Hiya,
If the title of this thread annoyed you due to its abundance on this forum, feel free to leave the thread head shaking and cursing ;-)
If you want to help me i could use a second opinion on a topic
I have an issue with my GM. I'm playing an enchanter in his homebrew campaign and have deliberately chosen nothing, but Enchantment spells. I discussed this with him before we started and agreed that it would be entertaining to do something other than stereotype Sorcerer.
This has obviously led to the fact that i'm less effective against certain encounters: undeads, constructs, elementals and outsiders with SR.
All that was foreseen and i have done my best to make up for that with scrolls, bane arrows and spell penetration.
Recently however, and this is where the fuzz begins, he has introduced a new foe. A homebrew outsider type who, you guessed it, is also immune to mindeffecting spells. This basically means that in spite of the preparations i have made i stand completely useless in combat. I guess what i'm wondering is why he has this need to completely exclude me from combat. (As a bonus: these outsiders seems to be the main evil of the game)
I can understand high will saves and monsters who generically is immune to my spells, but making up yet another to twart me just seems out of line to me. Im not the most powerfull character in the game by far.
I can talk to this guy, so its not that kind of advice i'm looking for. Instead i would like to hear your take on the situation.
Do you think its out of line or should i just soak it up?
Basically it depends.
If he designed this race of outsiders before you made your character... not telling you an enchanter would underperform is a bit of a dick move.
If he designed this race of outsiders once the campaign had begun, then... well, that's a big dick move.
Of course, without knowing the GM's side of things I'm not prepared to place all blame on him, but I would say that at the least communication could have been better between you.
Since you say that you can talk with him, i recommend doing so.
"Hey,did you realise that my enchanter is useless against the outsiders you've made?"
Listen to the answer. If he's done it so that the plot will work, and you being able to charm or dominate them would ruin the plot, then he's at least got a reason. If he didn’t realise how much it wrecks your character, then again he wasn't being a jerk on purpose. Never rule out simply messing things up unintentionally!
In those cases, he should also be happy for you to either play a replacement character or to let you rebuild it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hiya,
If the title of this thread annoyed you due to its abundance on this forum, feel free to leave the thread head shaking and cursing ;-)
If you want to help me i could use a second opinion on a topic
I have an issue with my GM. I'm playing an enchanter in his homebrew campaign and have deliberately chosen nothing, but Enchantment spells. I discussed this with him before we started and agreed that it would be entertaining to do something other than stereotype Sorcerer.
This has obviously led to the fact that i'm less effective against certain encounters: undeads, constructs, elementals and outsiders with SR.
All that was foreseen and i have done my best to make up for that with scrolls, bane arrows and spell penetration.
Recently however, and this is where the fuzz begins, he has introduced a new foe. A homebrew outsider type who, you guessed it, is also immune to mindeffecting spells. This basically means that in spite of the preparations i have made i stand completely useless in combat. I guess what i'm wondering is why he has this need to completely exclude me from combat. (As a bonus: these outsiders seems to be the main evil of the game)
I can understand high will saves and monsters who generically is immune to my spells, but making up yet another to twart me just seems out of line to me. Im not the most powerfull character in the game by far.
I can talk to this guy, so its not that kind of advice i'm looking for. Instead i would like to hear your take on the situation.
Do you think its out of line or should i just soak it up?
Making a caster who only uses one type of spell, a person who refuses to use a ranged weapon, one who refuses to use a melee weapon, even for flavor reasons is generally a bad idea.
At the same time he should not have encouraged you to make the build, and then homebrew a monster that you cant do anything against.
So I am saying that both of you have some fault in this. I would talk to him about not making such monsters, but at the same time you should vary your spells up at least a little so you will have more options and provide more use to the party.
Are you a enchanter or a sorcerer? If the first, buy some spells that Will work in the next town. Conjuration spells like grease and the out spells if lowish level and others if you are higher up.
If you are a sorcerer ask the GM if you Can change some of your spells known.
Also this is generally somthing you should talk with him about.
How far have the game gone so far? Have you been ruling the social scene and controlling in combat or did you just start?
I think it's in a similar vein to not telling the ranger what to expect as favored enemies; not being constructive to try and have your players enjoy the concept they want to put forward. He may also being thinking that he gets a free pass at 'Leashing a spellcaster' by making enemies immune to your dedicated specialty.
That being said, I believe if you can expand your character concern to include one, or two other spell groups, you should be okay. Maybe instead of Enchantments only, you can also provide buff spells. Or at least, when faced with immune enemies, use enchantment spells like Heroism on your friends.
How effective are you at mind control? If you've got a character who dominates non-immune enemies with a 75% success rate, then any recurring villain race who aren't immune are just going to be supplying you with a puppet army. If that's the case, I can understand the GM negating your power.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are feeling pinched because you are a one trick pony. You need to open up your repertoire. If *you* do not, then *you* have accepted the (perceived) nerfing of your character.
Wraith makes the salient point:
Making a caster who only uses one type of spell, a person who refuses to use a ranged weapon, one who refuses to use a melee weapon, even for flavor reasons is generally a bad idea.
|
Balance my friend.
Imagine yourself in the world with your character, if you focus in only one thing and nothing but one thing, it is certain that you will, sooner or later, encounter something that is effective against you.
Spellcasters are known to be very resourceful, that is their main power (for me at least)if you choose to not have resources more than enchantments, you are destined to suffer.
Finally, in a living world, probably the one that your DM has made, medium intelligent creatures (your enemys) sooner or later will realize that they are not effective against you and will change the strategy. Specially if they find out that you can only do one thing good. So i would say that your DM puting this kind of enemy is quite normal, in fact, you should have guessed this was going to happen.
I would recommend be less proud and put some summoning creature spells, and some other useful stuff.
I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with some of the other posters here. You did your part by approaching the DM before the campaign started. Smart move, and I'd say that alleviates you of the responsibility for this situation. As a poster above said, either the DM knew about the homebrew before the campaign started, in which case he should have warned you, or put it in afterwards, which would be a very questionable decision.
That being said, it's possible you're misreading the situation. The foes you're facing could be prevalent for only a few sessions, and not as big a part of the campaign as you think. Talk to your DM, it's easy to panic when you see your character as screwed over, but I'm willing to bet the situation isn't as bad as you think (or the DM is inexperienced and doesn't quite realize the dickish thing he's done).
|
|
I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with some of the other posters here. You did your part by approaching the DM before the campaign started. Smart move, and I'd say that alleviates you of the responsibility for this situation. As a poster above said, either the DM knew about the homebrew before the campaign started, in which case he should have warned you, or put it in afterwards, which would be a very questionable decision.
That being said, it's possible you're misreading the situation. The foes you're facing could be prevalent for only a few sessions, and not as big a part of the campaign as you think. Talk to your DM, it's easy to panic when you see your character as screwed over, but I'm willing to bet the situation isn't as bad as you think (or the DM is inexperienced and doesn't quite realize the dickish thing he's done).
I disagree with you in the part in which the DM could be dicksih.
I do not know many about the OP campaign, however, i am willing to bet that the main enemys are more than inteligent or wise.
Therefore, after seeing several of their encounters against this particular spellcaster, they should have and idea of how things have gone so far, thus, realiazing that they need a different approach for this particular being (the spellcaster).
If they were facing the frontal fighter type, the would send something effective against it.
Give the DM some credit, he is commited to the campaign and he shows it by taking advantage of what he has learned from the spellcaster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Therefore, after seeing several of their encounters against this particular spellcaster, they should have and idea of how things have gone so far, thus, realiazing that they need a different approach for this particular being (the spellcaster)
"We need some new tactics! 100% of the forces we sent against this group have been brutally chopped to pieces!"
"I've heard a rumour that one of them is a spellcaster, and that he's only ever been known to cast enchantment spells...""Then our course of action is clear! We must all turn into a homebrew race who are immune to enchantment spells!"
A lot of outsiders have the ability to summon monsters. Your character could charm or dominate the summons, unless they too are the same sort of outsider race with the same immunities.
|
|
Therefore, after seeing several of their encounters against this particular spellcaster, they should have and idea of how things have gone so far, thus, realiazing that they need a different approach for this particular being (the spellcaster)"We need some new tactics! 100% of the forces we sent against this group have been brutally chopped to pieces!"
"I've heard a rumour that one of them is a spellcaster, and that he's only ever been known to cast enchantment spells..."
"Then our course of action is clear! We must all turn into a homebrew race who are immune to enchantment spells!"
I see your point.
However, since the main enemys have just been revealed i dont think what you say is the situation.
I think details regarding the outsiders are needed. And perhaps some research from the Characters to find if he just made them up.
Yeah, while it is a bit of a dick move to pull that, there may be bones he's going to toss you that you just don't see yet.
Just because you can't affect the BBEG directly doesn't mean you can't affect him indirectly. Perhaps he will have spare minions about that you can control and use against him?
I'm reminded of a scene in one of my favorite book series, one of the main characters gets an amulet that makes them completely immune to all magic. His semi-ally sorceress "friends" are fascinated by this and spend a while trying to find anything that works on him, nothing does. He finally gets bored and turns to leave and gets smacked in the back of the head by a big glob of mud while one of the casters smiles at him. Just because they couldn't target him doesn't mean they couldn't target something else and direct it at him.
There are always loopholes, you just have to be resourceful enough to find them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see a problem here. It's not even a dick move.
When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Don't blame life. Sometimes our biggest frustrations lead to our greatest epiphanies. In other words, maybe your GM is trying to teach you something. Be open to learning from it.
How?
Lesson #1: the obvious lesson is that one-trick ponies have weaknesses, and their biggest weakness is being useless in any situation where their one trick is inapplicable. One-trick pony is a bad character build and a path to suicide for an adventurer.
Next time you level up, add a new trick to your repertoire - learn a couple spells that AREN'T enchantments. Maybe by then you will have found out a vulnerability of these outsiders and you can get a spell that exploits that vulnerability.
Lesson #2: until then, try to think outside the box. If you can't enchant the baddies, enchant some beasties to fight the baddies for you. Go to town and get a wand of magic missile or fireball or whatever would be good for you. Buff your allies and make them better, stronger, faster. Or just throw rocks at the bad guys and use your high CHA to be a cheerleader.
Lesson #3: try to remember that this game is not about GMs competing with players. He's trying to build a fun adventure/campaign. Hopefully SOMETIMES you get to use your favorite tricks, but hopefully other times you're challenged to find solutions to difficult challenges. Frankly, if he lets everyone build optimized one-trick monsters and then tailors every encounter so that they use their one optimal trick to curb-stomp every encounter, this game would be boring. He should, probably MUST, serve up some encounters where your challenge is to figure out how to overcome difficult or even seemingly impossible challenges - that's where the "game" part of "roleplaying game" comes from.
Yeah, while it is a bit of a dick move to pull that, there may be bones he's going to toss you that you just don't see yet.
Just because you can't affect the BBEG directly doesn't mean you can't affect him indirectly. Perhaps he will have spare minions about that you can control and use against him?
I'm reminded of a scene in one of my favorite book series, one of the main characters gets an amulet that makes them completely immune to all magic. His semi-ally sorceress "friends" are fascinated by this and spend a while trying to find anything that works on him, nothing does. He finally gets bored and turns to leave and gets smacked in the back of the head by a big glob of mud while one of the casters smiles at him. Just because they couldn't target him doesn't mean they couldn't target something else and direct it at him.
There are always loopholes, you just have to be resourceful enough to find them.
And this is why most of the conjuration spells don't allow SR
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: ^^^ Counterpoint to above ^^^
I'm playing an enchanter in his homebrew campaign and have deliberately chosen nothing, but Enchantment spells. I discussed this with him before we started and agreed that it would be entertaining to do something other than stereotype Sorcerer.
I'm not sure if you or your GM know this, but Enchantment is one of the hardest things for the GM to deal with in the game. Enchantment has some of the most powerful spells in the game, - sleep, charm, hold, suggestion, and the most powerful type of spell in the game - dominate. Any of these spells has the potential to turn a tough encounter into a total cake walk. Dominate can get you a really strong pet for a week or two (each time you cast the spell!), effectively increasing the APL by +1 or +2! The way the game balances enchantment is by making success or failure completely polar. Half the time, your spell can't affect something, (either because they are racially immune, or have some sort of protection from evil or mind blank effect going). In almost all cases, if the creature makes it's save, there is zero effect. However, you can keep casting the same spell, and when it does work, it effectively ends the encounter right there, and frequently throws a wrench into the storyline.
I highly recommend NOT specializing in enchantment. It wrecks up game balance too easily. Select a different type of focus, or at least do something that really branches out from typical sleep, charm, dominate stuff.
PS A "dick move" would be for the GM to let you keep casting the spells, but not tell you that he is fudging the dice behind the screen. Making many opponents immune to mind affecting stuff is a requirement for running a mid-high level campaign. Perhaps both of you should have known that before you made your character, but at this point the best option is to talk it over like adults, and not throw blame around.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ive had a recent experiance online myself.
Was playing kingmaker. I chose to go enchantment wizard because it has lots of h umaniods and political opportunity. Figured charms and such would be good in this campaign.
It was at first. Im not a bad wizard. I used oppressive boredom as my in combat CC. Its not a great spell considering a save happens every round. Plus like the OP said things are immune...especially plants and undead. The campaign has plenty of plants.
Anyways our group starts to flourish when i joined. A lot less deaths, more progression, and a leader who can face as a mage. Well we come to a troll fortress. Trolls are perfect enchantment targets being h umaniods. So i prepare a good number of enchantments in my list and 1 create pit and 1 glitterdust. But mostly enchantment.
We bust into the fortress and i go to oppressive boredom the troll. DM says trolls are immune because they cant make the save and are too single minded to be effective. So i blind them with glitterdust and he b@!%%ed about them getting dusted. The group almost dies fighting 5 trolls cause i couldnt cc creatures i specialize in.
Later this DM throws a CR 11 at a group of level 5s. Then i find out from another group player the DM gave the final boss special story armor that only 1 weapon in existance can kill her. But she has us all on c onstent scry and if anyone trays to research her she pops up and mind f&$&s you. Making you completely forget her.
I got fed up with it and left.
Not everyone's play styles match and sometimes you gotta find better DMs.
Therefore, after seeing several of their encounters against this particular spellcaster, they should have and idea of how things have gone so far, thus, realiazing that they need a different approach for this particular being (the spellcaster)"We need some new tactics! 100% of the forces we sent against this group have been brutally chopped to pieces!"
"I've heard a rumour that one of them is a spellcaster, and that he's only ever been known to cast enchantment spells..."
"Then our course of action is clear! We must all turn into a homebrew race who are immune to enchantment spells!"
He he.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you highly recommend he doesn't play as the character he wants to play?
It's possible that the character he wants to play (depending on the character build and how much the GM builds the adventure around him), will most of the time either completely dominate play (making things not fun for the other players) or be completely worthless (making the player unhappy).
Ultra-specialized characters often sound fun, but usually they aren't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you highly recommend he doesn't play as the character he wants to play?
Yes. There are several types of characters that are very difficult to balance. The boards are full of threads by people who have less fun then they otherwise would because of slumber witches, types of summoners, types of gunslingers, trip/grapplers, etc. Some builds are very difficult for the GM to balance with the mechanics of the game. I recommend against playing these types of characters unless the GM makes lots of effort to rework encounters.
So in essence with enchantment, it shouldn't exist in this game? Or anything else that you specifically deem too good.
I don't think enchantment should be banned, or not exist, but I'm aware that players don't generally enjoy their characters being asleep, held/coup de graced, or dominated. I don't expect GMs would enjoy watching many of their encounters suffer the same fate. On the flip side, I don't expect players to enjoy their spells not working half the time either from a 1st level Protection from evil blocking their 9th level dominate monster, or the creature being immune, or just passing the save. I specifically would ban master/synth summoners, heavens oracles, slumber hex, and a handful of other things. Not everything in the game is well balanced, especially when it comes to everyone having fun.
I'm not trying to be a dick here, but I thought as more experienced players, you guys realized this game is first and foremost about having fun, roleplaying as PCs that players want to, and that the game can be flexible to players who choose their favored routes. Even in the Sacred Core Rulebook it states on 396 that it's the GM's job to make the experience flexible, fun, and fair. Which none of these things he's accomplishing. What's the point of playing a game if you're GM is bent on nullifying your very existence? That's not being a GM who "teaches" to be better. That's a GM being malicious.
It is not about the GM making the game fun for one player. It is about EVERYONE at the table having fun, including all the players and the GM. If everyone at the table has fun coup de gracing held/sleeping monsters at the start of round two, have a blast. However, there are dozens of threads on these boards about people specifically NOT enjoying those games. Also, I want EVERYONE to have fun playing their character, so I make sure that you bring a character to the table that won't step on the GM's fun, or another players. If those two requirements are met - do whatever you want.
Making many opponents immune to mind affecting stuff is a requirement for running a mid-high level campaign.Since when was that a requirement?
It's a requirement if (a) you want to have a fun campaign, (b) you have a caster who likes to use Dominate Monster, and (c) the group as a whole don't think it's fun if every enemy either gets dominated or dies at the hands of other dominated enemies while the rest of the party is rendered worthless.
As a "counterpoint" i guess enemies should have DR30/- at engame content.
At level 20? Sounds about right. You might get an enemy surviving for two or three rounds with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously, if you aren't happy with what is going on in the game, the first step is to talk to the GM about it. That will probably be far more useful than posting on a message board.
Being a GM is tough. You have to balance a lot of things, you want the encounters to have enough of a challenge so that players feel they have 'earned' something when they win, you want everyone to be able to contribute equally so that everyone has a good time. Doing this can be really tough, and it is quite possible to screw up and do something that players (or a player) don't like without meaning to. Additionally different players and different GMs have different views on how fun easy or difficult encounters are. Personally as a GM and a Player, I like to a challenge that pushes the party to the limit, that makes us dig deep and be creative. I have a friend who prefers everything go smoothly and when he runs games fights are usually cake-walks. Obviously we have to, with varying degrees of success, adjust to deal with the others preferences.
So basically, understand that your GM probably has reasons for what he did, and probably thought it was to improve the game.
It seems like this is a 'new' development in the game, so while the particular big bads may be immune to your powers, you aren't sure how often fighting them directly will come up, if only one encounter every four or five features these, you can probably still be quite effective.
Making many opponents immune to mind affecting stuff is a requirement for running a mid-high level campaign.Since when was that a requirement? Please. Please cite your source. I'm VERY curious.
Just search the advice forums for people having problems with the slumber hex. Hundreds of posts are my source. You can also search for threads about hold/coup de grace. Or Heavens oracles... etc. While being master of rocket launcher tag is the goal of many optimization guides, players and GMs generally don't enjoy that play style for very long. Playing the game is fun. Having your ability to participate in the game removed is generally not fun.
If you want to know what people think is fun, just ask them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In response to the current slew of arguments...
The issue with enchantment is that it is binary. Either it works, or it does not. When it does work, it simply changes the parameters of a fight.
Hinging your entire strategy on enchantment is an avenue for shutting down a combat, and shutting down the agency of the other players. This presents a conundrum for a GM, in that he must find a means to present a challenge that can disinvolve everyone else at the table, most especially if there is some manner of boss monster that is likely defeated at the onset of one of the enchantments.
What you are after is not a concept, as such, but an easy method of winning without much team involvement. When you don't win (either through high will saves, SR, or immunity) then you have no fun and feel left out at best, or cheated out of a fun character concept at worst.
To address the assertion that this is a bad character concept, that much is true. It is one that not only makes it less fun for other players, as well as adding to the work of the GM, but it would seem that it also is not much fun for the player in question. I hardly think that this is up for debate; this concept is not a source of fun.
Mayhaps someone would care to explain how a frustrated GM might be asked to put up with an unbalanced concept for the potential fun of one player over everyone else? The mistake was in accepting the base premise, but it was a rookie mistake. The GM needs to be educated, forthwith.
The player (the OP) needs to understand that a concept can fail, whether for an intended mastery of the battlefield, or because it simply doesn't gel. Neither of these reasons is cause for alarm. One CAN consider finding a more harmonious character choice. Decrying that such a switch as an injustice is, simply put, counterproductive.
Understandably that's true, but that doesn't dispel the fact the GM homebrewed a counter race based campaign. He could pick anything and it wouldn't have mattered.
Possibly. Did the GM actually do that, or is the player misunderstanding his motives? We don't know. If the GM did, did he do it because the PC was reaching a level where it was possible to trivialize any other kind of opposition? Because of a personal grudge? Or as part of a master plan to negate all the abilities of all the PCs? I would speculate that it did matter what he picked, and unfortunately he picked something that the GM found he hated when he saw it in actual play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Consider using it as an opportunity for character growth.
Your spell caster has found an enemy they can't affect directly. What would they do?
Research the enemy? There has to be some sort of origin for this new race. Perhaps you can find out something that would help you deal with them in a new way. Research includes using people skills to extract information.
You could even use this to create an advantage. If the enemy knows you are ineffective, they may underestimate you. Continue to in-character refuse to use other schools, while secretly building towards something else that has a good possibility of turning a critical battle. In a campaign environment, this can work quite well.
Mayhaps someone would care to explain how a frustrated GM might be asked to put up with an unbalanced concept for the potential fun of one player over everyone else? The mistake was in accepting the base premise, but it was a rookie mistake. The GM needs to be educated, forthwith.
Or maybe the GM knew this all along. Maybe he wanted the player to enjoy a build that the player wants to play instead of trying to force the player into a different character concept. And maybe he also knew how to force that build to face some unique challenges, invite the player to think outside the box and react to problems that need to be overcome in-character. Maybe the GM feels that no PC should have their cake and eat it all the time.
Both the enchanter and the player will be better for rising to this challenge and solving in-game.
DMs have a bad habit of bringing Kyptonite if they know Superman is gonna be there.
I don't mean that your character is OP, but that using an obvious trump is often going to be the "go to" method of creating challenge; Especially among newer DMs.
With that in mind you can't let yourself be a "one trick pony".
My characters always have 2 jobs...their specialty,and their back up job. Just in case the characters specialty is not very useful in a given situation.
Alot of things are resistant/immune to enchantment.
It's impractical and likely fatal to put all your eggs in that basket.
~ Interesting approach ~
I hope you are right. I have found that players generally want to do what their character is built around. Even if they happen to be good at something, many players won't enjoy playing outside the box, especially if they feel forced, or second rate. For example, two weapon fighting guy wants to get in in there an turn the monster into a pin cushion. Even though he is a fairly good archer (full bab, good dex, composite longbow) he just won't enjoy archery nearly as much as stab/stab/stab/stab/stabing away.
I don't know... players generally talk about enjoying a challenge, but I find that what many people enjoy about the game is success. I would encourage both player and GM to try, but not feel like they failed if they can't make this one work.
~ Interesting approach ~I hope you are right. I have found that players generally want to do what their character is built around. Even if they happen to be good at something, many players won't enjoy playing outside the box, especially if they feel forced, or second rate.
It was certainly not my intent to suggest that the GM should always do this, make every encounter a think-outside-the-box encounter. Just sometimes. Enough to be challenging and to make the players feel like they're earning their rewards.
Along those lines, maybe these immune enemies might have allies, or hire mercenaries, or for any other reason they are working with other races that the enchanter can affect. Maybe many of the battle they'll face include these allies so the enchanter will usually have some targets in most fights.
But, still, a few fights or even a short story arc with immune enemies could be a fun and interesting challenge for a player who is mature enough to recognize and enjoy overcoming challenges. When he does, he'll appreciate the rewards all the more because they will feel like he earned them, instead of just got them by default curb-stompings.
Of course, maybe the GM is just being a jerk and maybe there are issues to be resolved. Maybe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In response to the current slew of arguments...
The issue with enchantment is that it is binary. Either it works, or it does not. When it does work, it simply changes the parameters of a fight.
Hinging your entire strategy on enchantment is an avenue for shutting down a combat, and shutting down the agency of the other players. This presents a conundrum for a GM, in that he must find a means to present a challenge that can disinvolve everyone else at the table, most especially if there is some manner of boss monster that is likely defeated at the onset of one of the enchantments.
What you are after is not a concept, as such, but an easy method of winning without much team involvement. When you don't win (either through high will saves, SR, or immunity) then you have no fun and feel left out at best, or cheated out of a fun character concept at worst.
To address the assertion that this is a bad character concept, that much is true. It is one that not only makes it less fun for other players, as well as adding to the work of the GM, but it would seem that it also is not much fun for the player in question. I hardly think that this is up for debate; this concept is not a source of fun.
Mayhaps someone would care to explain how a frustrated GM might be asked to put up with an unbalanced concept for the potential fun of one player over everyone else? The mistake was in accepting the base premise, but it was a rookie mistake. The GM needs to be educated, forthwith.
The player (the OP) needs to understand that a concept can fail, whether for an intended mastery of the battlefield, or because it simply doesn't gel. Neither of these reasons is cause for alarm. One CAN consider finding a more harmonious character choice. Decrying that such a switch as an injustice is, simply put, counterproductive.
Agree with this. Furthermore, even if you remove the enchantment argument from the equation the underlying point still stands: Extremely specialized characters push conflicts/encounters toward extreme outcomes - if the encounter is in the character's wheelhouse, it's likely the character will utterly dominate things, while if the encounter is not, the character stands there uselessly.
Making a one-trick pony is pretty much always a bad idea; your GM should've discouraged the idea from the start. It's always best to have back-up capabilities to whatever your focus is. That way your GM doesn't always have to design encounters with your character's focus specifically in mind, and for you the chance of being useless during any given encounter is reduced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think all of the responses along the lines of "well, if you think about it realistically, this type of character would be screwed over" to be entirely missing the point. This is not a video game. The purpose of the game is to HAVE FUN. If one of the players isn't having fun as a result of your DMing choices, you have failed, end of story. DMs hold all the cards and as such shoulder the lion's share of responsibility. If a player comes to you with a one trick pony before the campaign that you, using the knowledge exclusive to you as a DM, know will not work, it is your responsibility to warn them. That's why they went to you in the first place.
I think a lot of players get trapped in a PFS mindset. One of the major advantages of a home game is that you can play that odd character that wouldn't work anywhere else. You can play a one trick pony that normally wouldn't work because you can trust the DM not to dick you over. On the flipside, as a DM you can trust that if a player goes too far powerwise you can talk to them out of game and have them tone it down, and not nerf their character into uselessness with encounter design. If these two things aren't true, your group has a disfunction. As nearly everyone has said prior, just talking can usually sort it out pretty quickly.
OP hasn't really given enough information. What level are you, how long have you been playing this character, have you been able to use your enchantment spells before now or were they being constantly gimped straight out of the gate?
Having the main villains be immune to enchantment seems fine to me, even somewhat expected, that's why they are the main villain -- if it was something you could just spam charm at until you won they would be an afternoon encounter, a one-line diary entry on your journey to ultimate power(TM).
Enchanters typically surround themselves with pets, that is sort of their thing, they do this precisely because those that don't end up dying to hoard of zombies or a couple clay golems or some bizarre outsider immune to their spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi again, wow that was a lot of replies to read through, thank you all, i really appreciate it.
I shall try and reply to the questions raised.
- Those saying "don't post, just talk to gm". As stated i just wanted to have a second or 47th opinion on the topic before i started whining.
-I completely agree with the idea that enemies evolve and therefore doesn't complain about every foe having improved iron will. However, i also agree with Mathew Downie's comment
"Then our course of action is clear! We must all turn into a homebrew race who are immune to enchantment spells!"
-As some of you seem to have missed, I knew very well that playing a one-trick-pony would leave me useless in many combats, and therefore i took precautions towards this. When fighting the "normal" immune to mind affection i use scrolls such as halt undead and holy water and bolts of bane undead/constucts etc.
-Being a pure enchanter means very few defensive spells and therefore i use quite a lot of time lying on the ground.
-I know exactly how to make a min/max character, and how to make a character that can handle every situation. I deliberately did not want that. I have been extremely resourceful in golem/undead combats and that has not been a problem.
-I am not by any means the most dominating member in our group. I have my good days but other members shine far more. Usually i crowd control small portions of the battlefield while the rest of the gang kills other parts.
-This homebrew race was designed ability-wise only recently with the sole purpose of negating my character. The reason why i think there will be more is that a portal to their world was just opened and closing it is the main objective.
-A last note: We already have a house rule stating that any boss can reroll any condition on his turn instead of acting which greatly nerfs my spells against bosses.
I will talk to him next time
It's you.
What was the question?
It's a joke