General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
If "Savant Mind" is a feat that your character took that was created by the GM, I would remind my fellow posters that there is precident for such a feat.
In Complete Adventurer, there is a feat called "Force of Personality" (IIRC) that allows you to use your CHA bonus instead of your WIS bonus for Will saves.
And in the case here, the DM is essentially saying, "The charisma limitations of the Leadership feat need to be more extreme." That ruling will mean that certain characters get cut off, and certain ones don't. Frankly, I think that's fair -- it's not targeting this guy's character specifically, it's targeting anyone with low charisma. For all we know, there is another low-charisma character who will also never see the feat because of this. So it doesn't seem like a case where the DM is picking on this player. (But I haven't seen their interactions, so I can't really say.)
Which would be fine, IF it was known ahead of time as the game started.
Changed midstream, on a whim starts to get a touch on the caprice side.
Wow, that was alot of response really fast. Thanks to all who've replied. It's a bit much for me to comment on all of it, but rest assured I've read it all and taken any advice given into consideration.
Sorry in advance for the wall of text it will be... Respect will be gained should you read it all! ^^
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oryan77
Did you bother to argue with your DM that maybe this new feat is overpowered? I doubt it. So why are you going to post here in hopes of getting more ammo to use against him so you can pester him about his decision about the Leadership feat? That's obviously your intent.
My intent is for him to realize that what I say ISN'T stupid and ridiculous, as he has mentioned several times. A DM shouldn't get personal when a player argues with him about rules.
About the overpowered part. Let me paint out the rest of the picture so you can better understand:
The Rogue has a barbarian-rage-like ability called "Combat Trance":
"While in combat trance Wolf gains a +4 competence bonus to his strength and dexterity as well as an additional +2 dodge bonus to his AC and reflex saves. Additionally, when in combat trance he is so aware of his surroundings that he does not provoke any attacks of opportunities."
The paladin has a "knight in shining armour" personal feat:
"gains a +2 circumstance modifier on all Charisma-related checks whenever he is wearing breast plate, half plate or full plate armor. He also gains the ability to fascinate 1/day just as a bard of his level. If he takes the Leadership feat he also gains a +2 competence bonus to his leadership score."
The Monk has the "raven kick" which allows him to make a charge attack which includes a bull rush and trip attempt. At will.
Now the deal behind this is that the DM likes doing it like this so he can send tougher opponents on us. He actually had in mind giving us even more powerful personal feats every 5th lvl or so, but I had a big talk with him about game balance, so he dropped that idea and reduced the average ECL of our encounters to about 3-5 lvls higher than our level, rather than 5-8 higher. You see, he DOES listen to me most of the time, which I am thankful for.
He's a fairly new DM. He's been DMing for about two years when I set him up for the idea of it since I wanted to play myself. He's gained alot of experience, but has also had a big campaign where the players LOVED being overpowered. Me and my brother really thinks being overpowered ruins the game, so we're actually trying to tone it down. My brother even quit that previous campaign because of it, and toning it down is one of the possibly unspoken conditions that we continue to play with him as the DM. Most of the time he listens to my advice, but lately it seems he's been putting his foot down and saying no seemingly just for the reason of excersizing power as a DM, despite all logic presented. Imo this is not how a DM should behave, and I REALLY hope it isn't the case.
I too wish he would make an appearance and read what you guys are saying. He's listened to logic before and while I couldn't convince him this time I'm thinking maybe showing him that what I'm saying isn't as stupid as he wants it to be, might change his mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celebrim
IMO, the only reason the Leadership feat is in the game is to provide some back compatibility with the expectations of 1st edition AD&D where high level characters (here meaning 9th) acquired followers as a special benefit.
We're about to build ourselves a stronghold, and we need to fill it up with followers who can guard it and keep it "alive". That's a pretty damn good use for it if you ask me.
I was even considering setting up a magic shop with my highest lvl available follower as the shopkeep. Imo this feat brings more RP into the game, and makes the game more realistic, and even having to protect the cohorts, who can indeed die, when we don't really believe we can die ourselves, makes battles so much more interesting. (too many unlikely survivals(mby a little fudging. Rules and story fudging if not dice fudging at least, even though he claims he never fudges I consider casting only lvl 3 spells with a lich, or a wizard who's obviously at least lvl 7, fudging) from crazy high challenges, and yes, we're past this now I think, but it still sticks a little) As a side note, he would let us die if we did something stupid, but fighting too hard encounters with seemingly no chance of escape is a pretty (lol, censorship) way to go, so I'm a little glad he didn't kill us then.
Quote:
I personally wouldn't take that route because it already factors Chr into the feat (you get weaker followers), but even if I allowed Leadership at all I probably would require, "Necessary background" before taking the feat - meaning that you had to do something publicly which would tend to make you famous (or infamous) and would tend to attract followers to you. If your character is a a grungy adventurer that hasn't seen the light of day since 1st level, and you stumble into a tavern somewhere, I don't see how you can justify, "People want to come and serve me as lord and master." just because you say, "I take a feat that says that they do."
I agree on this and took it into consideration when considering the leadership feat. When we were lvl 2/3 we actually rid the region of three infamous hill giants who've been terrorizing the town we were questing for, AND several nearby neighbouring villages/towns. Whenever we walk the streets of this particular town we get cheerful greetings, nods and so on as we're recognized. I think the day we came back with 16 or so wagons full of treasure handing it over to the city mayor sort of got the talk going... :P
Unforunately the mayor took off with all the loot and got away with it due to us running into a fighter type lvl 15 with full guard, spellcasters and more... We actually retreated that time thanks to a NPC who was with us who suddenly found means to escape through a secret passage.
But I digress. We ARE famous in the region, and we want to establish a power base in the region, so the Leadership feat makes perfect sense to me at this moment.
Quote:
You're playing a level 7 wizard with 25 Int. Stop complaining about things being unfair. Hope that helps!
That's actually fairly common in pathfinder. You see, humans get a +2 bonus to any ability score of their choice. So provided you get 18 in int, which we of course DID get with 25 points(epic campaign) in the point buy system, you're only a headband of vast intelligence +4 and a +1 earned bonus on lvl 4 away from 25 int.
Besides, I'm not so much complaining about unfair treatment of me as the DMs judgment. It's important to me that the game is flexible and realistic, so when the DMs decision defies this I will not stay silent because if this is ruined the campaign is ruined for me.
A good DM knows how to handle most any situation without limiting the options available for the characters. Of course I realize that I can't expect that off the bat from such an inexperienced DM, but that's why I discuss it with him.
Another thing is he's decreed that besides from the core book anything we want to use from 3.5 rulebooks such as spell compendium and other books must go through him every time. As such I've been approaching him on a daily basis asking for feats from this book and spells from that book. I'm guessing he feels I ask for much and so has put his foot down just for the sake of saying no some times.
I just get baffled when he allows the orb of acid/fire/cold etc spells and then puts his foot down on "mass fly" only to allow "residual magic" on my next request. I'm a universalist btw. He does know the implications of it. I'm not sure what the problem is with mass fly, I was only partially interested anyway. It's only practical, not overpowered imho. I think he doesn't like mass fly because in a previous campaign the PC group was caught and supposedly forced to do a whole line of slavework/quests for the evil undead lord capturing them, but then the wizard asked: "You said there was a hole in the roof, for the campfire in the room?"
DM: "that is correct"
wizard: "okay, I cast mass fly"
and the entire PC group flew out the hole in the roof leaving days, maybe even weeks of preparation on the DMs part in the dust... :P
Kind of funny story... :P He does say he allowed it because it was good thinking on the wizard's part, and if he did allow it, why would he have so much against mass fly anyways? :P
Quote:
You attract the followers even if you don't really want them following you around, and they make you uncomfortable in the first place.
Haha, good one! It would be pretty cool, but the thing is that Faegan Wiggin(yes, ripped from the 5th Sorceress and Ender's game. Two personal heroes of mine. ), as my wizard is called, isn't uncomfortable with people around himself. He really enjoys lecturing people(he's got massive knowledge skills), contributing with his intellect and knowledge, and he thinks watching people and trying to understand how they work psychologically, and gather statistical information for himself about them, is interesting. A part of him wishes he was more like other people. He really looks up to the paladin's people skills, so he tries to talk alot with him on the evenings after the adventures and such to learn something from him. The problem is that Faegan just doesn't get it because he's got such a different point of view on the world. It's all about magic, rules, systems, laws and the big picture. Did I mention that he's Lawful Good? The battle of good vs evil is his purpose of life, and gaining power/learning skills is a part of this quest, and he is intelligent enough to understand that he can't do this battle on his own. At least, tactically it wouldn't be a very smart move, so on the contrary to many wizards, Faegan isn't set out to be the recluse many wizards do become. It actually doesn't make him aloof either as he would sit down with a follower and really try. He just tend to cause those akward moments... Imagine him trying be a part of casual conversation and trying to tell a joke to a commoner, it'd probably come out like this, if his cha roll was bad: "I was reading in my spellbooks the other day and I discovered that if you assign all letters in the "Dispel Magic" spell numbers and process them using the Generius Quadrant you will actually get the number 192! Hahaha!"
Faegans ego is virtually nonexistent. He views himself as a tool of magic, universal law and goodness, and besides his wis score is so low he barely notices that he makes a fool of himself anyways most of the time..
Lately Faegan found himself in two different diplomatic situations we were unprepared for, and Faegan being the only one speaking Aquan and Terran had to negotiate with a Dolomite and an Aboleth. As a result he's now leveled up to 7 and got max ranks in diplomacy(7-2=5) with intentions of getting some bluff and sense motive in time as well.
I think the DM feels that I encroach on the paladin's turf with these moves, the leadership feat in particular, and maybe that's why he's so adamant in saying it's a stupid idea... Despite the fact that my contribution is merely support to the paladin(I could aid him), and a plan B if the paladin is otherwise held up.
Quote:
What you need to do is show him this thread were everyone agrees with you and says he's wrong; DM's love that.
Haha, very funny!
I've actually linked this to him, and if he's a good DM he will reconsider. I know I would, but I started DMing 15 years ago and have a tad bit more experience.
Quote:
If it helps the negotiations, offer to take on followers of a slightly different alignment (reducing the Leadership score even farther), or even to take an additional Leadership score penalty to reflect your anti-social behaviour, above and beyond the already accounted for Charisma penalty. Promise to not abuse any Charisma-increasing magic items to boost your Leadership score (a contentious issue in any group).
Actually, getting charisma-increasing magic items should not be a big problem... What is more followers gonna help when your cohort is at max level anyway? Even with 7 charisma I'll get the "great renown" and "guildhouse" bonuses. Add to that "special power" and "fairness and generosity" and I'll have +6. Subtract aloofness and moves around alot, which are possible negative modifiers, and maybe even followers of different alignment, and I've got +3 left. That's a leadership score of 10 on my current lvl, and enough for a max lvl cohort.
My point is that gold possibly spent on charisma-items, while seemingly imba, costs alot! It's better spent on a +6 headband of int, tomes of int and the like. The headband of mental prowess costs too much. Maybe I'll invest in an ioun stone of charisma though.
As I've explained further up, I don't see Faegan as anti-social.
By the way, my DM's latest argument is: "there are other far more powerful and intelligent wizards in the region, why haven't they got apprentices and followers?" In essence, he's talking about retired PCs who DIDN'T take the leadership feat.
Really, a 3rd level apprentice wizard, who will most likely get killed, further lowering the PC's leadership score. I say allow it. RP it as the PC is so darn smart that students flock to him but soon regret it due to his abrasiveness. The DM can make it something like part of a wizards school training program where the apprentices have to suffer through a "work-study semester" with the insanely smart but socially retarded wizard. Swap a new apprentice out every few weeks with their own social motivations. Could be fun, for the DM at least. . .
Which would be fine, IF it was known ahead of time as the game started.
Changed midstream, on a whim starts to get a touch on the caprice side.
QFT.
This is the case here. He's listed all the house rules he had and the Leadership feat was not part of this list.
We had an addition of house rules when the pathfinder book was published(we started during beta) aswell, but still no mention of leadership. If the leadership feat was in another book that'd be a different thing entirely, but this is core and flavourful!
We're about to build ourselves a stronghold, and we need to fill it up with followers who can guard it and keep it "alive". That's a pretty damn good use for it if you ask me.
Ok, let me take you way way back to 1st edition. We did this too. We built strongholds and got followers. We started businesses, built temples, founded kingdoms, etc. But in the midst of all this, we started noticing that the differences between henchmen, retainer, followers and just regular old NPC's which we'd forged a friendship with in game started getting really mixed up. The only way we could tell them apart is by labelling them. "So do you want to make X your henchmen?" and we started asking questions like, "Why do we need all these arbitrary distinctions anyway?"
So here is my question to you. Suppose you don't take the leadership feat? What prevents you from going out and attracting an apprentice with old fashioned legwork and role play? Suppose you don't take the leadership feat? What prevents you from opening a store, employing some other mage to work there, and developing a friendship with your employee so that he trusts and admires you maybe (at least a little, I mean you do have 7 chr).
Most importantly, what sort of role playing oppurtunity does taking a leadership feat provide, that isn't provided by roleplaying seeking out an apprentice, role playing convincing that apprentice to take you as a master, and so forth? I think you may find that the Leadership feat is actually an alternative to RP, not a facillitator of it.
__________________ Shameless plug for my current Enworld project. Learn more than you ever wanted about the Slaad Lords here.
New updates semi-regularly. Please stop in. Feedback, positive or negative, much appreciated.
You're playing a level 7 wizard with 25 Int. Stop complaining about things being unfair. Hope that helps!
QFT. But then again the OPs request could not have had anything to do with power gaming, seeing what kind of cohort he would get.
So: You're right your DM is wrong.
With a Cha of 7 at CL7 the wizard will attract a 3rd level cohort, 2nd level if he has a familiar, 1st level if the cohort has a different alignment or the PC gets any of the -1 modifiers from the The Leader’s Reputation table (such as aloofness). So he would probably get a true 1st level apprentice.
Also whenever his cohort dies, he gets another -2 on his leadership score, so he'll really have to go out of his way to get a cohort at all even if he rises in level, if (or when?) his first cohort dies. If not the cohort will very slowly rise in power. At 10th level the PC will perhaps have a cohort of 3rd or 4th level and no chance for followers, at 15th level the cohort could be up to 9th perhaps even 10th level but only if the the first cohort survives, and the PC really hangs in there, trying to get all the bonuses he can.
The Leader’s Reputation table should give a few hints what he could do to better attract a cohort, but really with how the OP portrayed the PC, he'll also gets a few of the negative modifiers.
Now remembering that the cohort should be designed and largely run by the DM and not the PC, this is a plot hook in the making and a great roleplaying opportunity that you and your DM are missing. Honestly i don't understand why the DM should refuse this.
But then again I also understand what Celebrim said and the Leadership feat is very controvertial in the first place. I think the difference is (and was also in 1E/2E) that the Player feels a little more entitled to define the follower and "play" him or control his actions. With NPCs these are completely in the hands of the DM, for cohorts the player can at least determine, race, class, alignment (though how this wokrs in game is unclear) and the NPC is assumed to be very friendly inclined towards the PC.
Last edited by Thanael; 15th October 2009 at 04:08 PM..
Me and my brother really thinks being overpowered ruins the game, so we're actually trying to tone it down.
With an Int of 25 you're not trying very hard imho.
Quote:
Even with 7 charisma I'll get the "great renown" and "guildhouse" bonuses. Add to that "special power" and "fairness and generosity" and I'll have +6.
What special power would that be? Certainly not being a 7th level wizard, as they could then have just increased the leadership score by 1 in general as then every 7th level PC would have such special power.
Quote:
Subtract aloofness and moves around alot, which are possible negative modifiers, and maybe even followers of different alignment, and I've got +3 left. That's a leadership score of 10 on my current lvl, and enough for a max lvl cohort.
I think you have to work out two different Leadership scores. One for the cohort and one for the followers. The bonuses from the tables Attracting Cohorts and Attracting Followers each only apply to cohorts and followers respectively.
Insanely smart perhaps, but i wouldn't rank an ability CHA 7 (-2 mod) as socially retarded, same as i wouldn't rank an INT 14 (+2 mod) as a genius. It's a common misapprehension with ability scores imho, to exaggerate negative scores.
Ok, let me take you way way back to 1st edition. We did this too. We built strongholds and got followers. We started businesses, built temples, founded kingdoms, etc. But in the midst of all this, we started noticing that the differences between henchmen, retainer, followers and just regular old NPC's which we'd forged a friendship with in game started getting really mixed up. The only way we could tell them apart is by labelling them. "So do you want to make X your henchmen?" and we started asking questions like, "Why do we need all these arbitrary distinctions anyway?"
So here is my question to you. Suppose you don't take the leadership feat? What prevents you from going out and attracting an apprentice with old fashioned legwork and role play? Suppose you don't take the leadership feat? What prevents you from opening a store, employing some other mage to work there, and developing a friendship with your employee so that he trusts and admires you maybe (at least a little, I mean you do have 7 chr).
Most importantly, what sort of role playing oppurtunity does taking a leadership feat provide, that isn't provided by roleplaying seeking out an apprentice, role playing convincing that apprentice to take you as a master, and so forth? I think you may find that the Leadership feat is actually an alternative to RP, not a facillitator of it.
So maybe it should be more of a thing like it was in 1st edition? Well, the leadership rule is there as a feat, I think, to make this option visible and available to the PCs and easy to incorporate into the game balance. Especially considering the cohort part. Applying your thinking about the followers-percpective I should be able to go into a library, sit there and read all day and gain ranks to knowledge skills without leveling. Sure, it makes sense from a RP perspective, but it's just not the game.
With an Int of 25 you're not trying very hard imho.
I'm maxing int as a true wizard because that's what benefits me the most. I actually rarely get a use for the will save.
What's wrong about having 25 int when you play pathfinder(human+2 bonus to any one ability) in an epic campaign (25 pts in the point buy system and you pick 18 int) giving you 20 to start with, you get +1 int on lvl 4 and buy yourself a headband of vast intelligence +4? Don't nearly all wizards do this?
Surely it must be possible to be as good as possible within the rules without breaking game balance completely?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thanael
What special power would that be? Certainly not being a 7th level wizard, as they could then have just increased the leadership score by 1 in general as then every 7th level PC would have such special power.
Yeah, I actually asked, or meant to ask in my original post anyways, what exactly this means. What would you consider a special power in regards to this bonus?
I'm not sure at all myself, but if I was the DM and it was up to me I would probably say that if not the spellcasting is good enough, the fact that Faegan's amazing will save(brain wired differently thing, savant mind feat) could be it. Same with the monk's raven kick(charge/trip/bull rush fly-kick), the paladin's fascinate ability and overall golden tongue, and the rogue's Combat Trance which in some ways works like a vampire's "torpor" ability or whatchacallit. Amazing speed and whatnot.
But then again I am the sort of DM who basically give my players the benefit of the doubt and then take it as a personal challenge to balance whatever they come up with in game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thanael
I think you have to work out two different Leadership scores. One for the cohort and one for the followers. The bonuses from the tables Attracting Cohorts and Attracting Followers each only apply to cohorts and followers respectively.
Oh, right, tanks for the heads up. Didn't notice that.
To those of you who keep saying Faegan will have a lvl 3 cohort and such. I won't actually. The DM said we qualify for the great renown bonus if we complete the current mission, and frankly, Faegan isn't aloof or cruel or anything. He's just not very charismatic. So I don't think he deserves any extra penalties. In addition, he's fair and generous. Our group gave 16 wagons of treasure back to the town. The mayor stole it all afterwards, but that's hardly our fault. We did in fact go after him, but failed to retrieve the gold, so maybe we get a -1 for a failure, but that seems a bit harsh imo. Faegan isn't a failure overall. He doesn't have a familiar either. He's got a bound ring.
So taking this into consideration for a cohort, I get a cohort only 2 levels behind me in levels, which is the highest lvl attainable for a cohort, with a leadership score of 9 at lvl 7, even if he gets a -1 bonus for failing to retrieve the town's gold.
Sure, the cohort may die and subsequently decrease the lvl of future cohorts, but that's an acceptable risk. Faegan will take good care of his apprentice.
Last edited by Dzyu; 15th October 2009 at 05:05 PM..
First of all, to those that keep using Raistlin as an example of an anti-social but very inteligent mage with an apprentice.....his apprentice wanted to kill Raistlin from the very moment he became an apprentice. Imagine what a player (basically playing Raistlin) would say if you had the cohort attempt to murder the PC? Even though as DM I think that would be fantastic, we all know the player is going to flip out like a ninja and cut someones head off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pawsplay
My concern is that the GM is essentially telling the player what his character concept is.
I completely agree with you. I wasn't saying the DM was right in what he was saying. I was trying to first figure out the DMs thought process since he's not here to explain himself. Then I'm assuming to know where he's coming from and trying to justify his logic towards his players request (even though I still think he's overstepping his boundaries as DM).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzyu
My intent is for him to realize that what I say ISN'T stupid and ridiculous, as he has mentioned several times. A DM shouldn't get personal when a player argues with him about rules.
You're absolutely correct. And I don't think your request is stupid. There is no reason you can't take the feat. But....
Quote:
About the overpowered part.
the campaign is obviously a bit Monty Haul-ish...that's fine if that is what is expected from the group. Here's where I see the problem:
You said the DM is fairly new at DMing. Try to put yourself in his shoes so you can figure out why he's randomly banning or approving feats/spells. He's still getting a feel for running a game. One of the biggest mistakes new DMs make is getting excited about all the eyecandy and allowing PCs to get overpowered so he can also use overpowered NPCs. Then when the PCs are badass and smashing through his encounters, he gets a bit jealous because he's not feeling very badass himself...his special powers and eyecandy that he thought was gonna be fun to play with aren't as powerful against the PCs as he expected!
The DM is still a D&D player also, he wants to have fun with his NPCs power. He may not want to kill the PCs, but he still wants to rough em up a bit. It's part of the fun of the game. When there's a powergamed PC that just coasts through encounters, it can make it less fun for a lot of DMs...maybe you can relate as a DM.
I'll guarantee this is why your DM is being flakey with feats & spells. He's probably regretting all the power he's given you guys now. But he's trying to deal with it by making restrictions in the middle of the campaign. I mean, isn't it funny that every single PC has all these custom feats, epic point buys, and he let you have a +4 headband at level 7? But then he restricts a few legitimate feats and spells? Why? Because they are overpowered? The PCs were given much more overpowered feats that he created! That makes no sense
Quote:
Actually, getting charisma-increasing magic items should not be a big problem...
And this is exactly what I was expecting to hear! I was drinking tea and tapping my feet while I waited to hear this exact response.
Powergamers always start out with a character concept in mind even though they usually don't roleplay it. Then later in the game when they think of a new "power" but it contradicts their character concept, rather than not doing it because it won't fit their original character concept, they try to think of reasons why it can be worked into their character concept so they can powergame.
So you told the DM that your character is gonna have all these flaws (mainly because you wanted to have an extremely high Int, not because you thought a flawed PC would be fun to roleplay). So he thinks, "hey, this might be an interesting character. I can't wait to see how he roleplays this guy in game". Then, he makes up a feat so you aren't a crippled 1-trick pony (which actually makes you way more powerful rather than just having a reasonable Will save). Then, being a powergamer, you know how strong the leadership feat can be. But this doesn't fit your character concept, so you come up with an explanation for how it could fit. You try to down play it by saying that you have a low Cha score, so the feat won't be as powergamey, but what you really intend to do is eventually boost that Cha score up so you can gain more followers and you are already aware of powers that will give you the same level of cohort you'd have if you didn't have a low Cha score.
Quote:
Sure, the cohort may die and subsequently decrease the lvl of future cohorts, but that's an acceptable risk. Faegan will take good care of his apprentice.
I mean come on, you really can't figure out why your DM might have a problem with you taking the leadership feat? Really?
I'm not blaming you for anything at all...I blame the DM for letting your game get to this point. But I am shaking my finger at you because you know what you're doing, you know why your DM is suddenly tripping, and as a fellow DM, you should know better
The GM does not really have the prerogative to say,
"This character is not that combat-oriented, you cannot take Weapon Focus."
"This character is not that diplomatic, you cannot take Skill Focus (Diplomacy)."
"This character prefers wands to staves, he would never spend that much on a staff."
"This characters is not that sneaky, he can't take a level of Rogue."
Sure. Although I do think he has the prerogative to say,
"This character is not a fighter, so you cannot take Weapon Focus, because I've decided that it's a fighter-only feat in my game."
"This character is not that diplomatic, you cannot do an Aid Another for a Diplomacy roll, because I've instituted a minimum Diplomacy score for doing such Aid Another checks."
"This character's Double Wand Wielder feat works only for wands, I won't allow it to work with staves."
"This character doesn't have a Dexterity of 14, which I've house-ruled to be the minimum Dexterity allowed for taking the rogue class, so he can't take a level of Rogue."
I'm not suggesting that what I've written is accurately depicting the tenor of the OP's DM, just that we don't really know, and your scenario is as likely as mine. My suspicion is that it's actually neither mindset. I continue to think that a player who comes to En World and posts about "arguing with my DM" and offhandedly mentions his 25 Int at level 7 and how he's got a custom feat that applies that Int bonus to Will saves and oh by the way the DM is mean for not allowing even more stuff... well, I think there is some entitlement going on there. I think the DM is probably exasperated, and I think that's what is really playing out at their gaming table.
I feel that whether the player is acting from a sense of entitlement is irrelevant. In my view, it's the job of the GM to provide a coherent environment in which storytelling aspects and game mechanics work together. I can't see arbitrarily (yes, arbitrarily) restricting this feat as anything other than introducing a disruptive ruling into the game. It will not satisfy the player's character concept, and it will not help balance.
Stating that it's the GM's prerorogative to define the rules is circular... that authority is what makes them the GM. I cannot help noticing, aboyd, that none of the hypothetical examples you gave flies in the face of logic... unlike, for instance, deciding that an un-charismatic genius cannot acquire loyal cohorts. Since I don't know how dual wand use works, exactly, I can accept that the techniques don't apply to staffs, and modifying the Diplomacy rules presumably has some expected payoff in terms of improving the game.
"I think a genius but socially inept wizard having loyal followers is stupid," doesn't quite have the same force of logic behind it. I've seen d20 games with abilities like Genius Leadership and such that allow you to use your Int instead of Cha for attracting followers, on the basis that your reputation and penchant for being right overrides your unimpressive personal presentation.
Most of the time he listens to my advice, but lately it seems he's been putting his foot down and saying no seemingly just for the reason of excersizing power as a DM, despite all logic presented.
OK, so he's tired of you pushing him. Maybe you should take the hint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzyu
Another thing is he's decreed that besides from the core book anything we want to use from 3.5 rulebooks such as spell compendium and other books must go through him every time. As such I've been approaching him on a daily basis asking for feats from this book and spells from that book. I'm guessing he feels I ask for much and so has put his foot down just for the sake of saying no some times.
So he's feeling overwhelmed, and he's taken a step to reign it in, and you've basically pressured him over & over again, to the point of (by your own words) daily nagging until he starts saying no "just for the sake of saying no."
If you're such a senior DM, you ought to have respected his need to reign it in, and you ought to have been a shining example of a player who uses only the core books.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzyu
I've actually linked this to him, and if he's a good DM he will reconsider. I know I would, but I started DMing 15 years ago and have a tad bit more experience.
God. That's not loaded at all. Nope. Not at all. He'll feel great that you've essentially gone on record stating that he either does it your way or he sucks as a DM. Excellent. Well, when he comes here to read this stuff, he can also read my response: Dude, your "player with 15 years experience as a DM" is playing you, and is rude to put you between a rock & a hard place like this, and if you feel put upon, you are right to feel that way. Frankly, I would give this player the boot. He's manipulating you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzyu
Actually, getting charisma-increasing magic items should not be a big problem... What is more followers gonna help when your cohort is at max level anyway? Even with 7 charisma I'll get the "great renown" and "guildhouse" bonuses. Add to that "special power" and "fairness and generosity" and I'll have +6. Subtract aloofness and moves around alot, which are possible negative modifiers, and maybe even followers of different alignment, and I've got +3 left. That's a leadership score of 10 on my current lvl, and enough for a max lvl cohort.
My point is that gold possibly spent on charisma-items, while seemingly imba, costs alot! It's better spent on a +6 headband of int, tomes of int and the like. The headband of mental prowess costs too much. Maybe I'll invest in an ioun stone of charisma though.
Ah. So you've asked the DM for an inch, but you're already planning to take a mile. Wow.
Look, you're using your experience as a DM, and his inexperience as a DM, to backseat drive. You want to be a player, then play and stop trying to make this guy your puppet.
Look, you're using your experience as a DM, and his inexperience as a DM, to backseat drive. You want to be a player, then play and stop trying to make this guy your puppet.
Amen.
I read that post and I went from thinking that it was bad DMing (changing the rules midgame) to a problem player in hurry.
I should add that changing the rules midgame without gaining the consent of the player is the only part of this that I disagree with the DM on. I think the DM has every right to say, "Leadership now has a minimum CHR of 9 as a prerequisite. You can look for an apprentice who is motivated to learn under your tutelege, but such an apprentice will likely be just a basically self-interest NPC who wants something from you, not a loyal follower who is devoted to you.", but I don't think that a DM should spring this on a player in reponse to the player trying to take the leadership feat if only because doing that is going to lead to conflict. Even if I thought the Leadership feat bad (which I do), its not worth the disruption at the table to fight for my opinion here, and the best thing to do is make the most of it.
However, the more the player in this exchange talks, the more clear it is that he tries to brow beat the DM over every decision which removes all sympathy I have for him, and frankly, I don't think he deserves to sit at the DM's table. He can take his 15 years of experience, shove off, and go find some players.
__________________ Shameless plug for my current Enworld project. Learn more than you ever wanted about the Slaad Lords here.
New updates semi-regularly. Please stop in. Feedback, positive or negative, much appreciated.
Last edited by Celebrim; 15th October 2009 at 08:36 PM..
Ah. So you've asked the DM for an inch, but you're already planning to take a mile. Wow.
That is exactly what my last post was trying to say...only in a lot more long-winded way
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celebrim
I read that post and I went from thinking that it was bad DMing (changing the rules midgame) to a problem player in hurry.
Yup, I came to the same conclusion. Only I still think it's both bad DMing (but that's ok, he's still learning) and a problem player (he's been playing at least 15 years, he should know better).
Now I really hope the DM reads this thread so people can give him some advice on how to handle his powergaming player. What's even funnier is, the OP probably linked this thread to his DM to prove that he's right and should be allowed to take advantage of him. I hope the DM will walk away realizing that his player is right...but he's being a problem player and should let the DM do his thing for the better of the game.
It doesn't really matter though. If a game gets to the point where a player is coming online to bitch about his DM, that game is going to implode pretty soon anyway. Everyone in the group is to blame in this case. And unless they all do an overhaul on their characters and the campaign mechanics, that campaign isn't going to survive. That's just what happens when you give too much and the players want to take even more.
I was drinking tea and tapping my feet while I waited to hear this exact response.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
