| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Ah yes, "rules legal".
Thats another thing you may have to wean yourself away from. Just because something is "rules legal" doesnt make it necessarily acceptable in a game.
That doesnt make it not , either, of course...
But one thing you'll learn as you get more experienced (and I mean this in the nicest possible way , but you are clearly not an experienced gamer...perhaps no beginner but you've still got alot to learn. No offence) is that "rules legal" donesnt really mean bugger all when it comes to an enjoyable RPG, in the same way a political manifesto isnt going to be religiously stuck to after an election.
Saying "rules legal" is actually a red flag to many GMs - many see it as a tacit admission by a player that the character may either be overpowered or not fun for others to game with.
Not always the case, but the moment you say "rules legal", you're going to raise the GMs suspicions.
A genuinely good GM cares more about the fun of a game than any " rule" , so with such a Gm , if you lead out with "rules legal"... You're starting with your *weakest* possible argument , not your strongest.
Stick to "its really cool" and "its fun" and proving its not overpowered. Thats what gets a concept accepted.
If its rules legal, great,...but leading with that argument is rather like telling a football fan "your team sucks" as an opening statement... their team may indeed suck, but you're not going to win any debate on football that way. And actually prejudice most folks against you.
So start with "this is why I think the group will love this concept" and "this will make the game really fun" and "look at all the cool storylines you can add" and "look at all the fun it'll give the other players"... For goodness sake dont start with "rules legal".
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.
There is a big difference between ignoring someone, and disagreeing with them. Don't sell me short.
I think "golem character" sends up alarm bells like that, yes, especially if we're just about to sit down and play....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...
That would for me as well. However, if he didn't say "golem character" (which sounds like the character IS the golem) and instead said "wizard artificer who made a golem" then I would be much more open to the idea--and yeah, springing it on the GM last minute (when there was plenty of advance notice) is bad form.
...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...
And I've already stated why not communicating with your players can only serve to hurt the fun gaming atmosphere.
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.This is true even if his reasoning is sound and logical, such as the proposed "time constraints" argument I've oft heard cited.
I can understand not wanting to deal with a hard break in the rules, but what honest, hard working GM isn't willing to spend 5 minutes going over a character (which he really should be doing anyways)? What's more, in the example characters provided, I'm not seeing any hard break in the rules anywhere (or even really any bending). It is perfectly reasonable to assume that a sentient amulet counts as a creature for the purposes of controlling the golem (though I would still check with the GM for his own thoughts on the matter). With the example character it's less bending or breaking the rules and more of a "there are no extant rules that govern this scenario"--you know, something GMs deal with, and rule upon, all the time anyways.
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.
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'm sure you and your players have found their groove by now. Based on what you've told me, though, you sound like a very "my way or the highway" type of GM (feel free to correct me if I've got the wrong impression).
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.
I hate it when people use game terms incorrectly. The golem is not a cohort. It is a golem.
Also, it already does scale in its own way. Via construct modifications, it can gain hit dice, ability score increases, and new abilities as its wizard master levels and invests more into it.
*Bunch of stuff*]Aside from your highly offensive "you are clearly not an experienced gamer" I agree with most of what you said in your most recent post.
I think it's a shame that "rules legal" has become a red flag for some. It means only that "rules legal--a character that has not broken any rules." The fact that it is a red flag is indicative of the prejudices many GMs have developed against their players.
|
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
That may not be what his GM does, but you have to admit, that's the response RD does get from a lot of posters here.
"Oh look, a new thread about build advice, let's see...<Whoah, it's one of his!> Oh, Lord, I shouldn't look, but I know I will..."
Or
"Wheyhey, an RD thread! This should be good. $5 says the mods have to separate people before the end of the first page." <puts popcorn in the microwave, sets up deckchair>
Really, so you'd classify yourself as experienced ?
Interesting.
Once again, I encourage you to read your initial post about GMing. then read my initial post and then re-read your reaction to it. Then , ask yourself why I think you're inexperienced.
You're a random person on the internet. Take my advice.
Or not.
I've tried to assist you in growing to be a better gamer, and got nothing for my troubles except insultts and attitutde, and frankly any goodwill I was willing to extend on this matter has expired.
I do the same on many other gaming forums, as I enjoy the hobby and I am pretty well respected amoungst many writers and forum members for this (It helps get me free playtest material if nothing else). So ask yourself this...if you're so reasonable, why are you the sole person in twenty years I have decided to give no further advice to?
...but like I say, no skin off my nose. I shall continue to advice those willling to listen, the only person who loses out is you . (Shrug)
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.There is a big difference between ignoring someone, and disagreeing with them. Don't sell me short.
I think "golem character" sends up alarm bells like that, yes, especially if we're just about to sit down and play....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...That would for me as well. However, if he didn't say "golem character" (which sounds like the character IS the golem) and instead said "wizard artificer who made a golem" then I would be much more open to the idea--and yeah, springing it on the GM last minute (when there was plenty of advance notice) is bad form.
...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...And I've already stated why not communicating with your players can only serve to hurt the fun gaming atmosphere.
...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 otherThis is true even if his reasoning is sound and logical, such as the proposed "time constraints" argument I've oft heard cited.
Any time I hear someone call other people who don't push the same limits they do, or actually follow the rules because, well, that's what they are, 'sheep' it gives me a strong temptation to just tune them out entirely. There is plenty of room for creativity within the four walls of a given campaign or game without having to set out to try to find ways to break through them.
Really, so you'd classify yourself as experienced ?
Interesting.Once again, I encourage you to read your initial post about GMing. then read my initial post and then re-read your reaction to it. Then , ask yourself why I think you're inexperienced.
You're a random person on the internet. Take my advice.
Or not.I've tried to assist you in growing to be a better gamer, and got nothing for my troubles except insultts and attitutde, and frankly any goodwill I was willing to extend on this matter has expired.
I do the same on many other gaming forums, as I enjoy the hobby and I am pretty well respected amoungst many writers and forum members for this (It helps get me free playtest material if nothing else). So ask yourself this...if you're so reasonable, why are you the sole person in twenty years I have decided to give no further advice to?
...but like I say, no skin off my nose. I shall continue to advice those willling to listen, the only person who loses out is you . (Shrug)
Insults and attitude towards you? I've done little more than defend myself and my views. Where have a I directly insulted you or shown any attitude?
This isn't about lazy cheating players vs hard working GMs as was suggested, nor sheep, nor insulting anyone.
This is about the original question, and it doesn't matter if it was Ravingdork or Joe Blow that asked about it. And the answer is pretty much that the GM and/or devs have toys and tools in their box that aren't the same as the what the player gets to use, for various reasons (be it story, be it game balance, be it the GM/dev is a meanie, etc.)
Whether or not that is fair is up to the individual.
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 (...) 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?
Many unpublished artists* feel the same in many disciplines. I came to beleive that it's more of a street-cred/public-cred thing.
I don't think its completely unfounded; people are naturally timid and they prefer "safe" values, but its does create double standards.
*I view RPG writers and designers as artists. Some are have position closer to programmer/artisan, but most have the soul of an artist.
I get the feeling that you don't want to let the GM consider your proposal and then let you know what he thinks. I think you want him to consider your proposal and then say "yes". Anything less than that you're going to label "dismissing out of hand".
Imputing motives to others isn't cool. Someone posts "I like ice cream." Someone else responds with claims that he's in an anti-humanity conspiracy with evil aliens that's being funded by the dairy industry, and that his statement of "liking ice cream" is actually a shady attempt to get others to buy the stuff, thus putting more money in his coffers and advancing the aliens' evil schemes.
Maybe he just like ice cream.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is imputing that a gm is a "my way or the highway" gm and that (as it was before editing) "his players are sheep" kosher in your book, Kirth?
| 1 person 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.
QFT.
| 2 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 find that the “double standard” is entirely a matter of perception. Feeling cheated because you’re not allowed to do all the things that the GM can do seems a rather silly to me. I mostly GM myself and I have no qualm saying no to something that I feel will have no place within the campaign, or something that might be bothersome for the party to lug around.
As such I often veto large (huge and so on) creatures that aren’t animal companions. I could deny a race that would fit terribly within the desired setting. And I would have no trouble scrapping a concept that I feel would increase my workload.
Does that make me unfair? Maybe, but I prefer to have a party that matches the desired setting – as outlined for the players before actual character creation, instead of having to hammer it into a shape fitting some oddball character that a player insists is the only right thing for him to play.
Does it make me lazy? Not at all, I’m busy making a setting for the players to explore. I have to make believable NPCs, plotlines and alternative plotlines for when they go off the beaten track. And then I have to run the actual game, where I try to keep a measure of control over a bag of goblins while allowing their choices to have actual impact on the game.
As for “creative rules interpretations”, I think those three words says it all. It sounds a lot like “creative accounting”, or “creative editing”, both of which are frowned upon by most rational people. I have a player in one of my groups that uses “creative rules interpretations” quite a lot, resulting in such claims that his paladin’s aura of good enables him to sense good creatures entering it. It’s three very unfortunate words to put together, because they imply that you want us to play by YOUR rules, instead of the common interpretation, even though you’re not the GM.
As a player I can’t really follow your viewpoint. I love it when my GM throw something at us that we do not expect, I find it awesome when he bends the rules to the point of breaking to make us a flavorful and interesting encounter. If I was allowed to do anything he could I wouldn’t find the game interesting, there would be nothing to achieve for my character.
So answer your question: Of course there’s a double standard, without one we might as well be playing board games, at least everyone is playing by the same rules in those.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because when a player makes an awesome character concept it is primarily for personal gratification, whereas a DM or games designer does so in order to provide a challenging foe or interesting ally to the party - in short, you are pleasing yourself and only yourself and by breaking the rules risk alienating players that play within them, while they are trying to make the game better for everyone.
Have to disagree there; I've seen plenty of players who came up with bizarre, off-the-wall character concepts built around weird special rules that the rest of the group absolutely loved. By the same token, I've seen GMs come up with creative, off-the-wall things that served solely to indulge their killer-GM whims or allow the GM to crow about how unique and creative they were, while all the players were grumbling about this change-up being utter BS.
Is imputing that (1) a gm is a "my way or the highway" gm and that (2) (as it was before editing) "his players are sheep" kosher in your book, Kirth?
(1) Imputing? Not OK. Pointing out an actual direct statement of "my way or the highway" (as one or two people have issued in other threads) would be a totally different thing.
(2) Not cool to call anyone "sheep."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As DM, I sometimes have to ban stuff -- that's part of the job. But I always put a lot of thought and effort into trying to find a way to make something work, before banning it outright. I believe that effort is also a part of the job, and that someone who isn't inclined to bother, with excuses like "I already do a lot of work! Woe is me!" should maybe reconsider the role.
I also understand that, while I'm a considerably creative person, alone I'm nowhere near as good as I am with the input of four other creative people. I like to embrace that input, and try not to ever feel threatened by it.
Putting these together, I feel that no one should feel proud of themselves for their eagerness to ban things, or that banning more things with less thought somehow makes them a more lean, mean, awesome DMing machine.
Directly on-topic, I might ban some of Ravingdork's previous ideas because they rely on interpretations of the rules that I, as DM, wouldn't want to propogate throughout the game -- I follow the same rules as the players do, after all. But, that said, Craft Construct is a pretty clear-cut feat, and the costs for crafting them are really high, and adding a modicum of sentience to an otherwise underwhelming cohort doesn't break the game in any way. So the current proposal wouldn't really phase me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If one of my players came to me with this character I would bring down the wrath of Zeus on him for having the hubris to challenge my ultimate authority!
Actually I would be happy that a player put extra effort into a character and would do my best to make it work. The character RD has proposed is within the rules and is no where near as powerful as him just taking Leadership and getting another spell caster at -2 levels.
Even if he took Leadership and got a Wizard cohort who was the character RD suggested it would be fine. At the level of play that this character is at the construct is a cool addition that may provide a few highlights but is not going to further unbalance the game. The game is already unbalanced at that point because you are using high level spells, may as well have some cool stuff to boot.
|
Read over all the posts and thought I'd just add a few things, I shall try to remain super neutral.
If I were the DM and someone wanted a golem as a cohort (which I have wanted for a long time too), I would look into having a modified summoner eidolon.
Say that they had the traits of a golem to start at level 1, which seems quite overpowered, but you can counterbalance this with restrictions. It doesn't come back later when destroyed but needs to be rebuilt (which is time consuming and costs money), it can be upgraded with evolution points but you need the material (clay, metal, etc). Things like that.
Something of this sort was done for me when I wanted an undead eidolon. I could only upgrade my eidolon with the dead parts I could find, so I couldn't take whatever evolutions I wanted. In turn, my eidolon was classified as undead, which also has it's benefits and drawbacks. I also had to keep that eidolon hidden practically at all times.
If the player doesn't want to be a summoner and would rather have a cohort, they'll have to sacrifice in other areas to get it. (feats, money, etc).
Personally, I don't think the encounters would need to be rewritten. If your enemies are intelligent, they would likely avoid the horrible golem thing and focus on the player commanding it. Change your tactics and focus instead of the encounter, s'all good.
As for the philosophy of the thread: Why can a GM/Game designer get away with bending the rules that a player cannot? It is a good question, as a GM/DM can make a campaign challenging without resorting to rulebreaking abilities/combos, just as much as a player could. A GM has all the power though, a player doesn't, and as my friend always says, "%*#& the player". It can also be used as a curveball to make an encounter particularly more challenging, or for a GM to try something different.
In this particular case with a golem cohort, which is being used in another campaign apparently, I'd be fine with it.
I believe that a lot of players would be welcoming to the idea of working out something with their GM, if balance issues were a concern.
Thematically, I was pleased with having to use dead parts to upgrade my undead eidolon, that was pretty awesome.
My experiences as a DM have made me ask a couple of questions when a player brings a unique PC concept to me.
1) Is this players mentality/play style PC vs. DM? That is do they feel that it is their job to beat the DM at every turn and to derail the DM’s intentions. If yes then I am going to be very critical of the build and the intentions behind it.
2) Does this player need to be the “super special snowflake” of the group/setting? If you seriously need every character to be a werewolf ranger that uses scimitars for arrows or the three armed TWF Dervish Dancer we are most likely going to have a problem. Now that doesn’t mean I only want elvish archers and drunken dwarves, but it is easy to come up with fun and unique characters with just the core options. And I honestly believe that if you are coming to me with an outlandish concept you shouldn’t have had any problems coming up with a plausible and “special” character with a few set confines.
Having to do a lot of pick up games with ever changing people may have left me a touch jaded or cynical to unique builds, but I don’t think a player should find it unreasonable if the DM gives them a funny look if they say “So I have this idea for a drow were-shark…”
I will give a player the benefit of the doubt and let them explain the concept, and here is the real tell. If the player is willing to actually work with the DM. If the DM says “You know X really wouldn’t work, but what if we try Y?” and the player is willing to start looking at the newer options so the concept can fit, then I will most likely allow the build…minding the possible changes. If the player gets huffy or isn’t going to be flexible then I have no problems vetoing. It is give and take, but the DM does do more work at all time than a player, so they get a touch more leeway in my book.
I get the feeling that you don't want to let the GM consider your proposal and then let you know what he thinks. I think you want him to consider your proposal and then say "yes". Anything less than that you're going to label "dismissing out of hand".
I've already clearly stated what I thought "dismissing out of hand" meant, so I really have no idea how you could come to that conclusion.
Imputing motives to others isn't cool. Someone posts "I like ice cream." Someone else responds with claims that he's in an anti-humanity conspiracy with evil aliens that's being funded by the dairy industry, and that his statement of "liking ice cream" is actually a shady attempt to get others to buy the stuff, thus putting more money in his coffers and advancing the aliens' evil schemes.
Maybe he just like ice cream.
Exactly.
Because when a player makes an awesome character concept it is primarily for personal gratification, whereas a DM or games designer does so in order to provide a challenging foe or interesting ally to the party - in short, you are pleasing yourself and only yourself and by breaking the rules risk alienating players that play within them, while they are trying to make the game better for everyone.Have to disagree there; I've seen plenty of players who came up with bizarre, off-the-wall character concepts built around weird special rules that the rest of the group absolutely loved. By the same token, I've seen GMs come up with creative, off-the-wall things that served solely to indulge their killer-GM whims or allow the GM to crow about how unique and creative they were, while all the players were grumbling about this change-up being utter BS.
It certainly goes both ways.
Directly on-topic, I might ban some of Ravingdork's previous ideas because they rely on interpretations of the rules that I, as DM, wouldn't want to propogate throughout the game -- I follow the same rules as the players do, after all.
I'm curious to know which characters and concepts you wouldn't allow in your games and why.
As to why it is acceptable for publishers to do it, well, they're not doing it in an effort to make a character over powered, they're doing it to make the game fun for the whole group.
This exemplifies what I'm arguing against. Why is it that you and others believe that the player isn't ALSO doing it make the game fun for the whole group?
Is that not why we all get together to game, to ALL have fun? Why do players get stigmatized--particularly when it's been repeatedly shown that there are just as many bad GMs out there as there are bad players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My experiences as a DM have made me ask a couple of questions when a player brings a unique PC concept to me.
1) Is this players mentality/play style PC vs. DM? That is do they feel that it is their job to beat the DM at every turn and to derail the DM’s intentions. If yes then I am going to be very critical of the build and the intentions behind it.
2) Does this player need to be the “super special snowflake” of the group/setting? If you seriously need every character to be a werewolf ranger that uses scimitars for arrows or the three armed TWF Dervish Dancer we are most likely going to have a problem.
I try to get a feel for the answers to those questions before that player is ever invited to my game in the first place. Any of my players is, by definition, someone worthy of my full attention and respect when it comes to their input. If you run public games and/or recruit people off the street, I could see that being different.
I'm curious to know which characters and concepts you wouldn't allow in your games and why.
I'm infamous for running Pathfinder games that are so massively modified that the players have given the result its own name. These house rules are intended to (a) level out some of the more egregious game imbalances, and (b) level the playing field a bit between DM and referee creative input.
To avoid derailing the thread into specific discussion irrelevant to 99% of the people on the boards, let me just say that a game with no hard CR limit to summoned and controlled outsiders, for example, is not one I'm really interested in running, and leave it at that.
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
That may not be what his GM does, but you have to admit, that's the response RD does get from a lot of posters here.
"Oh look, a new thread about build advice, let's see...<Whoah, it's one of his!> Oh, Lord, I shouldn't look, but I know I will..."
Or
"Wheyhey, an RD thread! This should be good. $5 says the mods have to separate people before the end of the first page." <puts popcorn in the microwave, sets up deckchair>
*shrug* reputation is usually earned.
Speaking solely for myself everything I've said in this thread is what I would have said regardless on who I'd been talking to.
- Torger
This exemplifies what I'm arguing against. Why is it that you and others believe that the player isn't ALSO doing it make the game fun for the whole group?
Is that not why we all get together to game, to ALL have fun? Why do players get stigmatized--particularly when it's been repeatedly shown that there are just as many bad GMs out there as there are bad players.
This phrasing pops up on a number of threads by different people and it always inspires the question in my brain "Fun for who"
I've had less problems in face to face games than those run across the Internet where I've had players throw this phrase out, and of course on the board. It's come up in a number of recent threads as well.
Fun does not mean you get the concept you want 100%, or your way, or whatever. Yes, this goes for GMs too, just to head off that outrage.
But for people to couch things in the mindset of "He won't let me have this whatever, I cannot have fun now!" is disingenuous at best. Ravingdork, for example, is incredibly intelligent and imaginative, so I could not ever believe he wouldn't be able to come up with twelve new concepts or ideas to have fun with.
So, let's all pass the word around to toss out this argument tactic. Fun is a measuring stick and one that is hard to apply across the board. There are others out there as well that can help decide if a character is adopted, a game played in, or a successful night is had. What is fun for one person might be an intricate night of in-depth character driven intrigue that puts their RL acting skills to the test while others like the thrill and challenge of racking up a body count with a well-designed character. No, they are not exclusive. There are lots of types of fun, folks.
|
Directly on-topic, I might ban some of Ravingdork's previous ideas because they rely on interpretations of the rules that I, as DM, wouldn't want to propogate throughout the game -- I follow the same rules as the players do, after all. But, that said, Craft Construct is a pretty clear-cut feat, and the costs for crafting them are really high, and adding a modicum of sentience to an otherwise underwhelming cohort doesn't break the game in any way. So the current proposal wouldn't really phase me.
The construct in the build was not nearly as troubling as the lesser astral projection contingency stuff...
I mean, assuming he paid for it, it's a CR 13 buddy that will likely die in the first decent battle leaving him way behind WBL.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you run public games and/or recruit people off the street, I could see that being different.
Which is why I avoid public games. Also why I think if you are going to a public game as a player, you should try and be more, not less, aware of how your character may or may not fit in.
Your character "fits in" by following the rules of the... oh lets call it Pathfinder RPG when being designed. In a world of magic and other planes of existence, you would be hard pressed (pretty much impossible) to find a concept that wouldn't fit in. Awakened Dinosaurs: Magic! "Robots": Clearly a golem... made with magic! Demons; See other planes of existence.
If the above things do not fit in your setting, I would feel calling your game "Pathfinder" would be disingenuous.
Your character "fits in" by following the rules of the... oh lets call it Pathfinder RPG when being designed. In a world of magic and other planes of existence, you would be hard pressed (pretty much impossible) to find a concept that wouldn't fit in. Awakened Dinosaurs: Magic! "Robots": Clearly a golem... made with magic! Demons; See other planes of existence.
If the above things do not fit in your setting, I would feel calling your game "Pathfinder" would be disingenuous.
No, not quite.
The rules are not the setting, and vice versa. One can quite ably use the Pathfinder RPG Rules to create a campaign and not include robots (See the recent and past upset about Numeria), dinosaurs (awakened or not), and so on.
Or, the shorter form of it all, not every option, rule, class, monster, trait, feat, and so on must be included to play Pathfinder.
|
|
Your character "fits in" by following the rules of the... oh lets call it Pathfinder RPG when being designed. In a world of magic and other planes of existence, you would be hard pressed (pretty much impossible) to find a concept that wouldn't fit in. Awakened Dinosaurs: Magic! "Robots": Clearly a golem... made with magic! Demons; See other planes of existence.
If the above things do not fit in your setting, I would feel calling your game "Pathfinder" would be disingenuous.
So all of the responsibility to make it work is on other people...
Did you miss the handy flowchart up-thread?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?*snip*
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).
*snip*
Don't take this the wrong way, but I think that you find using the rules as intended too limiting. By which I mean that you see the obvious rules combinations that the writers put there to be used together and you think "That's obvious. Everyone will do that." You don't feel like you're using your system mastery to make a Druid with Natural Spell, for instance.
You feel that you need to blaze new ground and use things together that were not meant to work together or in some cases were meant to not work together. You see this as making unique, one of a kind characters. Other people sometimes see this as munchkining, deliberately misreading the rules, or some kind of madness. And you get defensive when someone challenges what you've found, either by contradicting your reading of a rule, or when errata is issued to change the way a rules works. This makes people think you're trying to 'win' (the game or the conversation) instead of trying to find the best way to make the character you're envisioning.
And you do this over and over again. Either you're playing WAY more than the average gamer, you're discarding your characters after a few sessions, or you're not actually playing most of these characters in a game at all. To me, this suggests that you get bored easily and always want to move on to the next cool thing.
I think you get a bad rap. People are harsher than they need to be, but that doesn't make their conclusions wrong. And if you take some time to think about how people work, as opposed to the way the rules work, you might have a better time overall.
I am not trying to put words in your mouth or presume to know the thoughts in your head, but this is my perception of the situation and I figured it would help to try and share it.
So you call your setting Pathfinder, but your setting has no magic? It has no alternate planes of existence? At that point I would say you aren't playing Pathfinder anymore, whatever campaign you've developed is pretty antagonistic to the Pathfinder rules and would be better served by a number of other tabletop systems.
To say that making things fit is a "responsibility" of anyone is humorous. Let the player take the oh so heavy responsiblity. "Hey guys I got an awakened megaraptor!" "Ok, Steve where is your raptor from?" "Duh, I'm from Elysium/Limbo."
See how easy that is? (Seriously though only a pretty inexperienced, or unimaginative GM should have any trouble making things that exist in the rules fit within their setting.)
So you call your setting Pathfinder, but your setting has no magic? It has no alternate planes of existence? At that point I would say you aren't playing Pathfinder anymore, whatever campaign you've developed is pretty antagonistic to the Pathfinder rules and would be better served by a number of other tabletop systems.
To say that making things fit is a "responsibility" of anyone is humorous. Let the player take the oh so heavy responsiblity. "Hey guys I got an awakened megaraptor!" "Ok, Steve where is your raptor from?" "Duh, I'm from Elysium/Limbo."
See how easy that is? (Seriously though only a pretty inexperienced, or unimaginative GM should have any trouble making things that exist in the rules fit within their setting.)
The insults aren't helping. One could reverse the comment and ask if it is a lack of imagination, experience, or a desire to work with others that is keeping the character concept from working within the framework provided in the game.
Things may exist in the rules and not exist in the setting you are playing in. Some don't care fore guns, and even though there is a great deal of information on guns and yes, a class that is built around them, that does not mean that you'll get to play one in every game, even if you want to fall through a Gate from wherever.
They aren't insults, it really is that easy to incorporate something and even if you "reverse it" your setting has magic and other planes of existence, so they *are* working withing the framework provided by the game by default (I mean seriously its not like anyone has asked to bring in stuff from Exalted).
Your second point hit on the larger issue; "Some people may not care for X". Well thats fine, no one is asking your GM play an awakened megaraptor. Steve however would like to like play an awakened megaraptor and since its easy for an experienced or imaginative GM to fit, they should do so.
Now if the GM lacks the experience or imagination to incorporate such a PC that's fine, but they should strive to improve so eventually they will be experience/imaginative enough to allow it.
To elaborate on KnightnDay's reply, certain character concepts fit certain stories, and their is no one set specific type of story for a Pathfinder game.
If the majority of the group including the GM wants a somber horror campaign, than perhaps having an awakened megaraptor in your party is not a great idea.
With enough experience/imagination I can assure you that an awakened megaraptor fits in perfectly well with a somber horror campaign. Its pretty obvious Steve's poor character was subjected to cruel magical experiments that resulted in his current awakened megaraptor form.
Edit: Snorter's explanation is much better. After all, Steve's character will do anything for a raptor snack.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the majority of the group including the GM wants
This is, to my mind, the crux of all of the discussion. No one person gets to throw his/her weight around -- not any one player, not any one DM.
Well that's fine and all Kirth, but I can't think of a good non-petty reason that player's character can't be made to work in virtually any Pathfinder setting by an experienced or imaginative GM. While the "GM decides what is fun" is obviously a pretty poor and petty position.
They aren't insults, it really is that easy to incorporate something and even if you "reverse it" your setting has magic and other planes of existence, so they *are* working withing the framework provided by the game by default (I mean seriously its not like anyone has asked to bring in stuff from Exalted).
Your second point hit on the larger issue; "Some people may not care for X". Well thats fine, no one is asking your GM play an awakened megaraptor. Steve however would like to like play an awakened megaraptor and since its easy for an experienced or imaginative GM to fit, they should do so.
Now if the GM lacks the experience or imagination to incorporate such a PC that's fine, but they should strive to improve so eventually they will be experience/imaginative enough to allow it.
No, they are pretty much insults, along with the lazy comments another made upthread and so on. A negative comment on someone else because they are not doing the thing that is wanted.
Sure, you can cram anything into any game with a mild handwave. After all, we have magic so the trope A Wizard Did It can come into play. That doesn't mean that every character concept or idea just has to be included.
Well that's fine and all Kirth, but I can't think of a good non-petty reason that player's character can't be made to work in virtually any Pathfinder setting by an experienced or imaginative GM. While the "GM decides what is fun" is obviously a pretty poor and petty position.
Again with the comments on experience and imagination. With some imagination and experience, one can have fun with ANY concept in ANY game, couldn't one? We've gone round and round on this in a number of threads, where the mean ol' GM won't let someone have their way and the mean ol' player won't give any ground and have found for the most part they are both exaggerated (I think Kirth did some research polling in one.)
This thread is not a matter of the GM not giving ground, it is "is this broke? Should I allow something that is iffy?" No one's fun is being damaged by being told no, or shouldn't be. We're all adults and should be able to say "That didn't fly? How about X? Y? Z?"
No one is asking *every* idea to be included, just the one your players want to play. There's nothing wrong with being a less experienced or imaginative GM though, you shouldn't take these things as insults since everyone has to start somewhere.
As to your second comment you hit on exactly my point. With enough experience and imagination you *CAN* have fun with *ANY* concept in *ANY* game, so if everyone is experienced and imaginative enough you should be able to play *ANYTHING* without it causing a problem, right? So get working on that experience and imagination, it will serve you well I promise!
Lastly, the construt is not iffy. It would only look iffy to someone who wasn't familiar with the craft construct/intelligent item rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've gone round and round on this in a number of threads, where the mean ol' GM won't let someone have their way and the mean ol' player won't give any ground and have found for the most part they are both exaggerated (I think Kirth did some research polling in one.)
Sadly, in the '80s and '90s Kirth had real-life experience with a number of mean ol' GMs who wouldn't let anyone have their way, because said DMs were petty tyrants like the ones people often allude to as a caricature. Sadly, the combination of tabletop gaming as a hobby and DM as a role seemed to attract a disproprtionate number of people like that. Fortunately, I haven't met any in person since entering the 21st century -- maybe the hobby overall is growing up a bit.
No one is asking *every* idea to be included, just the one your players want to play. There's nothing wrong with being a less experienced or imaginative GM though, you shouldn't take these things as insults since everyone has to start somewhere.
As to your second comment you hit on exactly my point. With enough experience and imagination you *CAN* have fun with *ANY* concept in *ANY* game, so if everyone is experienced and imaginative enough you should be able to play *ANYTHING* without it causing a problem, right? So get working on that experience and imagination, it will serve you well I promise!
Lastly, the construt is not iffy. It would only look iffy to someone who wasn't familiar with the craft construct/intelligent item rules.
Cute. Still insulting, but cute.
I've little doubt about my experience with the game; I'm more interested in the desire to make insults instead of points.
The construct is OK, but the construct was never the question. Ravingdork was asking why the devs/GMs get a separate set of rules or boundaries than the players. Everyone got hung up on whether or not the construct was over or underpowered or a good fit for a whatever level game. 15th? Sure. 1st? Probably not.
Not every idea and concept has equal weight and even if your player REALLY REALLY wants to play it and will hold their breath if they don't get to, that doesn't make it an automatic entry into the game. YMMV. See Kirth's posts about jerk players and GMs for more.
Well that's fine and all Kirth, but I can't think of a good non-petty reason that player's character can't be made to work in virtually any Pathfinder setting by an experienced or imaginative GM.
I agree, but there's more to consider than that. If I want to play a yiffing furry named Mr. Snuggles
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ravingdork was asking why the devs/GMs get a separate set of rules or boundaries than the players.
That's still a valid question. Personally, speaking as a developer and as a DM, I don't think that they should -- or at least, I think the boundaries should be a lot closer together than what most people seem to think is proper. Most people of course differ on that. But that's a personal opinion thing, not a game rules interpretation thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've gone round and round on this in a number of threads, where the mean ol' GM won't let someone have their way and the mean ol' player won't give any ground and have found for the most part they are both exaggerated (I think Kirth did some research polling in one.)Sadly, in the '80s and '90s Kirth had real-life experience with a number of mean ol' GMs who wouldn't let anyone have their way, because said DMs were petty tyrants like the ones people often allude to as a caricature. Sadly, the combination of tabletop gaming as a hobby and DM as a role seemed to attract a disproprtionate number of people like that. Fortunatly, I haven't met any in person since entering the 21st century -- maybe the hobby overall is growing up a bit.
It has. Mostly some of us growing up (and older), getting meds for various problems and in general mellowing out. That and maybe some of them ran off enough people that they learned their lesson or else their location is marked on maps and people avoid them.