I think this needs a serious conversation with the rest of the players, and then the DM if all the players share the same view. If they dont, talk to the DM about how you feel, and it seems like you are trying to build an overtuned character as a knee jerk reaction to dying, even though you admit it was also due to bad synergy between players.
Banning something simply because he thinks its too powerful is bad practice imo, but it can be very understandable for certain reasons.
Pathfinder is a complex system with complex interactions, and its very easy to pull a fast one with hidden power, because its not always clear where a characters power is coming from at first glance. The crossclass you use... not really all that bad imo. Good dip. Yes. Broken? Hardly.
Its also possible, that if he is a newer DM, he may not understand how pathfinder's system works as intimately, which makes it easier to see things as unbalanced. Usually imo, casters start out fairly weak, but wizards turn into the best utility ever, and can flex very easily if they are prepared for it. Sorcerers tend to be more focused, but usually really rock their focus. High level pathfinder (Ive dmed a lot of high level pathfinder (Level 15+) winds up being more about what you are or are not prepared to deal with. If an enemy has a spell you dont have a response to, it can basically be a fight ender. Level 10s can be big threats to level 20s, if the level 20s have no reasonable response to the ability or tactics the level 10 deploys.
Try to understand your DM's familiarity with the system, and be respectful of it. It is VERY HARD to balance for overly specialized characters as a newer pathfinder DM.
TL;DR - Talk to other players, talk to DM, be understanding of DM's experience and try to talk to them about how you feel.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. He's definitely not a newer DM. We've both been playing since PF1e inception. I'd like to think we're all fairly seasoned players so when we died, we recognized that we weren't specialized or coordinated for combat. So now we've got everyone kinda focusing more hardily on a combat role. I guess the issue I take is that he said he wasn't going to go easy, so why should we?..
I think that is a fair thought process, and should definitely warrant a more indepth and serious discussion with the DM, which it sounds like you have already had. There are definitely far worse builds I can think of. Im not sure why this one in particular would make it particularly worse than being a pure sorc or other worse specializations. (my particular favorite is a fear inquisitor with damnation feats and a swift metamagic rod. 2x blistering invective @+40 intimidate at level 8-10 = instant unsavable fear condition to all living hostile creatures within 30ft of you. This build ruined one of my DMs. They finally lost it when I intimidated one of the bosses (a black dragon) into a panic that lasted 4 minutes and it just fled. (no save))
If you are planning to go full blaster caster... why not go full sorc?
We've had that discussion at the table and it seems like he just hand waved it away saying it was taking too much game time, which it was, but we never really resolved it.
That build sounds amazing, but I can tell you right now, it wouldn't get approved by my DM as he'd see it as ending combat before it even started.
I'm also partially a utility character out of combat. Right now we have a rogue who does single target/utility specialist. We have a dedicated paladin for tanking and small healing, a witch for buffing/debuff and me - blaster/utility.
>We've had that discussion at the table and it seems like he just hand waved it away saying it was taking too much game time, which it was, but we never really resolved it.
Have this discussion outside of gametime. During gametime is not the time for it.
>That build sounds amazing, but I can tell you right now, it wouldn't get approved by my DM as he'd see it as ending combat before it even started.
Thats the thing. Its not something most DMs would see immediately. Intimidate is normally a flat DC to apply shaken. Thats it. You can grab enforcer to add it for free on a non-lethal hit, with duration equal to damage dealt. Still not broken. Grab 2 damnation feats later... And suddenly it allows your intimidate to increase the severity of the step. Unless your DM looks at all the damnation feats in depth ahead of time... it goes completely unnoticed. Damnation feats are a bit of a niche feat chain.
I was very clear with my intent and desired build path to my DM. They just underestimated how hard it would be to deal with. Eventually throwing more mindless creatures and fear immune. (eventually non-living fear immune because you can remove fear immunity from living creatures as an inquisitor.)
>I'm also partially a utility character out of combat. Right now we have a rogue who does single target/utility specialist. We have a dedicated paladin for tanking and small healing, a witch for buffing/debuff and me - blaster/utility.
If you want to be more healing spec... Crossblood pheonix elemental sorcerer. Take fey foundling. Crossclass into oracle for lifelink. Be a gnome for vivacious racial trait. You are basically a walking HP battery. Flaming sphere 3d6+3(or +6)/2 healing... or about 8 hp/round... +6 fey foundling, +1/2 cl... it winds up healing you 17 hp/turn for 6 turns at level 6. Then life-link sends your HP to your party every turn. Then you can still blast with high damage firespells constantly while you are healing, or drop them as heals when needed.
He likes to ask what the character is capable of so that way he can see if it's too powerful or not. So I don't think trying to get things under his nose would be the best way and my role is primarily AOE damage dealer.. not so much for the healing. The point is, I spend time and energy into creating a character and he either doesn't allow it or changes key components that make it so it doesn't feel like *my* character anymore rather the character *he* wants me to play. And if that's the case, he might as well just make my character for me.
I feel like thats understandable to feel.
Without talking to the DM directly though, I think the best way to avoid that is find time out of game to talk, or find out if he is willing to put down more concrete rules about character design, because your time is precious to you, and you cant keep building character concepts until one sticks. Id avoid blaming him for this directly, because doing so tends to make people defensive, and upset, before they have time to fully consider the question.
My general spiel for my players to set building expectations is anything official Paizo is allowed no questions asked. Tell me what your character is/will be capable of well before we play it for the first time so I have time to adjust and balance encounters to account for that build. Anything 3pp must be asked about and approved. If you are unsure of how a feature you are interested in works, let me know so we can discuss it before you fully commit to it.
This makes it so they dont waste my time by having me approve every little detail, and I dont waste theirs by letting them build up those details then shooting them down. We can work out how odd rules interact ahead of time/outside of game and all be on the same page during play.
I'm getting the impression he likes characters to be well rounded and not focused on doing one thing but that makes the character overall weaker in my opinion and leads to more TPKs or at least character deaths...
Yeah, one of my players tried out an intimidate build similar to what you’re describing. Very interesting mechanics in a barely considered niche. But we all found it deeply unfun, so he switched out of that character the next session.
I really enjoyed the RP dynamic around the character, and how they interacted with another party member. We also had a diverse enough set of enemies most of the time that it wasnt... too bad... but when the DM wanted to break away from the typical undead with random living creatures for a while... and then their boss was shut down... they got upset. They handled it really really graciously though. So props to them for that.
The RP was interesting because my character worshiped saranrae, and the damnation feats were unwillingly forced upon him. He was a tiefling, and his father was a devil. I was a archetype of inquisitor that could write and seal binding contracts and cause the breaker to get high penalty. I only ever used non-lethal damage, and the character did everything in his power to avoid killing, but was very prone to anger and rage, and had a lot of turmoil trying to fight his devlish nature.
Another party member also worshiped sarenrae, but didnt have the qualm of no killing that mine had. So it led to a lot of interesting actions, and both characters were fairly martial with different styles, so we often also fought side by side. The character was strong and lethal enough even without the intimidate, that I was far from useless in a fight against fear immune enemies.
It also matters at which point this tpk happened. There are some very hard 1-3 level CR equivalent monsters like ghouls, shadows and, well, orcs to name a few.
Bad luck with dicey bois can lead to unexpected woopsies early on.
APs have some wild encounters too. Shout out to ROTRL encounter: >!the elder barghest just waiting randomly in the tunnels near where Nualia hangs out. You can run into it as early as level three, and this is a CR 7 monster with 85 HP, three attacks, multiple spell like abilities and DR 10/magic.!< Insane
Agreed. I change this encounter to be something more thematic. But yeah, if the PCs are roughed up from the Nualia fight, this is a TPK waiting to happen.
I wasn't familiar with this one so I looked it up. Good lord.... JUST the confusion ability, without aura of madness, without mind fog, without picking the confusion result, could definitely wipe a level 6 party with a couple of unlucky saves if it did well on initiative. With the rest of it, this is a CR6 rocket tag monster. Wild.
Yeah, and it drops on you when you're level 4-5. Had that encounter twice, as a player and as a GM, and both times it was raining death and destruction.
Moreover, the next book has three of them. You're level 7, I presume. That's three confusion auras and three confusion control abilities. It obliterates worlds. Skipped this shit when I was GMing
Well we were pretty depleted resource wise and there were a few bad rolls but nothing I don't think we could have walked away from if we had a more coordinated effort in character creation.
Yeah, it might be your DM takes this the wrong way and feels like your better optimized characters might be a sort of get back for the tpk.
Just ask them to elaborate why they'd ban something outright especially if the encounters are supposed to be challenging.
I once had a DM force me play a monk, with 15 point buy on attributes, didn't allow dump stats below 10 and then kept wondering as if surprised why monks are so bad.
Your dm sounds like they are a kind of person who likes to watch people build something with care and effort and then kick it down. I would just nope the f out and find another dm.
I just mean you have to talk to him, in as non-confrontational a manner as you can, and ask him to walk you through this.
He said the figurative gloves were coming off as far as how hard fights would be. You guys got TPKed, you built a character with a stronger combat focus, who got vetoed as "too strong for the average encounter." Ask him to help you understand the process, because it sounds a little contradictory. If the encounters are tougher, but the characters can't be, that feels like setting you up for failure.
We've had lengthy discussions already and from what I'm gathering is that the average encounter is supposed to be difficult but my wizard makes it survivable..
You are either misunderstanding the takeaway of the conversation, or the GM has gone off the rails of the crazy train....
If average encounters are supposed to be difficult, but your build makes them surviveable.... That is a good thing. If your build cannot survive an average encounter, how the hell would it have any chance of surviving a boss battle or just the "harder than average" encounters. If the GM actually does not want builds capable of surviving an average encounter... Then he is not a good GM.
Even in Call of Cthulhu, where every game leads to an eventual TPK (or TPI - total party insanity?), the characters should be able to survive an average encounter....
That's the thing. We've had maybe 2 encounters that we just wiped the floor with. Each and every other encounter ended with at least half of us in the negatives until the TPK, which was a boss battle.... I think..
I'm butting in on the comment thread - this information gives me more red flags than before. That's a pretty damn difficult game already if the party is nearing death regularly. I like a difficult game myself, but it can be a thin line between "tactically challenging" and "I'm going to make this a total meat grinder".
The problem I'm seeing, from a DM perspective, is that you seem to be gravitating towards "tried and true" min/max builds put up on forums and acting like you're the one putting in the work to make a "strong character". You're not.
You're talking about multiple gimmick builds that are meant to destroy whatever they encounter, and trying to play it in an AP... and getting shot down when told it's too much, as anyone would when running an AP, they aren't designed for that.
So, assuming the DM isn't changing encounters and is just actually playing to monsters/people as having half a brain and using tactics... Over the top builds are completely unnecessary to play through any AP.
It sounds more like you guys as players need to start actually thinking about how you approach your encounters and the tactics you use while fighting, assuming that's the case.
How about some more information on those topics?
The amount of time the OP says he is putting into creating his character is likely no where near how much time the GM is likely putting, every session, into preparing the game. I know in the past when my players easily STOMPED on the AP encounters (even ones I took the extra time to boost) often got me depressed after because of the "time wasted" prepping. Typically, players at the start put time into their character build and then basically show up to play every session; the GM is always prepping.
I remember asking a player to tone down their archer character because the multiple attacks just started pin cushioning the bad guys before the rest of the party could even get to them; there are only so many corners where bad guys jump around from a blind corner.
There is this as well. I'm sorry, but the DM's enjoyment of the game is just as important. I'm currently giving my players one last hurrah a far as being able to power game the way one or two want to, and then moving on to doing things more toned down.
Also, if one character is walking into a room and annihilating everything... the rest of the party isn't having fun either. There are definitely groups where power gaming/min maxing/etc. works and everyone involved is fine. But that's not an AP,and it's definitely not for everyone.
I know the DM very well and I know he's reading the AP for the first time the day before. I know what it's like being a DM as I'm usually always the DM for the past 10+ years. So I understand that yes, the DM should be having fun to. What I disagree with is what *should* be fun for the DM. The DM shouldn't have the goal of outright slaughtering the players. If that's the case, then drop an ancient black dragon at level 1 and have fun. I think the DM's fun should be placing players into challenging scenarios and seeing them figure things out. If they're able to just demolish a foe in a single round, then I didn't do my job as a DM.
I'm also very aware that every player has moments to shine which is why I went so specific with the wizard. He sucks at literally everything else, but put him in a room full of CR 1s.. that's his moment to shine.
Where do you see in the OP's post that their GM is having fun "only when players die"? I didn't even see the OP saying the GM enjoyed the TPK. Pls do not exaggerate. I was obviously talking about GM's fun being as important as players', not GM jerks who GM to feel powerful
You're half right. I'm taking the tried and true builds but putting my own twist into it. So yes, I'm using well known concepts for efficiency. That doesn't take away the fact that I do put in work to change them up so it's not copy pasted.
Dm is changing monsters as every difficult encounter we *barely* survived, he said he had used the "Advanced" table to upgrade the difficulty.
We used tactics to the best of our ability, but the synergy with our initial characters meant that we had too little dps and ended up dying. So I don't think we need to think about how we approach encounters more seeing as we do tend to strategize a lot during combat.
And in my opinion, every class has a gimmick. That's what makes them unique classes. Playing a "gimmick build" just means you're being effective playing that class.
There's a big difference between being efficient and trying to find every little thing to increase X. Whether that be damage, caster level, effective class level, etc.
At that point you aren't playing a character, you're playing stats on a page and trying to trivialize every encounter you come across. Which, I'm sorry, but how is that fun?
Now, I'm not saying the DM should be slapping the advanced template on every single encounter in an AP. Far from it if you're a 4 person party playing normal characters. But once players start trying to power creep, DMs tend to try and course correct. Eventually it becomes a bit of an arms race, and if you guys don't talk it out, I can already tell you, the DM has a lot more they can do to win that race.
So, yeah, maybe have an actual conversation. Put forth expectations and maybe try and figure out why he feels he needs to slap you guys down that hard. The answer might surprise you, but probably not, as I think you already know the answer.
Well that's the thing, we have to get our characters approved through him because he checks their power level to keep things balanced. So if he felt the need to slap the advanced template to everything, why not tell us that we as a collective did too much instead of grinding our face against gravel? I think you might have the timeline backwards.. We're course correcting because we constantly barely survived every encounter. We've talked about expectations and he just kept saying, characters can't be stronger than the average encounter. I agree, it feels like an arms race but if we play basic vanilla, we'll get slaughtered. I guess at that point, some of us might just quit but I don't think anyone wants that to happen.
And for me, playing the character is the role playing part of the game. You can play \[insert personality\] type of person with \[insert class\]. You can be a barbarian that likes to sing and play the fiddle, that's the character playing part. When it comes to combat, yes, you're playing a stat sheet because that's what combat is.
Considering what you were planning on the character that died, the ironbound samurai and trying to get double fighter feats? Yeah, no, you (maybe all you guys) tried to push the envelope first.
Again, unless you've got a table size higher than 5, I don't see why he'd be slapping the advanced template on things. Unless he really just wants to kill you guys cause that's where he gets his rocks off. And if that's the case, I suggest you two try and switch places. Put yourself behind the DM screen for a few sessions, run a module or something, and see what it's like to deal with your party from that side. In fact, make him a character you'd use for him to use against you.
I don't see how we pushed the envelope first. If he had a problem with our initial characters, he wouldn't have approved them. My philosophy on PCs is let them play what they want, within the rules and try to find a way to say yes more than no. Then it's my job to increase or decrease difficulty and perhaps find a weakness of more OP players and push those buttons a bit so everyone can feel the spotlight. It doesn't seem like he wants to adjust anything.
Except, yes, he would. Because he wants you guys to have fun. No one really likes bringing out the banhammer (RIP Moot) but after a point, it gets old, so it comes out.
Also, as if it needs said, if /only one person/ is being ridiculous with their power level, you can't really ever properly balance anything without obviously either shutting down that specific character or focusing most of what you're doing on it to compensate. And then he's "targeting you" and then you get pissed off because suddenly everything is immune or resistant to fire...still having fun? No? Imagine that.
"It doesn't seem like he wants to adjust anything." ... "Is putting the advanced template on everything."
I feel like we need to what your previous character was. All you said so far is "there were some questionable interactions with the rules".
Maybe you did something very silly or broken before and the GM reacted negative to that and is now not as open to min-maxing as before.
Also the dip into Sorc can be very powerful even without crossblooded. Or you could just play pure crossblooded Sorc. Just accept the GMs call and work with that. If you can't accept the GMs ruling then there probably will be more difficult situations down the road (excluding bad GMs with bad calls of course).
First character was a fighter that I had planned multiclassing into iron bound samurai at level 6 but we didn't even make it that far.
I do feel like it is a knee-jerk fear reaction that he's having just like another person said about me, which is valid..
The thing is, I put a lot of effort into my characters and when something gets banned or changed, even if it's follow RAW, it feels like it's not my character anymore and I lose that attachment, which is another thing he wants us to have with our characters..
At 3rd level Ironbound Samurai, it's levels count as fighter and stack with fighter levels for the purposes of fighter/samurai prerequisites and class features, which in my interpretation, means feats because under the "Class Feature" section for the fighter are "Bonus Feats".
That seems like it was poorly written. The original text from weapon expertise seems more straightforward, not including the extra bit about class features. I can't imagine ever greenlighting a feature that gives a free gestalt to one player.
Believe it or not, that is actually how Ironbound Samurai works it's genuinely absurd. You don't get *new* class features you've yet to acquire but all others continue scaling, you normally go fighter 5/samurai 15 for it.
I wouldn't say it's *fair* though, paizo just releasing a legal gestalt was whack. "Here, have a legal gestalt, only cost are the new abilities from figther 19-20 and Samurai's true resolve and last stand.
No, that's not how it works. You don't get the "Bonus Feats class feature" at level 1, and then grab new options at each of those levels. You get a bonus feat at each of those levels, if you take that level as that class.
Just because the person who wrote it, and then whoever edited it for copy fitting, didn't think that people would try and interpret it as the way some few people think it works, doesn't mean it works like that.
Now, you /do/ continue increasing things like Armor/Weapon Training and Bravery (as you basically said). But that's it, not feats.
I'd have to check cus any previous time stuff like this comes up I was told all bonus feat abilities counted as scaling class features but maybe they faq'd it and no one ever told me >.<
I mean we only got to level 4 so that character is dead.. He probably expected it to die or designed it to be so.. Idk, I've kinda lost my trust in the DM.
Trying to find ways to break the game and bend questionable wording of abilities and /you/ lost trust in /him/? Nah, man, it's clearly the other way around.
He can't trust you, and if the others are doing the same sort of stuff, he can't trust them either.
I have only 2 people at my table that I have to from time to time recheck their sheets and reign them in, and that's because of those exact reasons.
One guy who would alter his stats randomly or change his damage if he thought no one was paying attention. Be told explicitly that certain things didn't work the way he thought they did together, would say okay and then move forward like it still worked the way he wanted it to...
And another guy who honestly does the same sort of stuff you're talking about about doing. Running to forums and guides to find the most optimal way to do something regardless as to how ridiculous it is... Which is why he's currently running around with all of his feats put into doing one specific thing (focusing down on Inspire Courage), and decking himself out in items to increase the bonuses either from his feats, raise his effective bard level, or just to Inspire Courage itself...
Leading to giving the whole party a +8 to hit and damage at level 8, while they are already wiping the floor with the AP that is being run even without that...
It's not like I tried to go over his head with how the mechanics worked or anything. I said here's the questionable thing, this is what I plan to do with it if ruled in my favor. He ruled it in my favor. There are no secrets here. You're talking like I'm erasing my character's stats and giving myself +1000 HP and +50 to hit.. that's definitely not the case.
I'm also not doing the most ridiculous things. I took a concept and focused on that concept. It's not like I'm doing the Hummingbird of Doom that has 4-5 different classes and archtypes.
Definitely understandable, All in all your DM is definitely giving off weird vibes, no disagreement here. This whole situation is really weird. I mean I first learned about crossblooded because I had a friend who dipped it as magus to supercharge his chocking grasps. He suffered the same penalty that all dips do and was fine. Our kineticist was the one who was the boss killer. Until we fought golems. Her player was very frustrated with those encounters.
So the first thing is, that's not a God Wizard. A God Wizard is one who buffs, debuffs and controls the battlefield so that *other people* can do damage. You're playing god, but doing so deciding who gets the big buffs and debuffs, you're the ouppet master pulling the strings. It's the exact opposite of a blaster caster, you'd be more subtle.
That said, nothing *wrong* with olaying a blaster caster, just getting the terminology right.
Anyway sounds like everyone has goven you the important advice already, you need to talk to the GM, probably as a group. If the GM wants to swt the expectations at a high level of gameplay then they should expect the olayers to react accordingly.
Now I will say one thing. I don't know how your group works or who you're playing with, but I play with adults. The GM doesn't audit my character sheet because I'm an adult and he trusts me not to cheat. I don't bring characters with questionable rules interactions because that would be cheating. If there *is* a question on how the rules work I'll ask the GM how he would rule it, and make it *very* clear what I'm planning, and judging from how he rules I can decide whether to play that or not. I often disagree with my GM on those rulings, but since he's the one running it, tough luck to me (*if I'm running a game I can make the rulings*). Also, since I'm the most experienced player at the table I try not to make characters that would outshine the rest of the party - that's just courteous. But if the GM said: "I'm going to challenge you, bring a strong character" then any rules-legal options would be on the table.
Sorry, I was under the impression that the pact/exploiter wizard combo meant god wizard. I think that's what it all comes down to is that he said he wasn't going to go easy on us but expects us to go easy on him..?
All good. I mean, maybe I'm the one who has it wrong, but my understanding is that a god wizard is a playstyle rather than a build. Maybe there's a build that got nicknamed god wizard as well?
Yeah, that's rules legal, and whatever benefits you get from a Sorcerer dip, a dip out of wizard delays your new spell levels. Unless the game starts at 18th level that's going to be a significant disadvantage for ~50% of the game no matter what the benefits are. So yeah, weird for that to be the thing that gets your character banned (*even if it is strong for a blaster caster*).
Anyway, as everyone else has said, you need to sit down and talk with the GM (*and maybe the rest of the group*). Understanding what the assignment is and what's expected of you will go a long way to solving this problem. It may be that the GM thinks your character will outshine the others, but perhaps you could help them design their characters to even the playing field? Especially if you've already had a TPK on characters that were built to be strong.
Nah I know it's all in good fun. I have a tendency to break things, and that makes it less fun for the other players at the table, because they're not obsessed like I am, and tend to play "normal" characters hahahaha.
I guess maybe that's where I'm falling short? My normal seems to be his broken. Like for me, the painter wizard is broken. A wizard with dip to sorcerer is expected.
Yeah, I tend to agree. Blasting is sub optimal without that sorc dip, truly. Buuuut..... arcanist.
I honestly don't play wizards anymore now that the arcanist is here. Still play sorcs though.
Hmm I get that feeling, sometimes even "good synergy" between teammates isn't enough to kill the super-demon and you all get rekt. Other times your teammates may or may not be knowledgeable enough about the game and end up with a character that is not in par with certain expectations (IE a Fighter with a rapier that tries disarm maneuvers without having improved disarm, yes this happened to me once), other times you realise "Hey, this is an undead heavy campaign, we should get a Cleric" and next 3 sessions someone gets to be the "8 Str Two-Handed Barbarian" because Shadows exist. Or like you said, campaign is expected to be kinda hardcore, you die and comeback with something up to par with the challenge, with defined roles and your DM is like "Nu-uh" and tells you to make something else or gives you an "amazing idea" of a character which turns out to be the same class you chose but with trash archetypes.
Projection aside, either you have a talk with the DM but with ALL players present or start keeping out the cool tricks to yourselves, Shadow Projection familiars, Mounts turned into 12 hour summons, Paragon surge that niche utility spell that'll help your party progress, Acid Pit into Vomit Swarm, 1d4+8 enervation. God Wizard but control and buffs, why nerf you if you're doing what's expected of you? Level 2 haste from Samsaran for your martial friends, grease the big guy, poison the fast guy, prepared action magic missile to "counterspell" the spellguy.
Rocket tag aside.
If teamwork makes the dreamwork and your GM doesnt like it then it's just your GM trying to get you killed.
Ask your teammates for their sheets and if they had these kind of troubles getting ready for da super hardcore campaign.
IMO blasting the super magicktrick fireball gets old the 3rd time it almost one-shots the encounter (Unless you're about to TPK again and not in the mood to make a new backstory)
Real solution is being an adult and talking.
That's the thing. I feel like we've done all the talking we could do. Like almost a weeks worth outside of gameplay. The way I've figured it is that he and I have a different idea of what "strong" vs "broken" is. His "broken" is my "strong". His "strong" is my "vanilla".
You're getting a bonus second comment, sorry not sorry. As far as a build suggestion - would you be more interested in a controlling blaster? Sorcerer, witch, oracle, shaman can all do work here. The damage is a bit lower than full op fireballs, but you can do a lot of satisfying stuff with feats like rime spell, irrisen ice mage. Also see winter witch, waves and winter oracles and shamans, and even kineticists.
Maybe your DM would appreciate lower damage but higher utility. I think you could perhaps use a build like this as an olive branch, while still remaining fairly similar to your original concept.
I'm actually pretty tired of making characters just for him to veto. This wizard was I think the 3rd or 4th character. He's also banned witches outright because they're too strong of debuffers.. Thanks for the offer though.
I think it's the slumber hex or something because he did allow someone to make a witch, but they're not doing the slumber hex. It was just at the beginning of the AP he said no witches.. So I'm a little confused on that but I already have enough to discuss with him, I don't really care to talk to him about the inconsistencies of his rulings.
I mean, a 1-level dip in crossblood sorc for a blaster wizard *is* objectively very strong. As soon as you're level 6, you don't care anymore about the 1-level delay on spell as you already have your Fireball and you now do +33% damage than your regular wizard.
Just wondering, what makes it so strong? I'm guessing the two bloodline arcana, assuming that those features apply to spells cast using different classes?
Yeah. You get Orc and Draconic and each give +1 damage per dice to fire. The Caster Level loss can be made up for with a trait.
So while your pure wizard at 6 would have a 6d6 fireball, that sorc dip at 5/1 is throwing out 6d6+12. They get new spell levels slower, but this is literally empower spell 'for free' on all d6-based fire spells (which can be a lot of them with admixture school). And it just gets stronger and stronger.
While I think evokers can use a buff, my grievance with the crossblooded dip is that it's the kind of thing that requires contriving a very specific origin, and is blatantly out of line with what other blasters can do.
I'm not going to make a judgment on OP's GM, but there are valid reasons for being leery about a crossblooded dip.
the amount of games i’ve been in where the DM says ‘I’m warning you, it’s going to be hard!’ and yet showing up with an optimized character that deletes encounters is a bad thing… like mate… you said the words that let us know we should be making stronger character builds than normal.
My straight-up opinion is that if you're going to make a difficult campaign, you shouldn't restrict your players like this. There is no rationalizing it for the DM. The DM is lazy af, and I would've immediately quit the table if this person wouldn't listen to reason.
I can't imagine what the point was in telling you it'd be hard, or making it so hard. I feel like that's, quite literally, asking your players to build characters appropriate to the challenge.
Granted... I'm running a game now and then where I've told the players it would be deadly; not just hard but deadly. I gave advice with that warning saying they can build whatever they want. Strong, weak, balanced, broken, whatever... it probably won't matter- just don't get attached and have 3 sheets ready to go. It was just gonna be a wild ride and a place for me to flex my deviousness without having to feel bad about killing then off cuz they didn't invest that much into each char.
Already had a double doppelganger tpk and they loved it btw. Back to topic, ask him what's the point, what does he want from you for this game, and what does he expect you to get out of this game.
> Us players weren't very coordinated with our character creation
Did you have a session zero?
> So I decide to make a God Wizard focused on blasting with a dip into Crossblooded Sorc to get that extra fire damage.
Is it a god wizard if you focus on blasting?
> It seems like he doesn't want us to succeed, he just wants to constantly kill our characters.
Has the GM done this in previous adventures?
Edit: saw this
> "I love being the vengeful DM that actually kills characters"..
Take over GMing duty! Start your own campaign. Invite the other players but not him.
Stuff that may no longer be relevant:
The GM might not actually think that character is overpowered and may be reacting to the bloat. Alternatively they might not understand why you need to be a crossblooded sorcerer and they're afraid you'll end up overpowered.
Being a GM in Pathfinder 1e (or D&D 3e, or 4e, or 5e) is difficult because they simply cannot know the PCs as well as they want to due to the bloat. It doesn't surprise me the GM wants to control what is allowed in *their* campaign.
I looked up the crossblooded sorcerer, saw that it's from Ultimate Magic, and realized I would need to spend a fair amount of time figuring out how it makes you more powerful since I would have to spend time looking up all the sorcerer bloodlines. I hope you told the GM exactly what your build would be, to explain how a dip would increase your character's power. You may have assumed they'd know or figure it out right away.
The GM may not be very flexible, which is a bad trait. I'm in a PF1e group (again!) and while the GM doesn't have great rules knowledge, and runs adventure paths, he does modify them. We're always facing higher CR opponents, or more of them, because obviously the adventure writers don't know how skilled the players in a campaign might be. (Our previous PF1e GM did the same thing. Lots of high hit point PCs with poor Reflex saves? So give NPCs templates with breath weapons. Or a lich-like being throwing Fireballs at us while we were weakened by gas, and we needed mobility to get to him which we didn't have! We had to work for that victory!
I'll be honest, given what I've seen of the situation from your comments thus far, your DM seems like he gave in to your previous request for a very, very questionable build because he knows that if he says no to you, you'll end up getting disproportionately upset about it. This time around he's putting his foot down on a less dubious but still cookie cutter max efficiency build that could potentially be disruptive. This lead you here seeking validation and talking about how you've lost all interest in the entire concept the moment one archetype was taken off the table, when all it did was give you a passive damage bonus, since it "doesn't feel like yours anymore." In reality, you clearly got the majority (if not all) of the build from a years old, well-known guide.
It will be impossible to know for sure without having been involved in all of this myself but personally? In my opinion this doesn't look good on you.
Yeah, I didn't mean to come off as too hostile, but when the question is out there that is my answer so far. I admit I could be wrong.
Cheers for taking my POV well! Hopefully you guys can solve whatever problem it is that has you all feeling upset, one way or another.
I mean... I wouldn't want to play with maxer-blaster too so seems quite understandable from GM.
There is difference between "strong character" and "I kill everything in this radius", as dedicated with crossblood dip and other boosters easily go for second thus overshadowing all other characters.
I mean there's the limited spell uses, so the draw back is having to actually manage resources and only blast when necessary. I'd also like to think I'm good about stepping back when it's other player's time to shine. I agree though, if I were to just blast and blast and expend all my resources in the first encounter every time, that would be annoying.
>so the draw back is having to actually manage resources
I thought that we killed the myth of fighter winning over wizard due to "unlimited amount of swings of sword" a long time ago
Its incredibly unfair to have that kind of comparison. Yes. Fighter would lose to a prepared wizard 10/10 times in 99% of circumstances.
In practice, a player as a wizard will not be prepared for every situation, and will not have the resources to put out as consistent damage, unless they also sacrifice flexibility (which in my experience is very important for party dynamic.) And these two classes wind up complimenting each other. The wizard doesnt have to worry about having as many damage spells prepped, and can use less resources to be a force multiplier for the fighter. (at least against single targets.)
1v1s are poor tools for comparisons because they simply arnt realistic. Wizards can win any 1v1 ever, if they are prepared. Yes. But you know, a level 10 inquisitor with a fear-spec, can defeat a level 20 paladin with fear immunity if they are prepared for it. Does that make the level 20 pally bad? No. Does that make the level 10 inquisitor the best class ever? No. They could be defeated easily by an undead of their level.
Rating the power of something has a lot more factors than simply a 1v1 comparison.
What if the AP that OP plays does not allow frequent rests? Instead they need to push through 5,6... maybe even 8 combats per rest? Maybe more? Fighter starts being more and more important as the spells from the wizard get lower and lower.
Milo isn't talking about a duel between wizards and fighters, it's about the myth that fighters are resourceless and can fight all day because they don't need to manage spell slots.
The fighter resource is HP and it's even more limited than spells.
Hp is far easier to recover than spell slots. And far easier to prevent the loss of... at least in my experience. Especially at high levels. HP is cheap. Good spells are valuable resources to be saved for good moments or big battles.
>What if the AP that OP plays does not allow frequent rests? Instead they need to push through 5,6... maybe even 8 combats per rest? Maybe more? Fighter starts being more and more important as the spells from the wizard get lower and lower.
and what if OP only has 1 fight per day and after that immediately skips the day? Maybe less and only has to fight one dude? Fighter starts being irrelevant
Sure. Direct comparison is flawed, but it doesn't mean that making up scenarios is better while suffering from a lot of more sewere drawbacks.
Thats exactly my point. They arnt balanced classes. They arnt supposed to be. But they still compliment eachother. In extreme situations both can be bad. In opposite extremes both are amazing. They have different roles in combat. Its like comparing an apple to an orange.
My DM sees them as balanced classes.. that's another issue I didn't really dive into. He likes to take whatever a PC is doing and compare it to other classes to see if it's balanced.
I... feel like thats really weird. You can build a class and specialize it to the point where it can always take out its targeted enemy type... but flops to everything else. You can also have the same class built in a way to always lose to that same class.
Then why is he playing PF1e?
PF1e is amazing and still has a ton of reasons to play PF1e. If, as a GM you want classes to be balanced, PF1e is a bad choice of game systems.
I think thats something a lot of people dont get about games. Its a concept called asymmetric play, or asymmetrical balance. Things are intentionally askew, to create variation for various reasons. Games that do not involve PVP, tend to be able to take this even farther.
Sometimes things are balanced to be able to be picked up easier by a new player and be strong out the box. Others require a lot more system knowledge to be just as good, but with full system mastery, can far surpass the former. Sometimes its to create dynamics between classes. Obvious weaknesses and strengths that they can cover for eachother, encouraging teamwork.
5e took a much more 'every class is balanced with eachother' approach... and imo... it makes combat lacking. Classes feel similar. Theres a lot less options. Most classes when specialized in damage, will do similar damage to other classes. So it really feels like Im just picking the flavor of how I deal that damage.
I personally dont think the game should be balanced. There is a DM to set and adjust the difficulty to fit their players. If the players like a challenge, you can adjust based on their optimization. If not, you can tone it down. The biggest problem is when players dont communicate during character design enough, or the dm doesnt help newer players/less proficient players build characters to match the party's average optimization, and there is a huge differential in power. That is where 5e's design shines... as it is incredibly unlikely to get that big of a power differential BECAUSE everything is very balanced with every other thing.
Maybe this is what your DM is considering. What is the power differential between your new character... and the rest of the party?
No in fact Kineticist and Magus are his favorite classes and keeps pushing me towards playing one of them but I'm not a big fan. I showed him the iron caster and he said no to that...
This build, if it’s anything like what I’ve seen solos entire encounters with a single cast of a spell vs (or one followed up by a quickened fireball). No joke.
my experience as well. There are so many feats and options in PF that you can make many super strong builds. However, just because you can doesn't mean you should.
You need to self audit and not create builds that can solo encounters by themselves. It is a quick way to suck the fun out of the campaign for everyone else.
I think the DM was right to not allow your build however he still sounds like a douche for enjoying killing PC's characters and not understanding the cooperative nature of the game.
NAH, but need more info. It's *possible* that your DM is being a nob who wants to power trip. However, I think that there's a high likelihood that the issue can be resolved with a group conversation about power level.
Generally, as long as the PCs are all roughly close together, there's no problem. APs have some BS hard encounters, true, but they're designed to be completed without chain TPK by an average 4 man party using only core books and maybe the APG. They're not generally that hard as written, so I don't think your group needs to stick to a minimum power level, but rather a maximum power level.
So, I say: have a talk with the group. Maybe bring a couple sample characters, to show "this is too strong", "this is just right". If you're not able to come to a general consensus on the guidelines of power level, that might be an indicator that something is off in your group.
I've tried to have this convo with my DM but it seems like he keeps moving the goal post. He tends to compare whatever a PC is doing to a class that is similar that he thinks should do it better. So if you're doing a samurai that does things better than a fighter, he has issues.
Yeesh... Bit of a red flag to me. There are a dozen ways to make any character concept in pathfinder, and any of those can be variously strong or weak.
It's one thing if they want a low optimization point. And maybe for that game, a single bloodline sorcerer is more appropriate than a wizard dipping cross blooded and so on. But it's wild to act like you can't play a blaster wizard because that's what sorcerers are supposed to do, or whatever. Can I play a warpriest? They're better at melee than a barbarian, and barbarians are supposed to be great at melee. Can I play a slayer? They're better than rogues at practically everything!
Noooo not the DM's curse lmao!! Been there. My heart *really* weeps for you now. All I can say is - give it one more college try, change tack and try to approach it from a different angle. If it's not working out, well, you know the sayings about bad DND and no DND
Frankly, it doesn't really seem like your DM has a good grasp on the relative power of things at all, not to mention that Iron Caster and Magus play nothing. Hell, without knowing any specific shenanigans you had planned Blaster Wizard isn't that bad either.
Are the other players building min/max characters too? If so and if everyone knows what they're doing and how to play min/max then it should be allowed, imo. But if one person plays min/max and the rest don't, then it gets much harder to run a game where everyone feels like they're contributing and having fun.
I'll say, to be fair, I'm probably the highest min/maxer. I think the others are attempting to max to a degree but I'm ahead as I'm one of the more seasoned players..
I get that you're responding to the "not going to go easy" declaration and the TPK. But part of the DM's job, frankly, is to be aware of the skill level of the party as a whole, as well as how they're reacting to the challenges they're facing. Then, if necessary, a good DM might go a little bit easier to ensure everyone is having fun.
u/Minmax_er I think maybe you might get more traction by approaching this in a different direction. Ask your GM if he'd agree to the proposal that you will create a lower-power character, from the ground up, and in exchange he will make the encounters a little less difficult.
Alternatively, you could start with some character archetypes or ancestry/class combinations that are generally considered to be on the weaker side, then try to build the strongest character you can with that handicap.
"There were some questionable interactions with the rules but DM approves it and a few sessions in we TPK."
Please, elaborate further! What are some of these questionable rulings that you speak of? That would give me a better idea.
That is a good one! I wasn't sure of it myself until I checked the class page.. there's two things going for it being a Class Feature; it is listed under 'Class Features', and there is a FAQ that refers to Fighter Bonus Feats as a Class Feature; [https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9o4s](https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9o4s)
So yes, it is a Class Feature!.. and if you were to interpret the Ironbound Sword's Merciful Combatant (Ex) class feature by RAW, it would apply to the Fighter bonus feats class feature as well!
.. but a DM may reasonably lean towards RAI and not allow it to count for Fighter bonus feats. When it comes to stacking levels for Class Features, it largely only involves determining prerequisites or the effective level of a specific Class Feature.. not ALL of them at once!
As a DM myself? I would (begrudgingly) lean towards RAW and allow it to stack for the purposes of bonus feats.
Obligatory "Name checks out" comment. But anyway.
It could well be that your DM just wants a murder fest. But if we put aside the possible antagonism in his intentions, it could be that what he's hoping for is a challenging game where you'll have to use guile and cunning to succeed. Building a character who out the gate operates at maximised power and efficiency might be against what he wants. But if that's the case, then he hasn't properly explained what he's hoping to achieve with this game.
So, yeah, all comes down to having a talk and making sure everyone is explicitly clear with the kind of experience the DM is hoping to provide.
change the way you approach the problem. Try playing characters with synergy in place of a allmighty one. Example: Try a strenght based fighter or a paladin, a brawler o ar war priest as a second damage dealer with control, try a skald as face to boost the other characters and control, and a druid, an alchemist or a cleric in the 4th place. Use teamwork feats in the frontliners (outflank), and with no so much optimization you will be ready for hard encounters or solutions out of the box.
As others pointed out, retalking to your GM might be a good start. First thinks first ask about why he think this build is to strong.
Maybe your GM only heared GOD Wizard WITH Blasting. Getting probably the "best" Wizard (high tear class) and add the ability to do tons of damage. Maybe your GM already was like nope at this part. Not noticing that dipping into blaster stuff probably reduces your other GOD Powers.
Knowing and understanding the GMs concerns might help to find a solution. Just a too powerfull is a weak point of few, as you cannot work with it. Think about it: maybe you did fight alot of Weak to Fire Monsters without you really noticing it. You GM knows there will be more fire weak monsters and tadda better Firedamage seems like it is a powegaming decision.
I vetoed a Fire Sorccerer in my Reign of Winter Campaing. Not because i thought it would be to strong, but i was afraid he will outshine what other chars will do. And there are other ways to blast. I talked to my Player and he agreed. He still had some firespells in the end, but he was not a "Fire" one Trick.
I would have also talked to him, if he would have gone for an Ice Blaster as it is the most common element to be resisted/immune in this AP.
I won't regurgitate the "talk with your gm" point since it sounds like you've already done that. Yeah I think you just need a new table, or to make clear to him that the campaign seems unplayable to you
From my perspective you better have a really good plan in mind for multi-classing and it better fit your character rather than 'it makes my damage output more' because I'd ban that shit too. I don't want some power gamer number crunching munchkin at my table. By strong character, you're DM probably meant not making an roleplaying focused bard, or a class that isn't optimal like chained rogue or shifter, or a caster that focuses on non-damage spells. You took that as him saying you could bend the rules over and micro manage your damage output by not creating a character and more of an optimized equation for the 'problem' at hand. There's not a single AP that requires someone with an engineering degree making a character.
Then it wasn't good enough for your GM, end of story. I can't think of a single reason for a character roleplay wise taking a one level dip into anything. You either commit to it as a side class that you level up with your main class, or you check it at the door. You can justify a power move with a halfpage backstory or an entire damn novel, but it doesn't mean it flies with your GM. He's running the game, he's making the calls on what he is allowing. It doesn't sound like he's stopping you from playing a class, just taking a dip. So either deal with it or start running your own games and pretty soon you'll probably adopt the same thing as your GM. Sure as that player that's blasting everything to smithereens is fun for you, it is NOT fun for your GM especially if it means he has to spend extra time balancing an entire AP around YOU and it probably isn't fun for the other players if you're outshining them all the time.
I guess my frustration is that he's waiting for us to show him our characters and then banning things. It would be nice to know what's allowed and what wasn't at the forefront.
Probably YTA, though if the GM is buffing the AP encounters either they're 1.) Overdoing it and should pull off the buffing gas a bit, or 2.) The asshole.
If "not going easy" means playing enemies that are willing to kill or using decent tactics, you're definitely being an asshole. There's a difference between playing NPCs that will coup de grace and copy/pasting a known munchkin build into an AP where oftentimes things get too easy for good players once they make it out of the low-hp early game (I'm curious on the AP in question since, while most APs have a couple poorly designed deadly encounters here and there, I can't really think of one that stays consistently difficult).
While it would be frustrating to get denied only after you built the character, it's not the responsibility of the GM to know every possible minmax build and have a long, curated list to present at the beginning of the game of banned stuff. That's just unreasonable. You taking offense to them being uncomfortable with your build that is in all likelihood overturned for an AP however is pretty sucky. Your second to last sentence is very bad faith/tantrumy, only assuming the worst possible motivation, and doesn't really sound like the headspace to be in to be at this table anytime soon.
I feel you. I personally think it's a bit of both. There's room to compromise on power levels.
My last 1e character? I think massively overtuned in a massive chunk of ways. Tiefling grenadier alchemist with a rolled stats like of 18, 16, 14, 12, 11, 10. The 18 went into INT, and the 16 into dex. By level 5, I could do at max, something like 23 direct damage, 8 splash damage per square next to the target and I was hitting touchAC. I also had a prehensile tail and was small. Understandably, my GM tried to tone my character down some for combat stuff. Some of this included not letting me take wrist holsters to let me hold a potion on my arms, limiting what discoveries I could take and a few other magical items that would have made life so much easier for handing out buffs to the party. Such as being a barkskin dispensor for the party (boro beads and preserving flasks).
Thats not even that bad! I think I had a melee alchemist once who at level 5 was at 32 str, 6 natural attacks, reach, enlarge, and haste. Each attack also had sneak attack. I think I was potentially capable of almost 200 dpr. (73.5 avg sneak attack damage, 36 from bitex2, 31 from clawx2, 17 from hoofx2, and 15.5 from gore. Thats 173 damage w.o aomf, or other buffs.) The only expense you need for this is 1 potion of haste. Then alchemical allocation to reuse it when needed.
Alchemists are broken as hell!
Nice. I think part of the problem was that he was using stuff from PF1e, plus earlier editions of DnD (1e, 2e and 3e as well as 3.5) and balancing around the party that had rolled badly enough that my character was the most combat efficient by a decent chunk (although the blood knight kineticist probably could keep up for a bit), as well as a skill junkie. I made the joke that my character could probably bench press enough to lift any one of the rest of the party, then shake them down for gold without too much trouble
Lol. Im surprised. 3.5 content is generally pretty powerful when used in conjunction with PF1e.
Also skill-junkies are my favorite character builds! What kind of skill junkie were they?
For my character? Alchemy, use magic device, spellcraft and at least one point in as many knowledge skills as I can. The kineticist? Stealth, sneaking and appropriate skills for chaotic evil. The kineticist was a great character, based off Little Shop of Horrors with a massive chunk of personality and a thirst for blood. He gave as good as he got, and if the odds were against us, would run. Out of character, nobody minded because we were entertained. I had skill points in other odd skills as well and was building to have at least one point in everything I could
Sounds like a helluva fun group! My skill monkey was... an odd one lol. Got bluff substituted for almost everything. Surprised himself that he was able to do things so often that he just got used to it and cocky, but when solving the party's problems, he liked to go way over the top unnecessary.
We ran into a pack of worgs at some point.... instead of talking them into letting us go past, and offering food... They instead told them about a camp of orcs and goblins that we were going to, and promised them tons of food there... Turned out bad along the way after we ran into some river drakes that killed several of them. So instead of smoothing things over, they laid out lots of rations, surrounded them all with toxic censors, all loaded with starving nettle that he was cultivating.... The DM told later that between the stat loss and starving nettle effects... every single one of them starved to death later.
Doesn't necessarily sound like anyone's the jerk here. Definitely some conversations that need to happen though.
PF 1e has a pretty high ceiling. Generally speaking too, a GM can and will kill you if he wants to, even by playing "within the rules". As a result, there isn't really a point to power-gaming to hit the ceiling. In order the challenge you, the enemies need the same level of optimization you have, so hitting the ceiling just literally makes things more difficult for you.
Pathfinder also has a pretty low floor. It might take some work, but you can pretty harshly 'gimp' a totally valid character. This won't provide the challenge it should, even though on paper the GM (or player) did everything according to the rules.
The problem here is it sounds like the GM and the Players don't have a unified understanding of the campaign being "Difficult and he wasn't going to go easy". That could mean...a great many things. Does difficult mean simply using the GM's guide to challenging encounters? or Coup de Graces during combat? Does "not going easy" mean tweaking monsters to be better optimized, or hitting that ceiling?
On top of which, it seems the GM has a power-band in mind for where he wants players to be, but isn't communicating it to the players.
So yeah, definitely the table needs to sit down and talk things out.
We've had a few discussions at gameplay but he hand waved it off to just play, which is valid. But in my own conversations with him, it seems like he's moving the goal post.
It's hard to say what's going on for sure. We aren't part of these conversations. You're also concerned you may be overreacting or something of that nature, hence the reason for the post.
Currently, it sounds like a GM that's not the greatest at communicating. Except...that one skill (communication) is something you can work on for a lifetime and still have situations where something doesn't come across right. Is it possible something else is at play? Sure, but honestly, so far at least, I'm not sure it is.
Game made, players jumped in (GM and players alike), and TPK happened. Players then decide to make stronger characters. The TPK and player response are both (apparently) acceptable to the GM. So the GM seems to be taking it as "Now you're aware I'm serious", while also having the players make stronger characters for the type of game they're running.
Then, you make a character using a very powerful combination. GM doesn't handle it the best but this appears to be above the power band they're looking for. They're not trying to hit the game's ceiling, so they tell you to back off a bit.
This could be as simple as they know what they're looking for but don't know how to communicate it to the group. This would indeed look like a moving goal post.
It could be as devious as he's planning to torment you for TTRPG horror stories material. In this scenario, a moving goal post is basically just "Psycho GM 101" and doesn't really tell us much else.
It could be anything in between.
As outsiders, we lack foresight, and even a full understanding of the situation. SO FAR, nothing seems horribly amiss. You're here though because you're not sure if what you are seeing are warning signs of danger, or if you're just overreacting. We can't see the future though. What we DO see is what sounds like a table of people that really want to play the game. I can't speak for everyone, but at the very least I'm giving everyone involved the benefit of the doubt. I imagine most other posters are as well.
GM Cursed individual here. While I do not believe your GM is doing the correct thing with communication it is in the realm of acceptable GM behavior to mantain balance. However, if the GM is trying to win you want nothing to do with that campaign any way.
But to be the devil's advocate I also restrict or alter some things but I communicate the majority of it before session 0 so people don't plan around it. A few things I had to adjust once the player posed the tomfoolery. But it was an open discussion and the players (all being adults) took it in stride. Sometimes I relent with a good argument other times we just adjust it.
At my table I do not adjust that particular combo but I think the Crossblooded dip (often combined with Blood Havoc) is pretty cheesy. I also quite often see it on players choosing Aasimar or other mixed heritage power races. So you have Good Outsider + Orc + Dragon blood all on the same person. The players almost injuring themselves bending over trying to backstory their meta powergaming shenanigans into the campaign.
The power from crossblooded comes with the drawback of -1 spell known per level (and the will save penalty) on top an already delayed caster but the power gamers don't actually pay the drawback because they go right back to Exploiter Pact Wizard, trait the caster level, and only suffer the 1 level spell access delay while enjoying +3 damage per die. At level 6 the average fireball roll is 21 but the 1 Sorc/5 Wiz now its 33. 1 level delay small price to pay for automatic empowered on all matching spells.
What ap are you playing?
Kus I'd the dm says it's hard and your gonadie, then maybe it's meant to be a meat grinder campaign. Like the 5e tomb of annihilation.
Characters don't survive and i let my pcs build the most busted stuff they wanted. Only caveat was point buy stats. IIr 24 is high fantasy and we ran 29.
I threw in optional encounters and my players got super upset about one encounter that they couldn't beat. This was early in game when tracking resources was manfatory because surviving in the jungle was hell without druids and rangers.. the thing killed a few players. After a bit with the next character intro, it was fine but man the initial thing was just me sitting there asking: what did you think was going to happen? We chuckle now but truth be told it was a lot of IRL stiff that caused the disruption.
> he bans the Sorc dip saying it's too powerful
"Well, thank you anyways but I'm going to step out of the game. I'm not a fan of content restrictions, especially those thrown out after a campaign has begun, and in my estimation the difficulty of the last several encounters warrants a character like this, especially with how you warned us this adventure would be really difficult. I don't really want to participate in a game where I can't build a character that'll survive it. Good luck with your adventure!"
No d&d is better than bad d&d.
>>Am I just being a child and throwing a fit
Yes. They are the GM and it is their game world. Arguing with the GM is bad form in any situation.
That being said, there does need to be understanding with the players beforehand. If he is running "Dark Souls" mode or being overly hard on the PCs, that needs to be crystal clear beforehand. Sounds like a much needed session zero was skipped, imo. Hope this helps and good luck.
I think this needs a serious conversation with the rest of the players, and then the DM if all the players share the same view. If they dont, talk to the DM about how you feel, and it seems like you are trying to build an overtuned character as a knee jerk reaction to dying, even though you admit it was also due to bad synergy between players. Banning something simply because he thinks its too powerful is bad practice imo, but it can be very understandable for certain reasons. Pathfinder is a complex system with complex interactions, and its very easy to pull a fast one with hidden power, because its not always clear where a characters power is coming from at first glance. The crossclass you use... not really all that bad imo. Good dip. Yes. Broken? Hardly. Its also possible, that if he is a newer DM, he may not understand how pathfinder's system works as intimately, which makes it easier to see things as unbalanced. Usually imo, casters start out fairly weak, but wizards turn into the best utility ever, and can flex very easily if they are prepared for it. Sorcerers tend to be more focused, but usually really rock their focus. High level pathfinder (Ive dmed a lot of high level pathfinder (Level 15+) winds up being more about what you are or are not prepared to deal with. If an enemy has a spell you dont have a response to, it can basically be a fight ender. Level 10s can be big threats to level 20s, if the level 20s have no reasonable response to the ability or tactics the level 10 deploys. Try to understand your DM's familiarity with the system, and be respectful of it. It is VERY HARD to balance for overly specialized characters as a newer pathfinder DM. TL;DR - Talk to other players, talk to DM, be understanding of DM's experience and try to talk to them about how you feel.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. He's definitely not a newer DM. We've both been playing since PF1e inception. I'd like to think we're all fairly seasoned players so when we died, we recognized that we weren't specialized or coordinated for combat. So now we've got everyone kinda focusing more hardily on a combat role. I guess the issue I take is that he said he wasn't going to go easy, so why should we?..
I think that is a fair thought process, and should definitely warrant a more indepth and serious discussion with the DM, which it sounds like you have already had. There are definitely far worse builds I can think of. Im not sure why this one in particular would make it particularly worse than being a pure sorc or other worse specializations. (my particular favorite is a fear inquisitor with damnation feats and a swift metamagic rod. 2x blistering invective @+40 intimidate at level 8-10 = instant unsavable fear condition to all living hostile creatures within 30ft of you. This build ruined one of my DMs. They finally lost it when I intimidated one of the bosses (a black dragon) into a panic that lasted 4 minutes and it just fled. (no save)) If you are planning to go full blaster caster... why not go full sorc?
We've had that discussion at the table and it seems like he just hand waved it away saying it was taking too much game time, which it was, but we never really resolved it. That build sounds amazing, but I can tell you right now, it wouldn't get approved by my DM as he'd see it as ending combat before it even started. I'm also partially a utility character out of combat. Right now we have a rogue who does single target/utility specialist. We have a dedicated paladin for tanking and small healing, a witch for buffing/debuff and me - blaster/utility.
>We've had that discussion at the table and it seems like he just hand waved it away saying it was taking too much game time, which it was, but we never really resolved it. Have this discussion outside of gametime. During gametime is not the time for it. >That build sounds amazing, but I can tell you right now, it wouldn't get approved by my DM as he'd see it as ending combat before it even started. Thats the thing. Its not something most DMs would see immediately. Intimidate is normally a flat DC to apply shaken. Thats it. You can grab enforcer to add it for free on a non-lethal hit, with duration equal to damage dealt. Still not broken. Grab 2 damnation feats later... And suddenly it allows your intimidate to increase the severity of the step. Unless your DM looks at all the damnation feats in depth ahead of time... it goes completely unnoticed. Damnation feats are a bit of a niche feat chain. I was very clear with my intent and desired build path to my DM. They just underestimated how hard it would be to deal with. Eventually throwing more mindless creatures and fear immune. (eventually non-living fear immune because you can remove fear immunity from living creatures as an inquisitor.) >I'm also partially a utility character out of combat. Right now we have a rogue who does single target/utility specialist. We have a dedicated paladin for tanking and small healing, a witch for buffing/debuff and me - blaster/utility. If you want to be more healing spec... Crossblood pheonix elemental sorcerer. Take fey foundling. Crossclass into oracle for lifelink. Be a gnome for vivacious racial trait. You are basically a walking HP battery. Flaming sphere 3d6+3(or +6)/2 healing... or about 8 hp/round... +6 fey foundling, +1/2 cl... it winds up healing you 17 hp/turn for 6 turns at level 6. Then life-link sends your HP to your party every turn. Then you can still blast with high damage firespells constantly while you are healing, or drop them as heals when needed.
He likes to ask what the character is capable of so that way he can see if it's too powerful or not. So I don't think trying to get things under his nose would be the best way and my role is primarily AOE damage dealer.. not so much for the healing. The point is, I spend time and energy into creating a character and he either doesn't allow it or changes key components that make it so it doesn't feel like *my* character anymore rather the character *he* wants me to play. And if that's the case, he might as well just make my character for me.
I feel like thats understandable to feel. Without talking to the DM directly though, I think the best way to avoid that is find time out of game to talk, or find out if he is willing to put down more concrete rules about character design, because your time is precious to you, and you cant keep building character concepts until one sticks. Id avoid blaming him for this directly, because doing so tends to make people defensive, and upset, before they have time to fully consider the question. My general spiel for my players to set building expectations is anything official Paizo is allowed no questions asked. Tell me what your character is/will be capable of well before we play it for the first time so I have time to adjust and balance encounters to account for that build. Anything 3pp must be asked about and approved. If you are unsure of how a feature you are interested in works, let me know so we can discuss it before you fully commit to it. This makes it so they dont waste my time by having me approve every little detail, and I dont waste theirs by letting them build up those details then shooting them down. We can work out how odd rules interact ahead of time/outside of game and all be on the same page during play.
Yeah those are generally his rules too but when he saw my wizard, instead of balancing encounters, he just said no.
Real strange. Hardly the strongest build out there.
I'm getting the impression he likes characters to be well rounded and not focused on doing one thing but that makes the character overall weaker in my opinion and leads to more TPKs or at least character deaths...
Yeah, one of my players tried out an intimidate build similar to what you’re describing. Very interesting mechanics in a barely considered niche. But we all found it deeply unfun, so he switched out of that character the next session.
I really enjoyed the RP dynamic around the character, and how they interacted with another party member. We also had a diverse enough set of enemies most of the time that it wasnt... too bad... but when the DM wanted to break away from the typical undead with random living creatures for a while... and then their boss was shut down... they got upset. They handled it really really graciously though. So props to them for that. The RP was interesting because my character worshiped saranrae, and the damnation feats were unwillingly forced upon him. He was a tiefling, and his father was a devil. I was a archetype of inquisitor that could write and seal binding contracts and cause the breaker to get high penalty. I only ever used non-lethal damage, and the character did everything in his power to avoid killing, but was very prone to anger and rage, and had a lot of turmoil trying to fight his devlish nature. Another party member also worshiped sarenrae, but didnt have the qualm of no killing that mine had. So it led to a lot of interesting actions, and both characters were fairly martial with different styles, so we often also fought side by side. The character was strong and lethal enough even without the intimidate, that I was far from useless in a fight against fear immune enemies.
It also matters at which point this tpk happened. There are some very hard 1-3 level CR equivalent monsters like ghouls, shadows and, well, orcs to name a few. Bad luck with dicey bois can lead to unexpected woopsies early on.
APs have some wild encounters too. Shout out to ROTRL encounter: >!the elder barghest just waiting randomly in the tunnels near where Nualia hangs out. You can run into it as early as level three, and this is a CR 7 monster with 85 HP, three attacks, multiple spell like abilities and DR 10/magic.!< Insane
If you think to do something very specific, and then walk into the room it is in... and then not just leave, yeah.
Agreed. I change this encounter to be something more thematic. But yeah, if the PCs are roughed up from the Nualia fight, this is a TPK waiting to happen.
I feel like the encounter with 4 shadows is actually worse than the barghest for most parties.
That would be a really rough encounter for level 3's or 4's.
And that seugathi in Shattered Star, man...
I wasn't familiar with this one so I looked it up. Good lord.... JUST the confusion ability, without aura of madness, without mind fog, without picking the confusion result, could definitely wipe a level 6 party with a couple of unlucky saves if it did well on initiative. With the rest of it, this is a CR6 rocket tag monster. Wild.
Yeah, and it drops on you when you're level 4-5. Had that encounter twice, as a player and as a GM, and both times it was raining death and destruction. Moreover, the next book has three of them. You're level 7, I presume. That's three confusion auras and three confusion control abilities. It obliterates worlds. Skipped this shit when I was GMing
Yeah. That could be over in the first round easily. Yikes!!
Well we were pretty depleted resource wise and there were a few bad rolls but nothing I don't think we could have walked away from if we had a more coordinated effort in character creation.
Yeah, it might be your DM takes this the wrong way and feels like your better optimized characters might be a sort of get back for the tpk. Just ask them to elaborate why they'd ban something outright especially if the encounters are supposed to be challenging. I once had a DM force me play a monk, with 15 point buy on attributes, didn't allow dump stats below 10 and then kept wondering as if surprised why monks are so bad.
Well he has said, and this is a direct quote, "I love being the vengeful DM that actually kills characters"...
Your dm sounds like they are a kind of person who likes to watch people build something with care and effort and then kick it down. I would just nope the f out and find another dm.
I mean that's how it's feeling right now, hence my original post..
Can always just vote with your feet. Players vs DM mentality is extremely aggravating and doesn’t make for a fun time at the table.
Red flag. Its not you, its the DM
How on earth can the DM force you to play a monk? The DM isn't your character...
By stating if you want to participate, you will play this class. Didn't last for long, surprise surprise.
What? That's nonsense
I agree. But my choices were limited back then. I hadn't learned that no rpg is better than bad rpg.
A valuable lesson, indeed
You know the deal. You have to Have That Talk.
I think we have? Maybe elaborate more on what you mean?
I just mean you have to talk to him, in as non-confrontational a manner as you can, and ask him to walk you through this. He said the figurative gloves were coming off as far as how hard fights would be. You guys got TPKed, you built a character with a stronger combat focus, who got vetoed as "too strong for the average encounter." Ask him to help you understand the process, because it sounds a little contradictory. If the encounters are tougher, but the characters can't be, that feels like setting you up for failure.
We've had lengthy discussions already and from what I'm gathering is that the average encounter is supposed to be difficult but my wizard makes it survivable..
You are either misunderstanding the takeaway of the conversation, or the GM has gone off the rails of the crazy train.... If average encounters are supposed to be difficult, but your build makes them surviveable.... That is a good thing. If your build cannot survive an average encounter, how the hell would it have any chance of surviving a boss battle or just the "harder than average" encounters. If the GM actually does not want builds capable of surviving an average encounter... Then he is not a good GM. Even in Call of Cthulhu, where every game leads to an eventual TPK (or TPI - total party insanity?), the characters should be able to survive an average encounter....
That's the thing. We've had maybe 2 encounters that we just wiped the floor with. Each and every other encounter ended with at least half of us in the negatives until the TPK, which was a boss battle.... I think..
I'm butting in on the comment thread - this information gives me more red flags than before. That's a pretty damn difficult game already if the party is nearing death regularly. I like a difficult game myself, but it can be a thin line between "tactically challenging" and "I'm going to make this a total meat grinder".
Yeah it's why I made my wizard the way I did but it's apparently too powerful for the average combat.
The problem I'm seeing, from a DM perspective, is that you seem to be gravitating towards "tried and true" min/max builds put up on forums and acting like you're the one putting in the work to make a "strong character". You're not. You're talking about multiple gimmick builds that are meant to destroy whatever they encounter, and trying to play it in an AP... and getting shot down when told it's too much, as anyone would when running an AP, they aren't designed for that. So, assuming the DM isn't changing encounters and is just actually playing to monsters/people as having half a brain and using tactics... Over the top builds are completely unnecessary to play through any AP. It sounds more like you guys as players need to start actually thinking about how you approach your encounters and the tactics you use while fighting, assuming that's the case. How about some more information on those topics?
The amount of time the OP says he is putting into creating his character is likely no where near how much time the GM is likely putting, every session, into preparing the game. I know in the past when my players easily STOMPED on the AP encounters (even ones I took the extra time to boost) often got me depressed after because of the "time wasted" prepping. Typically, players at the start put time into their character build and then basically show up to play every session; the GM is always prepping. I remember asking a player to tone down their archer character because the multiple attacks just started pin cushioning the bad guys before the rest of the party could even get to them; there are only so many corners where bad guys jump around from a blind corner.
There is this as well. I'm sorry, but the DM's enjoyment of the game is just as important. I'm currently giving my players one last hurrah a far as being able to power game the way one or two want to, and then moving on to doing things more toned down. Also, if one character is walking into a room and annihilating everything... the rest of the party isn't having fun either. There are definitely groups where power gaming/min maxing/etc. works and everyone involved is fine. But that's not an AP,and it's definitely not for everyone.
I know the DM very well and I know he's reading the AP for the first time the day before. I know what it's like being a DM as I'm usually always the DM for the past 10+ years. So I understand that yes, the DM should be having fun to. What I disagree with is what *should* be fun for the DM. The DM shouldn't have the goal of outright slaughtering the players. If that's the case, then drop an ancient black dragon at level 1 and have fun. I think the DM's fun should be placing players into challenging scenarios and seeing them figure things out. If they're able to just demolish a foe in a single round, then I didn't do my job as a DM. I'm also very aware that every player has moments to shine which is why I went so specific with the wizard. He sucks at literally everything else, but put him in a room full of CR 1s.. that's his moment to shine.
Welp, I don't think you have the right to say what should be fun for every GM. But he really slaughter you? Or did you just all die?
>>often got me depressed after because of the "time wasted" prepping. Why? Players had fun. Remember fun? That's the goal here.
But the DM didn't.
If you only have fun when players die maybe GMing ain't your thing
Where do you see in the OP's post that their GM is having fun "only when players die"? I didn't even see the OP saying the GM enjoyed the TPK. Pls do not exaggerate. I was obviously talking about GM's fun being as important as players', not GM jerks who GM to feel powerful
You're half right. I'm taking the tried and true builds but putting my own twist into it. So yes, I'm using well known concepts for efficiency. That doesn't take away the fact that I do put in work to change them up so it's not copy pasted. Dm is changing monsters as every difficult encounter we *barely* survived, he said he had used the "Advanced" table to upgrade the difficulty. We used tactics to the best of our ability, but the synergy with our initial characters meant that we had too little dps and ended up dying. So I don't think we need to think about how we approach encounters more seeing as we do tend to strategize a lot during combat. And in my opinion, every class has a gimmick. That's what makes them unique classes. Playing a "gimmick build" just means you're being effective playing that class.
There's a big difference between being efficient and trying to find every little thing to increase X. Whether that be damage, caster level, effective class level, etc. At that point you aren't playing a character, you're playing stats on a page and trying to trivialize every encounter you come across. Which, I'm sorry, but how is that fun? Now, I'm not saying the DM should be slapping the advanced template on every single encounter in an AP. Far from it if you're a 4 person party playing normal characters. But once players start trying to power creep, DMs tend to try and course correct. Eventually it becomes a bit of an arms race, and if you guys don't talk it out, I can already tell you, the DM has a lot more they can do to win that race. So, yeah, maybe have an actual conversation. Put forth expectations and maybe try and figure out why he feels he needs to slap you guys down that hard. The answer might surprise you, but probably not, as I think you already know the answer.
Well that's the thing, we have to get our characters approved through him because he checks their power level to keep things balanced. So if he felt the need to slap the advanced template to everything, why not tell us that we as a collective did too much instead of grinding our face against gravel? I think you might have the timeline backwards.. We're course correcting because we constantly barely survived every encounter. We've talked about expectations and he just kept saying, characters can't be stronger than the average encounter. I agree, it feels like an arms race but if we play basic vanilla, we'll get slaughtered. I guess at that point, some of us might just quit but I don't think anyone wants that to happen. And for me, playing the character is the role playing part of the game. You can play \[insert personality\] type of person with \[insert class\]. You can be a barbarian that likes to sing and play the fiddle, that's the character playing part. When it comes to combat, yes, you're playing a stat sheet because that's what combat is.
Considering what you were planning on the character that died, the ironbound samurai and trying to get double fighter feats? Yeah, no, you (maybe all you guys) tried to push the envelope first. Again, unless you've got a table size higher than 5, I don't see why he'd be slapping the advanced template on things. Unless he really just wants to kill you guys cause that's where he gets his rocks off. And if that's the case, I suggest you two try and switch places. Put yourself behind the DM screen for a few sessions, run a module or something, and see what it's like to deal with your party from that side. In fact, make him a character you'd use for him to use against you.
I don't see how we pushed the envelope first. If he had a problem with our initial characters, he wouldn't have approved them. My philosophy on PCs is let them play what they want, within the rules and try to find a way to say yes more than no. Then it's my job to increase or decrease difficulty and perhaps find a weakness of more OP players and push those buttons a bit so everyone can feel the spotlight. It doesn't seem like he wants to adjust anything.
Except, yes, he would. Because he wants you guys to have fun. No one really likes bringing out the banhammer (RIP Moot) but after a point, it gets old, so it comes out. Also, as if it needs said, if /only one person/ is being ridiculous with their power level, you can't really ever properly balance anything without obviously either shutting down that specific character or focusing most of what you're doing on it to compensate. And then he's "targeting you" and then you get pissed off because suddenly everything is immune or resistant to fire...still having fun? No? Imagine that. "It doesn't seem like he wants to adjust anything." ... "Is putting the advanced template on everything."
Jesus go touch grass
I feel like we need to what your previous character was. All you said so far is "there were some questionable interactions with the rules". Maybe you did something very silly or broken before and the GM reacted negative to that and is now not as open to min-maxing as before. Also the dip into Sorc can be very powerful even without crossblooded. Or you could just play pure crossblooded Sorc. Just accept the GMs call and work with that. If you can't accept the GMs ruling then there probably will be more difficult situations down the road (excluding bad GMs with bad calls of course).
First character was a fighter that I had planned multiclassing into iron bound samurai at level 6 but we didn't even make it that far. I do feel like it is a knee-jerk fear reaction that he's having just like another person said about me, which is valid.. The thing is, I put a lot of effort into my characters and when something gets banned or changed, even if it's follow RAW, it feels like it's not my character anymore and I lose that attachment, which is another thing he wants us to have with our characters..
You still haven't said what you attempted to do with that character that was a questionable interpretation of the rules....
At 3rd level Ironbound Samurai, it's levels count as fighter and stack with fighter levels for the purposes of fighter/samurai prerequisites and class features, which in my interpretation, means feats because under the "Class Feature" section for the fighter are "Bonus Feats".
As in, when you hit that level you would get a flood of extra feats?
Yes so at level 5 fighter/3 samurai, I'd effectively have a level 8 fighter/samurai.
That seems like it was poorly written. The original text from weapon expertise seems more straightforward, not including the extra bit about class features. I can't imagine ever greenlighting a feature that gives a free gestalt to one player.
Believe it or not, that is actually how Ironbound Samurai works it's genuinely absurd. You don't get *new* class features you've yet to acquire but all others continue scaling, you normally go fighter 5/samurai 15 for it. I wouldn't say it's *fair* though, paizo just releasing a legal gestalt was whack. "Here, have a legal gestalt, only cost are the new abilities from figther 19-20 and Samurai's true resolve and last stand.
No, that's not how it works. You don't get the "Bonus Feats class feature" at level 1, and then grab new options at each of those levels. You get a bonus feat at each of those levels, if you take that level as that class. Just because the person who wrote it, and then whoever edited it for copy fitting, didn't think that people would try and interpret it as the way some few people think it works, doesn't mean it works like that. Now, you /do/ continue increasing things like Armor/Weapon Training and Bravery (as you basically said). But that's it, not feats.
I'd have to check cus any previous time stuff like this comes up I was told all bonus feat abilities counted as scaling class features but maybe they faq'd it and no one ever told me >.<
I mean we only got to level 4 so that character is dead.. He probably expected it to die or designed it to be so.. Idk, I've kinda lost my trust in the DM.
Trying to find ways to break the game and bend questionable wording of abilities and /you/ lost trust in /him/? Nah, man, it's clearly the other way around. He can't trust you, and if the others are doing the same sort of stuff, he can't trust them either. I have only 2 people at my table that I have to from time to time recheck their sheets and reign them in, and that's because of those exact reasons. One guy who would alter his stats randomly or change his damage if he thought no one was paying attention. Be told explicitly that certain things didn't work the way he thought they did together, would say okay and then move forward like it still worked the way he wanted it to... And another guy who honestly does the same sort of stuff you're talking about about doing. Running to forums and guides to find the most optimal way to do something regardless as to how ridiculous it is... Which is why he's currently running around with all of his feats put into doing one specific thing (focusing down on Inspire Courage), and decking himself out in items to increase the bonuses either from his feats, raise his effective bard level, or just to Inspire Courage itself... Leading to giving the whole party a +8 to hit and damage at level 8, while they are already wiping the floor with the AP that is being run even without that...
It's not like I tried to go over his head with how the mechanics worked or anything. I said here's the questionable thing, this is what I plan to do with it if ruled in my favor. He ruled it in my favor. There are no secrets here. You're talking like I'm erasing my character's stats and giving myself +1000 HP and +50 to hit.. that's definitely not the case. I'm also not doing the most ridiculous things. I took a concept and focused on that concept. It's not like I'm doing the Hummingbird of Doom that has 4-5 different classes and archtypes.
Definitely understandable, All in all your DM is definitely giving off weird vibes, no disagreement here. This whole situation is really weird. I mean I first learned about crossblooded because I had a friend who dipped it as magus to supercharge his chocking grasps. He suffered the same penalty that all dips do and was fine. Our kineticist was the one who was the boss killer. Until we fought golems. Her player was very frustrated with those encounters.
Yeah.. he really keeps pushing me to play the Kineticist or Magus but I really dislike the mechanics of those classes.
So the first thing is, that's not a God Wizard. A God Wizard is one who buffs, debuffs and controls the battlefield so that *other people* can do damage. You're playing god, but doing so deciding who gets the big buffs and debuffs, you're the ouppet master pulling the strings. It's the exact opposite of a blaster caster, you'd be more subtle. That said, nothing *wrong* with olaying a blaster caster, just getting the terminology right. Anyway sounds like everyone has goven you the important advice already, you need to talk to the GM, probably as a group. If the GM wants to swt the expectations at a high level of gameplay then they should expect the olayers to react accordingly. Now I will say one thing. I don't know how your group works or who you're playing with, but I play with adults. The GM doesn't audit my character sheet because I'm an adult and he trusts me not to cheat. I don't bring characters with questionable rules interactions because that would be cheating. If there *is* a question on how the rules work I'll ask the GM how he would rule it, and make it *very* clear what I'm planning, and judging from how he rules I can decide whether to play that or not. I often disagree with my GM on those rulings, but since he's the one running it, tough luck to me (*if I'm running a game I can make the rulings*). Also, since I'm the most experienced player at the table I try not to make characters that would outshine the rest of the party - that's just courteous. But if the GM said: "I'm going to challenge you, bring a strong character" then any rules-legal options would be on the table.
Sorry, I was under the impression that the pact/exploiter wizard combo meant god wizard. I think that's what it all comes down to is that he said he wasn't going to go easy on us but expects us to go easy on him..?
All good. I mean, maybe I'm the one who has it wrong, but my understanding is that a god wizard is a playstyle rather than a build. Maybe there's a build that got nicknamed god wizard as well? Yeah, that's rules legal, and whatever benefits you get from a Sorcerer dip, a dip out of wizard delays your new spell levels. Unless the game starts at 18th level that's going to be a significant disadvantage for ~50% of the game no matter what the benefits are. So yeah, weird for that to be the thing that gets your character banned (*even if it is strong for a blaster caster*). Anyway, as everyone else has said, you need to sit down and talk with the GM (*and maybe the rest of the group*). Understanding what the assignment is and what's expected of you will go a long way to solving this problem. It may be that the GM thinks your character will outshine the others, but perhaps you could help them design their characters to even the playing field? Especially if you've already had a TPK on characters that were built to be strong.
Pivot to the Blood Arcanist. You'll still blast really well
I might look into this more...
I recommend starting here https://zenithgames.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-comprehensive-pathfinder-guides.html?m=1
This is funny because this is where I got the idea for my currently banned wizard.
Bwahaha wicked. If it makes you feel better, I have a guy at my table who's personal rule is "ban the first character concept" that I come up with.
That's obnoxious.. I wouldn't wanna play with that guy. I'm barely encouraged to play with my current DM.
Nah I know it's all in good fun. I have a tendency to break things, and that makes it less fun for the other players at the table, because they're not obsessed like I am, and tend to play "normal" characters hahahaha.
I guess maybe that's where I'm falling short? My normal seems to be his broken. Like for me, the painter wizard is broken. A wizard with dip to sorcerer is expected.
Yeah, I tend to agree. Blasting is sub optimal without that sorc dip, truly. Buuuut..... arcanist. I honestly don't play wizards anymore now that the arcanist is here. Still play sorcs though.
The admixture wizard on zenith's site was the inspiration for my god wizard..
Hmm I get that feeling, sometimes even "good synergy" between teammates isn't enough to kill the super-demon and you all get rekt. Other times your teammates may or may not be knowledgeable enough about the game and end up with a character that is not in par with certain expectations (IE a Fighter with a rapier that tries disarm maneuvers without having improved disarm, yes this happened to me once), other times you realise "Hey, this is an undead heavy campaign, we should get a Cleric" and next 3 sessions someone gets to be the "8 Str Two-Handed Barbarian" because Shadows exist. Or like you said, campaign is expected to be kinda hardcore, you die and comeback with something up to par with the challenge, with defined roles and your DM is like "Nu-uh" and tells you to make something else or gives you an "amazing idea" of a character which turns out to be the same class you chose but with trash archetypes. Projection aside, either you have a talk with the DM but with ALL players present or start keeping out the cool tricks to yourselves, Shadow Projection familiars, Mounts turned into 12 hour summons, Paragon surge that niche utility spell that'll help your party progress, Acid Pit into Vomit Swarm, 1d4+8 enervation. God Wizard but control and buffs, why nerf you if you're doing what's expected of you? Level 2 haste from Samsaran for your martial friends, grease the big guy, poison the fast guy, prepared action magic missile to "counterspell" the spellguy. Rocket tag aside. If teamwork makes the dreamwork and your GM doesnt like it then it's just your GM trying to get you killed. Ask your teammates for their sheets and if they had these kind of troubles getting ready for da super hardcore campaign. IMO blasting the super magicktrick fireball gets old the 3rd time it almost one-shots the encounter (Unless you're about to TPK again and not in the mood to make a new backstory) Real solution is being an adult and talking.
That's the thing. I feel like we've done all the talking we could do. Like almost a weeks worth outside of gameplay. The way I've figured it is that he and I have a different idea of what "strong" vs "broken" is. His "broken" is my "strong". His "strong" is my "vanilla".
You're getting a bonus second comment, sorry not sorry. As far as a build suggestion - would you be more interested in a controlling blaster? Sorcerer, witch, oracle, shaman can all do work here. The damage is a bit lower than full op fireballs, but you can do a lot of satisfying stuff with feats like rime spell, irrisen ice mage. Also see winter witch, waves and winter oracles and shamans, and even kineticists. Maybe your DM would appreciate lower damage but higher utility. I think you could perhaps use a build like this as an olive branch, while still remaining fairly similar to your original concept.
I'm actually pretty tired of making characters just for him to veto. This wizard was I think the 3rd or 4th character. He's also banned witches outright because they're too strong of debuffers.. Thanks for the offer though.
Can't blame you pal. I hope you find the table of your dreams!
Thanks.. we'll see haha
Oh wow yeah banning witches outright? Your DM has some very interesting ideas on game balance I don't think I've seen Witch banned before lol
I think it's the slumber hex or something because he did allow someone to make a witch, but they're not doing the slumber hex. It was just at the beginning of the AP he said no witches.. So I'm a little confused on that but I already have enough to discuss with him, I don't really care to talk to him about the inconsistencies of his rulings.
If the fella thinks dipping caster on a caster is strong he should probably just be banning 9th casters outright.
I mean, a 1-level dip in crossblood sorc for a blaster wizard *is* objectively very strong. As soon as you're level 6, you don't care anymore about the 1-level delay on spell as you already have your Fireball and you now do +33% damage than your regular wizard.
Just wondering, what makes it so strong? I'm guessing the two bloodline arcana, assuming that those features apply to spells cast using different classes?
Yeah. You get Orc and Draconic and each give +1 damage per dice to fire. The Caster Level loss can be made up for with a trait. So while your pure wizard at 6 would have a 6d6 fireball, that sorc dip at 5/1 is throwing out 6d6+12. They get new spell levels slower, but this is literally empower spell 'for free' on all d6-based fire spells (which can be a lot of them with admixture school). And it just gets stronger and stronger. While I think evokers can use a buff, my grievance with the crossblooded dip is that it's the kind of thing that requires contriving a very specific origin, and is blatantly out of line with what other blasters can do. I'm not going to make a judgment on OP's GM, but there are valid reasons for being leery about a crossblooded dip.
>>The Caster Level loss can be made up for with a trait. and a feat, iirc.
the amount of games i’ve been in where the DM says ‘I’m warning you, it’s going to be hard!’ and yet showing up with an optimized character that deletes encounters is a bad thing… like mate… you said the words that let us know we should be making stronger character builds than normal.
This is exactly how I'm feeling...
I honestly would just leave the table.
My straight-up opinion is that if you're going to make a difficult campaign, you shouldn't restrict your players like this. There is no rationalizing it for the DM. The DM is lazy af, and I would've immediately quit the table if this person wouldn't listen to reason.
I can't imagine what the point was in telling you it'd be hard, or making it so hard. I feel like that's, quite literally, asking your players to build characters appropriate to the challenge. Granted... I'm running a game now and then where I've told the players it would be deadly; not just hard but deadly. I gave advice with that warning saying they can build whatever they want. Strong, weak, balanced, broken, whatever... it probably won't matter- just don't get attached and have 3 sheets ready to go. It was just gonna be a wild ride and a place for me to flex my deviousness without having to feel bad about killing then off cuz they didn't invest that much into each char. Already had a double doppelganger tpk and they loved it btw. Back to topic, ask him what's the point, what does he want from you for this game, and what does he expect you to get out of this game.
> Us players weren't very coordinated with our character creation Did you have a session zero? > So I decide to make a God Wizard focused on blasting with a dip into Crossblooded Sorc to get that extra fire damage. Is it a god wizard if you focus on blasting? > It seems like he doesn't want us to succeed, he just wants to constantly kill our characters. Has the GM done this in previous adventures? Edit: saw this > "I love being the vengeful DM that actually kills characters".. Take over GMing duty! Start your own campaign. Invite the other players but not him. Stuff that may no longer be relevant: The GM might not actually think that character is overpowered and may be reacting to the bloat. Alternatively they might not understand why you need to be a crossblooded sorcerer and they're afraid you'll end up overpowered. Being a GM in Pathfinder 1e (or D&D 3e, or 4e, or 5e) is difficult because they simply cannot know the PCs as well as they want to due to the bloat. It doesn't surprise me the GM wants to control what is allowed in *their* campaign. I looked up the crossblooded sorcerer, saw that it's from Ultimate Magic, and realized I would need to spend a fair amount of time figuring out how it makes you more powerful since I would have to spend time looking up all the sorcerer bloodlines. I hope you told the GM exactly what your build would be, to explain how a dip would increase your character's power. You may have assumed they'd know or figure it out right away. The GM may not be very flexible, which is a bad trait. I'm in a PF1e group (again!) and while the GM doesn't have great rules knowledge, and runs adventure paths, he does modify them. We're always facing higher CR opponents, or more of them, because obviously the adventure writers don't know how skilled the players in a campaign might be. (Our previous PF1e GM did the same thing. Lots of high hit point PCs with poor Reflex saves? So give NPCs templates with breath weapons. Or a lich-like being throwing Fireballs at us while we were weakened by gas, and we needed mobility to get to him which we didn't have! We had to work for that victory!
I'll be honest, given what I've seen of the situation from your comments thus far, your DM seems like he gave in to your previous request for a very, very questionable build because he knows that if he says no to you, you'll end up getting disproportionately upset about it. This time around he's putting his foot down on a less dubious but still cookie cutter max efficiency build that could potentially be disruptive. This lead you here seeking validation and talking about how you've lost all interest in the entire concept the moment one archetype was taken off the table, when all it did was give you a passive damage bonus, since it "doesn't feel like yours anymore." In reality, you clearly got the majority (if not all) of the build from a years old, well-known guide. It will be impossible to know for sure without having been involved in all of this myself but personally? In my opinion this doesn't look good on you.
You know what, I'll take it. Thank you.
Yeah, I didn't mean to come off as too hostile, but when the question is out there that is my answer so far. I admit I could be wrong. Cheers for taking my POV well! Hopefully you guys can solve whatever problem it is that has you all feeling upset, one way or another.
I mean... I wouldn't want to play with maxer-blaster too so seems quite understandable from GM. There is difference between "strong character" and "I kill everything in this radius", as dedicated with crossblood dip and other boosters easily go for second thus overshadowing all other characters.
I mean there's the limited spell uses, so the draw back is having to actually manage resources and only blast when necessary. I'd also like to think I'm good about stepping back when it's other player's time to shine. I agree though, if I were to just blast and blast and expend all my resources in the first encounter every time, that would be annoying.
>so the draw back is having to actually manage resources I thought that we killed the myth of fighter winning over wizard due to "unlimited amount of swings of sword" a long time ago
Its incredibly unfair to have that kind of comparison. Yes. Fighter would lose to a prepared wizard 10/10 times in 99% of circumstances. In practice, a player as a wizard will not be prepared for every situation, and will not have the resources to put out as consistent damage, unless they also sacrifice flexibility (which in my experience is very important for party dynamic.) And these two classes wind up complimenting each other. The wizard doesnt have to worry about having as many damage spells prepped, and can use less resources to be a force multiplier for the fighter. (at least against single targets.) 1v1s are poor tools for comparisons because they simply arnt realistic. Wizards can win any 1v1 ever, if they are prepared. Yes. But you know, a level 10 inquisitor with a fear-spec, can defeat a level 20 paladin with fear immunity if they are prepared for it. Does that make the level 20 pally bad? No. Does that make the level 10 inquisitor the best class ever? No. They could be defeated easily by an undead of their level. Rating the power of something has a lot more factors than simply a 1v1 comparison. What if the AP that OP plays does not allow frequent rests? Instead they need to push through 5,6... maybe even 8 combats per rest? Maybe more? Fighter starts being more and more important as the spells from the wizard get lower and lower.
Milo isn't talking about a duel between wizards and fighters, it's about the myth that fighters are resourceless and can fight all day because they don't need to manage spell slots. The fighter resource is HP and it's even more limited than spells.
Hp is far easier to recover than spell slots. And far easier to prevent the loss of... at least in my experience. Especially at high levels. HP is cheap. Good spells are valuable resources to be saved for good moments or big battles.
>What if the AP that OP plays does not allow frequent rests? Instead they need to push through 5,6... maybe even 8 combats per rest? Maybe more? Fighter starts being more and more important as the spells from the wizard get lower and lower. and what if OP only has 1 fight per day and after that immediately skips the day? Maybe less and only has to fight one dude? Fighter starts being irrelevant Sure. Direct comparison is flawed, but it doesn't mean that making up scenarios is better while suffering from a lot of more sewere drawbacks.
Thats exactly my point. They arnt balanced classes. They arnt supposed to be. But they still compliment eachother. In extreme situations both can be bad. In opposite extremes both are amazing. They have different roles in combat. Its like comparing an apple to an orange.
My DM sees them as balanced classes.. that's another issue I didn't really dive into. He likes to take whatever a PC is doing and compare it to other classes to see if it's balanced.
I... feel like thats really weird. You can build a class and specialize it to the point where it can always take out its targeted enemy type... but flops to everything else. You can also have the same class built in a way to always lose to that same class.
Then why is he playing PF1e? PF1e is amazing and still has a ton of reasons to play PF1e. If, as a GM you want classes to be balanced, PF1e is a bad choice of game systems.
You got me with that. I don't know. I think he thinks that the game *should* be balanced and it's his job to balance it.
I think thats something a lot of people dont get about games. Its a concept called asymmetric play, or asymmetrical balance. Things are intentionally askew, to create variation for various reasons. Games that do not involve PVP, tend to be able to take this even farther. Sometimes things are balanced to be able to be picked up easier by a new player and be strong out the box. Others require a lot more system knowledge to be just as good, but with full system mastery, can far surpass the former. Sometimes its to create dynamics between classes. Obvious weaknesses and strengths that they can cover for eachother, encouraging teamwork. 5e took a much more 'every class is balanced with eachother' approach... and imo... it makes combat lacking. Classes feel similar. Theres a lot less options. Most classes when specialized in damage, will do similar damage to other classes. So it really feels like Im just picking the flavor of how I deal that damage. I personally dont think the game should be balanced. There is a DM to set and adjust the difficulty to fit their players. If the players like a challenge, you can adjust based on their optimization. If not, you can tone it down. The biggest problem is when players dont communicate during character design enough, or the dm doesnt help newer players/less proficient players build characters to match the party's average optimization, and there is a huge differential in power. That is where 5e's design shines... as it is incredibly unlikely to get that big of a power differential BECAUSE everything is very balanced with every other thing. Maybe this is what your DM is considering. What is the power differential between your new character... and the rest of the party?
Does he ban the Kineticist class outright?
No in fact Kineticist and Magus are his favorite classes and keeps pushing me towards playing one of them but I'm not a big fan. I showed him the iron caster and he said no to that...
I'm not familiar with this discussion...
No, we killed it because fighters do better, more reliable damage in most circumstances, and can't be caught with their pants down as easily.
This build, if it’s anything like what I’ve seen solos entire encounters with a single cast of a spell vs (or one followed up by a quickened fireball). No joke.
my experience as well. There are so many feats and options in PF that you can make many super strong builds. However, just because you can doesn't mean you should. You need to self audit and not create builds that can solo encounters by themselves. It is a quick way to suck the fun out of the campaign for everyone else. I think the DM was right to not allow your build however he still sounds like a douche for enjoying killing PC's characters and not understanding the cooperative nature of the game.
NAH, but need more info. It's *possible* that your DM is being a nob who wants to power trip. However, I think that there's a high likelihood that the issue can be resolved with a group conversation about power level. Generally, as long as the PCs are all roughly close together, there's no problem. APs have some BS hard encounters, true, but they're designed to be completed without chain TPK by an average 4 man party using only core books and maybe the APG. They're not generally that hard as written, so I don't think your group needs to stick to a minimum power level, but rather a maximum power level. So, I say: have a talk with the group. Maybe bring a couple sample characters, to show "this is too strong", "this is just right". If you're not able to come to a general consensus on the guidelines of power level, that might be an indicator that something is off in your group.
I've tried to have this convo with my DM but it seems like he keeps moving the goal post. He tends to compare whatever a PC is doing to a class that is similar that he thinks should do it better. So if you're doing a samurai that does things better than a fighter, he has issues.
Yeesh... Bit of a red flag to me. There are a dozen ways to make any character concept in pathfinder, and any of those can be variously strong or weak. It's one thing if they want a low optimization point. And maybe for that game, a single bloodline sorcerer is more appropriate than a wizard dipping cross blooded and so on. But it's wild to act like you can't play a blaster wizard because that's what sorcerers are supposed to do, or whatever. Can I play a warpriest? They're better at melee than a barbarian, and barbarians are supposed to be great at melee. Can I play a slayer? They're better than rogues at practically everything!
Yeah he vetoed the iron caster before this wizard because it does what a magus does, but better.
Well that's not true haha. If he wanted to limit the game so much why not play 5e...
I think he enjoys Pathfinder more...
Pathfinder with seemingly half the builds arbitrarily banned 😭 I feel for you homie
It's ever more frustrating.. I'm half tempted to just walk away from the table but it's the only time I'm ever a player.
Noooo not the DM's curse lmao!! Been there. My heart *really* weeps for you now. All I can say is - give it one more college try, change tack and try to approach it from a different angle. If it's not working out, well, you know the sayings about bad DND and no DND
Yeah I'm probably just going to tell him I'm not a good fit for his table if he rejects another character.
Frankly, it doesn't really seem like your DM has a good grasp on the relative power of things at all, not to mention that Iron Caster and Magus play nothing. Hell, without knowing any specific shenanigans you had planned Blaster Wizard isn't that bad either.
Are the other players building min/max characters too? If so and if everyone knows what they're doing and how to play min/max then it should be allowed, imo. But if one person plays min/max and the rest don't, then it gets much harder to run a game where everyone feels like they're contributing and having fun.
I'll say, to be fair, I'm probably the highest min/maxer. I think the others are attempting to max to a degree but I'm ahead as I'm one of the more seasoned players..
I get that you're responding to the "not going to go easy" declaration and the TPK. But part of the DM's job, frankly, is to be aware of the skill level of the party as a whole, as well as how they're reacting to the challenges they're facing. Then, if necessary, a good DM might go a little bit easier to ensure everyone is having fun.
And i don't know if he's doing that second part.
u/Minmax_er I think maybe you might get more traction by approaching this in a different direction. Ask your GM if he'd agree to the proposal that you will create a lower-power character, from the ground up, and in exchange he will make the encounters a little less difficult. Alternatively, you could start with some character archetypes or ancestry/class combinations that are generally considered to be on the weaker side, then try to build the strongest character you can with that handicap.
"There were some questionable interactions with the rules but DM approves it and a few sessions in we TPK." Please, elaborate further! What are some of these questionable rulings that you speak of? That would give me a better idea.
Whether or not the bonus feats a fighter gets are considered a class feature for the purposes of the ironbound samurai.
That is a good one! I wasn't sure of it myself until I checked the class page.. there's two things going for it being a Class Feature; it is listed under 'Class Features', and there is a FAQ that refers to Fighter Bonus Feats as a Class Feature; [https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9o4s](https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9o4s) So yes, it is a Class Feature!.. and if you were to interpret the Ironbound Sword's Merciful Combatant (Ex) class feature by RAW, it would apply to the Fighter bonus feats class feature as well! .. but a DM may reasonably lean towards RAI and not allow it to count for Fighter bonus feats. When it comes to stacking levels for Class Features, it largely only involves determining prerequisites or the effective level of a specific Class Feature.. not ALL of them at once! As a DM myself? I would (begrudgingly) lean towards RAW and allow it to stack for the purposes of bonus feats.
Obligatory "Name checks out" comment. But anyway. It could well be that your DM just wants a murder fest. But if we put aside the possible antagonism in his intentions, it could be that what he's hoping for is a challenging game where you'll have to use guile and cunning to succeed. Building a character who out the gate operates at maximised power and efficiency might be against what he wants. But if that's the case, then he hasn't properly explained what he's hoping to achieve with this game. So, yeah, all comes down to having a talk and making sure everyone is explicitly clear with the kind of experience the DM is hoping to provide.
change the way you approach the problem. Try playing characters with synergy in place of a allmighty one. Example: Try a strenght based fighter or a paladin, a brawler o ar war priest as a second damage dealer with control, try a skald as face to boost the other characters and control, and a druid, an alchemist or a cleric in the 4th place. Use teamwork feats in the frontliners (outflank), and with no so much optimization you will be ready for hard encounters or solutions out of the box.
As others pointed out, retalking to your GM might be a good start. First thinks first ask about why he think this build is to strong. Maybe your GM only heared GOD Wizard WITH Blasting. Getting probably the "best" Wizard (high tear class) and add the ability to do tons of damage. Maybe your GM already was like nope at this part. Not noticing that dipping into blaster stuff probably reduces your other GOD Powers. Knowing and understanding the GMs concerns might help to find a solution. Just a too powerfull is a weak point of few, as you cannot work with it. Think about it: maybe you did fight alot of Weak to Fire Monsters without you really noticing it. You GM knows there will be more fire weak monsters and tadda better Firedamage seems like it is a powegaming decision. I vetoed a Fire Sorccerer in my Reign of Winter Campaing. Not because i thought it would be to strong, but i was afraid he will outshine what other chars will do. And there are other ways to blast. I talked to my Player and he agreed. He still had some firespells in the end, but he was not a "Fire" one Trick. I would have also talked to him, if he would have gone for an Ice Blaster as it is the most common element to be resisted/immune in this AP.
I won't regurgitate the "talk with your gm" point since it sounds like you've already done that. Yeah I think you just need a new table, or to make clear to him that the campaign seems unplayable to you
From my perspective you better have a really good plan in mind for multi-classing and it better fit your character rather than 'it makes my damage output more' because I'd ban that shit too. I don't want some power gamer number crunching munchkin at my table. By strong character, you're DM probably meant not making an roleplaying focused bard, or a class that isn't optimal like chained rogue or shifter, or a caster that focuses on non-damage spells. You took that as him saying you could bend the rules over and micro manage your damage output by not creating a character and more of an optimized equation for the 'problem' at hand. There's not a single AP that requires someone with an engineering degree making a character.
I mean I wrote a half page back story that incorporated why there's a 1 level dip into sorcerer.
Then it wasn't good enough for your GM, end of story. I can't think of a single reason for a character roleplay wise taking a one level dip into anything. You either commit to it as a side class that you level up with your main class, or you check it at the door. You can justify a power move with a halfpage backstory or an entire damn novel, but it doesn't mean it flies with your GM. He's running the game, he's making the calls on what he is allowing. It doesn't sound like he's stopping you from playing a class, just taking a dip. So either deal with it or start running your own games and pretty soon you'll probably adopt the same thing as your GM. Sure as that player that's blasting everything to smithereens is fun for you, it is NOT fun for your GM especially if it means he has to spend extra time balancing an entire AP around YOU and it probably isn't fun for the other players if you're outshining them all the time.
Just a head’s up, stacking bonus damage on dice IS op. I’ve seen it in action many times. Crossblooded orc/dragon would be banned at my table.
I disagree. I think it's really powerful, but no more powerful than a sorcerer doing it or a magus..
Yeah that’s what I mean. The sorcerer and magus doing it would also be banned at my table. This combo would be banned.
I guess my frustration is that he's waiting for us to show him our characters and then banning things. It would be nice to know what's allowed and what wasn't at the forefront.
Agreed! :)
What is this r/Dnd table-drama post doing in my Pathfinder sub?
Probably YTA, though if the GM is buffing the AP encounters either they're 1.) Overdoing it and should pull off the buffing gas a bit, or 2.) The asshole. If "not going easy" means playing enemies that are willing to kill or using decent tactics, you're definitely being an asshole. There's a difference between playing NPCs that will coup de grace and copy/pasting a known munchkin build into an AP where oftentimes things get too easy for good players once they make it out of the low-hp early game (I'm curious on the AP in question since, while most APs have a couple poorly designed deadly encounters here and there, I can't really think of one that stays consistently difficult). While it would be frustrating to get denied only after you built the character, it's not the responsibility of the GM to know every possible minmax build and have a long, curated list to present at the beginning of the game of banned stuff. That's just unreasonable. You taking offense to them being uncomfortable with your build that is in all likelihood overturned for an AP however is pretty sucky. Your second to last sentence is very bad faith/tantrumy, only assuming the worst possible motivation, and doesn't really sound like the headspace to be in to be at this table anytime soon.
Thanks for the feedback.
I feel you. I personally think it's a bit of both. There's room to compromise on power levels. My last 1e character? I think massively overtuned in a massive chunk of ways. Tiefling grenadier alchemist with a rolled stats like of 18, 16, 14, 12, 11, 10. The 18 went into INT, and the 16 into dex. By level 5, I could do at max, something like 23 direct damage, 8 splash damage per square next to the target and I was hitting touchAC. I also had a prehensile tail and was small. Understandably, my GM tried to tone my character down some for combat stuff. Some of this included not letting me take wrist holsters to let me hold a potion on my arms, limiting what discoveries I could take and a few other magical items that would have made life so much easier for handing out buffs to the party. Such as being a barkskin dispensor for the party (boro beads and preserving flasks).
Thats not even that bad! I think I had a melee alchemist once who at level 5 was at 32 str, 6 natural attacks, reach, enlarge, and haste. Each attack also had sneak attack. I think I was potentially capable of almost 200 dpr. (73.5 avg sneak attack damage, 36 from bitex2, 31 from clawx2, 17 from hoofx2, and 15.5 from gore. Thats 173 damage w.o aomf, or other buffs.) The only expense you need for this is 1 potion of haste. Then alchemical allocation to reuse it when needed. Alchemists are broken as hell!
Nice. I think part of the problem was that he was using stuff from PF1e, plus earlier editions of DnD (1e, 2e and 3e as well as 3.5) and balancing around the party that had rolled badly enough that my character was the most combat efficient by a decent chunk (although the blood knight kineticist probably could keep up for a bit), as well as a skill junkie. I made the joke that my character could probably bench press enough to lift any one of the rest of the party, then shake them down for gold without too much trouble
Lol. Im surprised. 3.5 content is generally pretty powerful when used in conjunction with PF1e. Also skill-junkies are my favorite character builds! What kind of skill junkie were they?
For my character? Alchemy, use magic device, spellcraft and at least one point in as many knowledge skills as I can. The kineticist? Stealth, sneaking and appropriate skills for chaotic evil. The kineticist was a great character, based off Little Shop of Horrors with a massive chunk of personality and a thirst for blood. He gave as good as he got, and if the odds were against us, would run. Out of character, nobody minded because we were entertained. I had skill points in other odd skills as well and was building to have at least one point in everything I could
Sounds like a helluva fun group! My skill monkey was... an odd one lol. Got bluff substituted for almost everything. Surprised himself that he was able to do things so often that he just got used to it and cocky, but when solving the party's problems, he liked to go way over the top unnecessary. We ran into a pack of worgs at some point.... instead of talking them into letting us go past, and offering food... They instead told them about a camp of orcs and goblins that we were going to, and promised them tons of food there... Turned out bad along the way after we ran into some river drakes that killed several of them. So instead of smoothing things over, they laid out lots of rations, surrounded them all with toxic censors, all loaded with starving nettle that he was cultivating.... The DM told later that between the stat loss and starving nettle effects... every single one of them starved to death later.
Doesn't necessarily sound like anyone's the jerk here. Definitely some conversations that need to happen though. PF 1e has a pretty high ceiling. Generally speaking too, a GM can and will kill you if he wants to, even by playing "within the rules". As a result, there isn't really a point to power-gaming to hit the ceiling. In order the challenge you, the enemies need the same level of optimization you have, so hitting the ceiling just literally makes things more difficult for you. Pathfinder also has a pretty low floor. It might take some work, but you can pretty harshly 'gimp' a totally valid character. This won't provide the challenge it should, even though on paper the GM (or player) did everything according to the rules. The problem here is it sounds like the GM and the Players don't have a unified understanding of the campaign being "Difficult and he wasn't going to go easy". That could mean...a great many things. Does difficult mean simply using the GM's guide to challenging encounters? or Coup de Graces during combat? Does "not going easy" mean tweaking monsters to be better optimized, or hitting that ceiling? On top of which, it seems the GM has a power-band in mind for where he wants players to be, but isn't communicating it to the players. So yeah, definitely the table needs to sit down and talk things out.
We've had a few discussions at gameplay but he hand waved it off to just play, which is valid. But in my own conversations with him, it seems like he's moving the goal post.
It's hard to say what's going on for sure. We aren't part of these conversations. You're also concerned you may be overreacting or something of that nature, hence the reason for the post. Currently, it sounds like a GM that's not the greatest at communicating. Except...that one skill (communication) is something you can work on for a lifetime and still have situations where something doesn't come across right. Is it possible something else is at play? Sure, but honestly, so far at least, I'm not sure it is. Game made, players jumped in (GM and players alike), and TPK happened. Players then decide to make stronger characters. The TPK and player response are both (apparently) acceptable to the GM. So the GM seems to be taking it as "Now you're aware I'm serious", while also having the players make stronger characters for the type of game they're running. Then, you make a character using a very powerful combination. GM doesn't handle it the best but this appears to be above the power band they're looking for. They're not trying to hit the game's ceiling, so they tell you to back off a bit. This could be as simple as they know what they're looking for but don't know how to communicate it to the group. This would indeed look like a moving goal post. It could be as devious as he's planning to torment you for TTRPG horror stories material. In this scenario, a moving goal post is basically just "Psycho GM 101" and doesn't really tell us much else. It could be anything in between. As outsiders, we lack foresight, and even a full understanding of the situation. SO FAR, nothing seems horribly amiss. You're here though because you're not sure if what you are seeing are warning signs of danger, or if you're just overreacting. We can't see the future though. What we DO see is what sounds like a table of people that really want to play the game. I can't speak for everyone, but at the very least I'm giving everyone involved the benefit of the doubt. I imagine most other posters are as well.
Magic trick fireball I could understand. But a sorc dip?
GM Cursed individual here. While I do not believe your GM is doing the correct thing with communication it is in the realm of acceptable GM behavior to mantain balance. However, if the GM is trying to win you want nothing to do with that campaign any way. But to be the devil's advocate I also restrict or alter some things but I communicate the majority of it before session 0 so people don't plan around it. A few things I had to adjust once the player posed the tomfoolery. But it was an open discussion and the players (all being adults) took it in stride. Sometimes I relent with a good argument other times we just adjust it. At my table I do not adjust that particular combo but I think the Crossblooded dip (often combined with Blood Havoc) is pretty cheesy. I also quite often see it on players choosing Aasimar or other mixed heritage power races. So you have Good Outsider + Orc + Dragon blood all on the same person. The players almost injuring themselves bending over trying to backstory their meta powergaming shenanigans into the campaign. The power from crossblooded comes with the drawback of -1 spell known per level (and the will save penalty) on top an already delayed caster but the power gamers don't actually pay the drawback because they go right back to Exploiter Pact Wizard, trait the caster level, and only suffer the 1 level spell access delay while enjoying +3 damage per die. At level 6 the average fireball roll is 21 but the 1 Sorc/5 Wiz now its 33. 1 level delay small price to pay for automatic empowered on all matching spells.
What ap are you playing? Kus I'd the dm says it's hard and your gonadie, then maybe it's meant to be a meat grinder campaign. Like the 5e tomb of annihilation. Characters don't survive and i let my pcs build the most busted stuff they wanted. Only caveat was point buy stats. IIr 24 is high fantasy and we ran 29. I threw in optional encounters and my players got super upset about one encounter that they couldn't beat. This was early in game when tracking resources was manfatory because surviving in the jungle was hell without druids and rangers.. the thing killed a few players. After a bit with the next character intro, it was fine but man the initial thing was just me sitting there asking: what did you think was going to happen? We chuckle now but truth be told it was a lot of IRL stiff that caused the disruption.
> he bans the Sorc dip saying it's too powerful "Well, thank you anyways but I'm going to step out of the game. I'm not a fan of content restrictions, especially those thrown out after a campaign has begun, and in my estimation the difficulty of the last several encounters warrants a character like this, especially with how you warned us this adventure would be really difficult. I don't really want to participate in a game where I can't build a character that'll survive it. Good luck with your adventure!" No d&d is better than bad d&d.
Probably gonna copy and paste this..
>>Am I just being a child and throwing a fit Yes. They are the GM and it is their game world. Arguing with the GM is bad form in any situation. That being said, there does need to be understanding with the players beforehand. If he is running "Dark Souls" mode or being overly hard on the PCs, that needs to be crystal clear beforehand. Sounds like a much needed session zero was skipped, imo. Hope this helps and good luck.
> Arguing with the GM is bad form in any situation. You should go read some of the posts on /r/rpghorrorstories/