Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6715743" data-attributes="member: 6681948">CAVEAT  I started writing this, got distracted and returned.  Greenfield posted his next post between, so I'm amending to cover that as well, but will likely miss something.I think the perception is that the player is choosing an air elemental rather than a water elemental because he sees some power advantage in doing so.  I’m not sure I see the advantage, nor am I seeing the air elemental as inappropriate by default.I also think most characters have an element of selection of abilities for character power.  I doubt any of the players have an 8 STR fighter or a caster with a casting stat of 12.  I doubt any selected levels in Warrior or Commoner to better portray the story of their rise to greatness from the humblest of roots.  Greenfield acknowledges this as well in his latest post.To get a bit closer to this issue, I cannot ever recall seeing a Raven selected as a familiar.  Who cares about Appraise?  Owls, hawks and bats can fly and their bonuses go to more commonly used skills.  It doesn’t mean the players of most wizards selecting a familiar other than a raven are unrepentant min-maxers.At the end of the day, unless the other player gets to dictate how I build my character, I don’t see where I have the right to dictate how he builds his.  We may choose different measures of character optimization.  Perhaps we have different visions on the story appropriateness of this choice of familiar.  Perhaps we have different stories we want our characters to tell!From older threads, Problem Child has presented ample evidence of power gamer tendencies.  Enough that every choice he makes now seems assumed to be for power gaming.  I’m just asking if, perhaps, the view is now so coloured that there is no way the player can ever be perceived as making a reasonable character choice.What I do find disconcerting is the lack of a detailed character review.  No matter how charitably one interprets the history, this fellow has consistently demonstrated his grasp of the rules (RAW and House) falls well short of providing confidence his character is accurately constructed.  With that in mind, a full detailed review is, in my view, somewhere between "appropriate" and "essential".  This will let any issues be ID'd before the character is well into play so he can fix, or change, any elements that are problematic.  Practically, a review on each level up also seems appropriate.  Whether that applies for everyone in the group, or only those whose past issues show it is needed, his characters clearly need ongoing review.Does it really matter if he gets the Air Elemental as a precursor to the PrC or vice versa?  It would not matter to me.    Practically, sitting down and helping him with a backstory that covers off why he sees the other character as a sister, and what motivates an aquatic character to an air motif seems like a worthwhile endeavour, especially with no one seeming to want to boot him.  Or challenge him - if he writes the backstory, and the DM's agree it's reasonable (majority rule; maybe unanimous with Greenfield sitting out), then his relationship to his "sister" is accepted as a reason to bequeathe her property to him.If he's a bit more powerful than the other PC's, but it gets him more in tune with the story focus the other players want, maybe that's not a bad tradeoff.  No one's getting a lot of loot near term anyway, as I understand it, so the "overpowered" gear will be grown into anyway - and I suspect his former character's gear won't be perfectly suited to the new character anyway.Ultimately, though, I think the issues have to get aired - no one will win by letting them fester.  That doesn't have to mean an expulsion vote, but I think the issues have to be maturely discussed if any satisfactory resolution is to be reached.  Without it, you will just keep getting more frustrated.</blockquote>

Verification