| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many minions are going to be able to penetrate the Invulnerable Rager's DR? How many casters are going to break through the monk's Spell Resistance (All of them that are competent), but same goes to casting SR: No spells at a golem. And really there's more SR: No spells then lolmoveearth and lolearthquake, try a nice Geyser/Snowball/Summon. Golems are perfectly susceptible to that most common of threats... damage. That isn't going to change just because a PC is running one now. And while destruction of the amulet's golem might not be the end of the PC, it does introduce an excellent sidequest opportunity and takes the PC out of the fight as effectively as killing a PC (Who must similarly seek a Raise Dead effect).
Really, I don't see how this impacts the GM at all.
You're missing the point again. The barbarian only has DR. He doesn't have DR + all of those blanket immunities. Handling DR is one thing. Handling all these defensive abilities rolled into one is a completely different game. You can't compare an invulnerable rager to a golem. And as for a golems SR, it works differently from normal SR. There is no caster check for a golem's SR. It is flat out immune to those spells. Now, there are spells to work around that, but again, that still requires the GM to sit down and change the way these encounters are going.
If you can't see how a cohort with so many blanket immunities will change the game enough to warrant the GM giving it a closer look, then I don't know what to tell you.
I am skeptical in the above circumstances that Odraude outlines that even the other players would have fun. Suddenly you have one player who has the ability to win every combat encounter without needing help. If not countered, you have players potentially getting bored with the combat or feeling useless
I've seen this happen with a player with a troll cohort and it made the paladin and barbarian pretty bored. Mind you, these are martial characters that have spells or supernatural abilities, not fighters or rogues.
The game changes when you add cohorts from the bestiary. That's a fact. You just have to be able to adapt to that change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A shield guardian is far from an effective cohort. A well-built summoner's Eidolon is far more threatening then a Shield Guardian (Who really aren't that good at combat). Furthermore, I would much rather my player have a Shield Guardian cohort then virtually any core class of equivalent CR. Also, unless your encounters don't involve dealing damage, there is nothing to work around. (I mean really if 15 DR is a problem at the level people can make constructs you may need to revise those encounters.)
Cohorts do change the game yes, but a Shield Guardian cohort changes it no differently than an Elf Wizard Cohort.
One thing I didn't mention that I thought of from the game I ran, is healing the golem. For a clay golem, it's not too bad since you can just throw acid splash on it. But what if it dies? Sure, you've got this golem badass that can kick ass and take names, but once that golem hits 0 HP, he's dead and can't be resurrected. And suddenly, all that money that the player just threw into the golem is gone and you, as a GM, just took away something cool your player worked to get. That akin to sundering all of his magic items at once and that's not very fair for the player. So now, the GM has a wide spectrum to deal with. On the one hand, he has to make things challenging for the group. On the other hand, he doesn't want to make it so challenging that the player loses the massive investment of gold they put in that. It tough, I've done it. But I also didn't do it while taking care of a newborn and being a manager as Harris. So I don't fault my GM for not wanting to put up with that.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it that when I make a great character concept, or creative rules interpretation, some people say I am bending, distorting, and stretching the rules to get what I want; but when the game developers do the exact same thing to make interesting characters, monsters, and encounters for their adventure modules, no one bats an eye, or even congratulates them on their sheer awesomeness?
Take Angol Ceredir, for example. If I proposed the idea of an intelligent shield guardian amulet capable of controlling its respective golem, a GM or fellow board member might accuse me of trying to "game the system" in order to get a sentient golem, being cheesy, or even a game-breaking munchkin not deserving of a "proper" gaming group (or some similar negative classification).
But when the GM or a game developer does it, it's considered a positive: imaginative story telling, character building, or encounter building and what not.
Where does one draw the line? Why the double standard?
I generally draw the line at Chicken vs Egg.
Did you have an idea of a concept you wanted and find a way to execute it so that it works OR did you find a mechanic you think is powerful and are now seeking a way to rationalize it in the game.
If when we are discussing your Golem concept for approval, you balk when I say have a concern about keeping the power level realistic...
On the other hand if you come to me and say "This is the concept, what concerns would you have" and we can both sit down to discuss how your idea can fit and not cause issues...
Too often on here people shout they are entitled to whatever reading of the rules they can come up with. That is a problem. It is never bad for a player to try to make a concept work.
It is bad when the definition of "work" isn't "Something that makes the game fun for everyone at the table"
I'm still failing to see how players succeeding at encounters is a bad thing. And at level 15+, I would think +4 bludgeoning weapons would be relatively common.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still failing to see how players succeeding at encounters is a bad thing. And at level 15+, I would think +4 bludgeoning weapons would be relatively common.
At a glance, what you posted wouldn't bother me as your Wizard has 18 AC and 84 hit points at 15th level...not gonna survive long.
Having players succeed is great. Having a player make everyone into aquaman because of a grey reading of the rules kind of sucks.
Again, only skimming that doesn't seem all that great relative to a 15th level. But if you were coming to my table we would sit down in advance and work it out.
A shield guardian is far from an effective cohort. A well-built summoner's Eidolon is far more threatening then a Shield Guardian (Who really aren't that good at combat). Furthermore, I would much rather my player have a Shield Guardian cohort then virtually any core class of equivalent CR. Also, unless your encounters don't involve dealing damage, there is nothing to work around. (I mean really if 15 DR is a problem at the level people can make constructs you may need to revise those encounters.)
Cohorts do change the game yes, but a Shield Guardian cohort changes it no differently than an Elf Wizard Cohort.
Except it does. On average, the damage an NPC deals will be less than what a PC deals for the simple reason that you don't want to one-shot your players. Your players are going through countless encounters and burning their resources, while NPCs fight players with full resources. So of course, they will do less damage in a round than a PC dishes out, assuming you are keeping to Table 1-1 in the Bestiary 1. So, the golem can last against damage for a decent time. Of course, as a GM, you can up the damage of your minions (and chances are, you will). However, remember that in doing that, you are also upping the damage against the other players. So you have to handle this with a light touch so you don't kill you other players while trying to do damage. Since the players essentially have a fighter that is immune to a lot of damage effects.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still failing to see how players succeeding at encounters is a bad thing. And at level 15+, I would think +4 bludgeoning weapons would be relatively common.
Again, missing the point. There's nothing wrong with the players succeeding. As a GM, you want your players to beat the bad guy, grab the macguffin, and save the day(I'd hope, at least). But when every fight becomes a cakewalk because of your cohort (whether it's a golem or an outsider or what not), that's when it becomes an issue. And GMs at least want to challenge players when they run their games. Hell, there are players that want to be challenged. I know I'd feel bored as hell if we had some cohort just run through and win the day for us. As a player, I relish in the challenges that can be thrown at me.
Also, +4 bludgeon weapons cost 32,000 gp, and an NPC with PC levels at CR 15 has 17,000 gp to spend on a weapon. And if everyone minion that the GM threw at you had a +4 bludgeoning weapon, that's the sign of a GM that wants your golem dead for good. And to me, that's not good GMing. That's be like every enemy being rangers with FE half orc and having half orc bane to counter one player. That's poor GMing that I stopped doing back in high school.
Odraude: At high levels, I am very comfortable one shotting PCs, since at levels 12+ death is a speed bump rather than a campaign ender. If a shield guardian would last a decent time against the CR 15+ encounters you are using, you may need to redesign those encounters to be more in line with challenge rating 15. I think your problem is that you seem unwilling to kill PCs, which at high levels is a matter of course.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having a player make everyone into aquaman because of a grey reading of the rules kind of sucks.
I don't know why everyone rags on Aquaman.
At high levels, I am very comfortable one shotting PCs, since at levels 12+ death is a speed bump rather than a campaign ender. If a shield guardian would last a decent time against the CR 15+ encounters you are using, you may need to redesign those encounters to be more in line with challenge rating 15. I think your problem is that you seem unwilling to kill PCs, which at high levels is a matter of course.
I don't mind killing PCs. I just don't want to one shot the PC and have the player sit at the table for the rest of the encounter while everyone has fun, waiting to be resurrected. Speed bump or not, it's still boring to sit there waiting to be rezzed, or waiting for a Breath of Life, which may be pointless since apparently, all the enemies one shot everyone now.
|
|
Having a player make everyone into aquaman because of a grey reading of the rules kind of sucks.I don't know why everyone rags on Aquaman.
Who is going to save the world from a giant meteor while Superman is vacuuming?
Having players succeed is great. Having a player make everyone into Aquaman because of a grey reading of the rules kind of sucks.
I don't see anything about the example character that turns the other players into Aquaman, nor do I see anything in any of my posts here that suggests that, that phenomenon is even part of this discussion. I'm willing to bet it is little more than a smoke screen put forth by people who have problems with my posting history. They would rather throw out straw man tangent arguments then face the real issue that I've proposed in the OP.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
And at level 15+, I would think +4 bludgeoning weapons would be relatively common.
You might think that, but you would be incorrect.
Also, +4 bludgeon weapons cost 32,000 gp, and an NPC with PC levels at CR 15 has 17,000 gp to spend on a weapon. And if everyone minion that the GM threw at you had a +4 bludgeoning weapon, that's the sign of a GM that wants your golem dead for good.
Odraude is correct: The treasure per encounter table shows that even on the Fast XP progession, a +4 weapon would be more than the entire treasure allowance for an encounter at 15th level. Obviously, 'relatively common' doesn't need to mean 'in every encounter', but having it appear at all would severely skew the amount and type of treasure you see.
It's really easy to assume "at high levels any type of countermeasure must be available and powerful", but that isn't so.
Which leads us to the biggest difference between Monsters/GMs and PCs/Players: When a weird monster appears or the GM messes with the rules, it appears once or handful of times. It cannot permanently break the game. Worst case, the GM learns 'I better not do that again.' When a weird PC is made or a Player uses a weird rule, it happens CONSTANTLY, in ways the game was not necessarily built to accommodate. Worst case, someone has to have a notfun discussion about rolling a different, more normal character and retconning the old one out.
Just as a for instance, Regeneration and Fast Healing are relatively minor boons on a monster: the PCs are GOING to kill it, but it might take an extra round or two. Typically, Fast Healing 2 nets a monster less health than a cure light wounds spell would have. But on a PC, it means never needing between-combat healing ever again, and showing up to each fight fully charged.
The rules WORK the same for Monsters and PCs. That doesn't mean they BEHAVE the same. Does that make sense?
|
|
Having players succeed is great. Having a player make everyone into Aquaman because of a grey reading of the rules kind of sucks.I don't see anything about the example character that turns the other players into Aquaman, nor do I see anything in any of my posts here that suggests that, that phenomenon is even part of this discussion. I'm willing to be it is little more than a smoke screen put forth by people who have problems with my posting history. They would rather throw out straw man tangent arguments then face the real issue that I've proposed in the OP.
Did you miss the part where I said your 18 ac 84 hit point 15th level character doesn't worry me much?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having players succeed is great. Having a player make everyone into Aquaman because of a grey reading of the rules kind of sucks.I don't see anything about the example character that turns the other players into Aquaman, nor do I see anything in any of my posts here that suggests that, that phenomenon is even part of this discussion. I'm willing to be it is little more than a smoke screen put forth by people who have problems with my posting history. They would rather throw out straw man tangent arguments then face the real issue that I've proposed in the OP.
My point is to try to get you to see this through the eyes of the GM, since you have this inability to empathize with anyone that doesn't agree with you. But you seem content to just label anyone that disagrees with you as using strawmen arguments, which leads me to wonder why you'd even make this thread if you're not even going to consider other peoples' point of views.
Unless you were hoping for everyone to agree with you and pat you on the back.
Why is it that when I make a great character concept, or creative rules interpretation, some people say I am bending, distorting, and stretching the rules to get what I want; but when the game developers do the exact same thing to make interesting characters, monsters, and encounters for their adventure modules, no one bats an eye, or even congratulates them on their sheer awesomeness?
Take Angol Ceredir, for example. If I proposed the idea of an intelligent shield guardian amulet capable of controlling its respective golem, a GM or fellow board member might accuse me of trying to "game the system" in order to get a sentient golem, being cheesy, or even a game-breaking munchkin not deserving of a "proper" gaming group (or some similar negative classification).
But when the GM or a game developer does it, it's considered a positive: imaginative story telling, character building, or encounter building and what not.
Where does one draw the line? Why the double standard?
The answe to the Op is pretty simple.
It comes down to what your effect on the game is.
If you're creating something that is more powerful than a roughly average (I repeat AVERAGE) player character would have, then youre gaming the system.
If its equal to or less powerful than what everyone else has then its something thats inventive.
if you want to try something unusual and imaginitive in a game, the way to get a Gm to accept it is to make it obviously less powerful that what other people have. If its more powerful, than frankly, yes, you're likely being a munchkin.
Some people moght start saying "but you're putting yourself at a disadvanage because its less powerful" No, you're not. You're actually putting yourself at an advantage.
Roleplaying games are about having fun playing a character you find interesting in a story you find interesting. Combat effectiveness can br important but is far from the whole story.
Speak to most experienced gamers (by which i mean people that have been gaming for 20+years) and they'll tell you the most fun characters to play are not the strongest ones.
And at level 15+, I would think +4 bludgeoning weapons would be relatively common.You might think that, but you would be incorrect.
Also, +4 bludgeon weapons cost 32,000 gp, and an NPC with PC levels at CR 15 has 17,000 gp to spend on a weapon. And if everyone minion that the GM threw at you had a +4 bludgeoning weapon, that's the sign of a GM that wants your golem dead for good.Odraude is correct: The treasure per encounter table shows that even on the Fast XP progession, a +4 weapon would be more than the entire treasure allowance for an encounter at 15th level. Obviously, 'relatively common' doesn't need to mean 'in every encounter', but having it appear at all would severely skew the amount and type of treasure you see.
It's really easy to assume "at high levels any type of countermeasure must be available and powerful", but that isn't so.
Which leads us to the biggest difference between Monsters/GMs and PCs/Players: When a weird monster appears or the GM messes with the rules, it appears once or handful of times. It cannot permanently break the game. Worst case, the GM learns 'I better not do that again.' When a weird PC is made or a Player uses a weird rule, it happens CONSTANTLY, in ways the game was not necessarily built to accommodate. Worst case, someone has to have a notfun discussion about rolling a different, more normal character and retconning the old one out.
Just as a for instance, Regeneration and Fast Healing are relatively minor boons on a monster: the PCs are GOING to kill it, but it might take an extra round or two. Typically, Fast Healing 2 nets a monster less health than a cure light wounds spell would have. But on a PC, it means never needing between-combat healing ever again, and showing up to each fight fully charged.
The rules WORK the same for Monsters and PCs. That doesn't mean they BEHAVE the same. Does...
Best argument I've seen yet.
And, yes, I was wrong about the magical weapons.
Did you miss the part where I said your 18 ac 84 hit point 15th level character doesn't worry me much?Having players succeed is great. Having a player make everyone into Aquaman because of a grey reading of the rules kind of sucks.I don't see anything about the example character that turns the other players into Aquaman, nor do I see anything in any of my posts here that suggests that, that phenomenon is even part of this discussion. I'm willing to be it is little more than a smoke screen put forth by people who have problems with my posting history. They would rather throw out straw man tangent arguments then face the real issue that I've proposed in the OP.
I did not. I was addressing other posters who seem to think that a golem breaks the game.
Why is it that when I make a great character concept, or creative rules interpretation, some people say I am bending, distorting, and stretching the rules to get what I want; but when the game developers do the exact same thing to make interesting characters, monsters, and encounters for their adventure modules, no one bats an eye, or even congratulates them on their sheer awesomeness?
Take Angol Ceredir, for example. If I proposed the idea of an intelligent shield guardian amulet capable of controlling its respective golem, a GM or fellow board member might accuse me of trying to "game the system" in order to get a sentient golem, being cheesy, or even a game-breaking munchkin not deserving of a "proper" gaming group (or some similar negative classification).
But when the GM or a game developer does it, it's considered a positive: imaginative story telling, character building, or encounter building and what not.
Where does one draw the line? Why the double standard?
The answe to the Op is pretty simple.
It comes down to what your effect on the game is.
If you're creating something that is more powerful than a roughly average (I repeat AVERAGE) player character would have, then youre gaming the system.
If its equal to or less powerful than what everyone else has then its something thats inventive.
if you want to try something unusual and imaginitive in a game, the way to get a Gm to accept it is to make it obviously less powerful that what other people have. If its more powerful, than frankly, yes, you're likely being a munchkin.
Some people moght start saying "but you're putting yourself at a disadvanage because its less powerful" No, you're not. You're actually putting yourself at an advantage.
Roleplaying games are about having fun playing a character you find interesting in a story you find interesting. Combat effectiveness can br important but is far...
This is exactly the attitude that I'm railing against. If you are remotely different you have to make it less powerful or face the ban hammer? That to me is the definition of bad/lazy GMing.
I agree with those who say you don't want to put too much work on a GM with a crazy idea, but a GM should expect to have to make some rulings, to adapt to his players somewhat.
What Tigger proposes is exactly the kind of crappy "no acceptance" attitude that I'm talking about. Why on earth can't players have characters that are both interesting AND powerful?
If a player makes a character that is slightly more powerful than the others, and the others make a big deal about it, then I propose that they are entitled crybabies--just as bad as a GM who knee-jerk bands good ideas without really listening to/considering them.
There is a matter of degree, however. If a player makes a character who is far and above the others, and is actively ruining the fun of everyone else with his showboating, then a talk is most definitely in order--possibly even a move to another group with a more similar play style.
***
But that's all tangential to the real discussion: Where does one draw the line between creative character building and bending the rules?
I think to sum up my entire point is, if you want to play an oddball character, you need to sit down with your GM and have a conversation with them about how to make it work. You can't just walk into the room on the first session and expect the GM to okay everything because it's in the book. The GM puts a lot of time and effort into running the game and making sure everyone at the table has fun, so you have to put a bit of time and effort into working with the GM and even giving them tip on how to handle your different idea. In that way, you can both come to an agreement and have fun without any hard feelings, invading one's comfort zone, or forcing the GM to spend more time on the game than they can spare.
The GM/PC relationship should be symbiotic and positive and if you can't see the POV of either the GM or PC, then you really need to sit down and rethink things.
I think to sum up my entire point is, if you want to play an oddball character, you need to sit down with your GM and have a conversation with them about how to make it work. You can't just walk into the room on the first session and expect the GM to okay everything because it's in the book.
Of course not. What I'm arguing against, is the GM who dismisses the idea out of hand.
The GM puts a lot of time and effort into running the game and making sure everyone at the table has fun, so you have to put a bit of time and effort into working with the GM and even giving them tip on how to handle your different idea. In that way, you can both come to an agreement and have fun without any hard feelings, invading one's comfort zone, or forcing the GM to spend more time on the game than they can spare.
Ideally, this is how it works out. However, some GMs--as evidenced in this very thread--hear the words "golem" and "PC" in the same sentence, and the idea is already shut down. All because they are too lazy and/or inexperienced to handle something so mundane as another melee brute.
The GM/PC relationship should be symbiotic and positive and if you can't see the POV of either the GM or PC, then you really need to sit down and rethink things.
I agree.
And the issue is you assume laziness or inexperience, when it could just honestly be a time issue. My current GM is neither lazy nor inexperienced. He's a great GM that has run some of the best games I've ever played in. It's even involved crazy stuff, like cyborg mummies and sphinx death trains.
However, he also has a newborn child, is a first time father, and he does a lot of crazy hours at Harris Corp. and the guy just does not have the time to put in to deal with monsters from the Bestiary as cohorts. That's why, if I came up to him and asked for a golem cohort and he said no, I'd honestly understand it. The man has a lot on his plate and the last thing I want to do is to make GMing feel like a chore. And I don't mind that. I have a myriad of other character ideas that are less Gm intensive I can pull from.
So it's neither laziness nor inexperience for some GMs. Some GMs simply just do not have the time and energy, even with convincing and compromising, and we as players just have to simply accept that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think a GM should dismiss any idea out of hand if it comes from a player they are willing to have at their table.
Because presumably if you are willing to invest hours and hours in setting up a game for this person, you think they have interesting things to bring to the table.
That being said, some people think they have interesting ideas and...don't.
If a player in one of my games brought me what you brought me, I would sit down and do all the math and checks and talk to them about what they envision, making sure they understand that if the golem dies or becomes obsolete, that gold is gone and those were the choices they made.
There is a big difference between messageboard discussion of hypothetical ideas with strangers and conversations with people who I know and trust.
If what you proposed was brought to me, I would probably agree to it. And it would probably be dead in a session or two based on how we play, as having 84 hit points at 15th level isn't that great and your golem is about on par with an Iron Golem...CR 13...
If anything I would advise against your concept for weakness over the long haul rather than because of power issues.
And the issue is you assume laziness or inexperience, when it could just honestly be a time issue. My current GM is neither lazy nor inexperienced. He's a great GM that has run some of the best games I've ever played in. It's even involved crazy stuff, like cyborg mummies and sphinx death trains.
However, he also has a newborn child, is a first time father, and he does a lot of crazy hours at Harris Corp. and the guy just does not have the time to put in to deal with monsters from the Bestiary as cohorts. That's why, if I came up to him and asked for a golem cohort and he said no, I'd honestly understand it. The man has a lot on his plate and the last thing I want to do is to make GMing feel like a chore. And I don't mind that. I have a myriad of other character ideas that are less Gm intensive I can pull from.
So it's neither laziness nor inexperience for some GMs. Some GMs simply just do not have the time and energy, even with convincing and compromising, and we as players just have to simply accept that.
Right. It isn't a matter of laziness or no imagination for many; not everyone plays or thinks the same way, and not everyone is fanatical (used in a good way, I assure you!) about making builds for various characters.
But that's all tangential to the real discussion: Where does one draw the line between creative character building and bending the rules?
I think that line tends to come with entrants in a lot of the "creative" character building threads and 'look I can do a zillion points of damage tee hee' threads; they turn off the average GM and not because they are lazy or unimaginative, but rather because the average GM tends to shy violently away from some of the grey areas presented. It may be all above board, but it can look bad.
To drift back to the original question, there is not a double standard, but rather (as suggested upthread) a different standard. The designers or GM are making changes and alterations to add an element of surprise to the game or a one-shot interesting idea to be played against. Many of the interesting character ideas are (from what I've seen) ways to build the biggest and the baddest game smasher you can. And while that can be fun for a bit, not everyone finds that style fun to play with as a player or against as a GM.
At high levels, I am very comfortable one shotting PCs, since at levels 12+ death is a speed bump rather than a campaign ender. If a shield guardian would last a decent time against the CR 15+ encounters you are using, you may need to redesign those encounters to be more in line with challenge rating 15. I think your problem is that you seem unwilling to kill PCs, which at high levels is a matter of course.I don't mind killing PCs. I just don't want to one shot the PC and have the player sit at the table for the rest of the encounter while everyone has fun, waiting to be resurrected. Speed bump or not, it's still boring to sit there waiting to be rezzed, or waiting for a Breath of Life, which may be pointless since apparently, all the enemies one shot everyone now.
This is why at the highest levels of play, using Wish/Miracle to return allies to life become extremely useful. Also, just because I'm comfortable with one shotting pcs at level 12+ does not mean every single attack is fatal. It just means that at this level many enemies can hit the PCs with Save or Dies and that a full attack is likely to deal damage greater than a PCs hit points if they haven't invested enough into defense to avoid catching the attacks with their teeth. At even higher levels of play, 15-17~ or so, enemies start to become capable of just plain killing a PC outright if they haven't prepared the appropriate defenses. That's the nature of high level play.
Edit: knightnday; The thing is... a sentient golem cohort is not a campaign smasher. It is in fact quite sub-par.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ideally, this is how it works out. However, some GMs--as evidenced in this very thread--hear the words "golem" and "PC" in the same sentence, and the idea is already shut down. All because they are too lazy and/or inexperienced to handle something so mundane as another melee brute.
Lazy?!
A GM has spent his free time designing a world, fleshing out NPCs, balancing encounters and telling a story
he decides he doesn't want to rebalance all his encounters around a critter with near spell immunity, 10 points of always on DR, no need to heal between encounters etc. etc. so he rejects the idea.
That makes him lazy?!
The laziest of GMs has 10x as much work to do as a player. Show some respect.
- Torger
Well, forst of all, I dodnt perosnally insult you, ravingdork, so the person insult you threw back is out of order, and I dont appreciate it.
Secondly, to definte it as bad lazy gming is a complete misunderstanding of the situation .
Thirdly, I did not say no acceptance. That is a complete misrepresentation of the discussion . iI actually said it was perfectly acceptable provided it was not more powerful than other characters.
Fourthly, the fact you do not understand the problems that an overpowered character provides to OTHER peoples enjoyment speaks volumes
Fifthly : you've never played in any of my games, so how do you know if I'm a lazy or poor GM.
Sixthly : You came on here asking for advice, and when people give it you not only reject it, you're incredibly rude to people trying to help you out. If you do not see whats wrong woth that behavoir, that also speaks volumes.
Finally, GOOD GMing is about ensuring that EVERYBODY around the table enjoys the game. Not just one player .
And if you think that is a job for someone who is lazy, then you've certainly no idea about how difficult a task that can be over a long campaign, in addition to the fact you've rather missed the point.
I'm still failing to see how players succeeding at encounters is a bad thing. And at level 15+, I would think +4 bludgeoning weapons would be relatively common.
Errr, no. No, they aren't. NPC's are equipped with NPC wealth. Weapons in the price range of +4 weapons (32.000 gp) are what boss opponents for entire late-game AP modules have. Normally they actually rather have +2 weapons with some flavorful but pretty useless special abilites, but that's another topic.
Player wants a golem cohort. I'd likely try to find something similar to an animal companion, but starting as a construct. As the character levels, the golem gets more powers.
This would be an awesome archetype for the summoner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the issue is you assume laziness or inexperience, when it could just honestly be a time issue. My current GM is neither lazy nor inexperienced. He's a great GM that has run some of the best games I've ever played in. It's even involved crazy stuff, like cyborg mummies and sphinx death trains.
However, he also has a newborn child, is a first time father, and he does a lot of crazy hours at Harris Corp. and the guy just does not have the time to put in to deal with monsters from the Bestiary as cohorts. That's why, if I came up to him and asked for a golem cohort and he said no, I'd honestly understand it. The man has a lot on his plate and the last thing I want to do is to make GMing feel like a chore. And I don't mind that. I have a myriad of other character ideas that are less Gm intensive I can pull from.
So it's neither laziness nor inexperience for some GMs. Some GMs simply just do not have the time and energy, even with convincing and compromising, and we as players just have to simply accept that.
Right. It isn't a matter of laziness or no imagination for many; not everyone plays or thinks the same way, and not everyone is fanatical (used in a good way, I assure you!) about making builds for various characters.
But that's all tangential to the real discussion: Where does one draw the line between creative character building and bending the rules?I think that line tends to come with entrants in a lot of the "creative" character building threads and 'look I can do a zillion points of damage tee hee' threads; they turn off the average GM and not because they are lazy or unimaginative, but rather because the average GM tends to shy violently away from some of the grey areas presented. It may be all above board, but it can look bad.
To drift back to the original question, there is not a double standard, but rather (as suggested upthread) a different standard. The designers or GM are making changes and alterations to add an...
This makes a lot of sense to me.
Ideally, this is how it works out. However, some GMs--as evidenced in this very thread--hear the words "golem" and "PC" in the same sentence, and the idea is already shut down. All because they are too lazy and/or inexperienced to handle something so mundane as another melee brute.Lazy?!
A GM has spent his free time designing a world, fleshing out NPCs, balancing encounters and telling a story
he decides he doesn't want to rebalance all his encounters around a critter with near spell immunity, 10 points of always on DR, no need to heal between encounters etc. etc. so he rejects the idea.
That makes him lazy?!
The laziest of GMs has 10x as much work to do as a player. Show some respect.
- Torger
I have the utmost respect for GMs who actually DO, do the work and make the game better.
And there is absolutely no reason why a GM should need to redesign encounters to account for a shield guardian (much less one that requires significant investment). Feeling a need to do so strikes me as a sign of an iinsecuyre control freak. Why should their suddenly be less spellcasters (or more spellcasters with less SR-spells) just because their is a golem present? Unless it is logicial to do so (such as an enemy spellcaster knowing he will be facing a golem), then it is nothing less than cheating his players.
Well, forst of all, I dodnt perosnally insult you, ravingdork, so the person insult you threw back is out of order, and I dont appreciate it.
Secondly, to definte it as bad lazy gming is a complete misunderstanding of the situation .
Thirdly, I did not say no acceptance. That is a complete misrepresentation of the discussion . iI actually said it was perfectly acceptable provided it was not more powerful than other characters.
Fourthly, the fact you do not understand the problems that an overpowered character provides to OTHER peoples enjoyment speaks volumes
Fifthly : you've never played in any of my games, so how do you know if I'm a lazy or poor GM.
Sixthly : You came on here asking for advice, and when people give it you not only reject it, you're incredibly rude to people trying to help you out. If you do not see whats wrong woth that behavoir, that also speaks volumes.
Finally, GOOD GMing is about ensuring that EVERYBODY around the table enjoys the game. Not just one player .
And if you think that is a job for someone who is lazy, then you've certainly no idea about how difficult a task that can be over a long campaign, in addition to the fact you've rather missed the point.
I must apologize, it was never my intent to insult you or to make you feel personally targeted.
I am, however condemning the behavior carried out in your proposed examples.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that is a VASTLY misleading oversimplification and generally negative assumption. There is no evidence anywhere showing that players create character concepts "just for their own gratification." I can't speak for everyone else (since that may well be the way you think), but I rarely think that way when I make a character. I'm thinking less about how much fun I will have with a given character concept and more about how much fun my group and I will have with the concept--how much it enhances and enables the game for all of us.
But not, I must point out, when you are making a character this far off base. In fact the rest of my post demonstrated why your example character WAS a very selfish project, because it practically demanded the adventure be re-written to include it while not really offering that much to the rest of the party that your average tank couldn't provide.
Reading this thread makes me realize that players in general (and me in particular) suffer from extremely negative preconceptions. Just because a player presents an interesting, mechanically unusual character concept to his GM, suddenly it's an automatic red flag for the GM. Why?
Because it's extra work for the GM, for a start, as I have explained.
Because rules changes can have unforeseen consequences that are HIS responsibility, and there may be consequences he has thought of that you have not.Because if your character breaks the rules, why can't everyone else's?
If the player tried to sneak it by the GM that would definitely be a cause for concern, but why is everyone's first instinct one of distrust? Too many PEOPLE dismiss great ideas out of hand due to these negative distrusting preconceptions.
The game has to have rules to be a viable game. When you change the rules you change the game, and that's a big deal. Without the rules you do not HAVE a playable game, so part of the social contract is this: play by the rules.
Now if you decided with the rest of your group that you all WANT to play a game where the rules are out of the window and you can all make whacky characters, that's great, but if it's just YOU that wants to play different, that's a whole different pot of seafood.
Doesn't this game require trust to work? How does this general attitude not degrade the game?
Yes, and I trust that my players know the rules and will respect them when coming up with character concepts. A player that does not has already broken that trust if he's trying to get me to agree to his new idea five minutes before the game starts.
Why does the GM need to change encounters to account for the golem (or any other asset for that matter) at all? Unless the enemy knew in advance that the golem/other asset was going to be part of the equation, why would the encounter be any different?
Because the encounter is meant to be challenging, and things like constructs are immune to many conditions that "normal" characters are not. You should appreciate this - unless, of course, your intention is to have a character that can cakewalk the adventure, in which case you've broken that trust you said was so important a second time.
This pretty much sums it up:
Suddenly you have one player who has the ability to win every combat encounter without needing help. If not countered, you have players potentially getting bored with the combat or feeling useless
I'm still failing to see how players succeeding at encounters is a bad thing.
It's the difference between a challenge and a cakewalk.
Challenge = good, cakewalk = bad.What I'm arguing against, is the GM who dismisses the idea out of hand.
How can you tell if it's dismissed out of hand? And if it is, how can you tell it's not deserved from the GM's point of view?
When a player presents me an idea that is outside the norm, I usually tell them that I'm not sure it'll work, but I will think about it - and they should prepare a conventional character in case it's not viable. If we are starting a game there and then, the answer is "no" there and then because we do not have time for me to do an in depth analysis of the impact of the new character. If we are not starting a game there and then I look at the implications and decide whether or not it's worth the work to please one player. Sometimes, though, I can tell straight out how much work putting in a new concept is going to be, and alarm bells ring. In that case it's "No, and I mean no," from the start.
One other point: The DM has knowledge you don't, and what you think is a great idea the GM may realise is a really dumb idea, but not be able to tell you why - and that reason could be because your awesome concept cannot, for some reason, survive the first encounter, for example.
Dabbler, did it ever occur to you that construct servers are so terribly resource intensive BECAUSE of their immunities and such? I propose to you that the system is already inherently balanced, and the GM need not do any more extra modifications or preparations for his games involving a golem crafter than he would for any other character or group.
The very fact that half the contributors in this thread tell me that the example character is overpowered and the other half tells me it is weak tells me that it is, in fact, likely balanced.
How can you tell if it's dismissed out of hand? And if it is, how can you tell it's not deserved from the GM's point of view?
If the GM has not even bothered to listen to the full proposal prior to his judgement call and not adequately explained his reason for turning the idea (whatever it may be) down, then he has "dismissed it out of hand." This is true even if his reasoning is sound and logical, such as the proposed "time constraints" argument I've oft heard cited. Logical or not, not listening to the proposal and not clearly communicating the reasoning behind the decision is going to, as knightnday put it, "going to look bad" in the eyes of the player.
In which case Ravingdork, I invite you to give me specific examples where having a single player who had a character significantly more powerful than other player characters around the table ADDED to the groups enjoyment of the game.
I've been running games for over thirty years, and have seen very few cases where this is true, and a vast many more where it actually destroyed the game.
You say you are condeming the behavoir ; clearly you have been turned down in the past by GMs and see this as arbitrary. However , I can assure you it is, in a well run game, frequently not
. In fact , in a well run game what the Gm has primarily in mind is the enjoyment of his players. However, if a single player wants to introduce a character which will ruin the game for other players, he/she can and indeed should refuse to allow them to do so - or rather, ideally try to work with the player to make the concept more in line with the enjoyment of the group, if possible. But if the concept is too destructive, then darn right they should say no.
Are you forwarding the view you should be allowed to play a character at the expense of another persons enjoyment ? If so, that, , frankly, is selfish and the sort of attitude that no player or gm would want in thier group...., and I make no apologies for that viewpoint.
If on the other hand you feel that it has been rejected without consideration, that is a different matter. However, as a general rule of thumb , power level is usually the main issue, and is a very destructive element in any game. It is neither lazy nor bad Gming to disallow a concept if you feel, as a Gm, that it will wreck your game.
I would if I thought it had any bearing on the thread.
Keeping balance is an entirely different issue than what I am trying to describe in the OP (though I do admit that some "creative ideas" can lead to balance issues).
I'm trying to start a discussion on "Why do GMs so often seem to dislike players using the much vaunted 'rule of cool?'" while others in the thread seem intent on debating "Why is the player trying to break the game?"
I never said the player was trying to break the game. I never even brought balance into it. Other posters did.
I would if I thought it had any bearing on the thread.
Keeping balance is an entirely different issue than what I am trying to describe in the OP (though I do admit that some "creative ideas" can lead to balance issues).
I'm trying to start a discussion on "Why do GMs so often seem to dislike players using the much vaunted 'rule of cool?'" while others in the thread seem intent on debating "Why is the player trying to break the game?"
I never brought balance into it. Other posters did.
Indeed you did not. i linked the two, in rerence to your original question, because there IS a link in getting an unusual concept accepted.
Once again, i invite you to go back and read my intitial post properly. i have no problems with an unusual concept in a game. What I said was that the issue was that IF the unusual concept was overpowered THEN it was liekly to get rejected. Not that it would be rejected because it was different.
I'm trying to start a discussion on "Why do GMs so often seem to dislike players using the much vaunted 'rule of cool?'" while others in the thread seem intent on debating "Why is the player trying to break the game?"
I'd say, RD, that GMs who game with players that share your... unique way of interpreting the rules... are the ones who are less trusting when it comes to "clever" character designs.
Those who have a different relationship with their players are far less suspicious (but then again, most of them, like Ciretose, sit down and talk out the individual characters with each player beforehand, so these situations probably rarely, if ever come up in any case).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would if I thought it had any bearing on the thread.
Keeping balance is an entirely different issue than what I am trying to describe in the OP (though I do admit that some "creative ideas" can lead to balance issues).
I'm trying to start a discussion on "Why do GMs so often seem to dislike players using the much vaunted 'rule of cool?'" while others in the thread seem intent on debating "Why is the player trying to break the game?"
I never said the player was trying to break the game. I never even brought balance into it. Other posters did.
Because to the GM, rule of cool ideas ultimately make them ask "Is this balanced?" Of course you wouldn't care, because you're the player. But the GM has to ask themselves that question for every character concept that runs by them.
So while it might not be a question of balance to you, ultimately, it is to the GM.
And having run this exact character, yes it is balanced, but it does require the GM to change the way they do encounters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would if I thought it had any bearing on the thread.With the best will in the world, thats the point youre missing. It is entirely relevant,
Keeping balance is an entirely different issue than what I am trying to describe in the OP (though I do admit that some "creative ideas" can lead to balance issues).
I'm trying to start a discussion on "Why do GMs so often seem to dislike players using the much vaunted 'rule of cool?'" while others in the thread seem intent on debating "Why is the player trying to break the game?"
I never said the player was trying to break the game. I never even brought balance into it. Other posters did.
Because to the GM, rule of cool ideas ultimately make them ask "Is this balanced?" Of course you wouldn't care, because you're the player. But the GM has to ask themselves that question for every character concept that runs by them.
So while it might not be a question of balance to you, ultimately, it is to the GM.
And having run this exact character, yes it is balanced, but it does require the GM to change the way they do encounters.
This is entirely the point.
A GM is frequently pleased to see an unusual concept ; but their ultimate concern is "does it fit? Is it balanced? "
If the answer is yes, no reason it shouldnt be allowed. If the answer is no, then EVERY reason it shouldnt be allowed.
In fact. In my view, an "ordinary" concept should be disallowed if its overpowered.
How many minions are going to be able to penetrate the Invulnerable Rager's DR?
L2 - DR/1
L4 - DR/2L6 - DR/3
L8 - DR/4
L10 - DR/5
L12 - DR/6
L14 - DR/7
L16 - DR/8
L18 - DR/9
L20 - DR/10
...pretty much all of them. It's better than regular Barbarian DR, but I'm pretty sure any enemy wielding a heavy mace can manage to reliably deal more than 2 points of damage in a round (if we're talking about encounters for a 4th level party).
And as far as a 20th level party... I mean, is there even anything IN the bestiary that's CR 11 or greater that doesn't do more than 10 damage in a single swipe?
For nearly a year now everyone on this forum has had access to nearly every Pathfinder character I have ever created. Many of them do use creative ideas and interpretations of the rules to create an interesting concept--many of which would serve as good examples in lieu of Angol above.
I challenge any one person to find three that outright break the game and its rules at their respective character level and to clearly explain why they think it does so.
I really believe it's just a bunch of anti-RD hype stemming from the ideas that I sometimes propose.
I'd say, RD, that GMs who game with players that share your... unique way of interpreting the rules... are the ones who are less trusting when it comes to "clever" character designs.
Those who have a different relationship with their players are far less suspicious (but then again, most of them, like Ciretose, sit down and talk out the individual characters with each player beforehand, so these situations probably rarely, if ever come up in any case).
What's so unique about the way that I interpret the rules? Everyone has their own interpretations of various areas of the rules. What makes me stand out among the throng?
I would if I thought it had any bearing on the thread.
Keeping balance is an entirely different issue than what I am trying to describe in the OP (though I do admit that some "creative ideas" can lead to balance issues).
I'm trying to start a discussion on "Why do GMs so often seem to dislike players using the much vaunted 'rule of cool?'" while others in the thread seem intent on debating "Why is the player trying to break the game?"
I never said the player was trying to break the game. I never even brought balance into it. Other posters did.
Because to the GM, rule of cool ideas ultimately make them ask "Is this balanced?" Of course you wouldn't care, because you're the player. But the GM has to ask themselves that question for every character concept that runs by them.
So while it might not be a question of balance to you, ultimately, it is to the GM.
And having run this exact character, yes it is balanced, but it does require the GM to change the way they do encounters.
This is entirely the point.
A GM is frequently pleased to see an unusual concept ; but their ultimate concern is "does it fit? Is it balanced? "
If the answer is yes, no reason it shouldnt be allowed. If the answer is no, then EVERY reason it shouldnt be allowed.
It is also a point that I very much agree with--provided the GM helps to find an alternative way to reach the player's character concept, or to at least clearly communicate his reasoning for why it is being rejected.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will always hear my players' ideas out (Possibly foolish. I'm a new GM.). However, you can usually tell why the player wants it. In your example, I'd start talking about how the Oread has stone-based abilities and could be easily reflavored into a rock-based construct, but since you're still intelligent you're still affected by X, Y, and Z statuses. If the player thought that reasonable and seemed happy with the roleplaying opportunity, we're golden. If the player tells me that no, that won't work because he really wants to play a character who is immune to X, Y, and Z, then we have a problem. Flavor can be retooled harmlessly, but I'm not usually interested in making exceptions to the system for mechanical reasons.
It is also a point that I very much agree with--provided the GM helps to find an alternative way to reach the player's character concept, or to at least clearly communicate his reasoning for why it is being rejected.I would if I thought it had any bearing on the thread.
Keeping balance is an entirely different issue than what I am trying to describe in the OP (though I do admit that some "creative ideas" can lead to balance issues).
I'm trying to start a discussion on "Why do GMs so often seem to dislike players using the much vaunted 'rule of cool?'" while others in the thread seem intent on debating "Why is the player trying to break the game?"
I never said the player was trying to break the game. I never even brought balance into it. Other posters did.
Because to the GM, rule of cool ideas ultimately make them ask "Is this balanced?" Of course you wouldn't care, because you're the player. But the GM has to ask themselves that question for every character concept that runs by them.
So while it might not be a question of balance to you, ultimately, it is to the GM.
And having run this exact character, yes it is balanced, but it does require the GM to change the way they do encounters.
This is entirely the point.
A GM is frequently pleased to see an unusual concept ; but their ultimate concern is "does it fit? Is it balanced? "
If the answer is yes, no reason it shouldnt be allowed. If the answer is no, then EVERY reason it shouldnt be allowed.
Precisely.
So, not bad GMing or lazy at all, is it ? (Wry smile)
As an example , I have a player playing an unusual character concept in my Runelords game -a shapeshifter with claw attacks and partial animal powers...however, because we've used the crunch from the Monk class (claws= flurry, gliding vanes = monks fall ability etc) it works very well and is fine *because its balanced. *
I will always hear my players' ideas out (Possibly foolish. I'm a new GM.). However, you can usually tell why the player wants it. In your example, I'd start talking about how the Oread has stone-based abilities and could be easily reflavored into a rock-based construct, but since you're still intelligent you're still affected by X, Y, and Z statuses. If the player thought that reasonable and seemed happy with the roleplaying opportunity, we're golden. If the player tells me that no, that won't work because he really wants to play a character who is immune to X, Y, and Z, then we have a problem. Flavor can be retooled harmlessly, but I'm not usually interested in making exceptions to the system for mechanical reasons.
You would sooner give me a classed NPC that doesn't use up a feat or resources over a simple modified golem?
That seems like a much more powerful option to me.
As a GM the heaviest responsibility of making good, enjoyable adventures is on me. I always have to adjust things, often on the fly. I do not have any personal ties to the NPC's I create, and nerfing something because it's too powerful isn't an issue. I do it on a regular basis, and that's how I can keep encounters somewhat challenging - some a walkover, some deadly.
However, if a player shows up with a character that is much much more powerful, or in some other way completely breaks the conventions that I've used to build the adventure, I have to spend hours reworking everything - because nerfing a PC is being a mean GM. And if the character is much much more powerful than the other party members, I have to specifically tailor the encounters to deal with that additional power without risking killing off the other characters in an encounter that should be a walkover.
Due to this, we've included "no munchkinism" in our table rules. It is helped I guess by that I'm not that hard on the RAW side of things when DMing, and if someone has a concept that they want to make, and have it be useful, we usually work it out together, even if it includes homebrew or similar.
So yeah, there would be no Golem with Amulet cohorts in our games. If someone wanted a construct cohort, we'd probably homebrew something or use some construct from another developer.
I will always hear my players' ideas out (Possibly foolish. I'm a new GM.). However, you can usually tell why the player wants it. In your example, I'd start talking about how the Oread has stone-based abilities and could be easily reflavored into a rock-based construct, but since you're still intelligent you're still affected by X, Y, and Z statuses. If the player thought that reasonable and seemed happy with the roleplaying opportunity, we're golden. If the player tells me that no, that won't work because he really wants to play a character who is immune to X, Y, and Z, then we have a problem. Flavor can be retooled harmlessly, but I'm not usually interested in making exceptions to the system for mechanical reasons.You would sooner give me a classed NPC that doesn't use up a feat or resources over a simple modified golem?
That seems like a much more powerful option to me.
Each GM would be different, but its going to depend on their understanding of the rules and how easily the can understand the power and ability of the golem (we're touching on balance again)... If they feel they understand and can deal sith the NPC balance better, I can see -theoretically- why they would go that route.
Personally, I'd treat the golem as something like an animal companion or a summoners eidolon or something (I'd probably need more research on your specific example as I'm not hugely familiar with it ) as I'm more familiar with those functions....but each GMs approach is going to be different.
As a for instance, one approach would be to bullet point the core capabilities and ideas, and then try to fit them into a framework ( a class, monster, or item) that I was confident I understood well. That way I could judge what level of abilities seemed right for the party.
Also, I'm not above ignoring official stats, so if a slam attack was, say ,2d12 and I felt that was too strong, I'd just rule that it did 1d8 (or whatever) instead...it would still be a "slam attack".
One nice concept that he HERO system taught me was to mentally seperate game effect from special effect. If it does X damage in melee, than as long as its X damage, it doesnt really matter (balance wise) what it looks like, it should be ok...but if it does 10x damage then it doesnt matter what it looks like ,its going to be a problem...and so on.
Some GMs are less comfortable with this sort of stuff though ;
If you want to approach them with a golem character you're probably better off asking if you can use a warforged, (or even use the stats for an half-orc ) and do the rest as just flavour.
As a GM the heaviest responsibility of making good, enjoyable adventures is on me. I always have to adjust things, often on the fly. I do not have any personal ties to the NPC's I create, and nerfing something because it's too powerful isn't an issue. I do it on a regular basis, and that's how I can keep encounters somewhat challenging - some a walkover, some deadly.
However, if a player shows up with a character that is much much more powerful, or in some other way completely breaks the conventions that I've used to build the adventure, I have to spend hours reworking everything - because nerfing a PC is being a mean GM. And if the character is much much more powerful than the other party members, I have to specifically tailor the encounters to deal with that additional power without risking killing off the other characters in an encounter that should be a walkover.
Due to this, we've included "no munchkinism" in our table rules. It is helped I guess by that I'm not that hard on the RAW side of things when DMing, and if someone has a concept that they want to make, and have it be useful, we usually work it out together, even if it includes homebrew or similar.
So yeah, there would be no Golem with Amulet cohorts in our games. If someone wanted a construct cohort, we'd probably homebrew something or use some construct from another developer.
That's all well and good if "munckinism" is clearly defined in your group. What definition do you and your friends use, pray tell?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I don't mind players trying to bring crazy stuff into the table. If it's balanced and no one has a problem with it, I say we do it.
However, GMs must worry about game balance. And the more eccentric a character build is, the more difficult it is for the GM to avail its power. That's probably why so many GMs err on the side of caution.
Add that to the fact that so many players and GMs seem to think that anything moderately optimized is overpowered ("Paladins have good saves and self-healing! They are OP!"), and it's easy to see why unusual characters often get banned.
Personally, I don't mind unusual builds or powerful characters. I tend to allow all sorts of stuff, including homebrew and 3pp material, if it looks balanced, but I can understand while GMs might be reluctant of allowing some crazy character idea.
Not every GM has enough system mastery to see the strengths and weaknesses of bizarre builds, so they choose not to take any risk.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this fit this thread.
Ciretose's Handy Guide to Making a Good Character. (updated)
1. Think of a new concept.
2. Ask yourself if this concept will make the game more fun for everyone you are playing with or if it will cause people at the table to have less fun.
If more fun, go to 3.
If less fun, go to 1.
3. Ask your GM and fellow players if this concept will make the game more fun for everyone you are playing with or if it will cause people at the table to have less fun.
If they say more fun, go to 4
If they say less fun, go to 1.
4. Play the character for a few sessions and see if this concept will make the game more fun for everyone you are playing with or if it will cause people at the table to have less fun.
If everyone is having more fun, go to 5
If everyone is having less fun, go to 1.
5. Enjoy playing your new character!