|
Ciretose, you are really, really pro-GM and I get that, but when making a Character for Pathfinder "mollifying the GM as much as possible" shouldn't be high on the list of goals. In fact, of all the aspects of the game in which the GM has influence, I would safely say that the Player Characters are the farthest from his/her control. A Character with a great backstory, who works well with other PCs, fits into the setting and theme perfectly and does not use any material the GM dislikes is great, but completely worthless if the player playing the Character is not having fun.
There also is not (or should not be) a bias towards players who have played for longer. If a player makes a Character and said Character is both fun for the player and does not detract from the fun of the other players, the Character is worthwhile, regardless of alignment, abilities, etc. Rule of Fun.
To put things in perspective, I'm running Carrion Crown at the moment. Due to a lot of planning and interaction, all my players made complimentary characters that fit the setting and theme. But if I had a player who wanted to play, say, a Kobold Antipaladin who dreamed of becoming the world's greatest pirate lord, I would do everything in my power to accommodate such a character as long as everyone was having fun. And I would do this for a friend I knew for 10 years or a random dude at a gaming store.
To the OP: you should sit down, one to one with your GM and discuss your character, his expectations, your expectations, and come to an agreement. You don't really need our help, because regardless of which of you is "right" or "wrong", we won't change anybody's minds in all likleyhood.
|
You realize he got the rules for making his character from the DM, abided by those rules, and still got his character rejected? That's not cool at all.
I realize he says he was told to make a cleric. Beyond that, nope.
You still run concept by the GM and the group. You don't just show up with a character and not expect comment and possible changes.
I'm kind of blown away this isn't table etiquette 101.
I am not sure that inviting the DM into THIS discussion is the most prudent of actions.
The GM's arbitrary restrictions on class, spells, feats, and items sound a bit like the decisions of someone whose been "burned" before and wants to ensure that it doesn't happen again. Every veteran GM will have stories of the "game that got away", campaigns that went completely awry for one reason or another. One common response to such a debacle is to keep a tight rein on the characters that will be allowed in future games.
Also, people's perceptions regarding "unbalalnced" spells and abilities are generally arbitrary. Someone determined to make the most of a spell's or feat's synergy with other abilities can make even the most innocuous power into something game-breaking.
A (completely made-up) example, exaggerated for effect:
"My Godawful Terror feat lets me affect creatures up to 12 hit dice with cause fear and the fearsome visage spell adds +3 to the DC of any fear effects from my spells. Since I have a Charisma of 22 and Spell Focus, the Will save DC becomes 21. Godawful Terror makes them panicked instead of frightened, then fearsome visage forces panicked creatures in the area to make a Fort save (also DC 21) or drop dead from terror. We win!"
Some DMs simply say no as much as they feel like, usually it comes from a lack of desire to read up on certain mechanics, especially if you are pulling from online resources that you don't have physical references to.
Sometimes DMs just ban things, and "because it's overpowered" is the weakest excuse we have. Banning things just because is terrible for gaming, and terrible for bringing in new players. But it happens, I've had DMs who just plain say no as soon as they hear something, or see something that they don't want to look up, then they just say no to everything else you try and bring up from then on. Usually these DMs are the ones who gravitate towards "CRB only" campaigns which IMO are garbage and defeat the purpose of a tabletop RPG. If he wants such strict rules and shoehorns to dictate the mechanics of the game, he should be the one playing a computer game.
Ranting aside, the best advice is to not use any source material outside of what the other players are using or outside of what is physically available at the table.
And yes, you should be competing with this DM in the sense that he should know that he cannot tell you what to do at every turn with your character. Guy sounds like a d*ck to me if he's not even willing to read up on what you are asking, and "because it's overpowered" is DM for "I don't wanna learn what that is, so no you cannot have it," in my experience. As DM it's his job to make sure everyone has fun, and by inviting you to his table he accepted that responsibility.
What are the parameters of character creation? Do you have stats already rolled? Did you point buy? Is it possible that we can help you come up with a concept that he won't disapprove of?
Last thoughts: Min-Maxing is not bad, it's only badwrongfun if you ignore the implications of it. That is, if you dump INT don't try and play a character that is more than marginally functional. There is nothing wrong with trying to make your character better, especially if you are accounting for more gameplay scenarios than just combat. Whenever someone gets accused of min-maxing at any table I've ever played at, that is always the player that makes sure everyone gets out alive, you are the damn cleric, you should be welcomed by these guys and cherished for being a min-maxer and making sure everyone lives, especially yourself. What good is a healer who's dead?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the two above posts by ciretose and master_marshmallow go too far to each extreme.
It's understandable the party has a hole they want filled. I think it's reasonable to ask the new party member to create a character that fills it. I think it's reasonable for the DM to set down what they do and do not allow. I think it's usually reasonable, after a set of instructions are followed, for the DM to look at a mechanically powerful character and re-evaluate those rules to deal with a mathematically proficient player.
Once that re-evaluation has happened, the GM, as the experienced person here, needs to take charge of the situation as the GM and as the more experienced player by being very specific with expectations, and walking though character creation with the character. Expectations have to be very carefully and exhaustively defined, or character generation has to happen in his presence to allow a collaborative instead of adversarial relationship to develop. I think the laid back involvement of the GM, interspesed with terse "I don't like that, it's not allowed" commands leaves the player, especially a new player, leaderless, without a clear guide, confused, and eventually, necessarily resentful of the abritrariness of it all.
the GM needs to do this in a manner that encourages as much new player buy in and enjoyment as possible, without infringing on the fun and enjoyment of the rest of the group - including himself. If his players have never been interested in some of the peripheral splat books and the GM doesn't want to deal with learning it and runnin it,that's fair - he might not have known to disallow that stuff, because it's never been an issue before. Collaborative and interactive character creation would have headed this all off. And as the new player, the OP would have no reason to know that the rules he was following from the GM might not be complete, or that following those rules may not have been enough to stave off difficulties. He's completely new to tabletop, he needs a lot of leeway, here.
I think this sounds like a GM failure - but one that's not horrible or revealing of any deep personal flaws, and one that's easily rectified!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder at some of the replies in this thread and can only come to the conclusion that they didn't read all of the posts.
If my understanding is correct, at this point the OP has a character he is happy with and is playing the game. The only remaining issue is a little bit of a personality conflict between the OP and the GM. That can not be fixed on an online forum.
As for the GM's statement "Any Paizo product is okay", well, I doubt that is actually true. I'm sure when he said it he meant it, but the reality of what that enables probably is more than he intended.
This is a hobby, not a legal briefing or contract negotiation. If he was a little unspecific and then had to retract a statement later it should be forgiven. At that point it would be fair to say, "Well, I will need a little more guidance then." What you don't do is say, "You said it was legal so you must accept this!" That is not helpful. And to his credit, that is not what the OP did.
I realize he says he was told to make a cleric. Beyond that, nope.
You still run concept by the GM and the group. You don't just show up with a character and not expect comment and possible changes.
I'm kind of blown away this isn't table etiquette 101.
Two different worlds.
Over the course of play we learn each others preferences and I remain respectful of what my fellow players enjoy. However, I wouldn't run a character past the group at large. Mostly, this is due to the group having issues with metagaming but most importantly it's only the GM that determines what pops into the gaming world.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM: You can do whatever you like as long as you don't do A.
Player: Cool, I do B.
GM: What? No, you can't do B.
@Matthias DM
In Golarion there are no clerics without a deity.
Source?
What I wrote came form the Core Rule Book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder society & James Jacobs have both stated that while Clerics, per core rule book, don't have to have a deity, in Golarion, they do. The CRB isn't Golarion specific.@Matthias DM
In Golarion there are no clerics without a deity.
Source?
What I wrote came form the Core Rule Book.
Thanks much. I guess all those golarion dieties in the cleric section make you feel as though it is.
@ All of you
You sound like a bunch of whiners. DMs ban things because they are OP. Period.
Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition has become cakewalk for my group of players because they have an alchemist throwing fire as a touch attack for like 90-100 damage a round at range +50 splash damage reflex half. He almost completely turned the Black Magga into a JOKE!
He can do that for 3-4 combats a day no problem. I as a DM will not allow an alchemist in further games, or I will limit the touch attack to a normal attack.
Guess what happens when a story becomes easy and you breeze through combats..... combat ,itself, becomes boring and every other player is left to think "what am I doing here?"
It is in the DMs power to prevent this and he should.
What domains or subdomains are considered powerful will vary based on personal perception and the specifics of the campaign setting.
I'm guessing Restoration / Defence combination was considered too powerful because it increased chances for survival in a tough world.
The one cleric I've played went with Travel and Luck domains. I consider those domains powerful for the options they give. However, the campaign I played in didn't have frequent player character deaths.
I understand your frustration at incrementally finding out the rules. Though I don't agree with the tone of ciretose's posts, the message of talking with your GM on your character concept before the game is a good one.
If you have the healer role but are starting at 8th level, have you considered the option of playing a paladin with the hospitaler archetype? If this interests you, run it by the GM and come to agreement on the specifics of following the paladin's code of conduct. Paladins have good survival value. Hospitaler paladins with some feats (Extra Lay on Hands, Extra Channeling) have a lot of healing power while remaining effective in combat.
Exactly, when making up new characters as a group, we pick each other's brain to from a team to kill the DM's baddies :). BUT we don't dictate to each other either.
Based upon the OP's info provided. He was TOLD to make a cleric (gives me the ickies) but use any Pathfinder stuff from Paizo.
Then he did. And the DM didn't like it. It does not sound like the rest of the players had any issues. Just the DM.
@ All of youYou sound like a bunch of whiners. DMs ban things because they are OP.
False, not in my experience. DMs who are control freaks and tell players what kind of character they have to play ban things because they don't fit into their novel.
Have you not read the context? You can only have one subdomain. Banning particular spells is whatever, sometimes spells get out of hand from source books. But basic mechanics when building the character that you are forcing the player to play? That's over the top.
I'm all for consistency, and I am by no means a "nice DM" but my rules are: follow the rules in the game.
If he's gonna ban stuff, he needs to tell his players before he makes his character. Sounds like the DM doesn't even want to include him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's how I would approach this:
"Hey, <GM's name here>, I feel like we've kind of gotten off on the wrong foot. I tried to make a character within the guidelines you set out, but now it feels like everything I choose is getting rejected. I'm not trying to rock the boat, I just want to find a character that I enjoy playing and that fits within the group."
"Here's the general character concept I have in mind: a human cleric from <Albuquerque> who <worked at a car dealership and now> worships <Xenu>*. Does that fit with your campaign? If not why?"
Once that's ironed out...
"Here's the mechanical concept I have in mind: a cleric who <Trips>, <Drops Firballs> and <Buffs>*. Does that seem like something that will work? If not, can you help me understand which of those are a problem and why?"
Those "whys" are in bold because they're very important. It seems the GM has pigeon-holed you as an optimizing min-max crunch monkey and is now trying to keep you on a tight leash to avoid disrupting his campaign. You need to bring that out and come to some kind of understanding as to what it takes for both of you to have fun. If you don't deal with that root issue, anything you find to make you feel effective is going to be shot down.
*Insert your own stuff here.
Here's how I would approach this:
"Hey, <GM's name here>, I feel like we've kind of gotten off on the wrong foot. I tried to make a character within the guidelines you set out, but now it feels like everything I choose is getting rejected. I'm not trying to rock the boat, I just want to find a character that I enjoy playing and that fits within the group."
"Here's the general character concept I have in mind: a human cleric from <Albuquerque> who <worked at a car dealership and now> worships <Xenu>*. Does that fit with your campaign? If not why?"
Once that's ironed out...
"Here's the mechanical concept I have in mind: a cleric who <Trips>, <Drops Firballs> and <Buffs>*. Does that seem like something that will work? If not, can you help me understand which of those are a problem and why?"
Those "whys" are in bold because they're very important. It seems the GM has pigeon-holed you as an optimizing min-max crunch monkey and is now trying to keep you on a tight leash to avoid disrupting his campaign. You need to bring that out and come to some kind of understanding as to what it takes for both of you to have fun. If you don't deal with that root issue, anything you find to make you feel effective is going to be shot down.
*Insert your own stuff here.
This is probably the best practical advise on this thread at the momment.
Things I (as a DM) have disallowed from my campaigns.
Anything NOT Core Rule Book or Advanced Players' Guide.
-APG classes - Summoner, Alchemist, Gunslinger
Touch attacks scale horribly and Summoners can cast creatures and send them into dungeons en masse.
There was once a campaign world I created where I flat out told players that Arcane Magicians would be sought out and burned at the stake because the only way to get arcane magic in this world was through demonic favors.
They were, of course, welcome to play an evil character. Magic items and artifacts became extremely sought after and they started out as professional archeaologists, treasure hunter style. They had fun.
Following the "rules of the game" created Pun-Pun.
Life is not fair. As the arbiter of the rules, sometimes the DM will not be fair.
I once had a player riding on the back of a gecko who complained that he wasn't able to charge attack with his lance in dungeons enough and that the rooms were too small for him to do it. He said I was doing it on purpose to limit him. (I copied them from the adventure path).
My answer to a player will always be the same when they have problems with my decisions/rulings:
"The good news is that a monster, NPC, or villain will never have that opportunity either!"
DMs have the right and responsibility to limit their players. It's not like you are being asked to pick your class, then roll your stats 3d6 down the line. I'd like to see your tears for that oldschool style.
PS - I do believe that selecting your class for you was a bit rough though. Usually, I just let parties without healing suffer the consequences....
.. but these might be new players.
|
1. Are non-core deities (namely - Milani) more powerful than core?
That's two different questions. It's akin to asking if there are higher number than 10, namely 7.
Milani is less powerful than the core deities. That doesn't mean that all non-core deities are less powerful than them. Some will be less powerful, some will be just as powerful, and some might be more powerful.
Just a note on this...Paizo hasn't really declared deity power levels, so the relative power levels are going to be based on GM interpretation, and on completely non-mechanical flavor material.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You realize he got the rules for making his character from the DM, abided by those rules, and still got his character rejected? That's not cool at all.
I realize he says he was told to make a cleric. Beyond that, nope.
You still run concept by the GM and the group. You don't just show up with a character and not expect comment and possible changes.
I'm kind of blown away this isn't table etiquette 101.
Actually in original post the OP says he was allowed all paizo sources.
The rules for my creating a character were that it be a Cleric, must have deity, can use any Paizo source.
So yea, this dm SHOULD have said instead of 'use any paizo material', 'Please run your choices by me before you finish up your character. There are some things that dont jive with the group, and i'd like have a look to make sure we dont have any conflicts'.
There are in fact lots of tables out there that have an anything goes mentality. I've played at them. No one was being a jerk, it was just never a consideration that material be limited. A bunch of posts here lead me to believe some home groups just play pfs legal, and call it done as well.
It isnt how I run a game, but that doesnt mean its a breach of ettiquete to do so. And especially for a new player, the dm should have told him he likes to review things and will do line item rejections as a general process to character creation.