Hi all,
I've been recently butting heads with the DM of my home game.
Let me paint the picture:
We're running Rise of the Runelords and the party consists of a sorcerer, shaman, slayer, hunter and ranger (me). The slayer is an archer - great character, mechanics aren't very sound. He had no rapid shot or precise shot by level 3.
I wanted to play a switch hitter style, but I was told that if I were to do it, I would be required to use throwing weapons - as that cramps the style of the slayer.
I relented and we played through Book 1.
Starting in Book 2, I wanted to explore a new concept, so I opted for a Grippli Inquisitor who would be using a bow. I'll own it, knowing the fight I had with even becoming half-an-archer, that was ultimately resolved in a borderline nonsensical way, I should have expected major pushback. The problem was the character concept came to me with a bow and I *really* am tired of playing a melee - my other 2 characters are also melee. If I rolled a straight divine caster or straight arcane caster, I'd be equally stepping on toes, so I looked at Bards/Inquisitors as a sort of hybrid, ideal 5th man option.
Unfortunately, without a bunch of free feats for things like Quick Draw, a throwing weapon build isn't really viable at all - my anti-hero human ranger had enough to make it work, but Hero Grippli with only 2 at level 4 cannot.
Even before the mechanics were done up, I've been told I'm not allowed to use a bow.
Like I understand the potential is there to steal the "thunder" (I use that term loosely, the slayer is - far and away - the most useless member in the party when Initiatives hit the table.) of an archer, but I don't understand why this is a problem, especially since the Hunter and the Ranger both were two-handed melee fighters. The DM pointed out I used a Greatsword, he used a Glaive. And that made it okay. I was a little baffled at that explanation, but didn't fight him on it. Why can't two archers be in the same party and ... share the thunder?...
Your GM is the worst kind of idiot.
An idiot doesn't even TRY to not be an idiot.
Leave now, burn the building, don't look back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sort of yes, sort of no. You really don't want to step on another players toes - that's just bad etiquette. That said, have you worked with the slayer player at all or is it the GM being overly heavy-handed on the slayer's part? What's the slayer player's take on all of this - the way you're writing it sounds like it's all coming from the GM.
Consider playing somebody using a crossbow, playing a Kineticist, or rocking a ray-focused Sorcerer. If you play bows with any sort of optimization, there's going to be no sharing of thunder here; you are going to have it all.
Edit: Aetherkineticist is also a great out-of-the-box "thrown" weapon build. Except you throw boulders/pianos/enemies, and do it with your mind.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if you're a fighter your GM wouldn't allow someone to play a Barb? Like I don't get the deal. I say have a party of 5 archers if you want, leads to real different interesting style of play. Are you stealing the Hunter's light by doing melee? I don't get the idea.
Yes your GM is being obnoxious for boxing you in on fighting style, yes you're equally obnoxious for not listening to him/her.
Yes your GM is being unreasonable for not letting you play your character concept and yes you were unreasonable for not being able to shelve it for a different time and come up with a different concept.
Surely you can work together to reach a resolution everyone can be happy with :-)
See my first post.
Buy matches.
Find safe place to hide from police.
|
He's very passionate about his character and - in his defense - it's a great character. He's trying for this kinda wonky Prestige Class though that's really tying his hands and making him a 5th wheel in combat until much later, however.
What's the prestige class? Will it differentiate his character from your planned grippli? If so, can you hold off with the new character until he gets the prestige class?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you play an archer but make sure not to outshine the other player then no issue. However by the sounds of it you have good system mastery and would probably far out perform him in his shtick and it then becomes a no.
I have some very highly optimized players sharing shticks with not so optimized players at my table, but the optimized make sure that everyone gets the limelight. They are capable of rolling encounters, but they instead play more off the wall and try things they normally wouldn't.
EG: highly optimized Two handed fighter and an unoptimized twf rogue are the only melee's. The THF only attacks things by jumping out of trees onto them, or off of buildings etc.
He has taken the shtick and made a neiche within it for himself.
Maybe play an archer who "is innacurate" and only deals nonlethal damage with his attacks. its a niche that hinders you (-4) but also gives you RP elements
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like the GM may be inexperienced or feeling challenged running the group/players/campaign. Also sounds like the Slayer character is sub-optimally built based on the prestige class target.
Overall, this is a player-GM-group social dynamics discussion, not a character build discussion. You could start by saying something like "I hear you have concerns about me overshadowing the Slayer. If the Slayer character wasn't an issue, is there anything else that concerns you about what I'd like to do? Is there anything I/we could do to help?"
Then tease out any issues - things like
- GM doesn't want a Grippli character (doesn't like the flavor)
- GM concerned about you playing 2 or more characters (not saying you're doing that, just an example)
- GM concerned about you being able to, in his/her mind, Min-Max a character to 'break' the game or make the GM up the difficulty thus making it no fun for other (especially Slayer) players
- GM concerned about your play style
- GM concerned about his/her campaign/game style
- Interpersonal stuff
- Etcetera
Would the GM and would the player running the Slayer be open to you providing build/rebuild advice or tactical advice on how to make the Slayer more relevant?
Maybe the GM is feeling overburdened running the campaign. Could you or one of the other players offer to co-GM or to switch off GM duties?
Overall, this is a social game where everybody should be having fun. If the GM won't let you have fun and won't discuss, then time to try another table. But try talking out & understanding the GM's point of view first. Discussing things in an open & friendly atmosphere can help identify and minimize issues that are detracting from fun for someone.
Would you be far above the power level of the game, or is the other archer lagging behind the group?
Balance in a group is required, but limiting your weapon selection isn't the way to do it.
If the casters are out damaging him, and the bard is too (examples of course, no idea of your party makeup) then telling them to use fire spells instead of lightning isn't gonna change that...
Yeah, your GM is not doing his job right.
The restrictions on which kind of character / combat-style you are allowed to play seem very heavy-handed to me.
The DM is fine with chopping off a major part of your gamefun, for the might-be-chance that a player perhaps feels a bit of overlapping competences...
Do not let group-dynamics (We absolutly NEED the perfect group setup of Cleric/Wizard/Tank/Rogue in our group! Everytime!) or strange DM restrictions (No overlapping competences! EVER!) force you into playing a character you do not like.
I once did and it slowly sucked the fun of D&D out of me. I quit that campaign after roughly 10 sessions, and it was a good idea.
Talk with the DM under 4 eyes (so no group-pressure situation develops) and tell him clearly that under his current restrictions you do not have a character concept that you will enjoy. It is better not to play, then to play and slowly get annoyed because all the other cool, interesting concepts keep spooking around your brain that you *could* be playing, instead of .. this here *meh*.
I am currently the GM for a RotRL game and have a Fighter and Ranger who are both ranged focused.
The Ranger's player intends on going into Arcane Archer with a Sorcerer dip and the Fighter is going 90/10 ranged vs melee feats.
The players are actually having a great time with the fact they are both "Archers." The have a nice role play thing going where their character's are competitive but friendly, doing things like betting on who will have the best shot or the most kills. It reminds me a lot of the Gimili and Legolas dynamic. It is one of the highlights of the campaign so far.
Of course that is just an example of it working and no, it won't always work out like this. The great sin committed by your GM is that he killed any chance of a positive experience.
Like your GM, I am not a min/maxer either. I have a few players that are and we coexist just fine. In my opinion your GM is being far too heavy handed and I wouldn't have even started the AP under the conditions you described let alone continue to try and work around his prejudicial restrictions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are a min-maxer like you said, try deliberately making a weaker character.
If he is running the game for a power level below what you are currently able to handle, then a weaker character shouldn't have too much difficulty.
I understand how fun face-stomping everything can be (I'm an absolute cheese monkey myself, but my group is okay with it, I go kill everything while they search for loot or whatever it is useless pansy elf-bards do when face-stomping happens), but some of my most rewarding roleplaying experiences have been with Wisdom 14 divine casters, or STR 12 Fighters...
Create a new challenge for yourself. It's easy to bump your main stat to 30+, it's impressive to be powerful with a main stat of "only" 20...
At least consider it.
Of course, this still doesn't help the fact that your GM won't even let you choose your weapon type...
If you are a min-maxer like you said, try deliberately making a weaker character.
If he is running the game for a power level below what you are currently able to handle, then a weaker character shouldn't have too much difficulty.
I understand how fun face-stomping everything can be (I'm an absolute cheese monkey myself, but my group is okay with it, I go kill everything while they search for loot or whatever it is useless pansy elf-bards do when face-stomping happens), but some of my most rewarding roleplaying experiences have been with Wisdom 14 divine casters, or STR 12 Fighters...
Create a new challenge for yourself. It's easy to bump your main stat to 30+, it's impressive to be powerful with a main stat of "only" 20...
At least consider it.
Of course, this still doesn't help the fact that your GM won't even let you choose your weapon type...
I'm floating the idea of turning the Grippli into a Gunslinger by him - it fits his requirement that I use a different weapon if nothing else. It's a little unfortunate in that I have to sorta reimagine him from the ground up (like how does a marshdeweller learn to use a gun and ditch most of his divine aspects other than a few religious traits maybe) and I think it only treats the symptom of the core problem - he's still gonna show up the slayer and I doubt anyone's gonna care that I'm doing it with a gun rather than a bow.
I just can't see a way I can build a character bad enough to be competitive with him and still have fun. Sure, I could dump my stats to 14 max, take a bunch of Social Feats and somehow try to make this character work... the problem is, I'd just fail at everything just like the slayer does (he even gets frustrated as his own characters inability to handle content)... I just don't see how that's fun.
Show your GM this thread.
Or staple your new crappy character to his face.
Probably the first one.
It's not your fault someone else's character sucks.
Fried Goblin Surprise made a very good point, show him that post.
Of course, this still doesn't help the fact that your GM won't even let you choose your weapon type...
I think that's more of an issue here.
This guy would despise me.
I don't play the signature weapon game. It's silly and unrealistic to me. Characters pick what's comfortable, useful, and effective and drop/pickup whatever works. Some people love to play Legolas, but is Aragorn who is crowned king.
Anyway, I say talk to the slayer guy and ask him what he thinks is more fun; being the group's sole bow user or something else.
|
I was playing a Switch Hitter Ranger in a RotRL campaign alongside a Zen Archer Monk and we typically worked together very well thinning the herds with no toe stepping. If anything, it was more work on the GM because his monsters couldn't get close enough. If they did then the Paladin and Warpriest made short work of them. Long story short, as long as you have a good group dynamic between players then you can make it work until that sweet bow or Bracers of Falcons Aim shows up in the loot.
I can understand where the GM is coming from, but he or she seems a bit misguided in this case. I don't agree that your switch-hitting Ranger would be stepping on the toes of the Slayer. That character sounds like a dedicated archer while yours is a part-time archer. If that's the case, then is your GM actually suggesting that nobody else in the group is allowed to carry a bow?? What if your group has to fight a flying creature and you can't walk up and stab it?
The archer inquisitor otoh, I can definitely see how that character would be stepping on the toes of the slayer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Use a SLING instead.
|
First, I just want to say that I completely agree it's BS that the GM won't allow you to play the kind of character you want to play. I've tried playing in campaigns where you're shoehorned into specific roles, and it's never as fun.
That being said, if he wants you to play a thrown weapon character, have you considered throwing bombs? An alchemist would make a great 5th man, providing decent damage, team buffs (if you select infusion), a number of utility extracts and has a fair number of skill points (or should, being an Int based character). They can even activate cure wands to help speed up after combat healing, and can bring the Shaman back up if they ever get knocked unconscious.
You could even try talking him into letting you use a bow for explosive missile, which will work very differently than the slayer's ranged combat.
EDIT - Also want to point out that gripplis make pretty decent alchemists. They don't get a bonus to Int, but they get a number of grippli only discoveries, and can produce poisons from their own toxic skin. You get bonus points for taking the agile tongue feat and poisoning someone with a 10' melee touch attack by licking them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
>non-casting focus
>breaking the game
Some DMs really have a poor grasp of the game
Have you offered to use a shortbow?
You have a few options that I see.
1) Play some obnoxious overpowered character that completely overshadows everyone, ruins the game for everyone, but doesn't do anything that the other players do. (such as a master summoner? gunslinger can as well in my experience...)
2) Fill a missing role in the party that you wont mind playing. With 5 players this is a bit more difficult to do, esp with the way the group seems to define roles... Maybe a pacifist monk that tries to stop every fight? Just really high AC and saves walking around saying we aren't supposed to fight?
3) Don't play. Sometimes you just can't fix stupid/stubborn...
4) Explain your role concept and how it differs from the Slayer's role concept better. Maybe get the slayer on your side. I had a bard archer and played along side an archer (fighter archetype). It was the first time anyone in our group tried pathfinder archery and we happened to both want to play one. While we could both rain down arrows and kill bad guys from afar I was a much more illusion trickery based role and he was using range based combat maneuvers to control opponents.
You haven't explained the Slayer's concept well on what he is trying to do. I see no reason for him to simply suck at low levels using archery. You said he was getting frustrated with his character as well, so help him out.
How about a Monk with Shuriken? That is thrown, and be used w/flurry, and has some Divine connections. Range sucks, but that can be dealt with. You are close but not melee for them. Use ki to get extra attacks. Monks don't usually do much damage but are very resistant to damage and have good saves.
Alternatively, a Ninja with Shuriken. Ninjas could be anyone, so perfectly fine showing up in a Grippli community. There is a ninja talent to extend the range of them. Sneak attack can be nice. So can Vanish.
/cevah
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand where the GM is coming from, but he or she seems a bit misguided in this case. I don't agree that your switch-hitting Ranger would be stepping on the toes of the Slayer. That character sounds like a dedicated archer while yours is a part-time archer.
I think the problem is that we have a part-time archer who completely outclasses a full-time archer. If the slayer has less mastery and is trying for a late-game build, then a higher mastery player can easily outstrip him in ranged and do well in melee.
Yeah this seems like the DM is less than pleased with you as a min-maxer and is thus trying to shoehorn you into less than ideal roles. I mean you can't go arcane, divine, have a pet, or fight competently at range. What does that really leave you? Support (like bard), melee, or some unusual niche like bomber (alch). If support he probably thinks any min-maxing won't break the game, and if melee he can control you with difficult terrain and other environmental hazards. Basically you have 3 options: go with what Alex said (burn it and don't look back), prepare for mediocrity, or build a weird archetype character that the DM will use as evidence that you are the min-maxer he thinks you are (alchemists are fun, but I suggest master summoner). I honestly don't see a win in this situation.
Seriously though, in a 5 person party there is going to be overlap. Even in a 4 person party you often find similar roles (most clerics melee right along side the fighter, and you and the hunter were both THF). Another thing to ask your DM is if he is ok with you splitting roles with any of the other 3 players. I mean from what you said, the slayer is already frustrated with how combat-useless his character is, so seeing your guy effortlessly do what his character fails time and time again at could be seriously frustrating. If you have a slight overlap with one of the other, more rule oriented characters, surely there wouldn't be as much danger at showing each other up right?
Edit: damn, Rylar must also support the ninja idea, because he said everything I wanted to say and more
Some of the build ideas are nice but honestly the way you describe the GM running things the same issue is going to pop up sooner or later. I think you need to have a frank discussion with him about his vision of how the game should be played and how the group should get along.
In particular, why does he feel that each person needs to have one niche with absolutely no overlap from other players? It's a very fragile design that can cause a lot of problems if somebody is incapacitated or drops out of the group. It also doesn't fit with my preferred flavor of fantasy literature but YMMV on that (i.e. Lies of Locke Lamora, Jean is the heavy hitter but Locke is at least competent in combat).
If the slayer player is deliberately tanking his character now for some big payoff down the road then he needs to put on his big boy pants and accept that he's chosen the path of low-level suckage. If he's just not good at building a ranged character then you all should help him out. Trying to force the whole team to play as if they had a lower level of system mastery than they actually do is a recipe for disaster.
How about a Monk with Shuriken? That is thrown, and be used w/flurry, and has some Divine connections.
.../cevah
Alt. solution: Go Sacred Fist. Shuriken, divine connection, not ridiculously sub-optimal.
But really, after re-reading that last paragraph in the OP again: I personally would have to say it sounds like your GM is being arbitrary. Sure, it's asinine to say no to a concept because toe-treading, and asinine to not shelve the concept but it's also completely dick-ish to basically not explain what counts as toe-treading in his eyes.
No two-handed fighters, but one of those is different is nonsensical, and I'd personally recommend asking for an explanation. Because as that paragraph reads, your GM is being incredibly arbitrary. Between that and a playstyle difference, it's tempting to say he's being an ass because he thinks you play badwrongfun. But that's possibly pushing it too far.
Edit: damn, Rylar must also support the ninja idea, because he said everything I wanted to say and more
Um... Rylar mentioned a Monk. I mentioned a Monk and a Ninja. :-)
/cevah
It sounds to me like your DM has the following problem with you:
Since you optimize so well, whatever role you pick will overshadow any other character at the table playing a similar role. If you and another player both have controller spellcasters, you'll always be the much more effective one, same for healers, same for blasters, same for finesse melee, ranged, what have you. While that is fun for you, over time, it will become apparent to the other player that they are just a sidekick to your superhero, the Robin to your Batman. I think, in a very clumsy way, your DM is trying to protect the other player's fun. You are too good in your mastery of the mechanics for your own group. If my guess is accurate, the solution to the problem may be the following:
1. You have to get all the players to have somewhat close power levels, respective of their niche or specialty. If you're willing, you can build your character to a lower standard. If the other players and the GM are willing, you can help them revise their characters to bring them up to your level of optimization.
2. Find a niche that the party doesn't have covered and optimize the heck out of it like you enjoy. Some interesting examples were already mentioned in this thread. The key is that it's different enough from the other players that their characters won't feel useless by comparison.
3. Last resort, find a group that has mastered the mechanics and enjoys optimization as much as you do.
4. Become a GM instead and see how these things look from the other side :D (For what it's worth, I think your DM is trying to do the right thing by the group in a way that is wrong by you, and explaining the problem poorly)
Reading the back & forth, I agree, your GM's reasoning, as explained by you, is arbitrary.
Do you like the other players and the GM? Do you have a good social connection with them outside the game? If so, have the open discussion, both one-on-one with the GM, one-on-one with the other players, and then maybe as a group.
If the Slayer player is open to advice, you can try helping him/her to strategize on how to shore up their character's issues. If the GM is really only concerned about you making that player's enjoyment less, he/she should be really open to you helping them to fix gaps. Similary, you can help the other players get to similar power levels, as long as they are interested and OK with collaborating on this.
If the GM is willing to be flexible, there are a lot of character concepts you could play. But if it's really just the GM, and he/she is totally unwilling to meet you half-way, then you're probably in the wrong game. Don't burn bridges, keep it calm, but you play to have fun. It's OK to explain this just isn't that fun for you & look elsewhere. And, yes, consider being a GM for this group of friends if you want to game with them. That can be as good a change as just moving to a different table.
Every group I've been in has had a social contact of each character having its unique schtick, and it's poor taste or even offensive for another player to step on that.
Whether it's a combat style, or roleplay concept, talk to the player already on the territory before invading it. If they're not comfortable sharing, are there really no other concepts you can have fun with that don't hurt another player's fun?
It's amazing to me how many posters on this thread apparently don't do this, I thought it was a gaming universal. Like any show book or movie with an ensemble cast, each char is either unique, thought of as a single unit with their similar comrade, full of competitive tension with them, or one of them is only around to die dramatically. Think of which trope would you end up falling into with their character, and be prepared for their reaction of having their roleplay constrained by your choices.
When two characters have the same specialization, it's a lot more natural to compare effectiveness and marginalize the weaker one. Apples get compared to other apples, not oranges.
It's also similar to the drama of bringing in an opposition character. Some concepts don't mix easy with others, paladin v diabolist, slaver v bellflower, etc. The PC that's already there should have a voice, or even veto, on bringing in a source of inherent conflict and/or RP constraints.
If you define your entire character by weapon of choice it's time to up your game.
You can have two dozen Jedi on screen wielding the same weapon and dressing nearly identical yet still have them each be unique and interesting.
Even the Star Wars movies, I believe they made it a point about having each jedi's fighting style and/or saber design unique, if they weren't supposed to just be a faceless mook Jedi. And now I've thought about SW movies, time to go scrub out my brain. I don't know that there's ever been an interesting Jedi.
I wouldn't enjoy seeing two machine-gun archers in the same group, unless the players where both OK with it. But, a one-shot sniper (maybe spell channeling or mythic vital striking) next to a standard rapid fire build would each give them their own thing. Or say multiple people like rapiers, I'd hope they could each find their own role, fencing grace kensai, sword n board brute, aid-another and butterfly-sting tricks, wielded in a tail for defense while casting or ranging, etc.
Unique combat styles, or approved/acknowledged competition, help to continue roleplay during combat.
It could be fun to have a game where everybody's part of a shortsword infantry unit, with identical combat training and style, and obviously unique personalities, but everybody would have to be OK with it, and if one or more of the group wasn't, we'd have to decide to either exclude them, bore them, or do another game.
I can understand where the GM is coming from, but he or she seems a bit misguided in this case. I don't agree that your switch-hitting Ranger would be stepping on the toes of the Slayer. That character sounds like a dedicated archer while yours is a part-time archer.I think the problem is that we have a part-time archer who completely outclasses a full-time archer. If the slayer has less mastery and is trying for a late-game build, then a higher mastery player can easily outstrip him in ranged and do well in melee.
Hmmm...sorry I don't have a solution for that other than what other people have already suggested.
Every group I've been in has had a social contact of each character having its unique schtick, and it's poor taste or even offensive for another player to step on that.
Whether it's a combat style, or roleplay concept, talk to the player already on the territory before invading it. If they're not comfortable sharing, are there really no other concepts you can have fun with that don't hurt another player's fun?It's amazing to me how many posters on this thread apparently don't do this, I thought it was a gaming universal.
He did talk to the other player, who had no problems with the idea. It was the GM who had the issue.
He wanted to play a switch hitter. Not the same as a full archer. He was told he wasn't allowed to utilize a bow. He tried to use the throw weapon (which he found clunky and unfun).
Archery isn't the only part of either players concepts from what I can tell.
Also he was told that as a ranger he couldn't have an animal companion because the hunter had one.... ..... /blank stare
If he made a paladin would he be told he is not allowed to cure wounds because the shaman can already do that?
I get where your DM is coming from. I also get your position. Your DM wants to protect the "fun" of the bad archer's player. You want to play a specific character concept.
Between the two, I think that you have more room to be flexible than the DM. If the DM backs off, the other player is stuck playing second fiddle to your archer, which is a position no one likes. If you back off, you can play a different character concept. I'm sure you have multiple characters in your head wanting to be put to paper and played, right?
I think that if the other player had a "good" archer build, then things would be more okay if you played an archer or switch-hitter with a bow. But the whole "anything you can do I can do better" line? That's a taunt. People don't like being taunted, even unintentionally.
So make something that the DM and other player are able to consider "different" enough from the archer. A gunslinger, a bolt ace, a thrower, a kineticist...
An aside: A glaive is different from a greatsword because reach users tend to build for battlefield control... it's slightly different playstyle.
A friend recommends a grippli warpriest that uses a blowgun. Use poison, benefit from sacred weapon damage!
You see, not all GM knows how to deal with characters that do similar things and one is way better than another. There are many ways to keep each one of you the same build and same characters, but still have as much fun as you should for everyone in and out of combat. Magical items, companions, establish a decent part of the story to explain why this weak character is just as important in the group as others despite being far weaker. So many ways! At the end of the day, as long as the game is fair and fun, that's all that matter!
With a Hunter in the party I would think seriously about an Unchained Rogue picking up teamwork feats that the Hunter has. Also switch your focus to non combat encounters, facilitate the story more.
As I see things the GM doesn't feel confortable allowing players to share the same role and uses an excuse (weapons) to justify his ruling. He doesn't need a justification (and frankly a bad one like that), he's the GM.
Fact is if the slayer is already bad building a proper archer would go a long way towards making feel the player useless and possibly making him quit, so there's justification for not wanting to double on the ranged support role, especially if the DM considers the player not mature enough to share the stage (I'm not saying that be the case, it's just a supposition formulated with the data at hand).
As for taking a character that can contribute something useful to the team and still be a ranged threat try an Alchemist, maybe taking the trapbreaker archetype if the party needs help with disarming traps, human or elf are good races for this class.
Edit: if you were told beforehand bows were off limits why do you keep insisting? If I were the GM, after having told you something I would not be very pleased with you as it would seem to me you are disregarding my ruling and trying to force an issue that had been settled already.
Edit: damn, Rylar must also support the ninja idea, because he said everything I wanted to say and moreUm... Rylar mentioned a Monk. I mentioned a Monk and a Ninja. :-)
/cevah
Yeah that was me trying to be witty while saying I got ninja'd since Rylar covered almost all the same points I wanted to.
@Cult of vorg: We honestly don't know how the slayer is trying to do archery. On one hand it can get ranger feats but on the other hand it gets sneak attack. If it is being useless in combat my assumption is that he is probably trying to go sniper route. Ranger archery vs slayer archery with ranger feats I can see being EXTREMELY similar to the point where it steps on toes, but warpriest divine casting archery vs sniper archery are very different concepts. In fact I would say if he really is trying to snipe then ace bolter would be more similar not less. I assume that a lot of players on these forums either try not to step on toes or at minimum discuss it before hand, but I am of the opinion that the DM is taking it too far. A summoning conjuration focus sorcerer could easily be in a party with a controller style wizard since their goals are very different, but from what it sounds like, the DM would say no because they both use arcane. The issue is less avoiding stepping on toes and more how big the DM considers the other player's feet. The OP is not allowed any pets (even non combat oriented ones) because the hunter has one, he is not allowed bows because the slayer uses one, he is not allowed a full arcane class or divine class (which is funny because hunter and shaman have very similar spell lists). So his only potential roles are pretty limited to melee, support, or some strange miscellaneous. Personally I love strange miscellaneous, but it can be hard to build a character around (which is why most people have been suggesting alch).
I skipped over half the posts coz there were too many to read, so sorry if I'm repeating something someone else said.
The GM doesn't want you taking certain concepts because you'd be stepping on someone else's toes
BUT
The GM doesn't have a problem with them taking those concepts, despite the fact that they're stepping on your toes.
Now I'm not trying to start a flame war here, and obviously I've only heard one side of the argument, but everyone SHOULD be able to play the concept they want to play.
If he thinks you're too much of a min-maxer, maybe you have to roll stats? Or you get a smaller point buy (think of this as a challenge)? There are plenty of options - even really restrictive ones - that are less restrictive than "you can't play that character".
Now, you don't want to step on toes, but I've never seen a party with 2 melee characters where people thought they were stepping on each others' toes. If anything, people seem to go for that.
Obviously it's not exactly the same thing, but shifting the focus from melee to range for the whole party shouldn't be a huge thing. You're probably making more problems for the poor melee guy left over. He's either left fighting the front lines alone, or he has to shift to more of a battlefield control character while the archers deal out the damage (and while this could be a problem, it doesn't seem like it's the one people are worrying about).
Basically, you should be able to work with the other players to make a character you want to play. Don't be a jerk about it (obviously), but they should be willing to work with you as well.
|
Two archers in the same party should be fine. They get to bicker and debate about which is the better shot, and have a lot of friendly competition. The GM should be able to make it work.
But if this is really going to be a problem, maybe play either a crossbow-focused ranged character or a gunslinger.
Two archers would be fine: you'd be the highly trained professional while the other guy would be the less trained and less effective "hero." Think Han Solo VS Luke Skywalker, perhaps.
If all else fails, you could make an Arcane trickster that dual wields guns. This build is death on wheels. You may need to take some ranks in Alchemist to get an extra hand, but the vivisectionist allows you to do this quite nicely.