PDA

View Full Version : My DM doesn't trust me



Pink
2011-09-28, 02:47 PM
So, my DM doesn't trust me to create a character that won't 'break the game'. Despite the fact that I've played with him for over a year and there has never been an incident from my characters.

The main problem of this stems from the fact that I'm the optimizer of the group. Now I do want to make this clear, I optimize, min-max even depending on your definition, but I do not munchkin. I build characters that are effective in their roles, I don't build something that is a deliberate attempt to see how powerful I can make something, or trying to make a one-man wrecking crew. But if I'm playing a caster, you can bet that casting stat is gonna be high, likewise for a fighter's strength and a finesse character's dex. But I make sure to follow the rule of "don't be a ****", so there has never been a problem of me taking away the fun of other players or showing them up, if anything they enjoy having someone who is solid with the mechanics of the game, can give them build advice, and can perform reliably on the battle field.

I think another thing is that he plays in a game I DM, and there have been some instances where I disallow something in my game, only to turn around and ask for it in his. Too lazy to go into this in too much detail right now, but part of this is more the fact that when you ask something from him its hard to get a concrete answer. If I get a solid no from a DM, that's all I need to drop something no further asking or argueing, but if I get a 'what's that?' or 'what are you gonna do with it', I'm gonna give my pitch, and I'm pretty persuasive. And then, once I do have that ability, even if its no problem, there's the high chance that he will need it or take it away later because he suddenly feels its too much, or happened to read where its part of a munchkin build, and because of the potential, will take it away instead of allowing me to continue using it responsibly, like I have been for the past 10 sessions.

The worst example of this was when, due to the group having no arcane caster or divine caster, I started to make a mystic theurge. And I should note, I was doing this from level one. When I was level 6, just about to take my first level of mystic theurge, he decided to change his mind and restat my character as either a full wizard or full cleric. I tried to explain how this would actually make me more powerful, I tried to explain how, for the most part, I'm still limited to one spell a turn, but he basically wanted vanilla instead of something that he felt I could potentially use to become a god.

Basically, I'm at a loss about what I can do at this point, and as we roll up new characters to start a new campaign, its getting a bit frustrating to create something that seems fine to him, but doesn't feel like I'm deliberately limiting myself. Basically, it's like if one player offered a character build that is exactly like one of my level, I have a feeling that he'd allow it and be impressed that they were getting the mechanics of the game, but if I wanted to do it, he'd nerf an ability or feat and constantly be treating me like I'm gonna turn into a Pun-Pun when he's not looking and say 'I destroy the world'. It gets worse when we get higher levels and he doesn't seem to get that, yes, at higher levels we do get some pretty powerful abilities.

Shadowknight12
2011-09-28, 02:54 PM
Been there, done that, went through all the crap.

Save yourself the hassle: ditch the DM. It doesn't matter what you do, he'll never actually trust you. Everything you do will be confirmation of his beliefs.

If you play something good at what you do, it'll be confirming that you're a munchkin. If you play something bad at what you do, he'll think you're trying to trick him. If you play something in between, he'll think you're biding your time to pull a fast one on him, or that you've concealed your true motives and he's missed some part of your build that will blossom later.

You can't win this fight. So I'd advise you to sit down and work things out with him so that he'll finally agree to trust you, or walk out. Otherwise, you're in for a lot of frustration.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-09-28, 02:57 PM
{Scrubbed}

Anderlith
2011-09-28, 02:59 PM
Quit.

If you cannot convince him to allow you your right to craft your own character just quit. If you really want to play though, ask him to make up a character for you. Just give him your theme, i.e. fighter with a twohander, a wizard that specializes in abjuration, etc. Then play the heck out of it, make him see that it is the player & not the character that wins.

(Plus since he seems not to know much about the mechanics of the game (thinking a Mystic Theurge is OP for example) you could probably exploit a few things like a tricky spell & such that he is unaware of)

Narren
2011-09-28, 03:30 PM
Just curious, what do you ask for in his games that you disallow in yours? That isn't an inherently bad thing as some games have different "themes" going for them, and don't necessarily need to have the same rules in them...but it stuck out to me.

Pink
2011-09-28, 03:34 PM
*sigh*
Quitting is something I'd like to avoid if I could. The group is a fun group of guys, and in play there's rarely a problem (though there was the one time I scored a crit for 84 damage that basically one-shotted a boss. In fairness though, the heavy pick axe (x4 crit mod) was something I looted, not something I picked for myself.) It's mostly on char gen and level up.

I may need to consider the 'you make my character thing'. Honestly the longer this goes on the more I'm tempted to crank the min-max to the extreme and show him what true munchkinry is about.

Again, a big part may be that I DM a bit differently from him, and when I DM, I'm not always gonna go into huge detail on why I'm allowing or disallowing things. I truly believe that situationally, I would allow in my games everything I propose were I in his seat.

An example is that, in my current game that he's in, I disallowed leadership. It's a party of five players, very well balanced and lacking in no particular resource, and the theme of the campaign is a 1-20 dungeon crawl. The player asking for it was a decent optimizer on his own who was already playing a cha based full caster (Oracle). I felt that there wasn't anything it would add that was needed, and a high chance the player might be using it to become a one-man party. He also didn't particularly say what he wanted the cohort for.

In comparison, in his game, the mystic theurge was restatted as a cleric. Level seven comes around, and not only are we missing some utility from having no arcane caster, we also haven't been close enough to a big centre to turn our many many golds into well needed items. I asked for leadership to recruit a wizard cohort to be a magic toolbox and crafting machine basically. I did offer to have the GM stat him out, but as a wizard is a big chore to do, I offered to do it as well. Now I'm a dwarven cleric, I have a negative charisma, my leadership score is barely enough to get this guy at two levels below us, and he'll likely fall behind later.
I reasonably wait in game until we get to a settlement where we can find the guy (10 sessions and two levels after I get the feat), and though the wizard cohort never gets used in combat, basically only does crafting for the party, DM just seems disgusted that, if I was a ****, which I have never been, I could be quite powerful if my character and cohort went into battle mode. Eventually I just suicide charge the cleric and roll up a cavalier.

Anyway, its one of the things he likes to bring up. That I would ask for something I wouldn't allow in my own game. Leadership is tricky to adjudicate, but if there was a player taking it purely to fill in a missing party role (no one wanted to play healer or rogue) and they're gonna be responsible, I'm certainly open to it. Setting can make a big difference too if a player wants to make use of followers.

RandomNPC
2011-09-28, 03:37 PM
Ditch, or build a core wizard and break the game. You could always send DM a link to this page also, but I've found having my gamers not be on the same message boards as I am is actually helpful for idea farming.

Pigkappa
2011-09-28, 03:45 PM
If necessary, do this:

ask him to make up a character for you.



In any case, don't do this:

build a core wizard and break the game.



Anyway, I really can't see how someone can be unable to build a weak character. It's easy. Play a core only fighter using shields. You will be constantly be challenged by playing your character effectively, and if you are the most experienced in the group you will likely do decently good anyway.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-09-28, 03:48 PM
If a cleric can't do utility things or item crafting and you have to have a wizard, than they're Doing it Wrong, or at least sub-optimally. Clerics are fully capable of taking item crafting feats and using spells like Air Walk and Water Walk and Summon Monster and Darkness and Daylight and Cleric's Feather Fall.

Pink
2011-09-28, 04:01 PM
Anyway, I really can't see how someone can be unable to build a weak character. It's easy. Play a core only fighter using shields. You will be constantly be challenged by playing your character effectively, and if you are the most experienced in the group you will likely do decently good anyway.

It's not that it'd be hard to make a weak character (fighter with 18 cha in point buy), so much as it changes things from "playing what I want to play" to "playing what I'm allowed, even if I don't want to play that."

There's also the fact that, I'm the type that likes to fill in a missing role. Right now the party is Monk, Fighter, Inquisitor, and Cleric. The current character I'm trying to sell is a goblin rogue. Yes, my starting dex is 22. My next highest stat is a 12, point buy makes sacrifices. Yes goblins get an inherent +8 stealth check. Yes, if I wanted to cheese it, I could have a stealth bonus of above twenty. But I'm not. Nor do I plan to be 'constantly hiding, even if that was possible. I'm not gonna be a ****. I just want to be a funny green small creature with a shiv that's good at what he does, and whose personality will likely mean that, even if he is awesome at sneaking, he's probably not gonna do it much. Shouldn't me saying "Yes, I realize this build is amazing at stealth, but if that bothers you I'm likely to be more about skirmishing and running up to stab enemies than hiding in bushes" be enough?

Pink
2011-09-28, 04:04 PM
If a cleric can't do utility things or item crafting and you have to have a wizard, than they're Doing it Wrong, or at least sub-optimally. Clerics are fully capable of taking item crafting feats and using spells like Air Walk and Water Walk and Summon Monster and Darkness and Daylight and Cleric's Feather Fall.
I was the cleric. This was more-so me trying to be, 'I don't want to have to restat again to swap my feats out for item creation, I want to have a character of my own that's still fun, and this allows us to have a minion that has the menial role none of us want to play.'

Volos
2011-09-28, 04:15 PM
I had this exact same problem in trying to be a player with my group. I'm usually the DM and my mastery of the system (3.5 and Pathfinder) is such that my players tend to fear NPCs. I don't optimize anything on my half of the DM's screen, but since lucky dice rolls and careful planning have made for many challenging encounters my players just get paranoid. I'm fine with this, a scared group of players is having more fun than an fearless group of players (fearless since they 'know' the DM won't kill their characters).

But when one of my players tries to DM for the first time I'm suddenly not allowed to run anything more powerful than an improvised weapon monk with low Wis and Dex. I hadn't broken anything yet, but the player turned DM decided that I was 'just going to". So he hands me a premade character. I'm not really offended yet, I figure this could be a good chance to play a character I never had before. So the first combat happens... and every single monster is targeting my character. Mind you I look like a beggar and I don't have a weapon. He claims they can sense my 'power' or some such. So I defend myself and wait for the rest of the party to mop the baddies up. But the same thing happens the next combat, and the next... and it never stops. I have an AC around 14 when in Total Defense, and my chance to hit as a first level character hovers around -6 with a chance to do 1d4-2 damage once (I can't flurry with an improvised weapon and for some reason I'm not allowed to punch or kick people). I tried talking to my DM about this, but he said it was 'fair' to the rest of the group. Mind you I've never played with him before. So I let my character die, just have him killed by the next wave of baddies. He lets me roll up a character real quick rather than having me sit there for the whole session. So I roll up a commoner. Yes, a commoner. I give myself zero starting gold, and I take flaws without getting feats for them. My only weapons? Amazing roleplaying, 18 Cha, Skill Focus (Diplomacy), and Persuasive. I talk my way out of everything and/or talk people into aiding me for the combat I can't avoid. After ruining his plot by revealing the big bad's evil plan (I used a feat from PHBII to make him reveal his plans, it's some diplomacy feat) I walk out. He still claims that I'm a broken optimizer.

So anyways... You could choose to play a Tier 1 Caster as the "God" role for the party. The "God" role of course being the one who has complete battlefield control but allows the rest of the party think it is their own abilites that is making them win, not the intervention of the "God" caster. You could be insanely broken without having access to anything your inexperienced DM thinks is broken.

Traab
2011-09-28, 04:34 PM
Offer to sign a contract stating that you will not ever use the potentially broken skill in a broken way. :p Maybe that will finally set his paranoia to rest. Paranoia is what he seems to be filled with, he seems to see the potential for totally broken play, and so he feels that you will break that out and ruin things. The problem is, there is probably a world breaking bit of optimization you could do with virtually any class combo. So he will remain paranoid no matter how far backwards you bend.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-09-28, 04:43 PM
Offer to sign a contract stating that you will not ever use the potentially broken skill in a broken way. :p Maybe that will finally set his paranoia to rest. Paranoia is what he seems to be filled with, he seems to see the potential for totally broken play, and so he feels that you will break that out and ruin things. The problem is, there is probably a world breaking bit of optimization you could do with virtually any class combo. So he will remain paranoid no matter how far backwards you bend.

Yep. DM sounds like the type to think:
When you say you want to play a dual-wielding fighter: "He's gonna use the lightning maces plus aptitude kukris trick!"
When your bararian has Power Attack: "He's gonna build the übercharger!"
When you want to play a Marshall: "He's gonna build Bubs!"

NecroRebel
2011-09-28, 04:44 PM
I notice that you never mentioned having talked to your DM about this issue. Have you talked to your DM about this issue? I mean, just saying, "Hey, you seem to think that I'm going to intentionally break the game despite me never trying to break the game. Why is that?" Alternatively, tell him what you've told us. Good, open communication tends to facilitate understanding and helps to defuse conflicts, so if you want your DM to know about the issue that you're having, communicating it openly is a wise course of action.

Pink
2011-09-28, 04:57 PM
I notice that you never mentioned having talked to your DM about this issue. Have you talked to your DM about this issue? I mean, just saying, "Hey, you seem to think that I'm going to intentionally break the game despite me never trying to break the game. Why is that?" Alternatively, tell him what you've told us. Good, open communication tends to facilitate understanding and helps to defuse conflicts, so if you want your DM to know about the issue that you're having, communicating it openly is a wise course of action.

I have talked at fair length about it, no official strategy to the talks though, just trying to get him to see the light. Last night we finished the game at midnight, and I stood outside talking to him until 2:15. It's not like he's angry or anything, he just doesn't want me to build something 'broken', and doesn't trust me when I say I won't, and I really don't know what I can say to that. He even likes that I'm rules savvy, he just feels that I only use it to player benefit, and never mention when he can better use the rules to his advantage. To this I responded that I don't necessarily know what's going on behind the screen, and personally I DM two games a week, I don't want to be coaching my DM and paying as much attention to what he's doing. It may be a bit selfish that I only give advice to the party, but its not that unusual to not want to give advice on how to kill your character. That being said, if he asks me a rules question I'll answer it impartially as correctly as I can, even if its to the enemy benefit.

Basically, he would rather have me as a co-DM, and I just want to be free to play.

Yuki Akuma
2011-09-28, 05:13 PM
Show him this thread.

Jornophelanthas
2011-09-28, 05:41 PM
I have talked at fair length about it, no official strategy to the talks though, just trying to get him to see the light. Last night we finished the game at midnight, and I stood outside talking to him until 2:15. It's not like he's angry or anything, he just doesn't want me to build something 'broken', and doesn't trust me when I say I won't, and I really don't know what I can say to that. He even likes that I'm rules savvy, he just feels that I only use it to player benefit, and never mention when he can better use the rules to his advantage. To this I responded that I don't necessarily know what's going on behind the screen, and personally I DM two games a week, I don't want to be coaching my DM and paying as much attention to what he's doing. It may be a bit selfish that I only give advice to the party, but its not that unusual to not want to give advice on how to kill your character. That being said, if he asks me a rules question I'll answer it impartially as correctly as I can, even if its to the enemy benefit.

Basically, he would rather have me as a co-DM, and I just want to be free to play.

How I read your account of his position, is that he feels intimidated by your presence. Not in an unfriendly way, but in an "Oh-no-I'm-DMing-for-Pink-and-Pink-is-such-a-great-DM-and-I'm-trying-to-be-just-as-good-a-DM-but-who-am-I-kidding-really-I-can-never-be-that-good" kind of way. The guy is so much in awe of your (perceived) mastery of D&D that your participation in his game is making him insecure. So he overcompensates by being draconian to you. And he likely doesn't even realize (or would care to admit) that this is the reason.

It sounds like quitting the game is the biggest favor you can do for him, even if he doesn't know it, since it would allow him to actually develop confidence as a DM. As long as you're at the table, he'll (unconsciously) keep deferring to you.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2011-09-28, 06:04 PM
Armchair psychology aside, you could offer to have another player make the character for you if you don't want the DM to make the character for you. Just make sure the DM knows you didn't coach the other player on specific points. That said, this is a bandaid. If the DM doesn't trust you, that's a pretty steep obstacle that you're going to have to deal with eventually. From your perspective, it seems like his problem; if that's the case, maybe he's not fit to DM. What do the other players think?

Nidogg
2011-09-28, 06:24 PM
Trusting you (as the player) is a big leap for the DM, after all it is your job to foil his plans from the start. However, if he cant do that after a year, then he needs a bit of help. Have spare caracter sheets (for when he finds fault with yours) and telll him your character concept, and your max damage as he sounds the type to base things on damage and not one shot kills like flesh to stone. Always have somthing else up your sleeve though, telling your dM that "Im an Ice elementalist!) is gonna get you landed in a room full of white dragons.

Sudain
2011-09-28, 07:55 PM
Try volunteering information/rules that would actively hamper/hurt the party. You've got the knowledge, if you never volunteer the knowledge on your DM behalf you don't address his point - you are only using it for player benefit.

It may also help to be more verbose in your games and explain why you allow or disallow specific things. If it bogs down the game play too much as you do it remember to take him aside and explain your reasoning.

Rixx
2011-09-28, 08:16 PM
I had a similar problem once. I kept punching a friend of mine (only lightly), and he kept complaining that I hit him too hard. So one time I just wound up for a huge haymaker and broke his jaw. That convinced him that I didn't punch too hard before, and now we're all clear on things.

(Don't deliberately break the game to try and convince him you're not being a munchkin.)

Vortling
2011-09-28, 08:21 PM
Have you considered asking him straight up why he doesn't trust you and what it would take to get him to trust you? If he can't put to words or paper why he doesn't trust you to build characters there is a problem. More importantly if he can't articulate what it would take to gain that trust I suggest leaving the game. Otherwise you may want to look into having this DM build your characters for you with basic theme input like suggested upthread.

Anderlith
2011-09-28, 08:35 PM
I had a somewhat similar problem, I never played optimized but I always do something well. In a Starwars Saga game I played a Soldier (with dual heavy blasters or Carbines I'm not sure which)& my GM friend had us adventure, after just a few encounters he saw that I always had an edge in combat because me as a player look at things tactically. I then find myself being singled out in combats & such. It was fine for me because it stepped up the challenge, but the increased firepower that the enemies brought to deal with me kept getting other players screwed when the enemy turned their attention to them, i.e. a Jedi getting gunned down by a droideka when caught out in the open. So I can see were this guy is coming from. If he is inexperienced & you are a highly capable player, his solutions to deal with you can hurt the party. Inexperienced DMs will usually just throw something with more HP & DPS at a party instead of acting in subtle ways to decrease your advantage (You may not think you have an advantage but familiarity with the rules & just being smarter is a big advantage).

Eakin
2011-09-28, 10:15 PM
I notice that you never mentioned having talked to your DM about this issue. Have you talked to your DM about this issue? I mean, just saying, "Hey, you seem to think that I'm going to intentionally break the game despite me never trying to break the game. Why is that?" Alternatively, tell him what you've told us. Good, open communication tends to facilitate understanding and helps to defuse conflicts, so if you want your DM to know about the issue that you're having, communicating it openly is a wise course of action.

99% of the time more communication is better than less.

Talk to him about what sort of character role you are trying to fill and ask him what level of optimization he wants to see his players use. Make him a partner in your character design process, or at least suss out the boundaries of what he's comfortable with and what he fears you're going to do.

Introduce him to the Tier List too, if he's never seen it, and let him point to a level and say "I wanna DM a party like THAT."

TriForce
2011-09-28, 10:37 PM
well, first of all pink, its possible that you are wrong. no offence intended, but i had my share of players who honestly had no wrong intentions and didnt know they were doing it, but still kept making characters that are "spotlight stealers" chars that are good enough to outshine the rest of the party in some way.

now i dont know if thats whats happening with you, but its obvious your DM's intentions are to make sure your character is at around the same power as the rest.

reading your post gave me the impression your DM is not that experienced, and that thats the reason he is easely intimidated by your characters, especially if your making them with stuff he isnt too familiar with.

my suggestion would be to make a "joke" character. forget about min/maxing, and make something unusual. focus on the roleplaying instead of the mechanics of the game. for example, in a party im DM in atm, we have a "utility kobolt" a sorcerer, with as only offencive spell acid splash :P hes obsessed with books of every kind, the player speaks in a squicky voice, and hes absolutly useless in combat and most other situations as well. however, with some creative spellcasting, and me sometimes allowing stuff based on "rule of cool" hes the most fun character in our party, even tough all the great deeds are being done by the rest.

if you do something like that, and your dm STILL doesnt cut you a bit of slack, id say you have a talk, in the line of "this isnt going to work" with him

Dimers
2011-09-28, 11:26 PM
It's not that it'd be hard to make a weak character (fighter with 18 cha in point buy), so much as it changes things from "playing what I want to play" to "playing what I'm allowed, even if I don't want to play that."

Hmm. Sounds like you need to give your DM a solid understanding of your character and let him build it based on that. And since the DM is apparently scared of your powers of persuasion ("if Pink promoted an idea then it must be overpowered"), don't even make positive suggestions, just some vetos of stuff he tries to put in that has nothing to do with your character.


my suggestion would be to make a "joke" character. forget about min/maxing, and make something unusual.

That works too. Um, sometimes -- my last DM was seriously worried that allowing me a high Perform skill (on a non-bard character, for reasons previously shown to be fluff) could somehow break his game. But yeah, if you pick innocuous abilities and try to write a character around those, you could easily end up with something fun that doesn't make the DM feel disturbed.

Based on what little I can see through the internet, I'd say you do make characters unnecessarily threatening to balance. But the fault and the responsibility are ultimately the DM's because it's his emotional hangup, and it's not like somebody else can fix it for him. He punishes you preemptively and that just isn't mature.

Kaun
2011-09-29, 12:44 AM
Correct me if i am wrong, but does he consider it "optimizing" if a character starts with an 18 in its primary stat? Because that's the vibe I'm getting from your comments.

Tavar
2011-09-29, 12:59 AM
I don't think so. At this point, it doesn't matter what Pink does. Heck, I doubt he's even looking at it as optimizing. I'm pretty sure he just feels threatened by her in some way, and is taking it out in game.

Note where it's said that other players who did the same thing wouldn't be nearly as targeted.

Mastikator
2011-09-29, 03:34 AM
If all else fails you could make really weak characters that drag down the rest of the group, and when anyone complains you just say it like it is; the DM is forcing you to make bad characters.

Kaun
2011-09-29, 03:53 AM
If all else fails you could make really weak characters that drag down the rest of the group, and when anyone complains you just say it like it is; the DM is forcing you to make bad characters.

Yeah but then your just punishing yourself and trying to punish others. Its a bit cutting off your nose to spite your face ish

king.com
2011-09-29, 04:01 AM
Heres a simple solution, try and get him to run a game other than D&D, just for a try. That way, you know even less than he does and you can go in blind like everyone else. See how that works.

suhkkaet
2011-09-29, 06:11 AM
Honestly, I'd probably leave the game if a solution containing communication between you and your DM doesn't help.

Alternatively, you can help the other players out with their builds, such that you don't potentially outshine them. This may be a problem for your DM (based on what you've written here), though.
Then there the other alternative, where you help your DM optimize his builds. This may be a problem for your fellow players, though.

And, based on what you've written, both seem to be a lot of unneccesary work that you don't really want, nor have the time, to do.

Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of solutions to your problem. The solutions that exist have already been mentioned. I'd avoid breaking the game to prove the point, and I'd also avoid "dumbing" your character down so much you don't enjoy the game anymore.

Alternatively, talk with the other players and eventually work something out. If that "something" includes replacing the DM, see if that can happen (in a way that doesn't piss off your DM), or bring it out in an open discussion with the entire group (provided the rest of the group cares).

But as others have said;
Allow your DM to be part of building your character, and explain to him what the different things do (or don't do), if he's in doubt. If he says something will break the game, ask him why, and explain to him why not (if that's the case).
If he excuses his veto on something with "it's a DM secret", "it's campaign critical" (or something similarily vague), try to either convince him or let it flow.

Above all, however, do not allow your fun to be limited by a paranoid DM. If he doesn't allow you to do anything that you want to do, quit - find another group.

Tyndmyr
2011-09-29, 09:37 AM
Basically, it's like if one player offered a character build that is exactly like one of my level, I have a feeling that he'd allow it and be impressed that they were getting the mechanics of the game, but if I wanted to do it, he'd nerf an ability or feat and constantly be treating me like I'm gonna turn into a Pun-Pun when he's not looking and say 'I destroy the world'.

Yeah. You're the "other DM". Probably a better DM, in terms of system mastery, at least. So, he likely feels that you easily could whip out something horrifically broken at any time. And, you probably could. Why he doesn't trust you not to is probably mostly a lack of confidence in his own skills.

Perhaps all the players could get together and make chars as a group, with everyone helping everyone else? That might help. Also, ask him for a hard and fast list of what's legal beforehand, citing dissatisfaction with his previous post-hoc changes. Seriously, playing a cleric 3/wizard 3 to get into MT, and then being told you can't do that sucks. Point out that you dislike the retcons, and would much rather have any limitations in advance. On paper, preferably.

Ask him "what kinds of characters would you be comfortable with"? Toss out several ideas that seem interesting to you. If he hates them all, point out that you're trying to be flexible, but he's not entirely giving you a chance.

Also, blatantly demand that everyone have equal char creation. If something is ok for others, it should be ok for you. The on-paper restriction list is designed specifically for this. If he's not willing to commit to a set list of what is and is not allowed, and isn't willing to allow the same things for everyone, you've got a pretty big problem. Send him here, and I will gladly tell him how wrong he is.


It gets worse when we get higher levels and he doesn't seem to get that, yes, at higher levels we do get some pretty powerful abilities.

See, here's where I start to get skeptical about his gauging of power levels and stuff. This is a common problem I've seen among many DMs, including some who have DMed for years.

Some try to fix it with E6, some by nerfing wealth and power until the game eventually collapses, and starting back over at 1, but really, the only fix is to accept that it's normal in the game, and adjust to it. D&D is a game with an inherent power curve.

Long story short, dude needs to step outside his comfort zone and learn the bits of the game he's having problems with. And unfortunately, this is something that can't be forced. Is he a forum-goer? How into D&D is he?

Pink
2011-09-29, 11:05 AM
So many people to reply to.

@ Jornophelanthas: Maybe? It's kinda hard to say, as he's been like this for a while, and while I've been playing in his game for about a year, he's only played in mine for a couple monthes. What's more, he's technically more experienced than me. I've really only DMed for 2.5 years or so, he's possibly got over ten years. That being said, I'm sorta a natural at it (I sorta played 3 sessions of D&d before taking over DMing my first group, to the enjoyment of all), and definately more exposed to the reality of mechanics in the game. There may be a bit of this here.

@ GoodbyeSoberDay: he is qualified to DM, especially in light of the rest of the group. I don't think there's any other major problems from other players, nor do I think anyone else from the group would be willing or more beneficial to step up. Aside from me.

@ Sudain: it shouldn't be my responsibility to run the enemies and such, I do enough of that in my own games. Now, I'm all for giving a rule clarification when asked, and if I see an obvious rule error I'm gonna say so, to the benefit of the party or not. The thing is, I can't see behind the screen to see what the enemies are capable of. I don't know what spells are effecting the baddies, so I can't remind him of the bonus from prayer and bulls strength. And I'm certainly not gonna be aware of what Connie the enemy can do, where as I have a fairly intimate knowledge of party resources, and if there is a glaring flaw in the enemy strategy, I'm gonna say "is it really like that?" A couple times, then I'm gonna take advantage of it. Example: giant warparty, they attack our town and we're following them. They rest for the night, and while they post four sentries, they put them some 80'+ away from the main camp where everyone is sleeping. Nobody is watching sleeping giants. We silence up and windwalk a party member high into the sky, they walk over and into the middle of the camp, and do some mass coup de gracing. Now, to me, if the party thinks of a neat little trick like that, good for them, the enemies were stupid or overconfident enough that its a valid tactic. If I'd have designed it, there would be at least one guard in camp awake, or something like a guard dog with scent, to make things trickier. In this situation, to him it felt like we'd 'broken' the encounter. This was a probably optional encounter (there was no reason to go after them other tuan revenge and to stop their rampage.), and in the aftermath fight with the sentries, two characters died. We made what was probably an impossible encounter if we had fought them all, into something that still caused two casualties, and at the end of it, he still felt like we cheated by doing the coup de grace. And yes, it was all sorta my plan.

Vortling: I believe I did ask him why the other night. Trying to recall his exact response, it was something along the lines of "because you're the munchkin of the group. You know how to break the game."

TriForce: No offense taken. In all honesty, I can pretty much say that I have yet to play a character that dominated the game. This is part of the reason I try to fill Tue void in the party, so that I don't accidently step on the role of someone else, and have tried to avoid a straight arcane caster at the same level of the party. As for the home character, to me that is alright, if I want to play that. Honestly the goblin I'm trying to do is supposed to be like that in being roleplayed, things like finding a trap and walking into it to see what it does anyway, if a particular spell goes off maybe just spending a round watching it, but when it comes to things like being a skittery backstabber, still quite good. But a character that only casts cantrips is gonna get old pretty fast in a 1-20 game, and the group is not high enough roleplaying that I can have much fun if I make a combat useless character.

@ Dimers: punishes preemptively is exactly what it feels like. If my character was outshining the party or making combats trivial, I would be fine to tone down a character. In fact I'd probably have already toned it down myself. How much is it to see how something works in play instead or creating scenarios of abuse in your head that I've already said I'm not going to do.

@ kaun: we're playing pathfinder right now. It's quite easy to start with a 20 in a score. Goblins get a +4 to dex, at the cost of a +0 modifier to stats (most races get a +1). I feel that he does think a starting start above 18 is superhuman and shouldn't be there at first level. Now, is a 22 dex strong? Yep. Is it min-max? Sure. Is it broken? No, not really, less so in the long run. He's actually more nervous about the +14 to stealth (he keeps calling it +18 because "you're gonna put a rank in it eventually), because he feels I'm gonna use it to be constantly hiding, even after protests that, hiding isn't that easy all the time, and this isn't really the most stealth focused character, and its not something I was planning on doing anyway (unless asked by the party to scout ahead or something) because I find it annoying myself to have a player do that, and I don't find it fun to constantly be hiding as a character concept.

@King.com: he has run other games. The thing is right now, the group wants this. We're excited about playing Kingmaker.

I think currently what I'm gonna plan to do is make up a couple characters to submit, and let him choose which one I should play. I may or may not make the character I want to play the weakest of the bunch by comparison, and make the other ones core only to boot. If he can't find any of them acceptable, I'll ask him to just make up a character for me, and see what he makes. If its a rogue with ewp bastard sword, I may go to having a talk to him and either take over the group as DM or leave depending on how I feel.

Thing is, I honestly think that, though he is the DM of the group and has been for a while, I wonder how much of it is being a player who needs to be the DM of the group and resignment to than fact. And I think that this leads to a bit of an expectation that the stuff he controls in game should do better or be more threatening to players. I'm not gonna say he's a killer DM, I've played under one of those and it was horrible (inserting an infrit into a lvl 1-3 beginner module because the kobolds were 'too easy') but he does seem to get disappointed if the enemies don't do much to us (and I'm talking about regular enemies, boss fights in pathfinder modules are deadly). Myself, I actually like DMing more than playing. I like seeing a table full of happy players and have them talk about how much fun they had that session, and repeating a particular event or story they had in one of my games as if its a treasured memory. That being said, I do try and stay as a player in this game, because it helps ground me as a DM. I become better sitting in the DM chair when I can get an appreciation of how the player feels in theirs, get a better understanding of how they're thinking. I know that if they kill that mummy in one round before it even hits them, they're still happy and entertained because they also know just how nasty things could've been. They got lucky,or blew some resources in fear, and they're happy about it, and the DM should be just as happy for them. So since being a player makes me a better DM (this whole situation itself makes me self-reflect on how restrictive I am in char gen), I want to stay one. That being said, there are two other games in town (mostly different people), and they're the groups I DM. There are other DMs in town that could be brought out of retirement, but they're worse in different ways (see above killer DM), and he's honestly the best DM in town besides me.

I'll let you guys know how things work out, thanks for the responded thus far. I think that if I can get past character gen, once in actual play things should be fine. Honestly just talking about it is sorta cathartic.

Realms of Chaos
2011-09-29, 12:32 PM
Well, it looks like this topic has been pretty much resolved but in case I've misread something, there is one more thing that hasn't been said yet:

One thing I notice about what you've said so far is that you dislike being mechanically held back from what you want to be good at. At the same time, however, you mention how you never use your characters in a way that break the game. The thing is, not acting like a **** can still involve a certain degree of voluntary restriction. The end result of this restriction can end up as (or appear to look like) something of an emergency kill switch.

From my many years of experience as a DM, I've found that very little is trickier than trying to make encounters for a "balanced" character with a kill switch. If I'm not making sense, allow me to paint a few examples.

EX 1: Let's say that you have your +14 Stealth goblin rogue. Just as you said, your rogue is more about skirmishing and stabbing than hiding 24/7. As your party travels through the woods, however, the DM decides to throw a tough encounter against you (which your character discovers early while scouting).

As a player, you know that the forces thrown at you are challenging opponents. In character, your goblin can see that they're much larger/stronger than him/herself. Seeing that the threat is real both IC and OOC, your goblin would have strong motivations for starting guerilla warfare from the start (after alerting your party, of course) and using your stealth rather than fighting as you normally would and only hiding once most people have been killed and/or captured.

With some good rolls, foes intended to give a tough fight for your party and stab-happy goblin as they would normally fight could fold like tissue paper as your stealth (the goblin's killswitch) is activated.

Ex 2: Let's say that your cleric acquired leadership and ended up with a craft-monkey wizard. With this in mind, a wizard can only really craft one item per day and ends up preparing all of his spells each day in the process of doing so. On the one hand, I would believe without a doubt that you wouldn't intend to send that wizard into battle as an extra teammate in most circumstances. As you said, you're not trying to hog the spotlight.

On the other hand, if you were trying to say that you'd rather die and cause a TPK rather than have your Cohort use a prepared spell that you know would be effective IC and OOC, I'd be a bit more skeptical about that. At the end of the day, what I'd actually expect you to do is bring in your cohort as an emergency measure when needed.

As a result, I wouldn't be able to throw anything too challenging at you without risking the cohort coming in and messing with the difficulty. At the same time, I wouldn't be able to take the cohort's power into account without forcing you to use him (which, as he wasn't meant as a combatant in the first place, I'd want to avoid by any and all means). :smallsigh:


The inclusion of kill switches (intentional or incidental) in a character can be quite a bit vexing at times and require a good deal of trust to work out properly:

From the perspective of a player, it makes perfect sense. It's not something that you'd ever want to use in normal play but it allows for you to live another day when needed, which is good for the plot of your DM and your fellow players.

From the perspective of a DM, however, it can make planning encounters a headache. A DM can't challenge a character's "normal playstyle" too much without (at least in his/her mind) risking them using their Kill switch. Creating battles that take them into acount, however, almost force players to use them.

Also, if the source of challenge and tension in a battle relies on a purely voluntary handicap... well, that's just not for everyone.:smallfrown:

Gah... forgive the lack of proper structure up there. I'm a stream-of-consciousness writer at times. :smalltongue:

GungHo
2011-09-29, 01:36 PM
Have fun, but at the end of the day, you aren't there to help him with his self-confidence problems, and you don't need to develop issues of your own just to compensate for his. Personally, I'd be miserable if I had to be on eggshells with the GM all the time regarding how I make my characters or how I play unless I've made something that's plainly inappropriate for the game or for the party.

Jayabalard
2011-09-29, 02:13 PM
So, my DM doesn't trust me to create a character that won't 'break the game'. Despite the fact that I've played with him for over a year and there has never been an incident from my characters.Maybe you haven't... and maybe you're just bad at evaluating the negative effect of your optimization?

Pink
2011-09-29, 02:30 PM
Maybe you haven't... and maybe you're just bad at evaluating the negative effect of your optimization?

While I've nothing against the concept that I'm not innocent in this matter, you care to be a bit more hopeful? Saying "Maybe he's not wrong, maybe you are." Doesn't really do a whole lot.

What are these negative effects that you seem to think might be there that I might've missed?

Tyndmyr
2011-09-29, 02:38 PM
If you've talked to him, and he hasn't brought up any specific complaints, I would not assume they exist. If he does talk generally about problems with your chars, ask for examples.

But if there are no complaints or examples, it probably has nothing to do with past conduct at all.

Kaun
2011-09-29, 04:56 PM
@ kaun: He's actually more nervous about the +14 to stealth (he keeps calling it +18 because "you're gonna put a rank in it eventually), because he feels I'm gonna use it to be constantly hiding,

But 3.5 is all about being really good on what your character focuses on?!? It sounds like he wants to be playing a different system he just doesn't know it yet.

Unfortunately the best solution to your problem may not be achievable, what he really needs is to sit behind the shield with a full group of munchkins at his table to give him some perspective.

You how ever may need to suck it up and play his way, he is running the game and if your not willing to quit over it then just play it his way and find your fun where you can.

Sith_Happens
2011-09-30, 05:51 AM
Anyway, its one of the things he likes to bring up. That I would ask for something I wouldn't allow in my own game. Leadership is tricky to adjudicate, but if there was a player taking it purely to fill in a missing party role (no one wanted to play healer or rogue) and they're gonna be responsible, I'm certainly open to it. Setting can make a big difference too if a player wants to make use of followers.

This sounds like it might be a big part of the problem. Basically, when he sees you ban or restrict something in your game, he immediately knows that there's something wrong with it, and that you know what that something is. Therefore, when you want to use that same thing in his game, the red flags shoot up.

Maybe if you explained better why you ban certain things that you do, then he'll understand better when you explain that you're not planning on using it that way.

Tyndmyr
2011-09-30, 07:31 AM
But 3.5 is all about being really good on what your character focuses on?!? It sounds like he wants to be playing a different system he just doesn't know it yet.

Unfortunately the best solution to your problem may not be achievable, what he really needs is to sit behind the shield with a full group of munchkins at his table to give him some perspective.

You how ever may need to suck it up and play his way, he is running the game and if your not willing to quit over it then just play it his way and find your fun where you can.

That's also a good point. I guarantee if he saw one session of my group, his calibration of what's high powered would be...readjusted. A +18 to a skill isn't worthy of mention. Anyone skill focused probably has a +30 in at least one thing, possibly several. One char had a +54 at level 6. Other people have ways to deal upward of 20d6 damage in an attack. Last time the party ran into an intelligent enemy(advanced hydra), they multiplied it's heads, then controlled it as their pet. The psion uses leadership to have another psion.

A few flat numerical bonuses isn't what makes a char broken. If it was, the tier system wouldn't need to exist. I think your DM is worrying about entirely the wrong things.

It might be fun to demonstrate exactly what broken is, while using a character without good stats or skills at all. Better, though, is to arrange for someone else to do it.

Krazzman
2011-09-30, 09:17 AM
I#ve met similar prejudices. For me it's mostly when I tried to introduce a new Class (Tome of Battle or Psions).

I might be allowed to play them but either they were nerfed (Psions just like a wizard hurr durr, dispel magic and mind affect immunity) or i was nearly directly marked as: "Powergamer".

While one in our group tried really to munchkin in their view, it seemed to be ok for him and them. But beware if I try to make a Barbarian with Spirited Charge, first my mount will be nerfed from wartrained to ***** and so on. But for me talking doesn't really helped. They just said I just shouldn't try to Optimize... and even as I explained why Druids are overpowered (I'm playing for the shortest in comparasion) with Natural spell, they just kept complaining about that one munchkin using this.

Sometimes it wont fit. It's called Narrowmind afaik. You can talk and talk and talk...but it doesn't seem to reach them. Either you start DMing yourself (what you did) and STAY with it. Or you take the advice from the playground.

Try to convince them, but if it seems to be a Don Quichotte thing...try something else.

Have a nice Day,
Krazzman

Yuki Akuma
2011-09-30, 07:03 PM
I'm trying to work out how making a Psion more like a Wizard is a nerf...

Hiro Protagonest
2011-09-30, 08:01 PM
I'm trying to work out how making a Psion more like a Wizard is a nerf...

In another thread he created on that topic, he said that one guy thought it was overpowered and broken, and a second guy just thought it was a wizard with more weaknesses. When that second guy DMed, he used some sort of AMF that only affected the psion, not the enemy wizard.

But Dispel Magic and SR works on psionics. However, not all psionic powers are mind-affecting, seriously, Tashalatora is the #1 way of making firebenders.

Yuki Akuma
2011-10-02, 03:24 AM
"Psionics is different" is a perfectly acceptable optional rule presenetd in the Expanded Psionics Handbook itself.

It's not a good rule, but choosing to use it at least makes sense.

Although in this case, a Null Psionics Zone that doesn't affect the person who made it is ****ty DMing.

GungHo
2011-10-03, 12:24 PM
I#ve met similar prejudices. For me it's mostly when I tried to introduce a new Class (Tome of Battle or Psions).
Regarding new classes... I could understand someone being cautious. Same with feats. If I'm running the game and I've not had a chance to read the new features and thought about how I might fit them in and how they interplay with the others in the campaign, I might also ask you to hold the thought for a session or two.

pwykersotz
2011-10-03, 09:35 PM
Realms of Chaos brings up several good points. I GM for a gamer who is very much like you. I, to the chagrin of my players, roll better than average on my d20's. So this gamer built an illusionist Wizard who had every save buffing feat in the book, was a gnome, and took the vow of poverty and the vow of peace. He was a monster in terms of save DC's. The problem was that while he didn't break the game, I was largely unable to challenge the Warblade and the Fighter in the party without him zapping it.

I was fine with it in terms of his power, after all, it was a legit build. But the more it went on, the stronger the vibe I got from the other players that they didn't have as much fun. Both melee characters like to hit things with their swords, and they like the rush that comes with close-call victories.

Now, I had many ways of dealing with this, but it was tough. He had previously out-optimized the rest of the party, just because that's how he games. He was always the de-facto leader of the group, able to pretty much take on the rest of them if he really wanted. It tripled my workload easily, trying to work with his various abilities in mind. That's a lot of stress.

However, based on everything else you've said, the problem appears to be mostly the DM. I feel for him. When I started GM'ing, I was the same way. Characters who were over-optimized were a threat to my pristine world, how dare they break what I've crafted! How dare they outshine others!

After a couple years of experience, what I do is this. Most encounters are easily defeated with a little subtle application from the PC's. Or maybe some brute force. However, the enemy will get a couple shots in sometimes. There goes a charge from their wand of cure light wounds. Maybe they use a couple spell slots. These encounters are not about beating the party, but letting them interact with the world and use their resources.

And then comes the main encounter. The fight that has been built up all this time. Sure, if they try they can two shot the boss. Sure, the likelyhood of death is low. But then they realize that they have to choose which objective to fulfill. Do they need to steal the body of the caster to make sure he isn't resurrected by his friends? Do they need to loot the room? Do they need to trigger the effect which will grant them a small permanent bonus but destroy the quest rewards? The players love making choices and feeling like they have control over themselves and are meaningful in the world. They don't need every fight to take them to the limit of their HP and Spell Slots.

Basically, if your DM can learn to break free of his self-imposed perceptions that the game is about who rolls the highest, he will begin to trust you a bit more, mostly because he'll have the confidence to deal with everything you give him.

Of course, it might also help if you assist your fellow PC's in optimizing to your same level. GM's love a balanced party.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. :smalltongue:

Silma
2011-10-04, 09:49 PM
I have the exact same problem with my players. 3 out of 5 are optimizers. So they have, a dps barbarian, a dps mage (pyromancer) and a bard who uses all his powers to help the party, and pretty much let the barbarian make free attacks. They make all the encounters look too easy. At first I had no idea on what to do with them. But then I did two things, partly based on the advice some people gave me right here in the forum. I increased my XP budget a little bit (without giving them more XP) and I started creating slightly different adventures. So in the last adventure, they went through a series of encounters, which they overcame pretty easily. But after 4-5 encounters without an extended rest, they were short on healing surges (4e). Especially the barbarian was left with 1 healing surge before the big battle. Normally they would pretty much die, but their obvious vulnerability made them think, and they used a ritual (that up till then was forgotten in the CS) that allowed them to exchange healing surges.
So all I'm saying is that it's up to the DM to find a way to cope with the fact that his players have strong chars. Maybe you could help the rest of the team optimize their build. This way, your DM could simply increase his budget like I did. Problem solved!!

Calanon
2011-10-05, 03:57 AM
Realms of Chaos brings up several good points. I GM for a gamer who is very much like you. I, to the chagrin of my players, roll better than average on my d20's. So this gamer built an illusionist Wizard who had every save buffing feat in the book, was a gnome, and took the vow of poverty and the vow of peace.

You of course as a DM than told him "Isn't your book magic?" and made him lose the feat by default right?

They legit say that a Wizards spellbook kills the feat (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060616a)

take a blue crayon out and color me confused if you allowed him to get away with it :smallconfused:

Yuki Akuma
2011-10-05, 03:50 PM
"Isn't your book magic?"

"No."

I mean it still violates the feat pretty definitively, but spellbooks are not in any way magical.

PairO'Dice Lost
2011-10-06, 11:49 PM
You of course as a DM than told him "Isn't your book magic?" and made him lose the feat by default right?

Not necessarily. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/specialistWizardVariants.htm#illusionMastery)

Just_Ice
2011-10-07, 12:36 AM
If you can't play a goblin rogue without it having 22 dex... you are the problem, dude. Your argument for the cohort is mostly sound, but your presumption is that those wizard services are needed rather than wanted.

Stats aren't everything, and a +4 is not much worse than a +6. A slightly more balanced character can be fun to play as well, and may call for some more teamwork-oriented solutions to problems rather than task delegation and over-specialization.

If you meet the DM halfway you can build up his trust. Using cheese to "show him up" is the worst possible solution, but you're going to find he probably wants you to be more in line with everyone else- he tossed you a heavy pick without understanding the consequences, so he's likely pretty overwhelmed and just needs you to make things easier for him- let loose on someone else.

The Glyphstone
2011-10-07, 09:04 AM
Not necessarily. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/specialistWizardVariants.htm#illusionMastery)

Doesn't that still require owning a spellbook? You need Eidetic Spellcaster to be a VoP wizard.

Vladislav
2011-10-07, 09:10 AM
I think another thing is that he plays in a game I DM, and there have been some instances where I disallow something in my game, only to turn around and ask for it in his.There is your mistake right there.

Admit you were wrong to ever do that, admit you have been bad, say you have seen the error of your ways and will never ever raise the question of asking for an ability you banned yourself, basically get on your knees and beg for mercy. Admitting your mistake is the only way to get his trust back.

big teej
2011-10-07, 09:30 AM
yea, a comment I meant to make earlier but didnt' have time to.

the fact you ask for things you've banned is not only a huge red flag to a fellow DM, but a rather....-not nice word- move.


conversely, I personally only ask for things IF I would allow them.

for example, I'm totally okay with somebody permanency-ing a -animal- -trait- spell.

because they are one dispel magic away from being out 540 gold pieces.

ergo, I feel comfortable asking other DMs if I can do such a thing.

same with Exotic Armors NEVER being worth a feat.

Tavar
2011-10-07, 09:36 AM
Ban lists should never be in a vacuum, though. The different games are different situations, so it might not be unreasonable to ask for something. Especially depending on the other things allowed/disallowed.

Pink
2011-10-07, 09:44 AM
Well, okay, the follow up.

I am playing the goblin rogue I started up. Part of this may or may not be because I statted up a human rogue that was better if he wanted me to keep it core instead. Part of it may have been him softening to the idea and giving me a bit of trust. In any event, I think things will be alright as long as the others keep out-damaging me (1d4+1 with 1d6 sneak attack isn't hard to beat).

PairO'Dice Lost
2011-10-07, 02:36 PM
Doesn't that still require owning a spellbook? You need Eidetic Spellcaster to be a VoP wizard.

Once you master the spells, you don't need the spellbook anymore, so as long as you pick up VoP after 1st level, you can have a bunch of illusion spells mastered without a spellbook. You're not going to be a particularly optimal illusionist (unless you pick up silent image, head into SCM, and never look back :smallwink:) but it's at least doable.

Calanon
2011-10-07, 03:29 PM
Well, okay, the follow up.

I am playing the goblin rogue I started up. Part of this may or may not be because I statted up a human rogue that was better if he wanted me to keep it core instead. Part of it may have been him softening to the idea and giving me a bit of trust. In any event, I think things will be alright as long as the others keep out-damaging me (1d4+1 with 1d6 sneak attack isn't hard to beat).

But the question to ask is: "As a player are you having fun?"

Jayabalard
2011-10-07, 03:47 PM
While I've nothing against the concept that I'm not innocent in this matter, you care to be a bit more hopeful? Saying "Maybe he's not wrong, maybe you are." Doesn't really do a whole lot. Sure it does. It points out that you're making assumptions that may or may not be valid, and that this is probably the first thing you need to be looking at.


What are these negative effects that you seem to think might be there that I might've missed?I'm the wrong person to be asking this... you really need to ask your fellow players and GM about that.

If you do that, it's key that you go into it with an open mind, and if one or more of them do feel like you've been causing problems*, that you don't get defensive or argue about whether you've caused negative effects, but instead focus on listening to them. The important thing is whether other people (player or GM) feel like you have, not whether (logically) you actually have or not. If you start trying to use logic in that sort of situation, it's really easy to come across as marginalizing their feelings, and that's not going to resolve anything.

That's not to say never bring that up... just don't lead off with it, or argue it until much later. Just keep in mind that winning that argument will likely not do anything to resolve the situation.

*this is really likely if you have people who don't trust you. It doesn't mean that you have caused problems, just that they feel like you have.

Sith_Happens
2011-10-08, 11:09 PM
Well, okay, the follow up.

I am playing the goblin rogue I started up. Part of this may or may not be because I statted up a human rogue that was better if he wanted me to keep it core instead. Part of it may have been him softening to the idea and giving me a bit of trust. In any event, I think things will be alright as long as the others keep out-damaging me (1d4+1 with 1d6 sneak attack isn't hard to beat).

Well, once your sneak attack increases the "the others keep out-damaging me" thing is going to take a certain amount of effort on their part, but if your DM calls foul on that it's purely his problem. You might want to pass on taking Craven just in case though.