Kyrt, did you delete and repost, and/or am I going totally insane?
|
I wouldn't worry too much about being banned. At worst, some posts will be deleted. Paizo bans about ten guys a day, but they all speak in weird gibberish and write large, hard-to-follow posts advancing some inane agenda.
*Insert joke here*
*What's wrong with my inane agenda!?*
*You racist... against gnomes!*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't understand the idea that the player should be held to some kind of standard of fun for other players. Don't misunderstand me, everyone should be having fun and the disparity is a problem. But not one caused by the player. It was caused by the DM. He gave away a truck load of money and didn't give any spending guidelines. He even approved the choices that were made. If this was an oversight or a bad call or whatever, then fine. That's cool. But the answer isn't "Oh I gave you too much money and approved your choices? Oh well then this is your fault for not also being psychic." it's "Hey guys, yeah it's legal but I goofed. Here's a a few ideas for how we fix this, lets go over them and see what we can do."
Honestly, this all speaks to a greater problem that has existed for years. Some classes don't have rolls. Damage isn't a roll. This isn't an MMO. If all of your feats and class resources are spent to make you better at dealing damage than the conclusion isn't that damage is your schtik. It's that you don't HAVE a schtik at all. Being a big burly warrior comes with more aspects than just hitting things hard. If your entire contribution to the game can be supplanted by another classes features than the answer isn't to force others to abide by nebulous agreements (even if the vagueness can be mitigated by open communication). It's to fix the core problem.
Now, these problems can and do exist so a gentlemen's agreement IS necessary until they no longer do. My argument was never that it shouldn't exist. Merely that it's existence is problematic because it is merely a tool - an invisible and vague tool- that we use to sweep the large issue under the rug.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't understand the idea that the player should be held to some kind of standard of fun for other players. Don't misunderstand me, everyone should be having fun and the disparity is a problem. But not one caused by the player. It was caused by the DM. He gave away a truck load of money and didn't give any spending guidelines. He even approved the choices that were made.
Yep, I agree that it's the GM who botched the issue. Giving nearly 1 million gold coins to a 7th lvl party isn't going to end well. Approving a CR15 construct for a 7th lvl party isn't a good idea.
However, if the player would be really trying to build what he says he tries to build, that wouldn't be an issue. Nobody would care if he has a shield guardian that protect him in the rear. The problem is that his "guardian" does 24d8+90, at lvl 7, with the average CR7 creature having 85hp and AC 20. Even then, it could not be a problem, if everybody in the table agree and have fun with that kind of play, and everybody is honest about how they want to play the campaign. Overpowered campaigns can be fun too, there's nothing wrong with that. You can have fun doing CR15 damage at lvl 7, both because obliterating CR7 encounters can be fun, and because you can try to face CR15 encounters, which are really hard for your level and you can have fun with said challenge.
The problem comes because:
1) it's not true that everybody in the table agree and have fun
2) There isn't honesty about the issue. The OP tries to hide the truth, which is that he wants a 6 armed killing machine able to kill twice per round his average CR foe. If he didn't want a 6 armed killing machine with blades instead of hands, he wouldn't had spent (by his own words) lot of time preparing that char, discussing and brainstorming options, planning and dessigning it, and going as far as to open a thread in the advice forum asking for ways to improve his construct's damage. A standard construct with 2 bladed arms and 2 slams will probably be better at damage than the bloodrager. But he wasn't happy with being "just" better than the bloodrager. He spent time, brainstormed ideas, and asked for advice, until he was able to completely dust the bloodrager, to the point he's obsolete and irrelevant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't understand the idea that the player should be held to some kind of standard of fun for other players. Don't misunderstand me, everyone should be having fun and the disparity is a problem. But not one caused by the player. It was caused by the DM. He gave away a truck load of money and didn't give any spending guidelines. He even approved the choices that were made.Yep, I agree that it's the GM who botched the issue. Giving nearly 1 million gold coins to a 7th lvl party isn't going to end well. Approving a CR15 construct for a 7th lvl party isn't a good idea.
However, if the player would be really trying to build what he says he tries to build, that wouldn't be an issue. Nobody would care if he has a shield guardian that protect him in the rear. The problem is that his "guardian" does 24d8+90, at lvl 7, with the average CR7 creature having 85hp and AC 20. Even then, it could not be a problem, if everybody in the table agree and have fun with that kind of play, and everybody is honest about how they want to play the campaign. Overpowered campaigns can be fun too, there's nothing wrong with that. You can have fun doing CR15 damage at lvl 7, both because obliterating CR7 encounters can be fun, and because you can try to face CR15 encounters, which are really hard for your level and you can have fun with said challenge.
The problem comes because:
1) it's not true that everybody in the table agree and have fun
2) There isn't honesty about the issue. The OP tries to hide the truth, which is that he wants a 6 armed killing machine able to kill twice per round his average CR foe. If he didn't want a 6 armed killing machine with blades instead of hands, he wouldn't had spent (by his own words) lot of time preparing that char, discussing and brainstorming options, planning and dessigning it, and going as far as to open a thread in the advice forum asking for ways to improve his construct's damage. A standard construct with...
Yea the DM gave too much gold to the entire party, strz took advantage of this and created something that was totally overpowered for the parties' entire lvl and cr.
I have no problem with a player min/maxing their characters, had strz done this the legit way, without all the money then I wouldn't care how unfair the bloodrager whined. Each player should be able to run and play their character as they see fit. Now don't get me wrong you should still try to cooperate with the party, because no one player should be able to handle 100% of the situations and circumstances that arise when playing a pathfinder module or AP. But come on no player should have to hold back just because they designed a better character than someone else. Take for example the wizard, it is the top rated class on most people's list just because a how versatile it is. Heck especially at later lvls the wizard class can do just about anything a specialized class can do just as well if not better, including buffing, melee, range and even summoning. Now can playing such a class all the time get boring, yeah.
When a game loses its challenge than it gets boring for most people. When a gm pulls stuff like what is described is this message board thread, what's the point of evening playing. The whole point of playing pathfinder is to just have fun, and half of that is having a challenge. Heck I am the rule nazi of my group and I am not even the DM. I have been told to shut it quite a few times by my group, even when I prove I am right. That really made me mad, until one player in our group pointed out the main rule of pathfinder and that is to have fun. Basically what I am trying to say is this, both the gm and the players have to work together to make the game fun and if you concentrate to much on the rules or letting the group have access to something that they are not supposed to have or be able to do at a certain lvl, the fun is taken out of the game.