When a GM hates all of your characters you've ever made...

[LazarX]

Caryth Derellis wrote:

All my characters are within the rules of the game. I do not bend or push ANY.

Not to refer to your case, but I hear that line from the worse of the cheese weasel rules lawyers every time they defend their abuses of the rules. It's right up there with "Creative Thinking".

Obeying the RAW by itself is not proof of innocence. But the issue in this case seems to be more of a personal level between the Player and his GM and that's where it needs to be resolved.

[Caryth Derellis]

bookrat wrote:

I really like the idea of having you play an iconic character for a while. This will test whether the GM hates your characters or just a hates you.

If, while playing an iconic character, he still does all these things to you, then I would ask him why he's still picking on you when you obviously do not have an optimized character. If he still insists on picking on you, then I strongly suggest finding a new GM. Either rotate GMs out within your own group or find a new group to play with.

What do you mean by an "iconic" character?

[RDM42]

One of the iconics: the example characters they make of each new class.

[bookrat]

Caryth Derellis wrote:

bookrat wrote:

I really like the idea of having you play an iconic character for a while. This will test whether the GM hates your characters or just a hates you.

If, while playing an iconic character, he still does all these things to you, then I would ask him why he's still picking on you when you obviously do not have an optimized character. If he still insists on picking on you, then I strongly suggest finding a new GM. Either rotate GMs out within your own group or find a new group to play with.

What do you mean by an "iconic" character?

Do you own any of the pdf's or hardback books? All the artwork of the classes in the books are the iconic characters. Paizo has all the stats for them at representative levels. They also include all these characters in the artwork for their Adventure Paths.

Here's a link to the blogs about each individual iconic character.

And here's a link to the characters themselves on the PRD.

There's an Iconic character for each class.

They are not optimized, and the power level they represent is the expected power level of a character for each of their adventure paths.

[Charon's Little Helper]

bookrat wrote:

They are not optimized, and the power level they represent is the expected power level of a character for each of their adventure paths.

Mostly - a couple *cough* Harsk *cough* are just REALLY bad.

[Arachnofiend]

And by "expected power level" we mean "the lowest possible standard for viability". If your GM still has problems with an iconic then he's just being a prick.

[bookrat]

Arachnofiend wrote:

And by "expected power level" we mean "the lowest possible standard for viability". If your GM still has problems with an iconic then he's just being a prick.

Yup. This is what I meant when I said that if the GM is still being mean to you when playing an iconic, then he's not doing this because he hates the characters you play, he's doing it because he doesn't like you.

[Caryth Derellis]

At one point I was going to make a half-elf investigator with pretty much zero combat capability and just max out my skills as the entire focus of my character and just RP it up because I am sick of all the crap listed previously. I may end up doing that next and see what happens.

[The Factotum]

Caryth Derellis wrote:

At one point I was going to make a half-elf investigator with pretty much zero combat capability and just max out my skills as the entire focus of my character and just RP it up because I am sick of all the crap listed previously. I may end up doing that next and see what happens.

Not sure, the Dungeon-dex is a good character to play, it gives intel but it could also result in problems as if you roll to high on the knowledge rolls, or any other skill check you could make him start giving more information then he wants to give.

The others posts who claim he might be too attached may be right. He is also probably wanting to GM for those people who are rather new or don't do anything but bare minimum for character development because it is an easier job.

Basically to keep a barbarian entertained for combat make the AC reasonable and the HP high and the Barb will have fun hacking away at the meat block in front of him. For your characters it may be that you know too well how to bring them down and so he feels that combat is not taking as long as it should.

[Covent]

Caryth Derellis wrote:

He gave the channeling cleric a set of rings that he can pass out to party members. If they are wearing them, his channel acts as if it were selective. Yes, this one benefits everyone - so this is perhaps a minor one. This would be an INCREDIBLY expensive set of items though, and this was at level 3.

He has awared the tank character with magic armor, weapon, ring(s).

I have NO magic items, and not enough gold to buy the ones I want/need. All the loot value has been wrapped up in what he awards.

He allows people extra reflex saves and d20 rolls of all sorts to avoid danger or perform special attacks that deal extra damage or have extra effects, while he makes me REROLL saves or makes me roll additional saves to avoid dangers. He makes me call "evens/odds" ( and seemingly decides what he wants to happen anyway) all the time to determine whether or not my character does something that I never declared he did... I can't recall everything, but the idea is that this is a chronic issue.

All of the following is just my opinion and is slanted by the fact that I almost exclusively GM.

Rings: Not a problem, this is a "Lets keep the party alive via bypasing feat taxes" move. I have done small things like this at low levels.

Tank's Gear: Depending on exactly what you are talking about this may be fine or way over the top.

Ex: +1 Chain shirt (1250), +1 Weapon (2,XXX), +1 RoP (2,000), Ring of Sustanance (2,500) = 7750 + cost of normal weapon = ~8,000 GP WBL This is somewhere between a 4/5th level PC's standard WBL. In high fantasy it is between a 3/4th level PC's and would be appropriate. Basically at the low end this is not that extreme I would need details to know exactly how to respond to this.

You having 0 magic items: Do you have less than 2,500 gp counting gear and consumables you possess? If so this is slightly low for a standard fantasy game and very low for a high fantasy game. Yet again my answer to this depends on whether you are sitting on gold because you "have" to get a quicken rod, or some other expensive item and are by choice skipping such things as Rings of sustenance and handy haversacks. If you just do not have any gold or valuable possessions and the "tank" is decked out as described then it is possible you are being singled out or perhaps treasure your GM selected for you simply has not come yet. Caster items are usually lump sum items rather than incremental items. I would expect at least a +1 cloak however by level 3.

Others getting extra "Bonus" saves/attacks, while you are forced to re-roll successful saves and take "penalty" saves: If this is true then the only reason this might be slightly justified is if the table has a "must roll in the open/dice box/dice tower" rule and he only makes you re-roll when not witnessed/in the box/in the tower. Otherwise this is a quiet talk with the table, followed by if no improvements a gentle "goodbye" and never letting that GM run a game for you again.

Even/Odds GM control of your character: When this happens please ask your GM, "Am I dominated/Charmed/Mind-controlled?" if he says "No" then politely tell him "Then my character does not do that." and continue on with the session. This is a big red flag for me. If he continues or becomes insistent that even without a mechanical reason your character does this "Because I said so." then again a quiet talk with the table is in order and if this does not address the issue a gentle "goodbye" followed by never letting that GM run for you again. If he says "You are Dominated/Charmed/Mind-controlled" ask for a save and if he says "Sure, roll" and then regardless of the result says "you fail!" ask for a spellcraft/perception/knowledge check to recognize the origin of the spell/effect.

Basically your character is the only thing you do control in the game and in my opinion the only reason for a GM to dictate actions to you is in case of a mechanical constraint, not a "I need this for my story/Lol this will be funny/I hate/love this guy."

TL;DR: No Gaming > Bad Gaming. Be adult but firm and do not hesitate to walk.

P.S. I would love more detail and perhaps another perspective. Please invite your GM or some of your other players to this thread.

[Minos Judge]

I have a friend who refuses to play with anything that is not fully optimized. He will not put a single skill point from a fighter into anything that dose not make him a better killing machine. This makes it harder when the rest of the group has points put into face skills and are less then fully optimized. You might consider lower your optimization into the level of the rest of group. If you notice everyone else has social skills and you do not maybe take a couple and see how it works out for you.

Ok to look at the last post you are going to make all your social skills which will continue the trend of him not liking your characters. Try a more balanced approach.

[Arachnofiend]

Minos Judge wrote:

I have a friend who refuses to play with anything that is not fully optimized. He will not put a single skill point from a fighter into anything that dose not make him a better killing machine. This makes it harder when the rest of the group has points put into face skills and are less then fully optimized. You might consider lower your optimization into the level of the rest of group. If you notice everyone else has social skills and you do not maybe take a couple and see how it works out for you.

Ok to look at the last post you are going to make all your social skills which will continue the trend of him not liking your characters. Try a more balanced approach.

Read more of the thread, his current character (the witch) is the party face. Maximizing combat ability at the expense of all else isn't really optimizing anyways, there's a point where being more of a killing machine is just overkill. You want to be able to contribute in larger portions of the game.

[Balgin]

Caryth Derellis wrote:

He makes me call "evens/odds" ( and seemingly decides what he wants to happen anyway) all the time to determine whether or not my character does something that I never declared he did... I can't recall everything, but the idea is that this is a chronic issue.

I must say that when I, as a GM, call for an odds or evens roll I have definitely decided which will be which before I even call for it. Not all gm's are the same 'though (I can think of one who almost definitely isn't).

[DM_Blake]

Balgin wrote:

Caryth Derellis wrote:

He makes me call "evens/odds" ( and seemingly decides what he wants to happen anyway) all the time to determine whether or not my character does something that I never declared he did... I can't recall everything, but the idea is that this is a chronic issue.

I must say that when I, as a GM, call for an odds or evens roll I have definitely decided which will be which before I even call for it. Not all gm's are the same 'though (I can think of one who almost definitely isn't).

Heads I win, Tails you lose...

[wraithstrike]

I would suggest talking or inviting him here. Many times the other side of the story reveals a lot.

[Otherwhere]

I may have missed it, but are you the only one having this experience with the GM?

For myself, I realized that what triggers me most about my 1 player is the knack he has of trivializing encounters, either through rules-lawyring or exploiting an unknown synergy, etc., such that: he doesn't have to deal with some obstacle/threat, or the group doesn't have to deal with it. And so hours of prep go out the window because of something I've overlooked.

As I said, the others don't do that, so I don't think it's that I have poor system mastery (though I am still new to PF after a year-and-a-half because of all the new books that keep coming out). It's the way he has of finding these loopholes and exploits and making thing trivial or negated. It's a gift! But it's not fun to GM for.

[Caryth Derellis]

Yes it is only me.

I think much of it has to do with the competitiveness we have between us as friends. Much of the time it's not an issue, but I think it comes to light during the game.

[redcelt32]

Small piece of directly constructive advice based on my observations and experiences as a GM. Optimizing focused players with strong game mastery (which it sounds like you are) tend to make characters that disturb GMs and other players for three reasons:

- extremely efficient and synergistic character design. Very strong and solid builds with few weakness, are versatile, and very very good at doing the things they are good at.

- Super stack all their feats, traits, and most especially stats towards doing the Things They are Good At.

- Tend to be extremely efficient at actions each turn, never wasting a round or doing things that are less than The Best Action Each Round.

All of these things are to be admired. However, unless you are sitting at a group of like-minded and similarly skilled players, and most importantly GM, this tends to upset people. That sounds like what is happening with your GM.

Here is my advice...unstack your feats, stats, etc and make them more moderate, with a mix of non-optimized feats you can still enjoy playing with s other aspects of your character. The game mastery players in my games can have all 10s and 12s, be underequipped, and are still going to shine because their build ability and action efficiency are very strong.

As a side note about powerful, expensive items for other characters...as a GM I do that frequently in my games because I have a big variety of crunch gurus and crunch clueless theatre majors :) In order for there to be some level of parity and allowing everyone to have fun equally. This allows my crunch gurus to not have to hold back, but still let my "war sashes are a cool weapon" players to not be completely marginalized. Let that go, taking it as a compliment that your skills are so good, the GM thinks the other players need props to be on par with you.

[Tormund Redbeard]

redcelt32 wrote:

Small piece of directly constructive advice based on my observations and experiences as a GM. Optimizing focused players with strong game mastery (which it sounds like you are) tend to make characters that disturb GMs and other players for three reasons:

- extremely efficient and synergistic character design. Very strong and solid builds with few weakness, are versatile, and very very good at doing the things they are good at.

- Super stack all their feats, traits, and most especially stats towards doing the Things They are Good At.

- Tend to be extremely efficient at actions each turn, never wasting a round or doing things that are less than The Best Action Each Round.

All of these things are to be admired. However, unless you are sitting at a group of like-minded and similarly skilled players, and most importantly GM, this tends to upset people. That sounds like what is happening with your GM.

Here is my advice...unstack your feats, stats, etc and make them more moderate, with a mix of non-optimized feats you can still enjoy playing with s other aspects of your character. The game mastery players in my games can have all 10s and 12s, be underequipped, and are still going to shine because their build ability and action efficiency are very strong.

I don't agree with that advice. Telling someone to basically throw away a character design or build to make the GM happy is BS.

The OP has specifically stated that the other players are decked out with magic gear and weapons and he has none. He has stated the GM has made him reroll saves even when he rolled a success first. Autoing his character with Odd/Even rolls. And you really think this is about him taking something like Weapon Focus over Toughness? Or that he might have a 16 in a stat rather then a 10?

EDIT: The argument that it is a compliment is complete BS as well. Saying that the DM is only giving out gear to other players because he is to OP is BS on a level I am not sure all the Cows on this planet can keep up with.

He is playing a Witch, which is powerful yes but that is the class, saying he should get 0 loot and have to dump all his feats into useless Fluff Feats and drop his stats to 10 point buy is BS

[Caryth Derellis]

Quote:

I don't agree with that advice. Telling someone to basically throw away a character design or build to make the GM happy is BS.

The OP has specifically stated that the other players are decked out with magic gear and weapons and he has none. He has stated the GM has made him reroll saves even when he rolled a success first. Autoing his character with Odd/Even rolls. And you really think this is about him taking something like Weapon Focus over Toughness? Or that he might have a 16 in a stat rather then a 10?

EDIT: The argument that it is a compliment is complete BS as well. Saying that the DM is only giving out gear to other players because he is to OP is BS on a level I am not sure all the Cows on...

Haha, hear, hear!

[RDM42]

Try occasionally making a character that doesn't have to be maxed out at something?character can be perfectly viable without being maxed out.

[Tormund Redbeard]

RDM42 wrote:

Try occasionally making a character that doesn't have to be maxed out at something?character can be perfectly viable without being maxed out.

Here we go again, when has he said he MAXED out anything? Optimizing is a scale just because you take an optimized option does not make you Pun Pun.

A Barbarian with a high Str taking a Greatsword is Optimizing his Barbarian to some degree. If he takes Power Attack and Cleave as his first two feats (Human bonus feat) he is an optimized Barbarian. Would you say that level of optimizing is breaking the game? Some would, with that he can clear combats in a few turns that was designed for the whole party to take down.

A Witch taking Improved Familiar or something similar is not overly Optimizing. It is an improvement for sure, but not breaking the world.

In short taking optimized options does not make you a Min/Maxer or Maxed out.

[Caryth Derellis]

Tormund Redbeard wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

Try occasionally making a character that doesn't have to be maxed out at something?character can be perfectly viable without being maxed out.

Here we go again, when has he said he MAXED out anything? Optimizing is a scale just because you take an optimized option does not make you Pun Pun.

A Barbarian with a high Str taking a Greatsword is Optimizing his Barbarian to some degree. If he takes Power Attack and Cleave as his first two feats (Human bonus feat) he is an optimized Barbarian. Would you say that level of optimizing is breaking the game? Some would, with that he can clear combats in a few turns that was designed for the whole party to take down.

A Witch taking Improved Familiar or something similar is not overly Optimizing. It is an improvement for sure, but not breaking the world.

In short taking optimized options does not make you a Min/Maxer or Maxed out.

Amen.

[Otherwhere]

Caryth Derellis wrote:

Yes it is only me.

I think much of it has to do with the competitiveness we have between us as friends. Much of the time it's not an issue, but I think it comes to light during the game.

[in the voice of a New York plumber] Well there's your problem!

So it doesn't matter what you make, he's going to negate you.

In which case, either learn to find the fun in goading him with your choices during play OR find another group to play with. (Doesn't mean you have to give up this group - just give yourself another place to play.)

[Tormund Redbeard]

Caryth Derellis wrote:

Tormund Redbeard wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

Try occasionally making a character that doesn't have to be maxed out at something?character can be perfectly viable without being maxed out.

Here we go again, when has he said he MAXED out anything? Optimizing is a scale just because you take an optimized option does not make you Pun Pun.

A Barbarian with a high Str taking a Greatsword is Optimizing his Barbarian to some degree. If he takes Power Attack and Cleave as his first two feats (Human bonus feat) he is an optimized Barbarian. Would you say that level of optimizing is breaking the game? Some would, with that he can clear combats in a few turns that was designed for the whole party to take down.

A Witch taking Improved Familiar or something similar is not overly Optimizing. It is an improvement for sure, but not breaking the world.

In short taking optimized options does not make you a Min/Maxer or Maxed out.

Amen.

If you have not guessed I dabble in the art of optimizing as well. But I don't always. I do however see a few players over optimize but they are typically only good at 1 thing. Take away that 1 thing and they fail utterly.

If someone specializing in say Iaijutsu Focus from 3.0 cannot get a foe flatfooted and no one except his challenge to duel.. all that effort is for not.

[Caryth Derellis]

Otherwhere wrote:

Caryth Derellis wrote:

Yes it is only me.

I think much of it has to do with the competitiveness we have between us as friends. Much of the time it's not an issue, but I think it comes to light during the game.

[in the voice of a New York plumber] Well there's your problem!

So it doesn't matter what you make, he's going to negate you.

In which case, either learn to find the fun in goading him with your choices during play OR find another group to play with. (Doesn't mean you have to give up this group - just give yourself another place to play.)

Probably a wise route to take. I'll probably try "optimizing" an investigator next. :P

If he complains about my Perception or Knowledge History checks we have a bigger issue... xD

[Dave Justus]

It is certainly possible that your GM is a jerk, he hates you and wants you to quit. Without actually knowing both him and you, no one here can really get a good handle on what is going on. I will assume that that is not the case though, since if it is, there really isn't any useful advice anyone can give you.

Additionally, while talking about it with the GM is a fine idea, and there is no reason not to try, I generally don't think that planning on someone else to change their behavior in order for you to be happy is not a wise policy. In general, people don't change and it is likely that his habits will continue.

Realize that the real problem here isn't what your GM is doing. The real problem is that you are not having fun. While certainly other people can make that easier or harder, a great deal of it is in fact simply in your control. You can, if you desire, exercise a great deal of influence in how things affect you and how you respond to them.

As an illustration, you seem to be dwelling on how unfair this GM is being to your character. It bothers you, and being treated poorly is causing you unhappiness. At the same time though, it does appear that despite this handicap, your character is quite effective. If you choose to take the GM weighting the scales against you as a compliment, praise of your ability and choose to treat it as a welcome challenge rather than being picked on, it is quite possible that you will enjoy this, not find it unfair. Indeed, it is quite possible that the GM is trying to give you a challenge (and a compliment that without something extra you wouldn't have one) and that this is, in his mind, for your benefit.

The other thing I would advise, is to not dwell on it. Focusing on this probably increased the problem, if nothing else it makes you very vulnerable to confirmation bias, which will tend to make you see this issue more and more, regardless of how frequently it is coming up. This isn't saying that you are making it all up, but however often it really happens, obsessing over it will make it seem to happen more often, and to the extent that you dislike this sort of treatment, it will make you less happy. It is a game, no matter how bad it may be, it isn't a big deal.

[Peshmonster]

Caryth,

I really like the idea of you playing the iconic for a few sessions. And when you do this, pick the bloodrager. That guys does more dmg then 75% of the characters I play/play with. Then you have the whole argument of...yeah I didn't make this.

[Tormund Redbeard]

Peshmonster wrote:

Caryth,

I really like the idea of you playing the iconic for a few sessions. And when you do this, pick the bloodrager. That guys does more dmg then 75% of the characters I play/play with. Then you have the whole argument of...yeah I didn't make this.

^ he makes a fine point.

[Caryth Derellis]

Peshmonster wrote:

Caryth,

I really like the idea of you playing the iconic for a few sessions. And when you do this, pick the bloodrager. That guys does more dmg then 75% of the characters I play/play with. Then you have the whole argument of...yeah I didn't make this.

Haha I will give it a shot! xD

[FamiliarMask]

Caryth Derellis wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

Examples of the 'special perks?'?

He gave the channeling cleric a set of rings that he can pass out to party members. If they are wearing them, his channel acts as if it were selective. Yes, this one benefits everyone - so this is perhaps a minor one. This would be an INCREDIBLY expensive set of items though, and this was at level 3.

He has awared the tank character with magic armor, weapon, ring(s).

I have NO magic items, and not enough gold to buy the ones I want/need. All the loot value has been wrapped up in what he awards.

He allows people extra reflex saves and d20 rolls of all sorts to avoid danger or perform special attacks that deal extra damage or have extra effects, while he makes me REROLL saves or makes me roll additional saves to avoid dangers. He makes me call "evens/odds" ( and seemingly decides what he wants to happen anyway) all the time to determine whether or not my character does something that I never declared he did... I can't recall everything, but the idea is that this is a chronic issue.

Huh, this sounds like a bigger problem than first described, and is certainly not entirely about your level of optimization given what you've said here and in the last few posts. I'm not sure what the issue is, but it does appear that the GM is targeting you specifically.

At this point, I think that a talk with your GM is in order. Let him know you're feeling targeted and why, and that it's hurting your fun, and see how he responds.

[Redjack_rose]

As a GM I find a lot of what you've described appalling. While there is something to be said about players exceeding the party in optimization/mastery, these are issues resolved outside of the game in a one on one conversation and not by punishing a player in game.

Honestly it seems like a talk to the GM is in order. While I can see a GM helping bring others up by a little extra wealth, completely shutting someone else's wealth off to bring them down is just being a jerk. The other things [re-roll made saves, etc...] should never be done unless there is an in-game reason for it, and it effects all players about equally.

You may not get the answer you're looking for, but if it's determined your GM is just being a jerk it may be time to find a better one. Maybe you could even offer to run... he might be just sick of being the GM.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

Optimizing for some, miniature American flags for others!

[Mykull]

Consider Gandalf: Could he have unloaded implosion on the troll in the Mines of Moria? Undoubtedly. Then a meteor swarm for the rest and the encounter is over in two rounds.

But why doesn't he? Because he knows that Sam, Merry, Pippin and Frodo have a long way to go and they're going to need to gain a few levels before they get there. And the only way that's going to happen is with EXPERIENCE. So, in that encounter, Gandalf does very little. Oh, sure, he's swinging his sword and thumping with his staff. But let's be clear: He's a wizard in melee ! ! !

So you've optimized your character to thrash everything real quick with a sword. Stand back and shoot a crossbow instead. Delay a round. Ready an action to attack someone trying to flee. The reason? Your other friends need to learn how to handle themselves because you're not always going to be there for them.

And if things get too hairy for them? THEN you can swoop in and end it. Just because your character is optimized doesn't mean you need to play him optimally.

[Redjack_rose]

I think people are focusing a little too much on ''how to avoid being the best and letting others have fun'' and overlooking the GM is behaving poorly here.

[kyrt-ryder]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Does everyone else in the party suck at optimizing? It sounds like a case of "We're role-players, not roll-players around here!".

If this is the case, the answer is to really buckle down and focus on the roleplay aspect of the campaign. Dive into the story and into interactions with NPCs and such, be the most immersed roleplayer at the table.

Quote:

You could help the rest of the group optimize as well so that you're all on similar footing.

This won't help. The GM hates his characters for being effective, having a whole table full of the monsters is just going to make the GM flip the table and resign [which may not be a bad thing in this case, all things considered. Then again perhaps it would...]

[kyrt-ryder]

Dosgamer wrote:

Characters that are optimized to do a thing/few things very well (to the point of them being almost auto-success every time) are problematic for DMs.

Last I checked, the party is supposed to succeed. Not necessarily every check, but every encounter should be successful in some way [even if it's a successful retreat carrying the dead body of a companion] lest the game end or be sustained purely by Deus Ex GMachina/

As a GM, I LIKE having successful characters in my party. If the players are winning easily, that's fine. If the players would prefer more challenge they can always request it and I could deliver.

Quote:

As a DM, I like it when players include me in the discussion.

Total agreement here. Games are best when the GM is intimately involved in co-creation of characters with the player [player gets what he wants, GM helps make it happen in the way that best fits the campaign] and the players are strongly involved in co-creation of the world.

[Am I The Only One?]

Ryuko wrote:

This is another of the many, many threads that boil down to "someone in my group is being a real Dick, whether intentionally or accidentally." To which I must give a simple and clear response.

Talk to them, privately and outside the game, and inform them that their behavior is making you question if you'd like to continue playing with them. Hope they change their tune, and if they don't then remove yourself or them from the group.

This. And also, dear OP, be aware that as much as we love to think we are so, so innocent in every situation wherein we find ourselves feeling the ire of another person, we very, very rarely are.

What I'm saying is you might consider whether your attitude, things you say, the manner in which you carry yourself, or describe what you are doing, is an irritant to this person (and possibly to others).

It takes two to tango. It really does. One guy to be a jerk and another guy to react to the jerkiness. You've described your amazing ability to optimize. Wonderful. That, itself, is not an evil. You've also described a few routines you consistently used. Boring, but not an evil. What you haven't mentioned, are the ways in which you approached those things at the table.

I suspect it is not as pretty a picture as you would have us imagine.

And by the way, this is about the ten-millionth thread in which a proud optimizer has made his GM out to be a terrible jerk "for no apparent reason" while leaving out his own behavior. Gettin' old, guy.

[Rynjin]

Mykull wrote:

Consider Gandalf: Could he have unloaded implosion on the troll in the Mines of Moria? Undoubtedly. Then a meteor swarm for the rest and the encounter is over in two rounds.

But why doesn't he? Because he knows that Sam, Merry, Pippin and Frodo have a long way to go and they're going to need to gain a few levels before they get there. And the only way that's going to happen is with EXPERIENCE. So, in that encounter, Gandalf does very little. Oh, sure, he's swinging his sword and thumping with his staff. But let's be clear: He's a wizard in melee ! ! !

Actually the reason he doesn't is because he's not ALLOWED to use his full powers, but 'kay.

[chaoseffect]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

bookrat wrote:

They are not optimized, and the power level they represent is the expected power level of a character for each of their adventure paths.

Mostly - a couple *cough* Harsk *cough* are just REALLY bad.

Some of them could have been better by just picking their feats and class features out of a hat.

[kyrt-ryder]

Quote:

I appear to have a lot in common with your GM. As a Gm I've recently come a lot of characters and players exhibiting similar traits and it's started to rub me up the wrong way. A lot of players are overspecialising or (in a few rare cases) boring one trick ponies. I don't mind if a player does something that's effective. In fact I cheer them on. Well done them. They contributed well to a successful endeavour and everybody had fun. If it happens again that's also great. If it keeps happening and it's the same player every time then the other players don't get to do so much. Also if it's highly effective it can start to make me feel powerless as a gm. What can I do?

You can mix up your encounters and creatures and strategies >_< A One Trick Pony is just that… a pony with only one trick. That trick isn’t always going to work, and half the time it does its going to need support from the rest of the party to pull it off. This is especially true in the case of physical damage.

Quote:

It's just going to be the same one trick pony one size fits all solution to walk all over my carefully constructed encounter whatever I do.

You can either pull out random encounters for the fun of it without worrying about how the party will deal with it, or you can carefully construct encounters… wait for it… according to the party’s capabilities. This means sometimes the One Trick Pony can’t use his One Trick, or sometimes his One Trick is usable but very very inefficient at ending the encounter.

Quote:

This can feel a lot worse if I'm running a published scenario, module or even a campaign (I'll have a lot more freedom if I'm running something I made up myself).

Can’t help you here, I don’t do Published Adventures.

Quote:

When such a player brings a new character to the table there's this horrible sense of apprehension. "Great," I'll think, "what horribly broken rediculously overpowered rules exploit are they going to pull out of nowhere this time?"

This is a bad attitude and you should feel bad for having it. Your player is probably not deliberately exploiting the rules, far more likely he wants a character who is actually good at what he’s good at, rather than some numbskull who fails as often as he succeeds. Now, there are abusive players out there who will try to exploit the rules [or your houserules, or actually cheat] but this is a very different class of player than those who simply create effective characters.

Quote:

That is probably exactly what your gm feels every time you come up with a new character. To you the character's new. It's great. It's this wonderful new creation you want to play with but to your gm it's another in a long line of problems that he's just going to have to deal with. He doesn't even know the details yet but he knows he's going to hate it. It won't matter if your character has serious flaws and weaknesses if they never come up.

Guess who’s fault it is if a character’s flaws and weaknesses never come up? I’ll let you figure that one out for itself, but the answer should be obvious [barring Published Adventures of course.]

Quote:

Let's take the (problem) example of the much hated Synthesist Summoner. One particular player I know likes to brag that "it's not overpowered because once you get up to about 10th level you can just hit it with a Banish spell and it's gone." He completely ignores how irrelevant such an argument is for those first 9 levels. Sure, there's sleep spells and stuff like that but dealing with such a vastly powerful single dimensional character with a specially tailored encounter that isn't going to be much fun for the rest of the players will not be much fun for the gm either. Do you really want to play in a campaign where every hostile group of npcs has a scroll or wand of banishment just because they know there's one Synthesist Summoner out there who's a real threat? That might not fit the tone of the campaign - the style of game that the gm wants to run.

The Synthesist Summoner’s ‘problem’ isn’t Banishment. The problems are A: Breaking Pathfinder’s Design Paradigm of not replacing physical stats [that’s something they fixed with Polymorph and Druid from 3.5, why on earth they reintroduced it I will never know] and B: That Martials Suck in Pathfinder, otherwise they’d be even more powerful in combat than a Synthesist Summoner. By virtue of being a Caster/Monster thing rather than a Martial, the Synthesist Summoner gets to be a badass, even though it is technically weaker than a normal Summoner.

Finally the last problem is how frequently the rules regarding the summoner are misunderstood and missapplied, often resulting in characters that are more powerful than the rules actually allow.

Quote:

Now that I've described the problem let's look at a possible solution. I don't mind specialised characters. I do mind over-specialised ones. The kind who are obsessed with killing all the opposition before round 3. Preferably before round 2.

So you hate survivors? Rule number one of combat is to end it as quickly as possible, lest it end you. Now that’s not always going to succeed, but as an objective? Totally appropriate.

Quote:

As a gm I like to play with my toys as well. If all my monsters get killed before they ever get a turn in virtually every single encounter for sessions on end I'm going to get frustrated. I'm not playing them badly. I just don't get to play. I'd like to take part in a manner that doesn't just boil down to adding up damage and scrubbing monsters off the initiative order before praising players on boring me stiff. I'd like me monsters to hit back.

Part of this is tactics. If the creatures get a surprise round, or begin play far enough away, they’re virtually guaranteed to get to act. Another part is numbers, it’s a lot harder to swiftly slaughter, say… six creatures than it is two.

Quote:

Let's use some completely made up numbers here. Let's pretend your character is 80% optimised. To my mind, as a gm, that's highly unrealistic. Such an individual should be a very rare breed. Practically incapable of functioning as a survivable individual without serious care and assistance. They should not be the bread and butter of average adventure party members. when all such characters are hyper-specialised it begins to break immersion and I feel like I'm not running the game any more. I'm just watching as a passive audience. I want the heroes to be capable of doing great things but I also want them to be challenged. Want them to feel as if they've earned the rewards of their labours. If they are not challenged then I do not feel they have earned their rewards.

That’s a personal problem. If you actively want to run the game on hard mode talk to your players about it and get their blessing to crank up the Challenge Ratings of your encounters. [Even so I recommend generally using more creatures to up the CR than using fewer creatures of higher CR] Such a game might be fun for the right group, I know when I get the great fortune of actually being a player I WANT a character who can end combat reliably and effectively, so we can get on with the story and the roleplay.

Quote:

So let's take that (made up number) 80% specialisation and try toning it down to 60% (another made up number). There's nothing wrong with having a specialised character. Just don't overdo it to the point where it might begin to spoil other people's fun.

How exactly are you quantifying these percentages of specialization anyway? I see these numbers and I’m not comprehending what they actually mean.

Quote:

Another thing I would like to say is make sure the character fits. If your GM wants to run a game about gnomes full of gnomish culture and stuff don't come in saying "well I want to play a (insert name of very un-gnomish thing here - let's say a half elf or hippogriff)." It's fine if one or two players does that but the gm wants most of the characters to be gnomes. If he's already got the hump about the kind of character you're likely to play then make an effort to make it fit into the existing game world setting. He's more likely to accept a powerful optimised character if it fits. It's when people start making excuses to shoe-horn in their latest powerbuild regardless of the actual kind of games being played that I, as a Gm, become uncomfortable and grumpy. If I want to run the Giantslayer advanture path as an all dwarf party (wth a few gnomes for the more sneaky and spellcaster roles) then I'm not going to be happy if three quarters of the players turn up and announce they all want to play half orcs. They clearly want to play a different game to the one that I want to run. I could run a game for half orcs. I totally could, but I'd been preparing notes for complex encounters designed to challenge the dwarven racial hatred of greenskins and make them reconsider their beliefs. Now I need to find ways of making half orcs face up to their orcish past, the reputations they'll have. People shunning them and treating them badly. It's not what I prepared for. And it's players disrespecting my wish as a gm to run a particular kind of game.

While I’m not a big fan of this type of hyper-specialized campaign design, this is really good advice in general. If the group agrees to play a specific type of game, a player showing up with a character that runs counter to that theme is a player being a douchebag.

Quote:

So in short, talk to your gm.

Yes

Quote:

Tone down the specialisation a bit.

Only if you want to

Quote:

Don't try to persuade him that certain weakness or shortcomings will balance it out. If you do intend to have such weaknesses then suggest ways in which they can be used.

Agreed. Persuasion is not the right answer here, but enlightenment could be.

Quote:

Give the gm some ideas and please try to avoid being a one trick pony. He's going to hate that.

Yeah, I’d hate it too. I have to actually think about encounter design when dealing with a one trick pony, because otherwise he’ll be completely useless in half the encounters. [Then again if he goes into it knowing that and isn’t going to throw a fit about being useless much of the time in exchange for being very potent the rest of the time, all is good.]

[DragonBelow]

Hi,

I used to play in a group with two players that liked to optimize characters. I have to admit I had a behavior similar to your DM.

Sometimes it got pretty ridiculous, but in the end they agreed to curb themselves, and that issue disappeared. They didn't play gimp characters though, they just weren't min-maxing to the fullest.

If that is not something you can do, or if after talking to your DM, he is not willing to change, then I suggest you find a different group. I know there is a lot of people that enjoy these types of game.

I don't know why your DM acts like that, but I can tell you why I did. I run pre-made adventures, and I don't have time to create my own, except perhaps for the occasional one-shot. When playing against optimized characters, the DM has to make adjustments or the game will not be challenging and fun. I work full time, and have other hobbies and responsibilities, I don't have time, or interest, to be changing encounters to increase the challenge they pose. Also, many times these type characters have a certain weakness due to their focus, and it is possible to be a challenge if you exploit it; however, I find this tactics breaks my personal suspension of disbelief as a DM, if suddenly every opponent that meets the PC has just the right amount of stuff/tactics/abilities to exploit that weakness.

It's a lot easier for one person to optimize the hell of their character, than it is for a DM to do the same for everything the PCs encounter. At least for me anyway.

Best of luck.

DB

[kyrt-ryder]

DragonBelow I have two questions for you.

First, are you equating fun with challenge, or are you saying you desire both? I've GM'd and played in many games with very low challenge that were a ton of fun, and some of the least fun games I've been in have been HardMode [although there have been fun Hardmode games as well of course.]

Second, not every enemy needs to exploit a One Trick Pony's weakness. Perhaps 1/4th to 1/2 should suffice.

[Malag]

@kyrt-ryder

We are talking about system which is designed and focused around combat, so it's reasonable to assume that challenging encounters are fun. Challenging does not mean unrealistically easy or playing a HardMode. Challenging is when there is small dose of chance that characters will lose a fight, but small enough to accumulate for several mistakes before such chance becomes threatening. It's not necessary for every fight to be challenging, in fact, a lot of easy fights are designed to boost up player's morale and after all, everyone likes to beat up the bad guys. Game without a challenge however, isn't much different from a book where you can read the last page and realize that all characters managed to survive. It's suspension of disbelief. Pathfinder needs challenge to be Pathfinder, even if the challenge is illusionary or non-existent.

"It's a lot easier for one person to optimize the hell of their character, than it is for a DM to do the same for everything the PCs encounter. At least for me anyway." - This is a sentence with which many GMs can agree with. It's a lot more job to change every encounter then for a single PC to min-max their character. I am not even using the word optimize here, because optimized character simply means effective (for me at least), which isn't a bad thing.

The best course of action is for OP to talk with GM. It might take several talks however to sort this out, but I am sure it's quite possible if both he and GM are willing to change their ways.

[Brother Fen]

Otherwhere wrote:

I may have missed it, but are you the only one having this experience with the GM?

For myself, I realized that what triggers me most about my 1 player is the knack he has of trivializing encounters, either through rules-lawyring or exploiting an unknown synergy, etc., such that: he doesn't have to deal with some obstacle/threat, or the group doesn't have to deal with it. And so hours of prep go out the window because of something I've overlooked.

As I said, the others don't do that, so I don't think it's that I have poor system mastery (though I am still new to PF after a year-and-a-half because of all the new books that keep coming out). It's the way he has of finding these loopholes and exploits and making thing trivial or negated. It's a gift! But it's not fun to GM for.

Instead of focusing on the system, it sounds like you need to focus on the character of the player giving you trouble. Go over his character sheet with a fine toothed comb and read over every ability, feat and magic item that he has so you have a better understanding of what he can do. If you've already done this and still don't know what his character can do, then I don't know what to tell you. Cross reference the books until you understand it.

[DragonBelow]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

DragonBelow I have two questions for you.

First, are you equating fun with challenge, or are you saying you desire both? I've GM'd and played in many games with very low challenge that were a ton of fun, and some of the least fun games I've been in have been HardMode [although there have been fun Hardmode games as well of course.]

Sure, I just think that games where the PCs mop the floor with their opponents on a regular basis, and without breaking a sweat, are not fun.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Second, not every enemy needs to exploit a One Trick Pony's weakness. Perhaps 1/4th to 1/2 should suffice.

That's still too much, and there is no good explanation for it, also that means one, sometimes two times per session. Not to mention that then it becomes an arms-race between PC and DM, which makes things uglier.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

God, I am so sick of this argument. Players shouldn't cheat, but it's just bad GMing if you cannot strategize around an optimized character. One trick ponies, by-the-by, are not that optimized; flexibility is real optimization.

Games need to be compromises, but I prefer to just let players do as they will an adjust to them on the fly. Honestly, the people here who are vociferously pro-this GM should not GM games; it doesn't have to be an arms race, just smart officiating and good planning.

I know this argument is never going to be resolved, but trust me, unless they are cheating no one is creating optimized characters that can't be played against unless you're unwilling to flexible as a GM.

[Gilarius]

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

God, I am so sick of this argument. Players shouldn't cheat, but it's just bad GMing if you cannot strategize around an optimized character. One trick ponies, by-the-by, are not that optimized; flexibility is real optimization.

Games need to be compromises, but I prefer to just let players do as they will an adjust to them on the fly. Honestly, the people here who are vociferously pro-this GM should not GM games; it doesn't have to be an arms race, just smart officiating and good planning.

I know this argument is never going to be resolved, but trust me, unless they are cheating no one is creating optimized characters that can't be played against unless you're unwilling to flexible as a GM.

You make a good, general point. Most of the time, this is correct. The bit I had/have a problem with, is when one player's character is markedly 'better' (or markedly 'worse') than the rest of the party.

Making an encounter challenging/fun for the party as a whole is still feasible and mostly possible. Making most encounters equally challenging/fun for all the players when there is a big discrepancy in their capabilities was beyond my skills, when one player (in 25 years' of gaming) was unable/unwilling to adjust to fit in with the party - not to fit in with me in particular, but to allow for the rest of the players to still have fun.

I have had players with far more skill than I have at lateral thinking make mincemeat of some encounters, yet still tailor their characters to allow other players' characters to shine.

For the purposes of this thread, the further information given by the OP shows that his GM is clearly a jerk. Whether the OP is also a jerk is far less apparent.