First, I'm sorry fro bring this here.
Secondly, I'm a GM of 34 years experience.
I have a player, that rather than play his characters, builds characters that create NPCS. I don't persay have a problem with that but, it is getting excessive,takes more time, throws off the CR rating of the campaign and likewise. That in itself isn't the issue, last week, his construct and Eidolon blocked a hallway and essentially no other player could play.
In my mind I've never been an overbearing GM. I let the player build his construct on his time, no rolls, no GM supervision. Well he switched between the regular rules and the alternative as it suited him to mitigate cost creation. I addressed that and we worked thru it satisfactorily.
House rules have been all NPCs Max is equal to the Player Character -1 level no exceptions, no feats, no magical items, nothing changes that. This is an effort to get players to play characters and not NPCs
The player is dissatisfied with that and seeks to buck the system and believes the forum will validate his opinion. I said I would ask so I am.
I said he could feel free to disregard the character level -1 on NPCs but I'd revert to RAW which says all final modified DCs are determined by the GM. That he could expect at the onset of every planned battle I would then include creatures or spellcrafters who could control various NPCs (not targeting the specific player).
He insists that I am not following RAW or the spirit of the game. I have more players to worry about than just him but, wanted to be as fair and impartial as possible. I am only human and have therefore been wrong before.
Craft Construct.
He insists that I am not following RAW or the spirit of the game.
He is demonstrably wrong, in that ...
I have more players to worry about than just him
... the fundamental spirit of the game is an adventure everyone enjoys. You may or may not be following RAW but you are absolutely following the spirit of the game by making sure everyone at the table is having fun.
Note that it's possible your other players don't mind. Maybe they secretly hate combat, and thank Construct Man behind your back. In which case, I argue the spirit of the game would dictate that you allow the constructs - or probably better, adjust the nature of the campaign.
It's more likely your other players will side with you. Even if it means their characters taking a few ineffectual swings with a club before the optimized fighters take out the enemy, it's generally more fun for everyone have something to do.
Even if something is RAW, sometimes RAW is bad for a game. That is a major reason why the GM can override the rules, because they are suppose to keep the game enjoyable for all of the players.
That was my point and point of validation.
The player simply interpreted the rules very favorably not on purpose.
@Lelomenia my rule was it had to be 1 level less than your PCs level and to seek me as to how to apply it. On Undead in the past it was CR -1 for his Juju Oracle. In this instance, I applied CL-1 for constructs. I understand that is not RAW but a consistent table rule. My attempt is to get players to play their characters and tell a story not have NPCs whom technically the GM controls tell the WHOLE story.
What do you mean by "all NPCs Max is equal to the Player Character -1 level."
The number of NPCs? The total HD of NPCs?
And to the point of his eidolon and construct blocking the hallway, I'm assuming this was in combat? Why don't any people have ranged weapons? Also, you can move through allies, why not try to move through the ally and make an acrobatics check to move through the enemy and then flank them? If all of your players are melee and get stuck in a small hallway to fight, there's always going to be someone or a couple people left out. That seems more like a party composition problem than a one-player problem.
No, each NPC is character level -1 you can have 20 NPCs or more
He insists that I am not following RAW or the spirit of the game.He is demonstrably wrong, in that ...
I have more players to worry about than just him... the fundamental spirit of the game is an adventure everyone enjoys. You may or may not be following RAW but you are absolutely following the spirit of the game by making sure everyone at the table is having fun.
Note that it's possible your other players don't mind. Maybe they secretly hate combat, and thank Construct Man behind your back. In which case, I argue the spirit of the game would dictate that you allow the constructs - or probably better, adjust the nature of the campaign.
It's more likely your other players will side with you. Even if it means their characters taking a few ineffectual swings with a club before the optimized fighters take out the enemy, it's generally more fun for everyone have something to do.
Thanks for your response!
First, I'm sorry fro bring this here.
Secondly, I'm a GM of 34 years experience.I have a player, that rather than play his characters, builds characters that create NPCS. I don't persay have a problem with that but, it is getting excessive,takes more time, throws off the CR rating of the campaign and likewise. That in itself isn't the issue, last week, his construct and Eidolon blocked a hallway and essentially no other player could play.
This is actually a little inaccurate. Anvil forgot to mention that he was playing a large creature as well and there was a paladin riding on a large griffon engaged with 3 large undead cyclopes just outside of the tunnel. I have provided a screenshot below for clarification. But all of those large creatures were in the little area just outside of the hallway.
In my mind I've never been an overbearing GM. I let the player build his construct on his time, no rolls, no GM supervision. Well he switched between the regular rules and the alternative as it suited him to mitigate cost creation. I addressed that and we worked thru it satisfactorily.
House rules have been all NPCs Max is equal to the Player Character -1 level no exceptions, no feats, no magical items, nothing changes that. This is an effort to get players to play characters and not NPCs
The player is dissatisfied with that and seeks to buck the system and believes the forum will validate his opinion. I said I would ask so I am.
So this statement also is a little inaccurate. I had coordinated with the GM who actually ran the game last night.
The regular rules under constructing an animated object, said cost varies based on object's CR, but I found it difficult to find the objects CR. So instead I went with the alternative rules also from Paizo products, which I thought were a little more clearer on the price.
This is the rules for Creating an Animated Object under the Alternative Rules section:
CL varies (equal to the animated object’s HD); Price varies (cost of object + [(animated object’s HD + CP) × 1,000])
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Feats Craft Construct; Spells animate objects, permanency; Skill optional (determined by object being created; crafting the object reduces its cost); Cost 1/2 price
I may have miscalculated what it meant by the cost of object. I had assumed that it was the cost of the object that I was animating. So for this I crafted a Huge Adamantine Chainmail armor that I planned to use to animate and thought the cost to craft that is used as the object to animate. After the game, however, Anvil brought it to my attention that the cost of the object was supposed to be from the actual NPC listing of a Huge Animated Object at 12,500 gp. I conceded to that point and admitted to my mistake. So since that Construct is not legal by the house rules I said I would create a Golem using the Golem rules and swap it out. The Construct was only targeted once during that game, so changing it out for a large golem would make the construct only large size and not have much impact.
I said he could feel free to disregard the character level -1 on NPCs but I'd revert to RAW which says all final modified DCs are determined by the GM. That he could expect at the onset of every planned battle I would then include creatures or spellcrafters who could control various NPCs (not targeting the specific player).
There are very specific rules for crafting Constructs. They are as follows:
The DC to craft a construct is 5 + the default caster level of the construct, just like for a magic item. Like when crafting magic items, a creator with a sufficiently high skill bonus may ignore these requirements. Each missing requirement increases the Craft DC by 5. Regardless, the creator must meet all item creation feats and minimum caster level requirements. Crafting a construct takes 1 day per 1,000 gp in the item’s base price, excluding any special material costs. This process is identical to the process for crafting a magic item, including the rules for accelerating creation and handling interruptions.I don't see what the point of Paizo spending the time making a book, and then me as a player, buying that book, if I am not allowed to use the Rules As Written in the book. Also, the other GM was ok with this as long as I follow the rules in the book and the construct's final construction cost could not exceed 20,000 gp using the Craft Construct feat.
He insists that I am not following RAW or the spirit of the game. I have more players to worry about than just him but, wanted to be as fair and impartial as possible. I am only human and have therefore been wrong before.
He also failed mention that he was a player in last night's game and the only complaint was the bottle neck with all the huge creatures engaged in melee blocking the hallway. Nothing specific to the Construct, nor did the construct take up any extra time. He just moved, hit and rolled for damage.
Anvil also forgot to mention that in addition to playing a large character, he also had a large tiger all of which were in that little area where other large creatures were engaged with large enemies.
the only complaint was the bottle neck with all the huge creatures engaged in melee blocking the hallway. Nothing specific to the Construct, nor did the construct take up any extra time.
Do you believe anyone had less fun because of what you did?
If so, what would be your proposed solution?
the only complaint was the bottle neck with all the huge creatures engaged in melee blocking the hallway. Nothing specific to the Construct, nor did the construct take up any extra time.Do you believe anyone had less fun because of what you did?
If so, what would be your proposed solution?
My proposed solution is to build a Large Golem using the RAW for Constructing the golem. Then I will have the golem be at the end of the line with my PC behind it and allow everyone to go in front when faced with a hallway in the future.
More specifics would help. A CR6 clockwork soldier costs 37000 to craft, and WBL at 7 is 23000. And it would basically be a traffic cone against a relevant enemy.
It was a huge animated object. I think we adjusted that appropriately. I don't think there is an issue there.
The issue was the player believes a GM cannot alter RAW as it applies to DC because he owns a book that he thinks says so. He also believe for the benefit of Game Play and others he cannot be restricted or nerfed at a GMs discretion regardless of table rules prior to the start of the campaign.
I have NEVER had to kick a player off my table. I've always been able to either make them see reason or adjudicate the problem to a more suitable manner. I only come to the forums at the players bequest. so long short am I being unreasonable?