|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If this is in the wrong section sorry, 'tis my first post here, so I'm not exactly well acquainted.
In one of the games I play in, my PC is a 7th lvl wizard, core pathfinder, in one fight, the DM decided, on the fly, that SR now completely counters all AOE's. I.E. having a 1 SR makes you entirely immune to any AOE spell that has spell resistance, so I casually made the remark, "I guess i gotta get to 1 SR then don't I?". To which I was promptly told no, I cannot acquire SR, so I then asked about just making a wondrous item to provide myself with an SR of whatever said item gives, to which the DM promptly said that it would be impossible to craft. I.E. they are removed from the game.
I'd told him that making a change as severe as that to one of the core mechanics of pretty much all spellcasting, is something that you tell your players at the start of a campaign as a house rule, I was particularly peeved at this point, since my wizard had been rolling low for attack rolls for the last 6-7 sessions (we use roll20) and I had spent the last 2 lvls acquiring AOE damage spells so that no attack rolls are required.I'd done the polite thing that every post ever says to do, and pulled my DM aside after the game and argued my point, to which he was unyielding, so i asked if i can retrain my spells, since he essentially removed them from being useful. (After lvl 6 or so he always has pretty much any major or minor boss bad guy have SR.) He did not allow it since i could use them on things that don't have SR.
TL:DR My DM decided on the fly that most of the big bad damage spells in the game are pretty much dead spells when it counts.
The DM was saying that I was getting unreasonable, and that it was completely fair, cuz precisely one person in our group had SR and therefore our group was benefiting from the new ruling. So my question is, was i out of line in questioning the ALL Mighty DM or was he pulling an Uber-Nerf out of the blue?
Sorry for the long post... just had to give all requisite info.
You got yourself a dud GM, pull him aside and tell him you don't want to play with that GM anymore because his house rule is unreasonable.
No game is better than bad game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM doesn't like your character's abilities, so all-but-eliminates the abilities while insisting that you continue to play the character? Allows another character to have SR while eliminating it for you? Then argues "hey, it's fair"?
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
Any rule change should be discussed with the players and a consensus should be reached before implementing it.
It is bad form to spring a rule like this.
There is a spell that grants SR for minutes per level.
Literally called Spell Resistance.
Overall I would talk to the GM again, and avoid accusatory language.
Dont say "You made all my spells useless!!!1!ONE"
Say "I feel that, with this change, most of my spell choices have been invalidated. Had I known that this rule was going to be put in place I would have chosen different spells."
Calmly explain the effect that this will have on your character. Ask him why he feels the rule is necessary.
Sound like you should make a Barbarian ...
No, seriously - you know the answer already. Live with it, or find another game, he's not likely to change (though why he would pull something like that, in when a player has already made a spellcaster is beyond me.)
Maybe you could have fun, playing a non-caster?
Hope you find a good way way out of this:-)
good luck and good gaming
Maybe he was just annoyed how powerful these attack and AOE spells worked out. So this SR houserule was born out of despair, not out of malignity. And since he doesn't see another approach, he will defend this houserule to a totally unreasonable extent. Essentially he needs to know some alternatives, like:
Double HP template (CR +1)
Advanced creature template (CR +1)
Ocassionally creatures with high SR or energy resistance / immunity
If pulled well, both sides profit from it. He can build more challenging encounters, you can enjoy more hits with high damage. And you guys get slightly more XP and loot per encounter.
What problem is your GM trying to solve?
Walk.
You GM is being unreasonable and frankly being childish.
As an aside...I'm in a game where my wizard hasn't had a single critter fail a save for two years game time. The last time was when he cast Glitterdust back at 3rd level and shut down the BBEG...He's now sixth and nothing has ever failed a save since. My sarcasm levels have hit an all time high and even the other players are commenting on it.
Sounds like your GM is bad. I’d leave and find a different group, after making it clear as to why you’re leaving (unreasonable house rules making game not fun).
|
|
From your description of the encounter that frustrated your GM, it sounds to me like you got the chance to dominate one encounter. That's part of the fun of being a caster; it's just important to not do it too often. Did any of the other players seem to object, and they could have complained to the GM? Perhaps they didn't understand that this is something to be done occasionally, not every battle?
Yes, I would be very frustrated and at least consider leaving if the GM kept changing things in order to invalidate decisions I'd already made, and then not letting me make reactive changes.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, so the player dominated one encounter. So what? Sometimes people knock it out of the park unexpectedly. That's fun too.
Every encounter doesn't have to be a soul-crushing Rappan Athuk wail-fest of character-sheet-shredding awfulness...
EDIT - If any of my regular players happen to read this post: For you, it does. Every. Encounter.
Seems like the GM is playing against you, instead of with you. Poor form.
I'm going to echo the above remarks and note that your GM has made a poor call, is not receptive to player feedback, and isn't even willing to offer concessions for a house rule that he sprung on the table. I would approach him again with the response suggested by J4RH34D:
Overall I would talk to the GM again, and avoid accusatory language.
Dont say "You made all my spells useless!!!1!ONE"
Say "I feel that, with this change, most of my spell choices have been invalidated. Had I known that this rule was going to be put in place I would have chosen different spells."Calmly explain the effect that this will have on your character. Ask him why he feels the rule is necessary.
If there are no changes, you should seriously consider leaving if you aren't having fun.
Since a lot of good advice is offered above, I'll also offer some bad advice for a change of pace!
Next major encounter where it would be expected the spellcaster would pull their weight, declare that you're going to charge at the largest enemy and chest bump them. Get your wizard impaled on the enemy's weapon and then create a non-caster. Preferably one with SR.
Explain to your DM that there are really nice game-breaking spells. Many of these spells don't have SR. Compared to them, blasting with Fireball is playing soft.
If he doesn't believe you, show him in the next game (assuming he lets you buy scrolls/spells).
If he makes rules up on the spot to counter your newfound effectiveness, then there's no reason to play in a game whose only rule is "screw you".
Alternately (and much nicer), pull back a bit, using buffs and the occasional debuff/blast. A wizard can be frustrating on a DM who isn't optimization-minded. If its not fun, then don't play.
As something of a "GM's Rights" advocate here on paizo.com's boards . . . yeah, that's a jerk move. Unilateral changes to central game mechanics midgame should at least be met with a chance to correct for said change. If I wanted to beef up spell resistance for my campaign, I'd be up front about it at character creation. If I felt the need to change how it works down the line (not bloody likely), I'd offer my players a chance to change their character-building decisions accordingly.
As J4RH34D suggested, have a mature conversation with your GM on the subject. If things don't pan out, you'll either have to put up with it (which I don't recommend--it's likely the GM will make such "adjustments" again) or find another table.
Ironically, as Kitty Catoblepas mentioned, the most effective wizards are the ones that don't have to futz with SR at all. Wonder how this GM would handle that?
The current rule set relegates me to using ranged touch, which the DM has pretty much any tank have full plate, tower shields, shield focus and adds a D&D feat to let their shield bonus apply to Deflection, making it supremely difficult to ever actually hit.
That shouldn't affect Touch AC. Flat footed, yes, but not Touch.
As the others have said, if taking it out... pointing out the unfairness of changing game mechanics (and game balance) mid campaign without discussing it with everyone who's playing (you are a group. Not a handful of employees with a GM/boss), then leave. It's better for you... No more headache and wondering what new rule he's gonna change next without telling you. Better for him since he can't deal with running a Pathfinder game. When nobody wants to play a spellcaster and it starts screwing up the game, he might figure out he made a mistake. I would leave and tell him why I;m leaving. I'd also say goodbye to the other players and explain to them why you're leaving. You're a group who's losing one. They deserve to know why, but don't do it behind the GM's back. Do a nice goodbye post (or whatever serves the same purpose with your game) explaining why you're leaving and wish them luck in their campaign. It sounds like there's no big loss. When it's the players vs the GM, the players can't win. They can only leave.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is your neutral evil advice for the thread: burn it down.
Since the social contract of your table has been broken and attempts to mend it have been rejected summarily, you should be excited. He's ruined your fun and so you have a wide array of options to ruin his. This is the only fun he has left you. (I personally would recommend recruiting your fellow players in this endeavor, but it's possible to do this on your own too.)
Does he value story over everything else? Ignore all the plot hooks and reject the implied tone. Attempt to seduce the orc barbarian chieftain. Throw pies at the king's dinner.
Does he value interesting tactical encounters? Run away from all of them.
Does he value RP interaction? Give him the silent treatment.
Does he value immersion? Have everyone whip out their phones and play Candy Crush.
Does he value exploration? Then it's time to put those Profession and Craft skills to work. Refuse to leave town until you have the perfect amount of gold and items for the adventure.
If you value the relationship, I'm sure you'll turn to more mature solutions. Reject that temptation. Go for glory. Become a legend of passive aggressive revenge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems like roguerouge is trying to put me out of a job...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Leave the game, and let him know why.
This sort of behaviour is infuriating.
Wait, how viable is non-SR blasting? It probably took a hit with the snowball reprint, but if it was reliant on that alone, it was pretty dead already.
This GM is a turd.
No game is better than bad game.
Huh... We all know what you meant, but that the wording implies that Bad Games are the best kind of games. :P
I would keep an eye on this GM.
He seems erratic. He also doesn't seem to understand the foundation of the rules, especially if he's willing to change them willy-nilly.
I would suggest making some contingencies.
You might need to start looking for a new group NOW!
If you ever design to burn down the campaign, wait until it's time to roll initiative (especially if it's the big final battle or an elaborate set piece encounter he has planned), or even wait until it's almost your turn, then pack up and leave. Just say you have to go, and leave.
Is the GM your friend? Are the rest (or any) of the players your friends? Or do y'all just game together?
Yeesh! He goes from SR stops everything to no SR? Is there no middle ground with this guy? SR is there for a reason. Now, instead of some encounters being nearly impossible they go to pushovers. I agree with Mac Radle. Point this thread out to him. Is he new to GMing? Because that's what this looks like. No concept of game balance and overreacting when things do go the way he plans.
Maybe he just doesn’t understand the SR mechanic? The swing from “SR stops all aoe spells” to “SR does nothing” seems really bizarre, especially when there’s the perfectly reasonable “SR functions like it says in the rules” as middle ground.
Ironically, as Kitty Catoblepas mentioned, the most effective wizards are the ones that don't have to futz with SR at all. Wonder how this GM would handle that?
Judging by the list of spell the OP mentioned, it would appear the GM is ruling SR 1 renders opponents immune to all AoE spells, even spells that don't normally allow SR. Grease was one of the mentioned spells.
That said, it does make me wonder how the GM would handle a shift to focus on multiple summoning spells/fight and battlefield control via pits and walls.
