NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elf Witch" data-source="post: 6404051" data-attributes="member: 9037">I am a female but I don't take offense if I am called he on a forum. In Pathfinder gunpowder is an optional rule. As it should be. Not everyone want gunpowder in their fantasy settings because it changes so much. The reason plate armor disappeared was once gunpowder and bullets were invented it did provide protection and it was better to have more mobility. I have used gunpowder in some of my games but it fit the theme one was three musketeers style game and one was a 7 Seas pirate game.  The adventure path was an older one before they created the class of gunslinger there was no gunpowder in it at all. This DM had only ever run one game before and it turned into a  disaster because she made a lot of bad calls when allowing things into the game. It was K who convinced her that it would not be broken to allow the warlock to use two weapon fighting to cast four eldritch blast around and allow all these extra thing for his character from different prestige classes and feats from third party that basically at 6 level gave him an AC of 35, allowed him the ability to shadowwalk which he used as part of rogue to do sneak attacks. By the time we hit 10 level those two players dominated the game to the point that the rest of us could not keep up. The DM was going crazy trying to balance the game so that you could challenge everyone and everyone got a chance to sometimes shine in combat. But she couldn't if it was challenging enough for those two the rest of us either came close to dying or died. I died several times in the game but those guys hardly ever got reduced to 0 HP If she aimed the challenge to our level  they cake walked over it and and the challenge often ended in two rounds. A more experienced DM would have known that it is a mistake to allow magic users to get a lot of extra spells around also an experienced DM would have had more skills in balancing a party of such different power levels. Like I said you learn by doing and by starting with the basics.   The game was only really fun for those two players the rest of us including the DM were not having that much fun. To try and fix this she tried talking to the players and asking if they would be willing to work with her to scale back the power of their PCs. The warlock grudgingly agreed but made it plain that he was not happy the other player K said no he would rather just bring a new PC in the game. Which he did a character he didn't like so he made sure we all knew that he was unhappy a few weeks later the DM again made an excuse and ended the game. That was the end of 2012 it took her a year to get the courage up again to run. Since Pathfinder was new to her she wanted to keep things simple core only no prestige classes no third party books. She felt that she needed to understand how a game works so she could judge if something was broken. This is how you learn something starting with the basics. No one forced K to play a cleric no one forced him to play in this game there was no social pressure that if he didn't play he was a bad person. People in our group sometimes sit out games for a variety of reasons. No one is ever perfectt we all have negative things about us things that our family and friends accept. K is a wonderful human being. If I was in trouble he would be on the top of my list to go to. He can be very supportive and kind. He is a great Shadowrun DM but after playing with him since 1996 I don't enjoy playing with him at the table in a DnD game. He can be sulky if he doesn't get his way. He feels he has the right to hassle other players on their role playing choices. He hates any party conflict unless he is the one doing it. He is very set in his way on how the game should be played.Further story about that game I didn't play the paladin because of K he felt that regardless of the official stance on paladins dealing with demons and devils not being evil in this world. K would not accept it he argued that it made me evil hence my alignment would be evil and he would not willing adventure with an evil PC. The DM sent him oodles of literature from the Pazio forums and from the game designers on this subject explaining how it works in this world. That this was for this game and this world only. But he wouldn't budge and once he made the decision to play a cleric he made it clear that if I brought the paladin in he would not treat me if I became injured and he would eventually take my PC out. He didn't see this as being a jerk he saw it as playing the game properly. The DM told me I didn't have to change my idea but I chose to because I wanted to make this game go smoothly for her. You are right HardcoreDandDGirl he was not having fun he was angry over the gunslinger, I think he felt a little bad about me not playing the character I wanted too, he was still carrying a grudge over the last game, he was having issues at work, issues at home. He was not in a good head space. So he was angry, surly and he was sharp with the DM and with the rest of us. He even managed to piss off his best friend and they had a nasty argument that ended a session. We all private talks about what to do. None of us wanted to kick him out we knew he would take it bad with everything else that was going on. We came up with ways to deal with his moods. Because at the end of the day he was more important than the game. But for the DM it grew to be to much.This newbie DM has told me she does not think she is suited to be a DM and will not run again because she was unable to make a game where every one had a good time. The other day I noticed her throwing out all her notes and things she had in mind if she ever ran a homebrew.  I think it is sad that the game has lot a DM there are not as many of DM as there are players. And she had the potential to be a great DM if given a chance to learn the game at the pace she needed to learn it. I think you are overly critical HardcoreDandDGirl  with your judgement that she was in the wrong because she didn't feel ready to run a full Pathfinder game with all the extra bells and whistles. It is no different than making a new player play a wizard instead of a fighter when they don't feel ready to handle the complexities of the magic system.Twosix I totally disagree with the statement that you have to 100% of the time let a player play a supplement. There a lot of reasons why saying no can be a valid choice. Take the player K once you let him play something and it does not work out he resents bitterly being asked to redo his character. I have allowed things in I was not sure of because I knew the player and knew if it turned out to not work they would be okay with listening and helping make it work or redoing their characters.There is no hard fast rule for this and so much depends on the DM and the players and the setting they agreed to play.GMforpowergamers just because you had a different but similar situation does not make it that there is only one right answer. From what I read your DM was in the wrong with what he did with your character. But it is not the same because while she banned anything but core she didn't tell them how to build their characters as long they used the rules in the core book.</blockquote>

Verification