This is neither one side nor the other.
An inexperienced GM should be expected to have difficulty handling 6 levels beyond what has been played.
If you, the other players, and GM haven't seen how multiple minions can wreck an encounter; it can be very surprising.
If you have never played a high level caster with multiple minions, you won't know how much you will dominate the spotlight.
Yes, they gave approval for every thing. Just as clearly, they had no idea what it would be like in use.
I agree that you should make a new PC without multiple minions. The occasional summon monster spell is not a problem. Battlefield control spells (that do not interfere eith ally tactics) are helpful.
Buff spells cast on the allies ate always appreciated.
This sounds like bad GMing. If he ok'd your build, you should be allowed to play it. Summoning builds can take time, but if you have all of your cohort info handy and understand their abilities, it shouldn't take ten minutes to get through your turn. Speed that up.
This is why I prefer to start campaigns at level one and let them build organically.
Your co-players sound like bad players from what you've presented. I would just sit this campaign out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds like bad GMing. If he ok'd your build, you should be allowed to play it.
It seems that the GM didn't understand what he was agreeing to. Shouldn't that make a difference? And what about sacraficing the group's fun for the sake of one players?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some GMs make the mistake of assuming that all official sources are basically balanced. It's a pretty understandable mistake.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
why did they make anti-paladins in protest?From what they told me, it was because - in the event that we came into conflict with the GMPC (who was viewed, rightly or wrongly, as a not-so-subtle threat should the party go too far out of line) - they'd be able to lay into him with melee attacks while also dropping multiple debuffs on him via their cruelties.
Essentially, they were "anti-babysitter" characters.
WTF?
How old are the people in your gaming group?
why did they make anti-paladins in protest?From what they told me, it was because - in the event that we came into conflict with the GMPC (who was viewed, rightly or wrongly, as a not-so-subtle threat should the party go too far out of line) - they'd be able to lay into him with melee attacks while also dropping multiple debuffs on him via their cruelties.
Essentially, they were "anti-babysitter" characters.
WTF?
How old are the people in your gaming group?
Lol, that my question as well. Seems like a large gathering of young'uns.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main lesson you should pull from this debacle of a game is just because you can do something does not mean you should do something. Flooding the table with summons (and let's not quibble over semantics, summon, call, etc are still the same basic thing with variation on what the critter can do), to the point your controlled units out number the entire party falls squarely in the should not do category.
You cannot win the game. And even if it were possible to "win", you sure as hell would not be able to do so by pissing off the rest of the players.
The main lesson you should pull from this debacle of a game is just because you can do something does not mean you should do something. Flooding the table with summons (and let's not quibble over semantics, summon, call, etc are still the same basic thing with variation on what the critter can do), to the point your controlled units out number the entire party falls squarely in the should not do category.
You cannot win the game. And even if it were possible to "win", you sure as hell would not be able to do so by pissing off the rest of the players.
Yes, you do win the game. He lost the game cause he was too strong.
He is making a new character so he can win, silly.
Clearly the GM should have given his GMNPC the GM's Grace feat. It's sort of like Rule Zero but for GMNPCs only.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM and the players here did the *EXACT* thing that is always recommended when someone is being disruptive at the gaming table.
The players expressed their dissent, and the GM pulled you aside, explained that your character is not conducive to the story he's trying to tell, and asked you to switch.
You're clearly playing at a very different level than they are, so with your next character, try and respect that. I'd recommend trying to optimize some terrible build instead, like a Mystic Theurge or something. And whatever you decide to do, don't take Leadership. Just don't. You know it's broken, and there are already six players. Leadership can be an amazing asset in a small group with three or fewer players, but it's absolutely overkill here.
There's nothing to do here but switch or drop.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't drop your optimization. That can be half the fun. Just don't make a build to control anymore than 2 characters, at most only one of which should be a primary spell caster.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah the GM thinking that it would be fun to play high level since you never get to high level.
Problem is they think that the game runs like low levels, just with bigger numbers. New to High level play GM's ALWAYS seem to think this. And then their game breaks when there's a wizard.
I had a "high level game" (it was lv 12-13, but the GM hadn't gotten higher than 7) where my wizard casting teleport cost the party loot because the invading bad guy's gold hadn't come in yet cause he hadn't decided on his base. The GM expected us to take days heading to that part of the world and to have the baddie have time to set up base and higher some guards I guess, but I'm like, Oh we just got news that he landed today? Well lets teleport there, and get him.
Oh also, the party was a melee ranger, melee paladin, melee rogue, and my wizard. We fought a dragon, you know those flying creatures? Well the GM didn't know how to run high level enemies so he had the dragon come in and land and breath weapon, letting the party surround and flank him and kill him in 1 round. Oh silly GMs.
My suggestion for a character when the GM thinks it'd be fun to have a high level campaign is to play a beatstick. Since those are basically just low level solutions with bigger numbers they'll fit right in to what the GM is expecting and not cause problems.
It can be easy to get carried away with cohorts, companions, familiars, and summoned monsters. I'd certainly endorse not using more than one summoning or calling power at a time as a general point of decorum. For Summoners and Druids I think it makes sense to allow a single Summon spell in addition to the eidolon or animal companion since this seems to be "expected" especially in the case of a Druid with spontaneous Summon spells. Even within that framework I usually try to summon stuff with a single attack. In a previous campaign I definitely noticed other players reacting much differently when my PC brought in a Dire Lion or Tiger which attacked 5 times as opposed to an Ankylosaurus or T-Rex which attacked once. The dinosaurs were generally tolerated while the cats caused people to roll their eyes, sigh, and engage in some mild ridicule.
It sounds like you went way too far. On the other hand, if people are making anti-paladin protest characters that seems like a pretty bad sign to me. It seems like it could be the sort of game where folks want to run around with their pants off going crazy* and flexing their 18th level powers to disrupt the game world and whatever story the DM wants to tell. That the DM felt the need to insert an NPC nanny into the game implies to me that he feared as much though perhaps didn’t understand how difficult 18th level PCs not bound by alignment constraints could be to control.
*Why bother to have pants in Pathfinder when there’s no magical item which goes in that slot and no penalty in the rules for failing to wear pants? Flaunting the fact you’re not wearing pants when you walk down the street or perhaps have an audience with the King could be amusing for some folks like, “Nobody can force me to conform to cultural norms!”
*Why bother to have pants in Pathfinder when there’s no magical item which goes in that slot and no penalty in the rules for failing to wear pants? Flaunting the fact you’re not wearing pants when you walk down the street or perhaps have an audience with the King could be amusing for some folks like, “Nobody can force me to conform to cultural norms!”
I blame "chain shirt" armor. I have literally seen two players totally new to the game decided that they would not wear pants after selecting this armor.
Just a random side thought. Look up Solars. CR 23, 20th level cleric caster, 2X treasure. That Solar was the most powerful thing at the table, and would have been the one calling the shots. Also, there is basically no amount of treasure in the world that would make a Solar join a party with anti-paladins and a undead making cleric.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Breaking News, high level caster causes balance problems. More at 11.
The fact that your group is entirely casual should have been your first clue to tone things down. This DM clearly has bigger eyes than his stomach if he thinks he can handle an 18th+ campaign.
Ayup, I've been this DM. I thought that starting at 20th level would be fun, had no idea how broken the game is, said "Anything official goes!," angry words were had, it happens.
If I were Alzrius, I'd swallow my frustration with having the rug pulled out from under me for the time being. Re/make a simpler and lower-powered PC, show up, have fun, show that I'm a sport. Then after everyone has had a blast with the second session and has realized that I'm not out to tank their fun, apologize and explain things just like Alzrius has done here. Assuming I'm cool about it and the group is halfway reasonable, they should understand and may even apologize.
|
This is the part that cracks me up.
You didn't rein yourself in at all
Oh no, trust me, there were quite a few ways that I could have gone further (I mentioned previously not taking gratuitous advantage of the solar angel's 3/day permanency and 1/day wish SLA's, for example). Several minor points about my character weren't focused on optimization (e.g. spending a feat slot on Toughness, despite that only bumping my hit points up from an anemic 77 to a pretty-much-just-as-bad 95).
That said, the consensus seems to be that I'd already gone too far, and that "not having made it even worse" isn't really a mitigating factor.
You remind me of when I used first started playing GURPS 4th edition I specifically wanted to show a GM how broken 3rd edition Psionics were (and why I preferred 4th edition's Psionics rules both as a player and as a GM myself) since he insisted they were not broken. So, I made a Telekinetic with a Power of 150 (or something like that, I really don't' want to take the time to do the whole math again. Suffice it to say that every level past 20 doubles the speed of the previous level and that is how fast you can move in one second.) Why 150? Cause I figured being able to move objects at over 9 times the speed of light was good enough to prove my point. I was reining in my character. I could have made her more powerful to really drive home how broken the rules were.
She was still completely broken and I knew it. He approved the character because he was not as experienced at the Psionics rules as I was, so he didn't bat an eye at a Telekinesis of 150, whereas I would have been like "Nope, Telekinesis is capped at 20."
Once he saw my point, I remade her to only a Power of 20. That game didn't last much longer, and now we are playing 4th edition finally, which is not broken on the Psionics front any more.
So yeah, a broken character is a broken character, no matter how much you might 'rein it in' you are being a jerk to the GM just like I was to the GM in my example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue here isn't the power level of the character - it's all the pets on the table. Just redo the character as a blaster wizard or stick with a martial character doing hundreds of points of damage a round. You can be super effective and overpowered without being disruptive.
OK, you can do some pretty broken things in the game, and frankly, the game design and PFS play culture encourages it, strongly. Not new, was a problem with RPGA too. Any time you try to encourage the belief that there is value to the play, the characters, outside of play it is inevitable. That said, we still are all responsible for our actions, and for what we allow. Yes, the GM blew it, yes the OP manipulated the GMs ignorance, thus blew it, and yes, even without this ridiculous character OP brought in, this game was probably doomed. I couldn't come up with a better story to illustrate what not to do and why, it is almost a fable.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, the GM blew it, yes the OP manipulated the GMs ignorance, thus blew it, and yes, even without this ridiculous character OP brought in, this game was probably doomed. I couldn't come up with a better story to illustrate what not to do and why, it is almost a fable.
I don't think it is fair to say, "the OP manipulated the GMs ignorance". From my reading, they spent a couple of sessions together building characters, and discussed what was allowed and what was not. That seems to be the best possible way to approach starting a campaign together. Why that failed so spectacularly to avoid the train wreck that ensued is the big question...
I suspect:A) The GM assumed that Paizo material was basically balanced, and free of broken options and combos.
B) That not all of these things would be occurring simultaneously.
C) That high level play was similar to low or mid level play.
D) That being a "Good GM" means being very permissive and generous, and not limiting players options.
E) That limits to spells like Planar Binding are the type of thing to handwave away.
F) That higher level challenges would somehow be immune or resistant to summons, spells, tactics, etc.
G) That things like a wizards low AC, or other "weaknesses" mattered.
None of these things are really true, and it is unfortunate that it had to come to a head like this. I think you are 100% right about this being the perfect fable of How a God Wizard Can Break a Game
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fergie,
While your moral to the story is valid, it wasn't exactly what I was going for. With his use of the leadership feat, he would have been broken as a Commoner. The three antipaladins, all apparently designed specifically to say, "You can't tell us what to do, you bad GM you," would have broken the game. Trying to break or dominate the game breaks the game. Even roleplay, if it is abusive or disruptive breaks the game. You can make any class or concept work well in a game, with some skill and effort. Conversely, you can make just about anything break the game if that is you intent.
I guess my moral would be that it takes effort not to break the game, but breaking the game makes all of your efforts to do so pointless, since only within the game do those efforts have value.
(I pick up my soapbox, drag it into the alley, and wander off babbling to myself.)
Please handle antique Pathfinder with care, it might break.
We played a game with a Sorcerer who animated dead and a druid with animalcompanions and summoning other animals, OH and some Leadership tossed in there.
Half way through it started to REALLY drag on initative. House rule popped up that anyone you control goes on your initative. That helped speed things up a bit more without everything getting its own init modifiers...
That said, we also decided against allowing 'pet' classes again. Summoners and the like are ONLY acceptable when we're running a small group. 1-3 players and they may need the extra oomph.... our normal 4-5 players and it's just unnecessary. We have enough players to handle the encounter... we don't need anyone hogging the ball.
The other players don't like waiting around for pets to steal the glory... the summoner doesn't like running 4-5 characters at a time... It's just a lose/lose situation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Needless to say, the entire thing has left a bitter taste in my mouth. I quite like my character, and want to keep running him, but at the same time I'm quite ticked at having had the gauntlet thrown down. I have no idea what to do before next week's game, and time is running out...
I think you should take the moral high ground and create a player more along the lines of what the rest of the group expects of a level 18 character.
FWIW, you seem to be handling the understandable annoyance pretty well, so kudos for that. In my opinion, this is one of those 'nobody's wrong, you just all turned up to play different games' kind of situations.
I wouldn't put too much store in the fact the DM okayed everything and is now taking it back - it seems pretty clear that he was operating outside his experience/knowledge and just made a mistake. Hopefully he'd accept that interpretation, but even if he doesn't - that's pretty much what went wrong, in my view.
It means you have to stop playing a character you don't want to, but there don't seem to be many alternatives. Turning up with the same character is probably going to annoy the others isn't it? (Including the players who built antipaladins specifically so they could kill an NPC they didn't like...doesn't really augur well). I think you need to chalk it up to misunderstanding and system-mastery discrepancy and hope the DM learns from it too.
Not entirely helpful advice, but I don't think you really have an option that's likely to end well. I'd seriously consider a non-wizard, since you might keep considering 'how I would have approached this with my original wizard' but that might just be me.
|
Needless to say, the entire thing has left a bitter taste in my mouth. I quite like my character, and want to keep running him, but at the same time I'm quite ticked at having had the gauntlet thrown down. I have no idea what to do before next week's game, and time is running out...I think you should take the moral high ground and create a player more along the lines of what the rest of the group expects of a level 18 character.Creating a new player is a little Frankenstein-y, don't you think?
If you're not just going to walk away for the duration of this campaign - and I still think you should - I'm in favour of a protest character from the opposite end of the power scale. Level 18 Commoner, FTW!
If he made the same character, but with no Wizard levels, only Commoner, he'd still probably be OP. The shenanigans with the Intelligent Item were already putting him above the rest of the party :P
Creating a new player is a little Frankenstein-y, don't you think?Needless to say, the entire thing has left a bitter taste in my mouth. I quite like my character, and want to keep running him, but at the same time I'm quite ticked at having had the gauntlet thrown down. I have no idea what to do before next week's game, and time is running out...I think you should take the moral high ground and create a player more along the lines of what the rest of the group expects of a level 18 character.
:)
From what I've heard so far, Alzrius is pretty talented!
I recommend an Antipaladin.
As bad a party as it is having 3 of a kind in it... what's one more :D
Obviously the GM made a huge mistake letting your do what you did so morally you're totally right to say they're the ones going back on what they said and thats not your fault.
It does seem as though you were willfully believing the DM could handle something that he quite obviously wasn't going to be able to handle. I also think you were being excessive for reasons I can't fathom.
You have a party you don't need a Solar and a Gargantuan construct, yes your DM said he could handle it but he was wrong and that was obvious. You said he had only run two short campaigns, with your level of knowledge of the game it should have been obvious what he could and couldn't handle. And yes the most frustratingly broken class in the game running a mountain of cheese falls into that category.
Like honestly how did you expect him to be able to challenge you and not immediately kill the rest of your party? Did you want to run your own party? I don't understand what you thought the end result would be because this seems to be pretty obviously a bad idea.
Also just as a general point I really can't see why you'd think having 8 guys would do anything other than piss off your real life friends who notably didn't do anything cheesey
it reminds me of my friend who ran a crossblooded Orc/Draconic Sorcerer with the new Magic toolbox mutations who asked do you think their will be a problem with me doing 55 damage on average roles at level 3 with a level one spell?
Yes obviously that will be a problem, but my DM said I could, well in that case it will totally not brake anything at all and your fighter doing 2D6 + 10 will feel totally valuable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, that character is the Pathfinder version of PunPun, and should never be brought into an actual game.Wait wait wait.
You're suggesting that a Core Class, using standard options available to it in main line books, is somehow the PunPun [as in, an obscure monster trick available in an obscure book utilizing an npc race] of Pathfinder?
Oh yes the "standard" option of having a 16th level Kineticist intelligent weapon. Hardly Punpun, but far from standard. Allowing Leadership at all is foolish and allowing an intelligent weapon with class levels with it is just asking for trouble.
I think a healthy practice is to allow 1 in battle summon and 1 combat follower. As a GM the rule with high level play is simplify as much as possible. Ensure players have attacks routines written out and explain that you wish to limit the numbers on the battlefield to increase the flow and thus fun of the game.
|
|
it reminds me of my friend who ran a crossblooded Orc/Draconic Sorcerer with the new Magic toolbox mutations who asked do you think their will be a problem with me doing 55 damage on average roles at level 3 with a level one spell?
Yes obviously that will be a problem, but my DM said I could, well in that case it will totally not brake anything at all and your fighter doing 2D6 + 10 will feel totally valuable.
If you are talking about the "Blood Havoc" mutation in magic tactics toolbox here, then:
(a) It is not PFS legal, which is a pretty good idea someone thinks it is overpowered; and
(b) It is NOT legal for a crossblooded sorcerer in any case (even if not doing PFS.) Crossblooded is an archetype that changes bloodline power features (look for the (X)'s in the 20pfsrd in this feature...) and the magic tactics toolbox states, "...a bloodrager or sorcerer cannot swap a bloodline power that she has altered or replaced with an archetype for a bloodline mutation."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the general tenor of the advice here, namely:
- regardless of why it happened, it is clear you need to tone down your optimization level significantly to bring yourself back in line with the rest of the group;
- self-limiting yourself away from some overpowered options doesn't justify using other overpowered options (and overpowered has to be considered based on the party's relative power/optimization level, not your own knowledge of what other, MORE powerful options you could be using); and
- the primary source of tension seems to be the minions and associated turn length/overshadowing issues -- so whatever character you end up replacing this one with (which is the only option if you want to keep playing, obviously), you need to avoid taking Leadership, and should restrict yourself to no more than one Animal Companions, Familiar or called creature, while also restricting the number of summons in play at any given time (I'd suggest no more than one given your party size and level).
I get the sense you are actually a pretty level-headed person who simply made a poor judgment call on what sort of character to bring to this game (again, for whatever reason, but it's fair to say GM inexperience played a role). Your handling of the criticisms in this thread also does you credit.
My suggestion might be to move away from a full caster, and either use a martial character, or perhaps a limited caster like a Warpriest or Inquisitorm or perhaps a Bard or Skald. That would create some built-in restrictions on high level 'cheese' (though you'll still want to rein yourself in as suggested above and elsewhere). Plus, everyone appreciates a Bard or Skald, and it could go a long way towards rebuilding some goodwill within the party.
Given that the OP seems to be the groups most competent optimizer I would suggest he sets himself a challenge and attempts to make a well rounded martial character that is useful at the level. For extra points build them to use two weapons. I personally prefer playing casters because of the array of choices, but many of the new classes offer much more varied and interesting play styles and so ought to satisfy those who enjoy variety. I particularly enjoy the brawlers martial flexibility and at 18th level a brawler's daggers, or better Kama's, would have the same base damage as greatswords.