|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's all well and good if "munckinism" is clearly defined in your group. What definition do you and your friends use, pray tell?
In our group we pick one of us to be the person who makes decision such as these for each campaign.
We call them "GM".
Some prefer "DM".
YMMV
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's all well and good if "munckinism" is clearly defined in your group. What definition do you and your friends use, pray tell?
In our group we pick one of us to be the person who makes decision such as these for each campaign.
We call them "GM".
Some prefer "DM".
YMMV
Indeed. Another way I've found is if I ask about the character and I get back a laundry list of damage potential, cool gear and effects. It's not always a good measuring stick, but it shines a light on what the person believes is important about their character.
I think that when the so-called "Rule of Cool" is only cool to one person and/or shoehorning the concept into the current campaign requires me to work with one person far more than the rest of the table, that's when there may be trouble.
If the Gm wanted to compromise, and allow you to create a shield guardian clay golem, but nix the intelligent artifact part, would you be okay with that? or does it HAVE to be an intelligent shield guardian cohort?
the shield guardian intelligent golem isn't too bad a cohort to allow for it's CR
it has a tiny amount of hit points for it's CR and lousy saving throws
weapon sizes are also an issue
plus the player Sacrificed, both a pair of feats, and a significant investment of finances into this "pet" to use it.
it's not even a proper cohort
it doesn't level in the traditional sense
No SR energy damage could wipe it out
and you can't really buff it either
it's just a short term melee meat shield with some extra pizzazz, nothing more
If the Gm wanted to compromise, and allow you to create a shield guardian clay golem, but nix the intelligent artifact part, would you be okay with that? or does it HAVE to be an intelligent shield guardian cohort?
just because its intelligent doesn't mean it's an artifact.
and any build that relies on a niche artifact or highly specific intelligent item or specific sourcebook weapon enhancement is one that isn't worth playing.
I think this fit this thread.
Ciretose's Handy Guide to Making a Good Character.
Concept is a great reason to play a character, but sometimes you see a game mechanic that looks really fun and you want to try it out. That's not just for RPGs, either.
Say... Street Fighter. I love playing Guile and Juri because I like those characters' design and personality, but I also enjoy playing Akuma because his powers and gameplay style are very interesting, despite the fact that I find him to be a rather dull character. OTOH, I love Deadpool as a character, but I don't play him in Marvel vs Capcom because I grew bored of his mechanics.
Concept alone doesn't make for a fun character, IMHO. Then again, neither do game mechanics. Which is why I always try to create a good character personality and background, but never play certain classes anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fairly certain that by "concept" Ciretose meant the whole package; both the backstory/fluff of the character as well as the mechanics that interact with that.
I'm not sure it's necessary to divide the two.
the shield guardian intelligent golem isn't too bad a cohort to allow for it's CR
it has a tiny amount of hit points for it's CR and lousy saving throws
weapon sizes are also an issue
plus the player Sacrificed, both a pair of feats, and a significant investment of finances into this "pet" to use it.
it's not even a proper cohort
it doesn't level in the traditional sense
No SR energy damage could wipe it out
and you can't really buff it either
it's just a short term melee meat shield with some extra pizzazz, nothing more
Even though its saving throws are poor, it doesn't really need them since it's immune to a lot of the major abilities that would cause saving throws. paralysis, mind-affecting abilities, anything requiring a Fort save. It admittedly doesn't do much damage, but it has some decent defenses. Especially if you stick closer to the attack values on Table 1-1 in the Bestiary. When I ran a high level game with the Clay Golem, it was able to withstand some decent punishment.
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.
Oh no, if you wanted the golem as a side character rather than your main PC, it'd be treated as a cohort. I do allow Leadership in my games though.
This seems like a possible misunderstanding in this thread. Are you saying you constructed this golem through the normal RAW means, including the ludicrous build costs, and you just want to retool it to be sentient (but with no additional advantages such as skill ranks)? That could be a cool concept no-costs thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have the utmost respect for GMs who actually DO, do the work and make the game better.
If a GM is providing you with an engaging story, a believable world and an all around fun time then his is, as you say "doing the work".
The fact that he doesn't want to deal with an off the wall rules bending player character in no way diminishes that work and suggesting otherwise is downright rude.
All the player has to do is show up and play. The DM has to make the whole thing happen. That alone is worthy of respect even if you don't like his DMing style.
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.
Perhaps the other players at the table enjoy encounters that actually challenge the party as a whole and perhaps the defensive abilities of the golem will make several encounters that were supposed to be climactic downright laughable.
To my mind "cheating" the other players would be allowing one player to dominate and trivialize encounters that were supposed to be challenging and fun.
- Torger
In fact. In my view, an "ordinary" concept should be disallowed if its overpowered.
Quoted for truth.
- Torger
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.
Oh no, if you wanted the golem as a side character rather than your main PC, it'd be treated as a cohort. I do allow Leadership in my games though.
This seems like a possible misunderstanding in this thread. Are you saying you constructed this golem through the normal RAW means, including the ludicrous build costs, and you just want to retool it to be sentient (but with no additional advantages such as skill ranks)? That could be a cool concept no-costs thing.
i think he was after Speech and Skill Ranks, which wouldn't really raise the CR enough to be effective.
| 3 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!
Er...that's very...uh...inspirational.
Even though its saving throws are poor, it doesn't really need them since it's immune to a lot of the major abilities that would cause saving throws. paralysis, mind-affecting abilities, anything requiring a Fort save. It admittedly doesn't do much damage, but it has some decent defenses. Especially if you stick closer to the attack values on Table 1-1 in the Bestiary. When I ran a high level game with the Clay Golem, it was able to withstand some decent punishment.
Keep in mind though that it's doesn't have a normal golem attacks...The build RD posted had an arm that could shift into a +1 greatsword sword or +1 composite longbow.
So instead of 2D10 + 7, it's doing 4D6 + 22 plus cursed wound with three attacks, or 3d6 + 14 with two attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
inspirational.
Apologies to Ciretose and Ravingdork, but I'm totally stealing this!
If the Gm wanted to compromise, and allow you to create a shield guardian clay golem, but nix the intelligent artifact part, would you be okay with that? or does it HAVE to be an intelligent shield guardian cohort?
Without that unique aspect, he's just another wizard with a golem to me. :(
I think this fit this thread.
Ciretose's Handy Guide to Making a Good Character.
Concept is a great reason to play a character, but sometimes you see a game mechanic that looks really fun and you want to try it out. That's not just for RPGs, either.
Say... Street Fighter. I love playing Guile and Juri because I like those characters' design and personality, but I also enjoy playing Akuma because his powers and gameplay style are very interesting, despite the fact that I find him to be a rather dull character. OTOH, I love Deadpool as a character, but I don't play him in Marvel vs Capcom because I grew bored of his mechanics.
Concept alone doesn't make for a fun character, IMHO. Then again, neither do game mechanics. Which is why I always try to create a good character personality and background, but never play certain classes anymore.
...any build that relies on a niche artifact or highly specific intelligent item or specific sourcebook weapon enhancement is one that isn't worth playing.
Would you please elaborate on why you think this is so?
I have the utmost respect for GMs who actually DO, do the work and make the game better.If a GM is providing you with an engaging story, a believable world and an all around fun time then his is, as you say "doing the work".
The fact that he doesn't want to deal with an off the wall rules bending player character in no way diminishes that work and suggesting otherwise is downright rude.
But how does the GM know that it is an off the wall rules bending player character if he doesn't even go over it? A GM who simply refuses to consider from the get go is the one being rude--just as much as a player who doesn't respect a GM's arbitration.
Even though its saving throws are poor, it doesn't really need them since it's immune to a lot of the major abilities that would cause saving throws. paralysis, mind-affecting abilities, anything requiring a Fort save. It admittedly doesn't do much damage, but it has some decent defenses. Especially if you stick closer to the attack values on Table 1-1 in the Bestiary. When I ran a high level game with the Clay Golem, it was able to withstand some decent punishment.
Keep in mind though that it's doesn't have a normal golem attacks...The build RD posted had an arm that could shift into a +1 greatsword sword or +1 composite longbow.
So instead of 2D10 + 7, it's doing 4D6 + 22 plus cursed wound with three attacks, or 3d6 + 14 with two attacks.
Wait what? How? I thought this was just a Shield Clay Golem?
Wait what? How? I thought this was just a Shield Clay Golem?
Even though its saving throws are poor, it doesn't really need them since it's immune to a lot of the major abilities that would cause saving throws. paralysis, mind-affecting abilities, anything requiring a Fort save. It admittedly doesn't do much damage, but it has some decent defenses. Especially if you stick closer to the attack values on Table 1-1 in the Bestiary. When I ran a high level game with the Clay Golem, it was able to withstand some decent punishment.
Keep in mind though that it's doesn't have a normal golem attacks...The build RD posted had an arm that could shift into a +1 greatsword sword or +1 composite longbow.
So instead of 2D10 + 7, it's doing 4D6 + 22 plus cursed wound with three attacks, or 3d6 + 14 with two attacks.
It was modified using the construct modification rules from Ultimate Magic. Insofar as I can tell, everything about it is perfectly rules legal.
The only thing that might be iffy, is treating the intelligent amulet as a creature capable of controlling the golem. In short, it's a round about way of getting an intelligent golem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without that unique aspect, he's just another wizard with a golem to me. :(
Have you played a wizard with a golem before? How is it 'just another' if you haven't?
Do you feel that you have to bend/break the rules in order to have a character no one else has ever made before in order to be unique enough for you?
Have you played a wizard with a golem before? How is it 'just another' if you haven't?
I have not, but I have played with others who have. When I say "just another" I'm generally referring to stereotypes and frequency within literature/media.
You would rarely see me make a haughty elf or drunken dwarf, for example. Well...I might, but there would be something else defining them--not the aforementioned traits.
Do you feel that you have to bend/break the rules in order to have a character no one else has ever made before in order to be unique enough for you?
I do strive to make uniquely interesting characters that have not been done before (or at least have not been done often before). A good example of this is The Raven King, a strange hodgepodge of abilities and mechanics that make for a surprisingly cool and effective character concept (I like to think of him as an alien avatar of the Great Old Ones--something he might not even be aware of).
That does not necessarily mean that I bend/break the rules to accomplish that desire though. I feel that I have enough system mastery--and that the Pathfinder rules are comprehensive enough--that I don't really have to (and I generally avoid doing so to begin with).
If ever anything is in question, I ask my GM about it. Well before the game if possible.
Wait what? How? I thought this was just a Shield Clay Golem?
Even though its saving throws are poor, it doesn't really need them since it's immune to a lot of the major abilities that would cause saving throws. paralysis, mind-affecting abilities, anything requiring a Fort save. It admittedly doesn't do much damage, but it has some decent defenses. Especially if you stick closer to the attack values on Table 1-1 in the Bestiary. When I ran a high level game with the Clay Golem, it was able to withstand some decent punishment.
Keep in mind though that it's doesn't have a normal golem attacks...The build RD posted had an arm that could shift into a +1 greatsword sword or +1 composite longbow.
So instead of 2D10 + 7, it's doing 4D6 + 22 plus cursed wound with three attacks, or 3d6 + 14 with two attacks.
It was modified using the construct modification rules from Ultimate Magic. Insofar as I can tell, everything about it is perfectly rules legal.
The only thing that might be iffy, is treating the intelligent amulet as a creature capable of controlling the golem. In short, it's a round about way of getting an intelligent golem.
The fact that this uses rules I actually haven't used AND you say something is iffy is a red flag for me. I'd have to sit down first and make sure things were squared away. I don't have my laptop with the damage spreadsheet on it, so I'll have to wait till later.
I do strive to make uniquely interesting characters that have not been done before (or at least have not been done often).
Characters you have never before or characters never before thought up by anyone, ever?
Characters you have never before or characters never before thought up by anyone, ever?I do strive to make uniquely interesting characters that have not been done before (or at least have not been done often before).
A bit of both I suppose.
The fact that this uses rules I actually haven't used AND you say something is iffy is a red flag for me. I'd have to sit down first and make sure things were squared away.
Exactly what I would expect from a good GM.
Given that the section on modifying constructs is really only a few sentences, and rather vague, I would say those modifications + the intelligent amulet fully fall under GM remit. I don't really see any problem with a GM limiting or saying no to this build, if they didn't feel comfortable.
Given that the section on modifying constructs is really only a few sentences, and rather vague, I would say those modifications + the intelligent amulet fully fall under GM remit. I don't really see any problem with a GM limiting or saying no to this build, if they didn't feel comfortable.
From what I hear, many GMs do that with ANY construct, whether or not it uses the rules from Ultimate Magic, all because Craft Construct is in the Bestiary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...any build that relies on a niche artifact or highly specific intelligent item or specific sourcebook weapon enhancement is one that isn't worth playing.Would you please elaborate on why you think this is so?
the "Gimmick" could be easily stripped once the defining piece of equipment is
Sundered and Destroyed
Stolen
Denied and or Banned
Nerfed
or
Used against you by a more powerful opponent by an adversarial DM
But how does the GM know that it is an off the wall rules bending player character if he doesn't even go over it? A GM who simply refuses to consider from the get go is the one being rude--just as much as a player who doesn't respect a GM's arbitration.I have the utmost respect for GMs who actually DO, do the work and make the game better.If a GM is providing you with an engaging story, a believable world and an all around fun time then his is, as you say "doing the work".
The fact that he doesn't want to deal with an off the wall rules bending player character in no way diminishes that work and suggesting otherwise is downright rude.
To use the example character I would consider it entirely reasonable for the DM to scan the character, see that it involves a golem and say something to the tune of "I really don't want to have to account for the additional variables a golem brings to the table. I have neither the time nor the energy to plan around it and I wish you had run the idea by me before you put the time and energy into making this whole elaborate character. You have to admit it's a little out there."
Would that be rejecting it without considering it? Because I submit that he did consider it. He thought
"Golem in the party, what does that entail? Is that something I want to deal with? Nope".
He may not have considered it as long and hard as you'd like but he considered it.
Not considering a character would look like this.
Player - "I have this character I want to play he's a..."
DM - "Nope"
If that's happening to you then I don't even no what to say.
- Torger
But how does the GM know that it is an off the wall rules bending player if he doesn't even go over it? A GM who simply refuses to consider from the get go is the one being rude--just as much as a player who doesn't respect a GM's arbitration.
I'm not sure that I'd have to go over things in intricate detail in order to make a judgement if it fits in or is something I'd be uncomfortable allowing. After a few years GMing, you get a feel for things and how they are going to play out. If it is a fringe case and I'm iffy, sure, let's get out the numbers and show me what's what. But if in the opening proposal I'm already shaking my head, there isn't much point in going on.
Edit: Ninja'd by Torger
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Er...that's very...uh...inspirational.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!
You sir have just made me insufferable going forward :)
...any build that relies on a niche artifact or highly specific intelligent item or specific sourcebook weapon enhancement is one that isn't worth playing.Would you please elaborate on why you think this is so?
the "Gimmick" could be easily stripped once the defining piece of equipment is
Sundered and Destroyed
Stolen
Denied and or Banned
Nerfed
or
Used against you by a more powerful opponent by an adversarial DM
So you think wizards and magi aren't worth playing? They both rely on their spellbooks, which have the exact vulnerabilities you described. I'm sure you don't actually think that wizards and magi are unplayable, so please explain why you think spellbooks and Ravingdork's artifact aren't exactly as vulnerable.
What is this artifact that everyone is referring to? There is no artifact.
Personally, I'd probably allow the character concept from the OP, especially at level 15 with a group that's presumably throwing various powers around in all directions. I'd just take time to ensure the golem was properly balanced, maybe give it an extra weakness or remove one of it's abilities (with a decent storyline reason for why this happened) if I felt it was too powerful.
that was my fault...I used "artifact" in the lay sense of "magical device" rather than the game definition of artifact.
Really my issue wouldn't be the golem or the template applied to it, but rather the extra abilities also given the clay golem shield guardian (multiple enhanced weapons, size increase, rune of shielding, special amulet that makes it intelligent, etc) The rules seem clearcut for golem with template, but murky on the other parts. I fully admit to lacking the experience and system mastery other people have here, but it just seems a bit too good to my subjective eyes.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, Ravingdork, one of the small select group of people who the 'Don't be a Jerk on our messageboards' rule is carefully ignored.
Fight on, RD. I may not agree with you much, but I stand in solidarity of the few that have been deemed 'open targets for abuse' by the staff.
Really my issue wouldn't be the golem or the template applied to it, but rather the extra abilities also given the clay golem shield guardian (multiple enhanced weapons, size increase, rune of shielding, special amulet that makes it intelligent, etc) The rules seem clearcut for golem with template, but murky on the other parts. I fully admit to lacking the experience and system mastery other people have here, but it just seems a bit too good to my subjective eyes.
Your system mastery yet needs training young padawan, for said Clay golem with benefits is in fact quite awful when compared a normal race with class levels of equal CR. To judge its effectiveness lets look at the hit points; an incredibly small 144. The armor class? Also pretty miserable at 34 (and a terrible 9 touch). It's saves? Worse than a character half its HD. It's best feature is probably the fact that it has 4 attacks backed by a good BAB and STR. So yes, if it managed to get into melee it will probably manage to get a decent hit or three. It's +1 Longbow is mostly a spray and pray as its bonus to hit is terrible for this level.
The big benefit most people see; Magic Immunity, is actually a massive drawback that prevents it from receiving the extremely useful combat buffs a regular fighter would have at that HD (It should be noted it does have haste, but only for 3 rounds 1/day which is... bad). It's DR a measly 10, which is ok, but not going to save its low hp from attacks. It has fast healing 5 sure, but during combat that's only going to be 10-20 hp at most. Worst of all.... cumulative 1% chance the golem goes berserk and the PC not only has to kill it, but then buy a new one.
Long story short, an experienced GM would look at it and go "Sure" since it actually weaker than your average cohort.
|
Really my issue wouldn't be the golem or the template applied to it, but rather the extra abilities also given the clay golem shield guardian (multiple enhanced weapons, size increase, rune of shielding, special amulet that makes it intelligent, etc) The rules seem clearcut for golem with template, but murky on the other parts. I fully admit to lacking the experience and system mastery other people have here, but it just seems a bit too good to my subjective eyes.Your system mastery yet needs training young padawan, for said Clay golem with benefits is in fact quite awful when compared a normal race with class levels of equal CR. To judge its effectiveness lets look at the hit points; an incredibly small 144. The armor class? Also pretty miserable at 34 (and a terrible 9 touch). It's saves? Worse than a character half its HD. It's best feature is probably the fact that it has 4 attacks backed by a good BAB and STR. So yes, if it managed to get into melee it will probably manage to get a decent hit or three. It's +1 Longbow is mostly a spray and pray as its bonus to hit is terrible for this level.
The big benefit most people see; Magic Immunity, is actually a massive drawback that prevents it from receiving the extremely useful combat buffs a regular fighter would have at that HD (It should be noted it does have haste, but only for 3 rounds 1/day which is... bad). It's DR a measly 10, which is ok, but not going to save its low hp from attacks. It has fast healing 5 sure, but during combat that's only going to be 10-20 hp at most. Worst of all.... cumulative 1% chance the golem goes berserk and the PC not only has to kill it, but then buy a new one.
Long story short, an experienced GM would look at it and go "Sure" since it actually weaker than your average cohort.
The problem isn't defeating said golem, it's defeating it in such a way that it doesn't seem like you are specifically trying to target it.
Uh... I recommend using damage, regular good old fashioned damage. A CR 15 monster should not have much trouble downing it fairly quickly. Enemy casters will naturally hit it with SR:No spells and it will almost certainly fail its save. Any Caster worth their Challenge Rating is going to have some SR: No spells prepared (I do my NPCs spell lists well in advance and I've never had an issue) and its not "specifically targeting" to use an effective strategy against an obvious target. Hell Grease alone is going to wreck the poor Golem...
That's all well and good if "munckinism" is clearly defined in your group. What definition do you and your friends use, pray tell?
We do not have a hard definition, because we do not feel the need for one. If we had one, the risk is that the rules lawyers who would be the munchkins would just try to lawyer their way around that definition. The ever-reliance on a clear RAW - whether it's the RPG RAW or the table conventions RAW - is part of the issue, not the solution.
Instead, if someone feels a build is going to be/is problematic, we try to reach a consensus.
But the closest thing to a definition probably would be something along the line of "using vaguely written or obviously badly designed rules or using loopholes to gain an increase in effectiveness above the other players". But again, we don't put much focus on the definition - rather we decide on a case by case basis.
The two players who likes to optimize has contended to keep within clear white rules and to pick harder-to-optimize options (only one of them is actively playing now, and she's doing a monk/sorcerer).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dabbler, did it ever occur to you that construct servers are so terribly resource intensive BECAUSE of their immunities and such?
...a fourth reason not to include a golem character, then. If the DM does not provide adequate resources that may not be there in the adventure your character cannot function, if he does he is having to re-write more of the adventure.
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.
Many here think otherwise and have given many reasons you conveniently ignore.
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.
Or possibly that it would be terribly easy for it to become overpowered OR tip the other way and become way too weak. Handling this is a huge problem you are dumping on your DM, and I really wouldn't be surprised if he rejected it out of hand, he's got a hard enough job as it is.
Take a look at the only "golem" character race developed for 3.X, the Warforged in the Eberron campaign setting, and you will see that they removed a shedload of normal construct features in order to make warforged functional alongside ordinary PC races. You may wish to consider that they did this for a reason. I suppose you would always ask your DM if you could play a warforged, though...
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...
I think "golem character" sends up alarm bells like that, yes, especially if we're just about to sit down and play.
...and not adequately explained his reason for turning the idea (whatever it may be) down...
...he doesn't HAVE to tell you why he's refusing it, as I have explained...
then he has "dismissed it out of hand."
I can see why you would think this, but you are only thinking for yourself and not putting yourself in his shoes.
This is true even if his reasoning is sound and logical, such as the proposed "time constraints" argument I've oft heard cited.
Yes it is reasonable. It is reasonable for him to turn down, FLAT, any proposed character that does not fall into the norm for character creation, because those are the rules. DM's have to run a lot of creatures that are unavailable to players as PCs, that's their job, and the same goes for any other concept that isn't made by the rules of normal character creation.
I love when players come up with unque and different characters, but what makes a character unique is not necessarily the mechanics, it's the character themselves, their back-story, their personality.
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.
I've never had a player complain - at least, not a player I wanted to keep as a player, anyway. Of course I am not present at your games, I don't know you or your DM. But ultimately if you truly believe that your DM is being unreasonable, then vote with your feet.
DMs have a hard job, they have right of veto on anything that makes it harder.
|
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.
Strictly speaking, it doesn't require an archetype.
The flavor for the class (or rather, the eidolon) is so open, it can be skinned however you like.
You could describe the eidolon as a metal or stone figure, and buy it evolutions to fit (improved AC, high Will save, etc).
Give it the Mount evolution, and you could drive around on it, like Master/Blaster from Mad Max 3.
Play a synthesist, and you could ride in it, like a mech.
You'd be advised to confer with the other players and GM before you did, though, in case they found it a stupid idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Munchkining: verb. The act of taking the weaker interpretation among multiple possible interpretations because that interpretation is in your favor, disregarding intent, balance, common sense and often developer clarification.