| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's the GMs job to provide any house rules BEFORE the game starts.
You can't create female characters, no Arcane magic, no Paladins, you MUST play a Cleric, etc, are not things players expect by default and if you don't mention them then they are assumed to not exist.
I don't see why anything should be "run by" the players.
You: I want to play a Vanilla Rogue.
Players: No.
Now what? Do you have to change your character concept? I've never seen a table do that. In my games I have one player who refuses to reveal details about his characters beforehand, because he wants to reveal them in game to us. In another game, I have a player who is bursting to tell me everything about his character even if I won't meet him anytime soon. In neither game, can the the players say "You can't build that."
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.
Correction...Gunslinger is not in the APG. I guess it gets soo many requests you had to ban it twice?
Also I understand your concern about summoners...do you also ban all summon spells from the games as there is nothing really stopping wizards, cleric, and druid from doing the exact same thing.
Following the "rules of the game" created Pun-Pun.
Did not pun-pun required knowledge of a nearly extinct race specificaly on FR(there was like ten of them)? Or am thinking of another 'build' that was OP by ignoring or bending the rules for all they are worth.
Pun-Pun, in fact, explicitly required GM Fiat and help to accomplish.
@ All of you
You sound like a bunch of whiners. DMs ban things because they are OP. Period.
Not really...maybe that is why you ban things...but it is not universal.
1) Because it creates a interesting setting.
2) The GM wants to run a certain type of game.
3) Lastly the GM is just plain ignorant think something is OP when it is not.
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.
Um...how?
Yeah, I missed that.
At max level, an Alchemist throws 20d6+Int Bombs.
Even with 30 Int you're looking at, maximum, 130, but realistically an average of 80 to one target, and then 30 for splash (minimum damage always on splash).
Meanwhile, your archer or two-hander...
Yeah I think someone didn't actually read the rules (or are using a gross exaggeration) for that alchemist.
Also at 20th bombs do 10d6+int (and 9d6 of those don't get doubled on a crit), not 20d6 per.
Oh whoops. I decided to add 2d6 to his bombs per odd level for some reason.
So yeah that drops it to 70 damage a hit at maximum.
He probably throws 7-10 of them a round at level 10 is why.
He only has bombs equal to his class level + intelligence modifier per day so multiples per round eats through them quickly.
Theoretically at 10th level an alchemist could have 6 bombs per round if my calculations are correct. Would have 2 attacks base + rapid shot + two weapon fighting/improved + haste for a grand total of +4/+4/+4/+4/-1/-1 (not including dex modifier to hit); a lot of bombs but getting that low for attacks could mean plenty of waste even though you're against touch AC. Each would do 5d6+int, which would reasonably be at least 20, so 20 damage per bomb on average or potentially on average 120 if all of those hit.
Looks like some good nova, the kind that makes you just want to curl back up and go to sleep for another 8 hours after 18 seconds of work.
He probably throws 7-10 of them a round at level 10 is why.
Level 10, 5d6+ we'll say...6 bombs.
He has two attacks from BaB, one from Rapid Shot, and we'll say two from Two-Weapon Fighting and Improved Two Weapon Fighting. He's got 5 Bombs max per round.
5d6+6 is, at maximum 180 damage, yes, with splash clocking in at 55. Average of about 120.
With 22 Dex he's got +15 or so to-hit (+7 BaB, +6 Dex, +1 Point Blank Shot, +1 Weapon Focus), but he's actually at +11 on the first three I believe, +6 on the fourth, and +1 on the 5th. So even against Touch AC he's only hitting 3 per round with any regularity, dropping the effective damage to around 70. Anything with Fire Resistance/Immunity takes less, though that can be mitigated with Discoveries.
He has a grand total of 16 Bombs per day, which is enough to get him through a whopping...3 combats doing this.
Meanwhile, your level 10 Barbarian is doing somewhere around +15/+10 to-hit on a Raging Power Attack with Str (assume 22 again, +4 from Rage) and BaB alone (i.e. not factoring in weapon enchantments or Feats like Weapon Focus) doing somewhere in the neighborhood of 2d6+21 per hit again with just Str and Power Attack bonuses alone, for a maximum of 66 damage and an average of 56. He can do this for at minimum (10 Con) for 22 rounds per day, which is roughly equivalent to 7 combats.
Add in weapon enhancement bonuses and Feats and he creeps ever upwards in to-hit and ever closer to the Alchemist in damage as well, while still retaining a much higher staying power. He is, at best "inferior" to the Alchemist only in the sense that he does slightly less damage, and once he hits 11 and gets Greater Rage and his third attack the gap is pretty well closed.
Context is important, not just "Ooh so much damage" thrown out in a vacuum. Alchemist isn't OP because he can end an encounter thrice a day any more than a Paladin is because he can do the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a new player. The first thing he should be learning is how to have fun playing a game. They should be encouraging creativity. Not stifling it. They should be working with him to develop his role playing, especially since he seems to have a fairly strong grasp of the mechanics. Instead they have cornered him into a single class, and strike down the ideas he brings to make the character his own.Now, he says he is fine with playing a cleric. Great! That makes everything easier. But, it should still be his cleric. Not the group's. And not the DM's.
There are houserules? Fine. Enumerate them, and then stick to them. Don't create a new one every session, or arbitrarily change them on a whim.
In the end, this is a seven hour a week investment of time for this person, which they are using for recreation and enjoyment. If they're not enjoying themselves, it's a waste of everyone's time. And the group/DM should be prepared to never gain another new player. Who would make the effort?
I was going to chime in, but The Crusader pretty much nailed all the points I was going to make.
Based on what I've read, I wouldn't want to play with your GM. Restrictions for setting flavor are fine. Restrictions for arbitrary Bulls&%*t are not.
The group managed to take what should have been a fun, positive experience and managed to make it so unfun that the new player ran to these boards just to ask "is this a common experience?"
The short answer is no, it isn't. My advice, look around, play with a few other groups, figure out what kind of play style you like best and then look back on this experience with new perspective.
Lastly, don't make a monk/cleric. Those classes don't really have synergy. The reasons why will become more clear as you play.
I limit my players to the Core Rule Book and Advanced Players Guide.
Reason: There is something called "power creep", where as a company like paizo creates more and more, they step outside the bounds and create more powerful classes/powers/spells to attract people into buying their books.
That is a cynical, over simplified view of it, but there is is. whatever. It is what it is.
[/i]
Do you restrict yourself to the Bestiary 1? Because as a company like Paizo comes out with more bestiaries, you start to get power creep; power creep works both ways, and with an attitude like yours, I assume what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Pun-Pun, in fact, explicitly required GM Fiat and help to accomplish.Depends on the version.
The psionic version using the sarkonis (sp?) racial ability did not require any GM fiat...just the psionic rule set and FR setting.
Ah yes that one...which would require a very high Knowledge check to know what saruhk(I think it is) is enough being able to turn into one...bending the rules a lot.
Of course the character could have a background that explains how you know what one is and your magical survival such a encounter...GM fiat.
I mean am I crazy for requiring players to have knowledge(either though first hand experience or detailed accounts) of the creature to be ably to polymorph, etc into them.
Also even with all that it broke the rules of the saruhk's rqacial abilities waaay past the breaking point.
Pun-pun was an urban legend in our group. Had a guy who spent a lot of time in the WoTC forums and would argue that his limit pushing characters werent bad compared yo Pun-Pun. But when I challenged him on the validity of the build he could never actually remember it or where to look at it. I actually went to google it and couldn't find it. I had assumed the guy was talking out his ass.
|
Pun-pun was an urban legend in our group. Had a guy who spent a lot of time in the WoTC forums and would argue that his limit pushing characters werent bad compared yo Pun-Pun. But when I challenged him on the validity of the build he could never actually remember it or where to look at it. I actually went to google it and couldn't find it. I had assumed the guy was talking out his ass.
Nope it's real. Some of the refinements on it kinda hurts your head however.
required to make a cleric.
As soon as I saw this, I was immediately disappointed. If I was you, I would've smacked your GM. Playing Pathfinder/DnD/Whatever is YOUR choice, for YOU to have fun. Do you have fun playing Clerics? Then play said Cleric. If not, hope someone took UMD skill and can use that. This is YOUR character, not theirs.
ALSO, this:
If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, she still selects two domains to represent her spiritual inclinations and abilities (subject to GM approval). The restriction on alignment domains still applies.
While I agree with you on this, he IS going for a Deity, and those are two of the Deity's domains. It's unfair to worship someone and take out the accessability to some domains. What if the Gm had decided to say "no healing domain since it's so OP for Clerics"? He's basically told "make something to help heal people", so he took the best things for said role, when he might not have even wanted it.
Dice:
I'm going to reiterate what everyone else has said. Sit down with the GM, ask what is banned/allowed, and then go from there. Create your character with him, if he doesn't like what you did. I sat down with my PCs when we started RotR(same campaign you're in. You're further than they are), and wanted to see what they were doing, what the group concept was, since they made their classes individually.
Do you restrict yourself to the Bestiary 1? Because as a company like Paizo comes out with more bestiaries, you start to get power creep; power creep works both ways, and with an attitude like yours, I assume what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Best. Retort. To book banning. Ever.
After the actual session where he says "Yeah you can use this" and then goes "Nope screw you it was actually useful you can't use it any more" my advice is DEFINITELY to just cut and run on this game. It has a 99.99% chance of just getting worse from here, whether he pretends to have a conversation with you (where he's just gonna either nod and "agree" and then just ignore it at the next session, or he's going to tell you to respect his authoritay and bite the pillow next time) or not.
If you like the rest of the group ask them to come along with you and start your own game, they may be sick of that kinda s&&% too and just don't have another option around.
The other option is to make a character using only options from the Core Rulebook (or that plus another book the DM gives full OK for beforehand). Limiting yourself to only the main book should alleviate any concerns the DM may have about powergaming or min/max-ing. With the added bonus of cutting down on time spent looking through options :)
If that doesn't work out, you might want to consider taking Rynjin's advice. It appears that you enjoy playing with this group though, so that should definitely be a last resort.
Advice is fine for that.
The issue is, any advice people give you is inevitably going to be along the lines of "This Feat's pretty good, take it if you wanna do X" which so far hasn't seemed very cool to your GM.
I think your GM is in the camp of "Clerics should be healbots and nothing more" or something since from what I've seen he's shot down every half-effective combat option you've tried.
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.
Um...how?
9th Level Alchemist (Blessing of Fervor by party cleric)
Fast Bombs, Intelligence 28, point blank, rapid shot4 attacks (5d6+10) against a touch AC of 6
3.5*5+10= 17.5+10 = 28
Ever single touch attack hits an AC of 6 because he never rolls a 1.
28*4 = 112 Fire Damage a round that is unstopable by the black magga.
Splash damage (doesn't matter against Magga but for other creatures) is 60.
....
.... that is ... ONLY the Alchemist against the Black Magga. 3rd turn a CR 15 was running from a party 6 levels beneath it.
Do you restrict yourself to the Bestiary 1? Because as a company like Paizo comes out with more bestiaries, you start to get power creep; power creep works both ways, and with an attitude like yours, I assume what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Bestiary 2 for the most part. Other ways that I limit myself is by not leveling my monsters with Ultimate combat/magic classes, feats, spells or special abilities.
I recognize that I, too, could create a monster that is unstoppable. I'm not trying to make a game impossible to beat... I'm trying to even make it a challenge for my players!
No challenge = no fun, imho
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I should email my DM a request for specifics and limits. (he keeps saying any paizo but run it by me first, and I am having trouble working like that).
It looks, to me, like your GM has created doubt and uncertainty in an otherwise great player.
If I were you, I'd find another group to join. And if you lived anywhere near my area, I'd gladly invite you to mine.
Following the "rules of the game" created Pun-Pun.Following the rules of the game also led to a lot of people having fun playing Pathfinder, because, y'know, Pathfinder is the ruleset you're playing in. This faulty logic can be used to justify anything.
"You have a 5 ft. base speed."
"But that's too slow! And my race said I have 30 ft.! Why?"
"Because following the rules led to Pun-Pun. Screw the rules, they're broken."
You are correct. It is not only the DMs job to limit players from being overpowered... but also to limit himself.
However, the fact is that I already have the limitations in place on my side. The only time you see the chains are when they are placed on you and your character making decisions. Instead you assume that a DM is unfair for placing limitations on you.
Does not pathfinder society limit your game play options? are they unfair?
A lot of the rules material will make reference to things that simply don't exist like spot or listen checks. That's a huge clue. Flavor books don't really matter though all humanoids (including elves) sleep but that's clarified in the ARG which is available for free in the PRD.
|
I kind of find it fascinating how much people project onto the OP...
Dude joined his first game ever 2 and a half months ago. And in that first game, he is already butting heads with the GM, who he says "is a a seasoned tabletop gamer with experience playing and DMing in DnD before 3rd (i don't recall exactly how far, but has shown understanding of the original game )" and " there was reasonable (possibly more than) face time with the DM spent before creation of my char (which happened late in game) . He has been helpful and supportive and seems to be a generally good human."
The OP says "I often read on these boards and heard in person the talk of "character vision" and other pure roleplaying ideas, which are cool but I have trouble with." and "My character was backstory weak, as all of my characters will be (i just don't understand it yet)."
And yet the GM is the bad guy...
Fascinating.
Yes, that was absolutely on-topic.
To clarify: posts were removed that quoted some back and forth that was aimed at some posters previous post history which are not relevant to this specific thread, as well as posts that were personal insults. If a post was in response to those removed posts, it was also removed. Additionally, if you feel you've been targeted/are being targeted by a particular poster, please let us know (either via PM or webmaster@paizo.com).