Deleted some posts complaining about the moderation. If you want to discuss Paizo's moderation policies, the Website Feedback forum is the appropriate place to do so, not threads in the Advice forum. Or you can email webmaster@paizo.com.
|
So I post welcoming a new player, and telling him to ignore the heat he is getting from players who don't know how to handle new players or different play styles and you delete it? Nice job on being apart of the problem.
In his defense, I think it was because they all were linked through reply.
But since this one isn't lets get back to what the OP has actually said vs what has been projected.
What we know (Because the OP said it, I will attach quotations)
1. Although the OP is familiar with the system the OP never played tabletop before January of this year, and this is his first group. Meaning he has played for about 3 months.
"I joined this group in January, they meet once a week for 7hr sessions."
"I'm not new to dnd, but am participating in my first campaign (so I never played, but am familiar with the system)."
"(first pen&paper rpg I've ever gotten to play)"
2. The GM is not a jerk and has been a GM for a long time.
"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."
"Runs the game pretty well as far as I understand (first pen&paper rpg I've ever gotten to play). Powers up monsters though (may be bad, I'm on my second char as the first joined and quickly died to an Ogre general), but the enemies are fun (just really really dangerous... Like the party)."
The DM 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 )
3. The OP is bad at creating backstory.
"My character was backstory weak, as all of my characters will be (i just don't understand it yet)."
"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."
4. Backstory matters to the party
As far as I understand, my party finds back story or more so motivation is important."
5. The Group has run RORL for 7 levels prior to him being added to the game.
6. The OP challenges the GM.
"but we get riled up and he kinda locks down (and I don't easily give up)"
But my concern is that if I challenge too much (challenge everything is my nature), it will result in problems.
7. Playing a cleric was a condition of being added to a long running game. He played the "Doctor" for a few sessions, then made a character named "Dane" who died, followed by "Dice", his brother.
"I used a borrowed cleric for a couple sessions, then he was phased out and replaced by my first character Dace - who then died from a crit that took me from full health to most definitely dead dead.
THEN I made Dice, my hopefully epic (and more conscientious) battle cleric."
"I started with a cleric (also of milani) who was not mechanically min/maxed, but I thought had high enough AC to make a difference (it didn't), but it was a 90hp crit that killed him anyway. My character was backstory weak, as all of my characters will be (i just don't understand it yet)."
"That sucked, but made an opportunity for me to have a real hook to my next character - Dice (also cleric), previous character's brother.
I wanted to make a similar cleric with different background who was not just a clone of the last char."
"They were taking turns managing Doctor, which I took over and used for a couple sessions. "
"As a new player and one filling in a void, I was required to make a cleric or at least a character who *can* heal.
I accepted this as the condition for my entrance into the group. Now I like playing cleric now that I am familiar with it."
-------------------------------------
Those are the facts, and they are not (hopefully) in dispute.
My perspective (feel free to add yours)
We have a long running weekly game with a gap in the cleric slot. OP shows up and they give him a chance to run the cleric, because why not.
He does ok, so they let him make his own. He's new, it's 7th level in an AP, so the one he makes dies. Perfectly normal, particularly being new to the game.
He makes another one that has the same name, except changing one letter, that is min/maxed and makes no sense. The GM calls shenanigans and tries to work with him, but the OP is completely focused on the math and not on the setting.
The GM is frustrated the player isn't trying to understand the setting. The Player is frustrated they can't try out the math.
Loggerheads ensue, amplified by the message board.
So my advice to the OP is this.
Dude, you've been playing for less than 4 months, ever, in your life.
Stop trying to tell the GM what they have to allow and start asking what will make you both happy.
"challenge everything" is great for scientific papers, but not so much for social interactions with hobbies.
|
There is nothing about "the setting" that is in obvious conflict with the "any Paizo source" directive originally given by the GM. The amount of assumptions inherent in expecting a GM to have to, or even want to, put his explicit seal of approval on ordinary class features and feats given such an initially vague, permissive directive is mind-boggling.
I really wish I had access to my old post since I was elaborate there. Here I'll just say if the GM wants to micromanage, he should just build the class himself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
9th Level Alchemist (Blessing of Fervor by party cleric)
Fast Bombs, Intelligence 28, point blank, rapid shot
4 attacks (5d6+10) against a touch AC of 63.5*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.
Really big creatures like that are notoriously bad against touch attacks. Any caster you had in the party using touch attacks, or a Gunslinger would have done as well or better. Any physical attacker would do much better against anything smaller (i.e. with a higher Touch AC).
And, of course, this ignores the fact that said Alchemist should have been MULCHED by the Magga the first time it attacked the party. Your Alchemist has, what 55-60 HP thereabouts? The Magga does a MINIMUM of 47 damage plus another 13 from Constrict, and then 2 levels of Energy Drain.
And you had him run away because he'd lost a bit less than HALF of his HP?
My perspective (feel free to add yours)
We have a long running weekly game with a gap in the cleric slot. OP shows up and they give him a chance to run the cleric, because why not.
With you so far.
He does ok, so they let him make his own. He's new, it's 7th level in an AP, so the one he makes dies. Perfectly normal, particularly being new to the game.
Yep.
He makes another one that has the same name, except changing one letter, that is min/maxed and makes no sense. The GM calls shenanigans and tries to work with him, but the OP is completely focused on the math and not on the setting.
No. He makes a character using the guidelines the GM gave him (any Paizo source) to be one that would be harder to kill.
He chooses the goddess Milani (Which is called out as min/maxing because "Non-core gods are more powerful" somehow) and the Restoration and Defense subdomains (Which is called out as being too powerful BECAUSE HE CHOSE THEM). All Eastern weapons are banned because they're all OP (Which I think anyone can agree is a crock of s@@@).
The only decision I agree with so far is "You can't have Dwarf only spells if you're not a Dwarf".
But the icing on the cake, to me, is this:
"Earlier, via email, I mentioned that I was planning on using Ancestral Gift to get that raping - he required I pick one weapon that will ever be called via the spell (because I was generalizing the spell that's usually dwarven), then later that I could "unlock" more weapons with level up. So the spell would function as a sort of weapon locker that, when used - calls a weapon that I've already "made" or a new weapon (up to the limit imposed by level growth).
Then at the table (session before last) after buffing up my AC and getting the weapon and then lots of fighting, he said I could no longer use the spell. Which was disheartening, as my only other weapon is a +1 silver morningstar."
He ALLOWS it, with some understandable restrictions to it, and then after letting the guy use it for a session basically says "Nope, you were doing pretty good in combat with it. You can't use that spell any more."
The GM is frustrated the player isn't trying to understand the setting. The Player is frustrated they can't try out the math.
I'm still not seeing where he's not trying to understand the setting. Nothing he's tried to pick except for the Dwarven spell (for non-Dwarves) and possibly Eastern weapons clash with the setting at all.
And you may not agree with me on the rest of this, but from all your other posts I know you agree with me on this: The GM should have laid his rules out at the START, instead of saying "Everything is available" and then shooting down a bunch of things because they're supposedly OP, from books he has allowed. He's thrown out an awful lot of generalized statements (Newer gods are OP, multiple Subdomains is OP, Eastern weapons are OP) for him to not have any restrictions laid before character creation.
Dude, you've been playing for less than 4 months, ever, in your life.
Stop trying to tell the GM what they have to allow and start asking what will make you both happy.
"challenge everything" is great for scientific papers, but not so much for social interactions with hobbies.
I could say the same for people who pretend to allow things and then arbitrarily disallow them later on. It's like if you went to a water park and they said "You can ride anything here (you're tall enough, old enough, etc.)" but every time you tried to go in anything but the wave pool people were standing at the entrance telling you that you weren't allowed on.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me just say this: If the GM is a seasoned experienced GM as the OP claims, and the new player is the newbie, then the burden of resolving this sort of thing really rests on the GM.
Experience should have taught him:
- how to handle integrating new players with varying degrees of game experience and playstyles into the group
-what happens if you invite someone into the group whose playstyle is vastly different than yours
-how to man up, sit down and have the conversation early on when the player joins, or at least when a problem arises about playstyle or perception differences. Clearly the GM has either been burned by min-maxing type players, or more likely is a bit old school and has his own ideas of what different classes and/or party makeup should look like. Nothing wrong with that except the burden is on him to clearly convey that to all the players, most especially new ones.
Now if all this was done, and he spent time with the new player individually, whether over the phone, skype, in person, etc, then as Ciretose says, the player is the one that needs to adjust his interaction.
I have had my share of really problem players, and truly out of about maybe 25-30 serious conversations (sometimes with the same player) only three times was it a complete waste of my time that resolved nothing due to the player. All the rest, either the problem disappeared or improved enough that it didn't cause problems for me or the group. The OP does not appear to fit the "only 3" category or he would not be coming her with what appears to me to be a sincere approach to wanting info to solve the problem.
Bottom line: I don't think he would be coming here for advice and ways to resolve the issue if they were already being presented by his GM. Clearly the dialogue isn't really there. And while there are two people involved, the GM knows sets the rules and tone for the game and is the experienced party.
To the OP: If you seriously want to stay in this game and both you and the GM get along, make some time to talk with him one on one, preferably over a beer or coffee, or in a relaxed manner. This is a communication and expectation issue that has nothing to do with builds, feats, what class you are playing, etc. If has to do with the two of you being on the same sheet of music.
|
|
This is where I disagree.
The OP is saying, and again I quote
"But my concern is that if I challenge too much (challenge everything is my nature), it will result in problems."
and
"I respect him (and I think he respects me as well), but we get riled up and he kinda locks down (and I don't easily give up)."
and
"I don't know what to do (besides manipulating the DM to personally like me more, which I can do but find unethical), please help."
To be blunt, if I were the GM and I had a good game going for likely over a year and some guy who has never played before shows up to join the game with the attitude that "challenge everything is my nature" I would likely "forget" to tell the player when the next game is.
If you have never successfully played a single campaign, and you are playing with someone who, and again I quote "Runs the game pretty well as far as I understand" who "has been helpful and supportive and seems to be a generally good human." is "experienced and willing for the most part." perhaps you need to learn before you try and teach.
I am not saying the GM is doing everything correctly. I am saying if you are the new guy who just wandered into a happy and working group, your entire job is to not make that group stop being happy and working until you learn what makes games work.
Rule knowledge is only one part of that.
as a brand new dm, my grp does consist of quite a few 3.5ers and ive seen something that pretty much everyone of my people have done qhos played before. They min/max. Thats fine in my book but it means u are playing to "beat" the game. ive had to sit down with each of them and try to explain that im not running a game for them to neat, im creating scenarios for them to roleplay in. ive made the mistake with one of my oringinals in his class chosing and have seen hes becoming OP which is making it harder for me to come up with scenarios where it would have presented a tough decision in roleplaying but if im not prepared, the conflict becomes void and is facerolled thru it.
When I play video game rpgs, Ive found it more enjoyable when their are strengths and weaknesses and I try to incorporate that into each peraons charecter. if they have a major strength, they also have a major weakness. If they are just soso, then they dont really have any syrength nor weakness.
Its about the purpose of the game and coming from a dm, the dm ia veiwing u as someone whos come to beat the game when he wants someone to roleplay in the game. Not as a juggernaut, but as a normal cleric who has overcome odds to be as powerful as u are type thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is where I disagree.
The OP is saying, and again I quote
"But my concern is that if I challenge too much (challenge everything is my nature), it will result in problems."
and
"I respect him (and I think he respects me as well), but we get riled up and he kinda locks down (and I don't easily give up)."
and
"I don't know what to do (besides manipulating the DM to personally like me more, which I can do but find unethical), please help."
To be blunt, if I were the GM and I had a good game going for likely over a year and some guy who has never played before shows up to join the game with the attitude that "challenge everything is my nature" I would likely "forget" to tell the player when the next game is.
If you have never successfully played a single campaign, and you are playing with someone who, and again I quote "Runs the game pretty well as far as I understand" who "has been helpful and supportive and seems to be a generally good human." is "experienced and willing for the most part." perhaps you need to learn before you try and teach.
I am not saying the GM is doing everything correctly. I am saying if you are the new guy who just wandered into a happy and working group, your entire job is to not make that group stop being happy and working until you learn what makes games work.
Rule knowledge is only one part of that.
Which is again where I think our philosophies differ. In my book it's the GM's job to lay everything out at the start of the game. A new player is likely to react to an "open season" on books with either choice paralysis, or enthusiasm for all of the myriad options available.
The problem (in this GMs book) here is that the player reacted with enthusiasm and a bit of familiarity instead of trepidation since he had a decent amount of familiarity with the rules and such, but had never played before.
He went at character creation with gusto, and after a failed attempt (the first dead character) he tried to be a bit more creative with his second guy. The GM, at this point, was a bit surprised at the choice of certain options he had left available, and tried to backtrack at that point.
The issue (in my eyes) comes in not from the player fighting against that backtracking, but the backtracking itself (or at least the way it was done). If the GM wanted to rethink his restrictions he should have done so all at once, because banning things piecemeal that a player brings up makes it look as if you're singling him out, whether you are or not. That's why I always strive to be VERY clear about what to expect going in, even (or ESPECIALLY) for new players.
What I see is a failure to communicate on the GM's side, and a new player just looking to make a guy who won't die after a few levels since he's already had two character deaths.
Now you have pointed out that, yes, it doesn't seem like conscious dickery on the GMs part, but in my eyes it amounts to the same effect even if the intent is more benign.
In my experience, a DM is more likely to accept your mechanical decisions if they're dressed up in a good concept. You've said that characterization, story, and such qualitative concerns are difficult for you to grasp; these seem to be important game elements to the group.
I would suggest talking with your DM about your character. (I know I'm the 50th person to suggest this, but bear with me). In this case, I would suggest putting mechanics away and just talking about the kind of guy you want to play. What's he like? What's his history? Does he have a prior relationship to any of the characters? To the locale? What are his personal motivations? Why might he be hooked up with this group? Hashing these things out will often suggest a lot of mechanical choices and, more importantly, turn the DM into an advocate.
|
|
@Rynjin - You seem to think everything is the GM's job.
It is impossible to lay out every possible contingency, and even if it were possible it would be a horrible way to introduce new players into a game by handing them a 1000 page handbook of guidelines.
If he had invested half as much gusto into trying to find out about the setting and the story as he did looking for mechanical advantage, it would have gone better.
The GM apparently sat down with the player for a long period of time, but the player either didn't run the concept by the GM beforehand or was upset the GM didn't approve everything that was run by them.
Either way, it is the job of the new player to the group to adapt to the group, not the other way around.
Here you are taking things to their furthest extreme again.
He doesn't have to lay out "every possible contingency" but if he wants some things to be restricted, he needs to say at least SOME of them beforehand instead of just saying that everything is fair game and expecting people to read his mind and know which ones actually aren't.
Especially with reasoning as arbitrary as what was given later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ciretose, what do you feel about the case where the player did exactly what you suggest he should do, the GM gave the okay on the spell in question with a few limitations, and then during the next session the GM said "no, you can't use that spell anyway"?
|
|
Here you are taking things to their furthest extreme again.
He doesn't have to lay out "every possible contingency" but if he wants some things to be restricted, he needs to say at least SOME of them beforehand instead of just saying that everything is fair game and expecting people to read his mind and know which ones actually aren't.
Especially with reasoning as arbitrary as what was given later.
He did. They are playing Rise of the Runelords. It has a booklet that comes with it (which is also a free PDF) in addition to the GM sitting down with the player, and again I quote "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."
You keep overlooking that "challenge everything is my nature" is how the OP self describes.
And I believe that is the problem.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ciretose, what do you feel about the case where the player did exactly what you suggest he should do, the GM gave the okay on the spell in question with a few limitations, and then during the next session the GM said "no, you can't use that spell anyway"?
During the session, not so cool, but before or after the session and during breaks I've had it happen to me and I've seen it happen. 3.5 has a lot of broken splatbooks and I've seen combinations become problems in the game.
More often, it is the player reading the spell wrong, which is why you need to wait for a break to sit down and really read the spell to make sure it works the way you think it works and also look at the synergies and if they actually work.
As a GM I have never done it, as I've never had a problem with it at the table once I was able to read the spell and realize the limitations of it.
For example some people think color spray is broken, while others realize tha if it fails you have a fragile caster 15 feet away from one or more bad guys.
Now looking at the example given with Ancestor Gift, I would have definately looked at the spell first since it is from one of the secondary books, which are notoriously less well checked.
When I read the spell, I would have no problem with it since it is a 4th level spell for a +2 weapon. I do think the bane factor was an unintended factor that the person creating the spell didn't consider, and I so I might nerf that part if it was being spammed. But then again, when you look at other 4th level spells, it isn't that powerful.
As to the rest of what happened in that encounter, it was the attack on the fortress and it sounds like the cleric novaed, which is what you need to do in that encounter. And the player got KO'ed, so they clearly were not "overpowered"
It sounds to me like the tension is you have a player focused on crunch in a game that was focused on fluff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds to me like the tension is you have a player focused on crunch in a game that was focused on fluff.
Yes, it does sound like that. I think the OP would be perfectly happy and welcomed in the first 3.5 group I joined, where the mindset was essentially "if we wanted to roleplay, we'd play a different game" :)
It might be hard to reconcile the differences in playstyle here, by the sound of things.
9th Level Alchemist (Blessing of Fervor by party cleric)
Fast Bombs, Intelligence 28, point blank, rapid shot
4 attacks (5d6+10) against a touch AC of 63.5*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.
Ok...the 28 seems a little high to me...but I guess it you spend alot of that headband of IOnt +6 you could do it...though it would creat weaknesses in other areas. But that is besides the point.
Why ban Alchemist when you could just ban Fast Bombs?