The best ways to use the spells on the spell list. 2- How the combat maneuvers work and how your Eidolon or Synth Summoner will be using them. 3- A decent grasp of team tactics and how your character fits into the whole. 4- The various types of summons and their uses both inside and outside of battle.
3a. Be practiced enough with summon and pet classes not to slow the game down while you roll a bunch of dice and make a bunch of decisions.
3b. Know the details of the spells you've chosen well enough not to slow the game down. Or come prepared with spell cards. 'Summoned Monster' cards wouldn't hurt, either.
About half of these will not commonly get used by synths, but the player should be familiar with the above anyway because the potential for things like creature summoning are there. We don't want the game to slow to a crawl when your character has to delve into 'backup abilities.'
The primary concerns are complicated rules, group dynamics, and not slowing the game down. All of this can be summed up with: be an advanced player experienced with all aspects of the game who is willing to work WITH the group instead of trying to BE the group.
Note that in a solo or two player campaign, the concerns boil down to 'don't slow down the game.' Mechanically, summoners seem built for campaigns featuring a low number of characters. Then again, the same thing can be said about druids and conjurer wizards.
I actually do allow summoners, even synthesist summoners in my game, with a huge caveat. On my world, summoners are hated and reviled in most of the civilized lands, and in many areas summoning an eidolon is punishable by death. (Even conjurers can get the stink eye if they are a bit free with their summonings.)
A few hundred years ago, a kingom discovered the secret of summoning eidolons. They used this secret knowledge to become very powerful, taking over huge swaths of land. However, what no one realized is that the ritual that created the eidolons was in fact calling on small slivers of a being of chaos from beyond the dark tapestry. When enough of the bits came into existance, the eidolons became fully free willed and turned on their masters. The kingdom was destroyed and became home to many monsters and other creatures. After 20 years of hard fighting, neighboring kingdoms kiled enough of the eidolons that the remaining vanished, or at least weren't seen again.
So to get the rituals needed to summon eidolons, you had to be crazy enough to sneak into a monster infested former kingdom to find the ritual or lucky enough to find copy from someone who survived the betrayal and fled the kingdom, call upon a creature that is now known to sometimes turn and kill their master and everyone nearby, and threaten other kingdoms with what is essentially a weapon of mass destruction. There are almost no good or lawful summoners, and few neutral ones. And there are rumors that the dark being of chaos still sits in the palace of the former kingdom, waiting for enough summoners to call upon him once more.
Needless to say, no one has taken me up on the offer to play a summoner.
Dude... I would totally want to play a Summoner in that game. Crazy good back story... check. Reason to be careful with when I use my powers... check. Reason to be feared .... muhahahaha check.
Seriously though, Im surprised that such a unique challenge like that hasn't made someone WANT to play a Summoner in your game. That sounds fun.
@Dragonamedrake: I am with you on that...
|
I actually do allow summoners, even synthesist summoners in my game, with a huge caveat. On my world, summoners are hated and reviled in most of the civilized lands, and in many areas summoning an eidolon is punishable by death. (Even conjurers can get the stink eye if they are a bit free with their summonings.)
A few hundred years ago, a kingom discovered the secret of summoning eidolons. They used this secret knowledge to become very powerful, taking over huge swaths of land. However, what no one realized is that the ritual that created the eidolons was in fact calling on small slivers of a being of chaos from beyond the dark tapestry. When enough of the bits came into existance, the eidolons became fully free willed and turned on their masters. The kingdom was destroyed and became home to many monsters and other creatures. After 20 years of hard fighting, neighboring kingdoms kiled enough of the eidolons that the remaining vanished, or at least weren't seen again.
So to get the rituals needed to summon eidolons, you had to be crazy enough to sneak into a monster infested former kingdom to find the ritual or lucky enough to find copy from someone who survived the betrayal and fled the kingdom, call upon a creature that is now known to sometimes turn and kill their master and everyone nearby, and threaten other kingdoms with what is essentially a weapon of mass destruction. There are almost no good or lawful summoners, and few neutral ones. And there are rumors that the dark being of chaos still sits in the palace of the former kingdom, waiting for enough summoners to call upon him once more.
That sounds like fun.
Needless to say, no one has taken me up on the offer to play a summoner.
Wait...that was a deterrent?!?
Nobody has yet explained to me why a DM would ban the Geisha Bard archetype.
I play a Broodmaster summoner (he plays like a regular summoner, minus 1 hit die on the Eidolon). I have no idea why I'd ever give up my action economy for a different way to not get killed(?). Casting spells is great, ridiculous melee is great, but I'd never want to pick between them every round. I have more hp than my eidolon, good saves, and invis on my spell list. That's more than enough to let my magic mech suit pilot itself.
Nobody has yet explained to me why a DM would ban the Geisha Bard archetype.Because it gets free proficiency in an eastern weapon and it is possible to run the game in a setting that doesn't contain a generic east Asia knockoff continent or one in which the generic east Asia knockoff continent is culturally isolated from the generic western Europe knockoff continent where the adventure starts.
Ah, the usual BAWWWWWWing then, I see.
Carry on then.
Could you please use words instead of unintelligible onomatopoeia?
But onomatopoeia is more fun.
Fine. You may use whatever onomatopoeic synonym for "whining" that you choose. Specifically whining of the "OMG any vague Asian flavor would ruin my game entirely! And reskinning is out of the question!" variety.
Nobody has yet explained to me why a DM would ban the Geisha Bard archetype.
Okay -- I'll give it a try. Maybe he wants to ensure that all of the player characters can pull their weight in combat and he perceives that archetype as being too weak to do that?
See, now there's a good answer.
If an archetype is going to invariably hold the player (and thus the party) back due to it trading out good abilities for overall poor ones, it is hurting the game just as much as a severely OVERpowered archetype or class would.
If an archetype allows a character to get a new weapon proficiency and you're convinced that if X weapon is allowed (reskinned or not) it will utterly destroy your setting (which I've heard before, that allowing things outside of the box or reskinning would "destroy" their carefully crafted game), that's just you being quite silly indeed, and is no real reason to ban the archetype.
I agree its the druid reborn, and I so want to play one.The same reason that you and others keep asking about them. They're about the most broken aspect of an extremely breakable class. Hardly anyone would ask if a DM banned the geisha archetype.
Summoners are effectively the rebirth of 3.X Druidzilla.
3.5 Druid vs Sythesist
D8 HD vs D8 HD = Draw
3/4 BAB vs 3/4 BAB = Draw
4 Skill Points per level vs 2 Skill Points per level = Druid
Med Armor vs light armor = Druid
Animal Companion vs no Companion = Druid
9th level spell casting vs 6th level spell casting = Druid
Entire spell list known vs limited spells known = Druid
Multitude of forms based on what is needed at time vs
One static form that can change once a level = Druid
So worse Spellcasting, Spells known mechanic, skill points, companion, and altered form.....
Yeah totally the same thing as the 3.X Druidzilla (which btw wasn't that bad).
After Solid Fog, Grease, polymorph, and pretty much every other nice wizard spell was nerfed, I don't think anyone would argue that a Pathfinder wizard can hold a candle to 3.5 wizards.
That doesn't mean I've stopped pitying anyone who brings a sword to a spell duel.
Ironically, my wizards have won more duels with their Swords, Canes, and Staves than they have Spells...