So I'm in this weekly Pathfinder game, which generally runs by RAW, but the GM occasionally makes strange rulings about things he believes are "too good".
He's not terribly consistent about this, since often he allows some very broken stuff (like Scarred Witch Doctor) into the game. So it always comes as a surprise when he randomly decides to nerf Armored Kilts, or rules against allowing a 5-foot step between Whirlwind Attacks (I'm aware that could be the intent of WA, but nerfing WA doesn't make much sense when you're at the same table as a Monkey Goblin Cavalier who charges for four times the damage you deal...).
Anyways, I was helping a friend make an Intimidation build for her character, and when we submitted it, the GM said the following about the Enforcer feat:
"[I feel that Enforcer's shaken duration is too good] So I am houseruling that the duration will instead just be increased by 1 round by the feat. Honestly getting the free intimidate check by itself is well worth the feat, the duration bonus is just gravy. The good news is that it doesn't make any sense to me that the shaken effect from the Intimidate skill can't ever stack with other shaken conditions to make someone frightened. I may increase the DC for intimidating a shaken person to make them frightened or something, but for now we'll try it out where it stacks as normal."
At next level, my friend is going to take a level of Thug Rogue to get Frightening. While Enforcer would make getting 4 rounds of shaken trivial, the GM's ruling is going to make things much worse.
DC's to demoralize are pretty low, and it's easy to have a high Intimidate check (by level 3, my friend will have +17). So DC +5 isn't going to be hard, which, with Frightening as-is, and this house-ruled Enforcer will have the effect of making an enemy frightened for 1 round, and then with a move action (Viking Fighter 2), she can demoralize the target again (still only needing DC +5) to make them Panicked.
My actual question is how to handle this, because I'm not sure. Part of me says I should tell the GM now. But at the same time, his random "houserules" on stuff that really doesn't need house-ruling is starting to bug me, and I'm just imagining the amusement I'll get out of watching him back-pedal on his decision.
So if you were in my position, would you take the high road, or just smile and wait?
The usual questions every one ask are:
How do the rest of the players react to this GM?
Another thing they says is: It's his game, his rules. So if you feel you can't live with his house rules you might want to think about looking for another GM.
People have also said: Have you thought of taking the wheel?
I don't know the rules, but it seems you aren't arguing with him on anything he says. If you know the rules better, challenge him when he makes the ruling. If you don't what to, be prepared for a bumpy ride.
|
Well, I think the first thing you need to determine is why you play the game.
For instance, little things like that mean a lot for me, I spends hours perfecting the build of a character, making sure everything works RAW before I even bring it to the GM. I show him how it works, and why it does what it does. Often times, however, I'm told it's too powerful, much like some people's first reaction to the damage of sneak attacks. At that point, I also give him the weaknesses of that build, how to counter it, and I compare it to some builds/classes that can do similar things. Typically at that point I get the warning of "IF it gets too powerful, then I'll ask you to turn it down" or I'll get a solid no. Unless it's with a friend, if I get a no, I just find another group to go with.
For someone else, how effective their character is in combat isn't AS important, and they hate guys like me who sometimes object to a GM ruling (I've personally gotten better at talking about it at the end of session). They just want to go with the flow and have a good time, rules isn't as important.
It seems that your GM is one of those "rules aren't set in stone" type of guys. Talk to him a bit about, tell him why you want it to work the way it's written, then tell him that if he feels it's taking away the fun of the game for him or other players then he can nerf it or further discuss it.
Being a GM is hard, and often unappreciated (in my experience). Your GM wants to have fun too. However, tell him that it's better to make encounters harder than to nerf what players do. People get excited with the and concept of their character, and it's fun for them to see it work out. So humbly express your feelings, get his point of view, and then both determine to consider what each other have said.
Here's the questions to ask yourself:
1. Where do I get the joy from playing DnD? Making a character and seeing it work? Roleplaying? Just hanging out with friends?
2. Why am I not okay with these houserules? Are there some that I like?
3. Is what I am doing taking away from the fun of the GM or of my fellow players in any way shape or form?
4. Am I comfortable communicating with my GM? Why or why not? If I can't, should I be playing with this GM?
Here's the questions your GM needs to ask himself:
1. Should I be nerfing abilities? Does that take away from the fun of my players? Does it add to my fun?
2. If I don't nerf an ability, will it take away from my fun, or the fun of my players?
3. Is it okay for me to be surprised? Can I make the next encounter more difficult because of what I've learned today?