[PF] Advice regarding min/maxing (not in the way you might think)

[Jonesy89CPFD]

I apologize in advance for the length of my post (when I first sat down, I anticipated it being maybe a paragraph long) and for any bitterness that I may inadvertently express (goodness knows I don't want to be one of those people, but given the state of things, it's kind of hard for me to avoid keeping an airtight filter on right now).

The Planescape game I am running had a bit of a wait in between sessions due to a scheduling conflict with one of the players, so a couple of my players cooked up the idea of running a one shot game in a homebrew Pathfinder setting, which I was invited to. GM1 is running the game during play and is in charge regarding mechanics, and GM2 is the creator/maintainer of the setting and will also be playing as a PC. When I asked, I was told that the campaign would be roughly half combat; from what I could gather, it was more combat oriented than the game than I was running (wherein the most combat the group was expected to see would be one session, maybe two, and they should ideally not be getting into fights at all), but not so much that it seemed that I would be able to indulge myself and make a character without min/maxing their combat effectiveness.

When we did character creation, I had a sudden burst of inspiration and designed a Bandit and modeled him after the main character of the "Parker" series of crime novels. Basically, I made a guy who was good at all the dexterous skills that come with being a career criminal while still burly enough to be able to make people feel pain in close quarters, and who, despite being Lawful Evil, generally sought to bypass opponents or otherwise neutralize them so as to minimize the amount of murders that he could get pinned for; as far as his Bandit nature, I conceived of him as more of an urban heister, very focused on using traps and various gadgets to make a first strike to incapacitate, disorient, and demoralize the mark. When it came time to assign feats and stat points (we are starting at level 5), I used a bonus point to shore up my Constitution to give me a +1 (not exactly tanky, but it seemed consistent with his general desire to employ guerrilla tactics), pumped up his Strength to 16, and took a mix of basic combat feats along with a few that seemed fitting to the character (for instance, I took Intimidating Prowess to simulate how much easier intimidation came to him as opposed to, say, turning on the charm to convince the nice guards that he totally wasn't a sociopath). All in all, I was fairly satisfied with the character; I knew that the results weren't exactly optimized, but I'm not too interested in min/maxing.


I sent along the sheet to GM 1 to ensure that he was ok with it well in advance of the game to make sure he didn't think it was overpowered, but the response I got was... not what I was prepared for. GM1 mentioned how he noticed that my character wasn't min/maxed, and GM2 proceeded to make a very, ah, impassioned speech to that effect. Now, I get that PnP is something that people get enjoyment out of in different ways, and I can totally respect that the GMs are into min/maxing (though in the game I ran, I made it clear that universally dumping non-combat stats was not in their best interests and attempted to stop any blatant twinkery), but I really do not appreciate going over to meet with the GMs to hammer out a few equipment questions and get lectured by one of them for an hour and a half about how I should change my "build", and how I shouldn't worry about my non-combat stats because "they have no effect on how the build works" (nevermind roleplaying to my stats). Furthermore, while I was initially given to understand that the game wouldn't be a total hack n' slash, GM2's lecture makes it sound like I don't have a prayer of surviving unless I min/max.

I guess what I'm asking for is advice on how to:

(1) get across the message that min/maxing is something I don't want to do. Setting aside the more practical concerns that I have no interest in spending days trying to min/max a character for a one shot or time to spare to do so (school is especially demanding right now), I don't find it fun as it reduces the individuality of the character (which is very much a turn off for me since this is my character; there are many like it, but this one is mine) and shifts the focus more on to metagaming than is enjoyable for me as a player.

(2) communicate just how much I don't appreciate the way GM2 has been acting during the whole affair. GM1 is very much into min/maxing, but he didn't so much as bat an eye when I told him that I was going to stick with what I have, but I deliberately waited until GM2 had left before saying so because after the long and sometimes shouty speech he gave (which was a little on the intimidating side for me), I was not looking forward to a repeat performance of that, let alone the nasty response I'm sure I would have gotten had I tried to explain my reasons. To give you an idea, this is someone who got very heated and upset when I tried to explain that if he wanted to play a Druid who wasn't True Nuetral (despite 2E's take on all Druids being True Neutral), I might be ok with it (I am open to exceptions to things like race restrictions if the only discernible basis is general societal forces), but that he might risk running into other druids who might be prejudiced against him if they found out (religion is already a hot button topic, especially for Priest classes, especially in Planescape where religion and philosophy form the backbone of the setting and the center of most conflicts, so deviations from how the Druidic faith usually operates seemed like a logical potential source of prejudice for non-conformists), eventually changing his alignment while being incredibly snarky and passive aggressive; if trying to explain the concept of NPC prejudice can invoke that kind of reaction, I am not sure I am keen on seeing what happens when I try to tell him anything along the lines of "but it doesn't make sense for X to do that".

(3) help my character survive without min/maxing. Again, Ed Latham may be one character out of many, and he might be a monster, but damnit, he's my monster, and I really don't want to change him for the sake of making him more likely to survive . We haven't started yet, so I have no frame of reference for how deadly the combat will be, and GM2 seems to be indicating that I will die unless I min/max, thought he seems to overblow things when he is impassioned (this is the same guy who complained to me that a fighter with 17 strength in my game was "not viable"; while it is true that exceptional strength is awesome, I had to resist the overwhelming urge to tell him that I don't think that word means what you think it means). I'm prepared to accept that our play styles are too incompatible to justify playing, which would render this point moot, but I really hope that isn't the case.

Again, sorry for dumping a wall of text on the forum, but I would deeply appreciate any insight you have to offer.

[Blisstake]

Eesh... uh, this really sounds mostly like a communication issue, which I'm not sure how useful the forum can be to help with.

Do you have any idea what kind of other characters are being submitted for the game, and how powerful they are? Why does the GM care if your character isn't optimized? That really seems like something most GMs don't care about (usually it's the other way round). Do you think maybe it's a personal thing?

[Jonesy89CPFD]

Eesh... uh, this really sounds mostly like a communication issue, which I'm not sure how useful the forum can be to help with.

Do you have any idea what kind of other characters are being submitted for the game, and how powerful they are? Why does the GM care if your character isn't optimized? That really seems like something most GMs don't care about (usually it's the other way round). Do you think maybe it's a personal thing?

Thank you very much for your response; I was afraid noone would answer, given that I couldn't explain the problem in full in the title.

I concur that communication is very much an issue, but I'm not sure how to resolve it, and I was hoping that someone would be able to help me there with their experience. With GM2, I am especially unsure on how to approach the issue, since me misphrasing myself even once is liable to set him off on a tirade on how I am completely wrong and how I should listen to him instead; that's not even touching on the potential fallout in the game I am currently running, as after the way he has been acting, I have an inkling he isn't going to be able to partition this out of the context of my game.

I'm honestly not sure about what is up with the GMs with regards to how they have been encouraging me to change it. I have a few hypotheses, but the support for them is rather too scant for me to adopt one in particular. It can't be payback for me reigning GM2 in with regards to my game, since he doesn't seem to understand why I don't want to change, let alone understand that the current situation is highly disagreeable to me enough to be able to take joy in it. There is always the possibility that the GMs are acting under the principle that I am acting out of ignorance of how to optimize (this is the only thing I can think of for GM1). The theory that seems the most likely, albeit by a slim margin, is that GM2 tends to very much focus on min/maxing and optimizing characters, and it is possible that this might be extending to the party as a whole.

Actually, that last one makes more sense now that I think about it. GM2 is playing with a homebrew class of some sort (can't remember the name of it for the life of me, a Xeno-something) that allows him to graft dead monster parts onto people, including himself and party members, in order to give them extra powers (a Beholder eye to negate magic, legs from a fast animal to make us move faster, etc.); seems that the one shot is also partly serving to test run this and some of his own homebrew content (I seem to remember him saying something about playable owlbears). He initially took great delight in outlining all the things that class could do, but when I expressed that my character would probably decline, he became visibly frustrated and made a comment about how the party mage was also skeeved out by having some random person reenact an especially horrific version of Deus Ex on her, and that in between us, he would be lucky if he ever got to do surgery on any of us to give us invisible breath weapons of awesomeness by performing lung transplants (incidentally, his is the only other character concept that I am aware, and I have not seen anyone else's character sheet, so I have no idea what the average power level is).

I tried to explain later that I'm not necessarily opposed to transhuman augmentation in some form (subjected to some form of regulation and oversight, maybe, but definitely not from a gnome with demon horns sticking out of his head), I stated that my character was very much against it; that was putting it mildly, especially since his backstory involved serving as a member of a mercenary force in the setting until a magic-punk machine blew up and injured him in the blast, afflicting him with the flaw Deep Scar and effectively making him un-hireable in a profession without discrimination laws and no interest in keeping someone on payroll who might go into spasms if he did anything too strenuous, the fallout of which was a botched experimental surgery and a lawsuit against the surgeon that never got off the grounds due to him being broke, which resulted in his shift to crime when he got the surgeon's screwup fixed by a non-legit doctor who treated him in exchange for him pulling a job on a few marks with heavy purses who would be travelling by caravan. The response was a muttered "God"; thankfully, he was distracted by something else at the time, or I suspect that the reaction would have been much more unpleasant (on explaining NPC prejudice, he likened it to me hearing voices in my head).

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

First, I'm going to suppose you only talked to GM 1, who seemed to suggest that your character was underpowered in a civil and reasonable manner:

It sounds like the game is going to be combat-oriented. It's likely other players created very powerful combat characters. Your character, which you may hold dear, is not necessarily suited for such a game. It might be better to put that character on the back burner instead of having him die, or at least be put in a frustrating situation.

Generally speaking it's good to go with the flow of the table. If they're low op, it's good to power down. If they're high op, it can be good to power up.

...

Now I include the fact that GM 2 opened his mouth:

His behavior as you've described it is entirely inappropriate. I wouldn't game with him, but I have good choices in what games I play. In your position I'd talk it over with GM 1, see what he thinks of GM 2's overreaction. It seems like you're just stalling an inevitable argument with GM 2.

Also, what do the players think? I know some groups are fine hauling around dead weight in combat, especially if said character can do relevant things out of combat (which it seems your character can do). Some groups... aren't okay with this. I think getting the other players on board with your character concept, if you can manage this, will take the bite out of any inevitable confrontation with GM 2.

[Jonesy89CPFD]

First, I'm going to suppose you only talked to GM 1, who seemed to suggest that your character was underpowered in a civil and reasonable manner:

It sounds like the game is going to be combat-oriented. It's likely other players created very powerful combat characters. Your character, which you may hold dear, is not necessarily suited for such a game. It might be better to put that character on the back burner instead of having him die, or at least be put in a frustrating situation.

Generally speaking it's good to go with the flow of the table. If they're low op, it's good to power down. If they're high op, it can be good to power up.

...

Now I include the fact that GM 2 opened his mouth:

His behavior as you've described it is entirely inappropriate. I wouldn't game with him, but I have good choices in what games I play. In your position I'd talk it over with GM 1, see what he thinks of GM 2's overreaction. It seems like you're just stalling an inevitable argument with GM 2.

Also, what do the players think? I know some groups are fine hauling around dead weight in combat, especially if said character can do relevant things out of combat (which it seems your character can do). Some groups... aren't okay with this. I think getting the other players on board with your character concept, if you can manage this, will take the bite out of any inevitable confrontation with GM 2.

Again, thank you very much for responding; I need all the input I can get at this point.

The weird thing is that I initially spoke to them both about what to expect from the game, so I'm honestly not sure why this is just coming up now. I did talk to GM1 regarding my character after the concern of power level came up, and I told him I would be fine playing what I had and rolling up a new one if he died and it was clear there was no point in bringing him back.

I have yet to talk to any of the other players regarding their characters and the party; one of the other players is someone who is by only infrequently, and I haven't had a chance to talk it over with her, and the other is a first timer who I have likewise not talked to (he has yet to create a character). I definitely hear you with regards to deadwood, though, which was why I made him have at least passing familiarity with all of his class skills and that while the character wasn't necessarily great at doing damage, I made sure to outfit him with an arsenal of situational weapons that would make Batman blush (durable lodestone flight arrows with pre-poisoned tips for fighters in chain mail, smoke arrows, splintercloud arrows for disrupting casters, 10 daggers and a hand crossbow concealed on his person at all times in addition to the bow, rapier, and two bandoliers full of knives I couldn't hide, and other assorted gadgets, and much more) so that I would be able to do my part if combat were unavoidable; after all, avoiding leaving bodies for the authorities to avoid a murder rap is all good and well until it means they're picking up your corpse. GM2 seems to be rather vocal in his insistence that that's not sufficient, however, so maybe I'm missing something.

As to GM2... yeah, if he were't rooming with GM1 (that they get on well enough to do so indicates that I might be confronted with a like mind; then again, he hasn't been anywhere near this dickish, so I don't expect him to start now) and a staple of our group of friends (making it guaranteed that I will have to deal with the fallout)... Hell, I don't know what I'd have done, but it'd probably be more than I have done by now. I'll try and talk to him and feel out what his reaction is to GM2's tirade (he was in the room when it happened, so I won't need to recap) before taking any additional measures. I don't like confrontation of this kind, but it sounds like I may need to prepare for it with GM2.

[Slipperychicken]

Do you have your build on you?

In PF, you should be basically fine as long as your primary stat is 15 or higher, your Con is 12+ (make that 14+ if you're a melee character), your class is appropriate for what you're trying to do, and you put your feats toward a viable combat strategy. Anything beyond that isn't strictly necessary, and your group should be fine as long as they have all the roles (dps, tank, skills, healing, magic) covered.

[Jonesy89CPFD]

Do you have your build on you?

In PF, you should be basically fine as long as your primary stat is 15 or higher, your Con is 12+ (make that 14+ if you're a melee character), your class is appropriate for what you're trying to do, and you put your feats toward a viable combat strategy. Anything beyond that isn't strictly necessary, and your group should be fine as long as they have all the roles (dps, tank, skills, healing, magic) covered.

I do, but the sheet I used is a PDF with automatic calculations, so it might be a bit too large to post. Is there any way I can post the file, and if so, is there any regulation on doing so?

[Jonesy89CPFD]

Going to post what I can without attaching the sheet. Not sure I can post everything to give the best idea of what I am going for and keep this at a sane length, so all I can post for now is the basic data and a truncated inventory list.

Name: Ed Latham
Race: Human
Class: Rogue, Bandit archetype
Level: 5
HP: 28

Strength: 16
Dexterity: 17
Constitution: 12
Intelligence: 14
Wisdom: 12
Charisma: 14

Feats: Intimidating Prowess, Rapid Reload, Quick Draw, Point Blank Shot (flaw for feat: Deep Scar)

Class features/rogue talents: Cunning Trigger, Underhanded X2 per day, Terrain Mastery (Urban), Ambush, Evasion, Trap Sense, Trapfinding

Weapons:
Sap
Cestus X2 (no visible spikes, plated metal covering knuckles underneath leather, to be worn at all times unless disarming traps or otherwise using hands in manner that requires precision not including attacking)
Daggers (2 bandoliers, 10 concealed on person)
Composite Shortbow +3 (and all of the arrows, stored in Efficient Quiver)
Hand Crossbow (with drow poison bolts, concealed on person, bolts in spring loaded wrist sheath)
Rapier (with hollow pommel for storage, false bottom scabbard)


Armor: Leather

Other:
Spring loaded wrist sheathes
Scabbards (rapier and concealed daggers)
Caltrops
Air bladder(s)
Silk Rope, pre-knotted
Whetstone
Barbed Vest
Sacks
Glass Bottle (for diversion; if unable to talk past guard, be carrying crushed bottle in sack, throw contents of sack into eyes)
False Bottomed Cup
Silent Whistle
Wax Blank Key
Rogue Kit
Extenders
Efficient Quiver
Keys of Lock Jamming
Thuderstones
Tindertwig
string/wire/misc. trap components
Assorted poisons
Assorted arrows and Bolts

[Slipperychicken]

Ed looks good to me. He should do fine in a standard game. I don't see how he's underpowered, although triggering sneak attack from range tends to be hard outside of the surprise round. He just needs some things to do after he's discovered (perhaps moving into melee with a flank buddy, or getting someone to set up sneak attacks for him via grease or difficult terrain).

[OldTrees1]

Yeah your build looks fine to me. I would suggest asking GM1 if you could see the relative power level of the other characters so you can see how large the difference is.

Since you are a Rogue, your skills are probably the most important detail.


Also did they really use the term "min/max"? That is a bit archaic of a term. Optimization has matured beyond just min/maxing.

[Captnq]

My advice?

The build is fine. Upgrade that equipment.

They wanna complain about you got no game? Aboleth mucus, Blister oil, and You know? Get your poison on. My sig file has everything you need. Get bloodspikes filled with injury poison then coat them with contact poison. That'll show'em.

[Slipperychicken]

My sig file has everything you need.

Your sig isn't visible.

[Jonesy89CPFD]

Ed looks good to me. He should do fine in a standard game. I don't see how he's underpowered, although triggering sneak attack from range tends to be hard outside of the surprise round. He just needs some things to do after he's discovered (perhaps moving into melee with a flank buddy, or getting someone to set up sneak attacks for him via grease or difficult terrain).

Actually, I do have access to Trip and Tangleshot arrows, both of which GM1 has allowed me to treat as enhanced Flight arrows, which I think address the issue of sneak attack (I *think* feinting at range also does something along those lines). Also, a talent I am considering swapping out lets me treat all enemies as being flat footed in the surprise round, even if they have acted.

[Axinian]

Yeah, as others have said, this looks like a person thing, not a min/maxing thing.

Also your build is perfectly serviceable. I'm not really sure what the guy's problem is.

[Jonesy89CPFD]

Yeah your build looks fine to me. I would suggest asking GM1 if you could see the relative power level of the other characters so you can see how large the difference is.

Since you are a Rogue, your skills are probably the most important detail.


Also did they really use the term "min/max"? That is a bit archaic of a term. Optimization has matured beyond just min/maxing.

I'll try to see what I can do about getting a peek at a few other character sheets; sounds like GM2's PC is probably the best candidate for that particular litmus test, barring other people getting through character creation. Regarding my skills, I have 55 points to play with, so I made sure to spread them around in an attempt to make sure I anywhere from 7 to 10 on most skills and at least 1 rank in each class skill (sans perform and profession). As to their terminology, they have used the term "min/max" in the past and some in the given context, but "optimize" has admittedly gotten more use in this context.

[Jonesy89CPFD]

My advice?

The build is fine. Upgrade that equipment.

They wanna complain about you got no game? Aboleth mucus, Blister oil, and You know? Get your poison on. My sig file has everything you need. Get bloodspikes filled with injury poison then coat them with contact poison. That'll show'em.

I don't recognize some of the stuff you listed (and I'm afraid I can't see your sig), but it sounds nasty. Poisons aren't something I wanted to rely on exclusively, but in Ed's line of work, it always pays to have a wide variety of tools for dealing with every problem.

[Jonesy89CPFD]

Just wanted to deeply thank everyone again for their responses. I hope that this situation can be resolved relatively amicably; if not, well, if nothing else, the immediate future will be anything but dull.

[OldTrees1]

I'll try to see what I can do about getting a peek at a few other character sheets; sounds like GM2's PC is probably the best candidate for that particular litmus test, barring other people getting through character creation. Regarding my skills, I have 55 points to play with, so I made sure to spread them around in an attempt to make sure I anywhere from 7 to 10 on most skills and at least 1 rank in each class skill (sans perform and profession). As to their terminology, they have used the term "min/max" in the past and some in the given context, but "optimize" has admittedly gotten more use in this context.

What level are you again? 55 implies you could have up to 11 ranks per skill. Hmm. This is where you could some points around to be more efficient while still achieving your goal (focus on several things and be able to attempt everything related to the class).

Of particular note: There are some skills that need max ranks (opposed checks usually), some need 5 ranks and some need 1 rank.

Could we see which skills you put the 7-10 ranks into?

[Jonesy89CPFD]

What level are you again? 55 implies you could have up to 11 ranks per skill. Hmm. This is where you could some points around to be more efficient while still achieving your goal (focus on several things and be able to attempt everything related to the class).

Of particular note: There are some skills that need max ranks (opposed checks usually), some need 5 ranks and some need 1 rank.

Could we see which skills you put the 7-10 ranks into?

Perhaps I should have rephrased: I have a 7-10 in some skills after applicable bonuses, not 7-10 ranks. We are starting at level 5, and as a human I get a bonus skill rank per level; in between that and my Int, I have 11 points per level, giving me 55 skill points total, but my level limits me to 5 ranks per skill. For the sake of completeness, I'll just go ahead and list my skills and the equipment I missed (not sure why, but some fields don't display data until clicked on).

Skills (situational bonuses not listed):
Acrobatics: 7 (1 rank)
Appraise: 6 (1 rank)
Bluff: 8 (3 ranks)
Climb: 8 (2 ranks)
Craft (Alchemy): 7 (2 ranks)
Craft (Traps): 10 (5 ranks)
Diplomacy: 6 (1 rank)
Disable Device: 10 (4 ranks)
Disguise: 10 (5 ranks)
Escape Artist: 10 (4 ranks)
Intimidate: 10 (2 ranks, bonus from feat)
Knowledge (Dungeoneering): 6 (1 rank)
Knowledge (Local): 8 (3 ranks)
Linguistics: 6 (1 rank)
Perception: 9 (5 ranks)
Sense Motive: 9 (5 ranks)
Sleight of Hand: 10 (4 ranks)
Stealth: 10 (4 ranks)
Swim: 7 (1 rank)
Use Magic Device: 6 (1 rank)

Missed equipment:
Weapon Cord(s)
Iron Spikes
Pitons

Arrows/Bolts (because those have come up before):
Grappling Arrows
Durable Lodestone Flight arrows, pre-poisoned
Drow Poison Bolts
Hand Crossbow Bolts
Arrows (General)
Smoke Flight arrows
Whistling Flight arrows (special: some of grooves crafted special to alter pitch to make slightly different sounds, ex. whistling altered to high pitched scream indicating distressed person in dire need of aid)
Trip Flight arrows
Splintercloud Flight arrows
Slow burn Flight arrows
Raining Flight arrows (for undead)
Pheromone Flight arrows (animals are a defining aspect of the wilderness in the setting; might be useful to hit the target with one, watch the giant star nosed mole* go to town on them)
Thistle arrows
Dye Flight arrows (for marking someone fleeing into a crowd)
Blunt arrows (see Raining arrows)

*The wilderness is populated by, among other things, giant star nosed moles that the GMs have likened to the worms from Dune insofar as they live below ground and tunnel up and attack stuff; the only reason cities are safe from surprise mole attacks is because they are built over some form of bedrock the moles can't tunnel up through.

[OldTrees1]

Skills (situational bonuses not listed):
Disable Device: 10 (4 ranks)
Perception: 9 (5 ranks)
Stealth: 10 (4 ranks)

These skills really benefit from max ranks. Social skills may or may nor benefit from maxed ranks.

[Jonesy89CPFD]

These skills really benefit from max ranks. Social skills may or may nor benefit from maxed ranks.

Point assignment isn't quite complete, have one or two I'm on the fence about to play with before finalizing. As for perception, don't I already have max ranks in it? The GMs said something about how in PF, max ranks per skill is equal to level.

[OldTrees1]

Point assignment isn't quite complete, have one or two I'm on the fence about to play with before finalizing. As for perception, don't I already have max ranks in it? The GMs said something about how in PF, max ranks per skill is equal to level.

Yes, you do have max ranks in it already.

[Jonesy89CPFD]

Yes, you do have max ranks in it already.

Ah; brain saw that it had been included in a quote and leapt to the conclusion that something was afoot with it. Not the most rational course of reasoning, I admit, which is probably a good indicator that I should go get some sleep. Thanks again for posting.

[Drachasor]

Well, if the DM really thinks you'll be behind, explain you don't want to spend all that time on min-maxing. If he really wants to make you catch up to those that do, then he should just let you Gestalt. That's a quick and easy fix.

[Jonesy89CPFD]

I haven't been able to get GM2's sheet to look at, but managed to talk to one of the two other players (GM2 is currently out of town) about what kind of power level they were working on. Among other things, they indicated that in their experience, GM2 has a penchant for playing extremely high power characters, so it seems likely that he is using his individual power level to extrapolate what he thinks the party should look like, regardless of what the other players seem to be doing based on the data I have gathered. If that is the case, then I think the problem will be less surviving and more being overshadowed by GM2, but that's a problem I can live with in this case.

[OldTrees1]

I haven't been able to get GM2's sheet to look at, but managed to talk to one of the two other players (GM2 is currently out of town) about what kind of power level they were working on. Among other things, they indicated that in their experience, GM2 has a penchant for playing extremely high power characters, so it seems likely that he is using his individual power level to extrapolate what he thinks the party should look like, regardless of what the other players seem to be doing based on the data I have gathered. If that is the case, then I think the problem will be less surviving and more being overshadowed by GM2, but that's a problem I can live with in this case.

Continue to talk to those other players. There may be a time when you need to speak for the silent majority.
Until then live with the excessively optimizing GM2.

[Jonesy89CPFD]

Continue to talk to those other players. There may be a time when you need to speak for the silent majority.
Until then live with the excessively optimizing GM2.

Will do; thanks again for your help.

Incidentally, I think found the class that GM2 is playing: something called a Xenoalchemist (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205119).

[OldTrees1]

Will do; thanks again for your help.

Incidentally, I think found the class that GM2 is playing: something called a Xenoalchemist (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205119).

o.O?
The player that _excessively_ optimizes also uses homebrew? Homebrew usually a fine/great addition to the game (especially from this forum) however it is not a good combination with _excessive_ optimization.

Stop listening to GM2. From the evidence provided, if any conflict arises it is most likely GM2's fault and not yours.

[Jonesy89CPFD]

o.O?
The player that _excessively_ optimizes also uses homebrew? Homebrew usually a fine/great addition to the game (especially from this forum) however it is not a good combination with _excessive_ optimization.

Stop listening to GM2. From the evidence provided, if any conflict arises it is most likely GM2's fault and not yours.

Eeyup, he's using homebrew; the one shot is apparently doubling as a pick me up between sessions in my 2E Planescape game and a test run for various homebrew content (not sure what else is in there, but I distinctly remember him mentioning a race of playable owlbears he had designed). He has in the past shown interest in homebrew classes, but this is the first time I have seen him play one, and I'm a wee bit anxious of the potential results (see his reaction on learning how half the party isn't keen on getting all spliced up). When you say that homebrew and optimization on this level aren't a good mix, though, what should I expect? Are we talking possible game breaking or what (don't really have much experience with homebrew to draw on, you see, and given your reaction, my curiosity is now decidedly piqued)?

[OldTrees1]

When you say that homebrew and optimization on this level aren't a good mix, though, what should I expect? Are we talking possible game breaking or what (don't really have much experience with homebrew to draw on, you see, and given your reaction, my curiosity is now decidedly piqued)?

It isn't the level of optimization. It is the disregard for the disparity between his character and the rest of the party. Aka _excessive_ optimization.

Going to homebrew means more options which in turn means more potential for optimization. This will exacerbate the disparity that their disregard is creating.

That was the charitable conclusion. (Charitable conclusions are good assumptions)

There is a term for someone that is willing to cheat at a cooperative game in order to beat their teammates as if it were a competitive game. These individuals are not worth playing with.

The more details you gave about GM2, the fewer alternative possibilities there were. Normally by now there would be some evidence that would have decreased this possibility.

Using a color wheel as an example model (Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange, Red, Purple and shades in between):
Lets say the cheating style is the color teal (a particular mix of green and blue). Normally by now some evidence would have "this player is a shade of yellow" or "this player is not green". Yet in this case we got evidence that "this player is not red nor yellow". So while there is not enough evidence to even suspect GM2 is the cheating type of player, it is much more likely than normal for advise threads like this.

This makes me uneasy. Just like being outside during a lightning storm would make someone uneasy. Being struck is still very unlikely but it is more likely than when going outside without checking the weather on a random day.

[Jonesy89CPFD]

It isn't the level of optimization. It is the disregard for the disparity between his character and the rest of the party. Aka _excessive_ optimization.

Going to homebrew means more options which in turn means more potential for optimization. This will exacerbate the disparity that their disregard is creating.

That was the charitable conclusion. (Charitable conclusions are good assumptions)

There is a term for someone that is willing to cheat at a cooperative game in order to beat their teammates as if it were a competitive game. These individuals are not worth playing with.

The more details you gave about GM2, the fewer alternative possibilities there were. Normally by now there would be some evidence that would have decreased this possibility.

Using a color wheel as an example model (Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange, Red, Purple and shades in between):
Lets say the cheating style is the color teal (a particular mix of green and blue). Normally by now some evidence would have "this player is a shade of yellow" or "this player is not green". Yet in this case we got evidence that "this player is not red nor yellow". So while there is not enough evidence to even suspect GM2 is the cheating type of player, it is much more likely than normal for advise threads like this.

This makes me uneasy. Just like being outside during a lightning storm would make someone uneasy. Being struck is still very unlikely but it is more likely than when going outside without checking the weather on a random day.

Yikes. Tempted to withdraw after your revelation, but I also have a rather perverse urge to continue and watch the fireworks; after all, who knows, it might give me enough material to write my own version of the Michelle Chronicles.

In all seriousness, I'll probably stick around and try to work around GM2's idiocy to try and have some fun with the people who I actually enjoy playing with. If that requires calling him out on his faffery, I won't mind having a good excuse to vent my spleen on him.

Again, out of morbid curiosity, when you say "cheating", are you anticipating him trying to violate RAW, or should I expect something more nuanced? Pretty sure GM1 will filter out the former, but figure I should plan for the worst and not operate under that assumption.

[OldTrees1]

Yikes. Tempted to withdraw after your revelation, but I also have a rather perverse urge to continue and watch the fireworks; after all, who knows, it might give me enough material to write my own version of the Michelle Chronicles.

In all seriousness, I'll probably stick around and try to work around GM2's idiocy to try and have some fun with the people who I actually enjoy playing with. If that requires calling him out on his faffery, I won't mind having a good excuse to vent my spleen on him.

Again, out of morbid curiosity, when you say "cheating", are you anticipating him trying to violate RAW, or should I expect something more nuanced? Pretty sure GM1 will filter out the former, but figure I should plan for the worst and not operate under that assumption.

To reiterate. There is not enough evidence to even suspect. So it it probably fine. Do not worry about the worst case. Take them at face value as someone that has poor teamwork skills.

[Jonesy89CPFD]

Follow-up on a development that happened before the discussion with PC1 everyone's responses here got me really concerned about GM2. I was on skype a few late nights ago and GM1 was unavailable; rather than waiting until I saw him on Monday, I made the brilliant (read: stupid) decision to talk to the PCs individually about taking a quick peek at their character sheets so that I could understand what the party power level was. Since GM2 was the only person I knew who had a sheet and was online, I sent him a message to that effect; I didn't get a response, which isn't standard operating procedure for him but not unheard of. Come Monday I heard he had told GM1 to ask me which character sheet I wanted (apparently he thought I might have been referring to his 2E sheet); I was a little perplexed as to why he hadn't responded directly to me, but then again, at that point I was hardly in a position to say anything about communication decisions. When I did talk to him and clarify that I was asking for a look at the characters' PF sheets to gauge what power level we would be at, he refused to send one, stating that me wanting to know about power level "is something you just ask people about" as opposed to looking at their sheets to determine. I might have left it at that, but the subsequent "summary" of his character was incredibly vague; knowing that he was playing a "melee focused skill monkey" certainly is helpful information in another context, but it didn't exactly address the concern I had, nor did it address any of the other questions that I now had (how, for instance, is he planning on being primarily melee focused when he has a hit die of d6? Is it the result of something that effectively makes him House M.D., destroyer of worlds, or will the party still be balanced? Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?).

I admit that my decisions in this regard were poor, but the data I have gathered as a result is unhelpful with a side of eyebrow raising; why exactly is he so reluctant to let someone see his sheet? It's entirely possible I've committed some sort of faux pas, but I can't help but think that the only reason for him to do so is if it has something he doesn't want anyone to see until it's too late for GM1 to call him out on and make him change. Ach, maybe I'm just being paranoid.

[OldTrees1]

I admit that my decisions in this regard were poor, but the data I have gathered as a result is unhelpful with a side of eyebrow raising; why exactly is he so reluctant to let someone see his sheet? It's entirely possible I've committed some sort of faux pas, but I can't help but think that the only reason for him to do so is if it has something he doesn't want anyone to see until it's too late for GM1 to call him out on and make him change. Ach, maybe I'm just being paranoid.

Some people are just extremely secretive of their character sheet with other players (while still giving full disclosure to the DM). Sometimes this is just a playstyle preference. Sometimes it is used to play one thing while pretending to be another.

So I would apologize to him and take him up on his offer to describe the power level of his character.

A Rogue (d6 HD) can be melee focused so a d6 HD will not slow GM2 down.

[Jonesy89CPFD]

GM2 got in contact with me and asked if I still wanted to know about power level. Upon saying yes, he told me that he is in the process of picking a new class; to quote him, he is now "useless because noone in the party wants my grafts for no good reason", and operating on himself would be a waste since he stated that the goal of the character was "to be a buff to the whole party". Seems he is now working on playing a summoner riding a dog with a familiar that can use wands.

Not as worried about surviving now, because I clarified with him and GM1 that characters at the power level of myself wouldn't have any problems surviving, we would just not be doing nearly as much damage. So it seems that dying is less of a concern than him out-optimizing me and PC1 (from what I have been able to glean).

[BoutsofInsanity]

I am curious as to what age group you guys fall into? Are you Freshmen in College? Juniors? Adults?

Gm2 responses sound to me like someone who is feeling pressure from the outside. It could be that he is extremely stressed out and not realize it. I see it happen to college students all the time. His responses are not thought out and lack the ability to understand the different play styles of the group.

He seems to not be able to reconcile the fact that you are roleplaying your character in not wanting to have things grafted on. Body horror is a real thing and most people do not want to cut off a limb or anything. Also he seems prone to rants and rages. If he is slightly dangerous, I would make sure I have others there.

Finally, in regards to the game, just don't worry about it. I would show up with your character and be ready to play. If you die, you die. Then just roll up a new guy. If you don't deal enough damage, ask the dm to give you an item that will shore up that weakness. Just approach the situation like a classy gentlemen.

[Jonesy89CPFD]

I am curious as to what age group you guys fall into? Are you Freshmen in College? Juniors? Adults?

Gm2 responses sound to me like someone who is feeling pressure from the outside. It could be that he is extremely stressed out and not realize it. I see it happen to college students all the time. His responses are not thought out and lack the ability to understand the different play styles of the group.

He seems to not be able to reconcile the fact that you are roleplaying your character in not wanting to have things grafted on. Body horror is a real thing and most people do not want to cut off a limb or anything. Also he seems prone to rants and rages. If he is slightly dangerous, I would make sure I have others there.

Finally, in regards to the game, just don't worry about it. I would show up with your character and be ready to play. If you die, you die. Then just roll up a new guy. If you don't deal enough damage, ask the dm to give you an item that will shore up that weakness. Just approach the situation like a classy gentlemen.


Both GMs, myself and PC2 (the newbie) are in our mid 20s and in our last semester at law school (I'm afraid that school has done little for helping me write succinctly). Not sure that helps all that much, though, since the one thing law school is designed to do is force students to be able to articulate their thoughts and arguments clearly; in that respect, it's not unlike a crash course in philosophy or formal logic.

[OldTrees1]

GM2 got in contact with me and asked if I still wanted to know about power level. Upon saying yes, he told me that he is in the process of picking a new class; to quote him, he is now "useless because noone in the party wants my grafts for no good reason", and operating on himself would be a waste since he stated that the goal of the character was "to be a buff to the whole party". Seems he is now working on playing a summoner riding a dog with a familiar that can use wands.

Not as worried about surviving now, because I clarified with him and GM1 that characters at the power level of myself wouldn't have any problems surviving, we would just not be doing nearly as much damage. So it seems that dying is less of a concern than him out-optimizing me and PC1 (from what I have been able to glean).

Ah, there (bolded) is the first good sign.
Looks like you are in the clear.

[Jonesy89CPFD]

Ah, there (bolded) is the first good sign.
Looks like you are in the clear.

It seems that way. Also, newbie rolled up a mounted barbarian, so it sounds like GM2 and PC2 have party damage covered, and PC1 and I should be able to perform utility tasks both in and out of combat (me with my arrows, PC1 with their concoctions).

[Firest Kathon]

Feats: Intimidating Prowess, Rapid Reload, Quick Draw, Point Blank Shot (flaw for feat: Deep Scar)

Seems to me like you're missing a feat there. You have feats from 1st, 3rd and 5th level, as well as the human bonus feat, so 4 total. Now you also mention a flaw for a feat, which would give you a 5th feat, which is not mentioned. Maybe Deadly Aim or Precise shot, if you're going the ranged route.

[Krazzman]

About his means of your character not being min/maxed enough:
probably too much cha and int as a PF rogue only really needs Dex and Wisdom. Also not focused on Sneak Attacking enough and so on.

I find and experienced the Rogue in PF as being extremely difficult.

When I tried to play the rogue similar to how I would in DnD3.5 I was laughed at because my 14 in Str was determined not enough.
But believe me: play him and just don't give a damn about that stuff he said... additionally he already "retconned" his your char is too weak speech and even if he did not.

Another Feat you might consider taking is Improved Initiative as even if you can count everyone as flatfooted even after they acted in the surprise round... you can still be flat footed.

[Jonesy89CPFD]

Seems to me like you're missing a feat there. You have feats from 1st, 3rd and 5th level, as well as the human bonus feat, so 4 total. Now you also mention a flaw for a feat, which would give you a 5th feat, which is not mentioned. Maybe Deadly Aim or Precise shot, if you're going the ranged route.

Turns out the GMs forgot that feat progession is different from 3.5; luckily they let me know, so I went and took Precise Shot.

[Jonesy89CPFD]

I had hoped that the last of this was behind me, but GM2 strikes again.

After one of our joint classes ended, both GMs talked to me about the sheet I had turned in last night; it contained my equipment list, and was for all intents and purposes complete, with maybe roughly 150 gp to play with. GM1 pointed out that he had a few ideas regarding how I could conceal myself in combat and still sneak attack, eventually bringing up the smoke pellets I had purchased (a mix of smog and pepper, one of each in my pommel and belt pouch) and how I could use them for that purpose. I didn't go for some of the stuff he brought up (there was one loophole involving stealth and bluff that seemed especially broken), but I appreciated his feedback in general. GM2, on the other hand, while he may have had the odd point, engaged in ridicule and various assorted fallacies on top of his generally intimidating manner upon being roused.

Highlights included GM2 giving advice regarding an Eversmoking Bottle, but when I pointed out that I wasn't sure I could free up that much cash due to my existing arsenal, he got visibly angry and insisted that my equipment choices where awful and how I should be investing in more magic items (never mind that my character only begrudgingly uses the two he currently has, and only then for storage, or my general inclination toward implementing unconventional tactics; after all, if a magic item goes "missing", you can't exactly fashion a quick substitute).

GM2 also tried to talk me out of using poison, insisting that "combat won't last anywhere near 6 rounds", so spending money on strength-sapping poisons to reduce the enemy's combat effectiveness was worthless. This is one of the few times that he came close to making a point I could agree with. The problem, aside from the fact that GM2 tends to exaggerate when excited, leading me to doubt his assessments (not sure if by "worthless" what he really means is "not the most powerful";see his maintaining that STR 17 is "not viable" in 2E compared to Exceptional Strength), GM2 was so aggressive that I withdrew mentally to avoid the worst of it, so any point he did try to make in between engaging in ridicule was lost on me.

At one point, GM1 started talking, and GM2 started trying to butt in even though GM1 was still talking and I was maintaining eye contact with GM1 to be polite (something that I cannot do with GM2 when he is like this). I was doing so to avoid being rude to GM1, but this upset GM2 to the point that he stormed off in a huff muttering "I give up". I tried to talk to him after GM1 finished talking, but he refused to engage in conversation, even after I explained myself. I continued to talk to GM1 about a few things, and GM2 made derisive commentary throughout from the sidelines. For instance, when I asked GM1 if I could improve my save against my pepper pellets by covering my mouth, GM2 laughed a few feet away with nothing else noteworthy going on.

Before my next class started, GM2 also left a Skype message: "I'm not done yet". How wrong he is. I just talked with GM1 in confidence and he mentioned he agree that he thought that GM2 was taking things way too personally and that he had talked to GM2 about his attitude once they got back home. GM1 did add that GM2 tends to get caught up in the moment some times, so it might not prevent further incidents, but that I should call him out on it if GM2 had a relapse.

If that still doesn't do it, I'm bailing. Maybe I could see if GM1 would be ok with PC1 having my character as a henchman (she has a thing for Evil characters, and she isn't playing one in the one shot).

[OldTrees1]

I had hoped that the last of this was behind me, but GM2 strikes again.

-snip-

If that still doesn't do it, I'm bailing. Maybe I could see if GM1 would be ok with PC1 having my character as a henchman (she has a thing for Evil characters, and she isn't playing one in the one shot).

Well, to give credit where credit is due, the advice GM2 is giving is sound.
1) Using consumables (smoke pellets) to enable a character is drastically subpar compared to using a constant item (eversmoking). However you are right that you do not have the cash at this level to spend on it yet (given your other priorities).

2) Poison really is weak (not merely not the strongest) with a few exceptions.

Also to give credit where credit is due, you and GM1 were having a quality discussion.
1) Using bluff to create a distraction in order to hide is not a loophole. It is intentional. I do not know if this was what you were referring to.

2) GM1 bringing up the smoke pellets and you asking if your save could be improved if you were prepared (kept your mouth closed). In the end, this type of conversation will probably make smoke pellets a better tool than the eversmoking flask.


At this point
While GM2's comments might be irritating, they are offered in good faith and can be helpful. So I do not think the comments are the problem to address.

GM2's derisive tone/attitude, on the other hand, is a problem. I would request GM1 make GM2 understand that GM2 does not get to command other player nor speak derisively towards them. In return, you might find it beneficial to make GM2 feel "listened to" even when you decide not to follow GM2's advice.

[Jonesy89CPFD]

1) Using bluff to create a distraction in order to hide is not a loophole. It is intentional. I do not know if this was what you were referring to.

snip

At this point
While GM2's comments might be irritating, they are offered in good faith and can be helpful. So I do not think the comments are the problem to address.

GM2's derisive tone/attitude, on the other hand, is a problem. I would request GM1 make GM2 understand that GM2 does not get to command other player nor speak derisively towards them. In return, you might find it beneficial to make GM2 feel "listened to" even when you decide not to follow GM2's advice.

The loophole had something to do with using bluff to determine if a stealth attempt would work, and if it failed rolling some other skill to be able to hide successfully. He assured me there was nothing in the rules prohibiting it, but it sounded more like an unintentional loophole than anything else (then again, I may not be remembering it correctly). Regarding poison, I made sure to invest in stuff that had a high save and tough cure conditions (Purple Worm, Dragon Bile, Shadow Essence all have save DCs in the 20s and require 2 consecutive saves to cure or otherwise don't have one listed).

As for GM2, GM1 and I agreed that he might have a few points that could be helpful; the problem is that his attitude results in (1) me withdrawing, thus not taking much in, and (2) him going into a mode where he focuses less on fleshing out points than he does on engaging in ridicule and various other forms of fallacious reasoning which seem more calculated to him getting his way than addressing the problem.

Part of the problem is that GM2 self-identified as a 'twink' when helping PC2 go through character creation, so his priorities are probably somewhat misaligned with mine; he seems to be very focused on maximum power, while I enjoy playing with things because I think they are fun even if they aren't the most powerful (not to say that I don't factor it in).

[OldTrees1]

The loophole had something to do with using bluff to determine if a stealth attempt would work, and if it failed rolling some other skill to be able to hide successfully. He assured me there was nothing in the rules prohibiting it, but it sounded more like an unintentional loophole than anything else (then again, I may not be remembering it correctly). Regarding poison, I made sure to invest in stuff that had a high save and tough cure conditions (Purple Worm, Dragon Bile, Shadow Essence all have save DCs in the 20s and require 2 consecutive saves to cure or otherwise don't have one listed).

The first half of that sounds like the Distraction option for Bluff (Bluff followed by Hide). However remember the DM does have the ability to decided DCs for new skill uses. So while it was phrased like a loophole, it might just be the DM expanding the rules so they work with rather than against your character concept.

High DCs is important
Tough cure conditions is not important in combat although it would be useful out of combat or for combats with a tactical retreat in the middle
Status effects like unconciousness and high ability damage are both useful metrics for effectiveness. Although prioritize DCs over damage.

[Jonesy89CPFD]

The first half of that sounds like the Distraction option for Bluff (Bluff followed by Hide). However remember the DM does have the ability to decided DCs for new skill uses. So while it was phrased like a loophole, it might just be the DM expanding the rules so they work with rather than against your character concept.

High DCs is important
Tough cure conditions is not important in combat although it would be useful out of combat or for combats with a tactical retreat in the middle
Status effects like unconciousness and high ability damage are both useful metrics for effectiveness. Although prioritize DCs over damage.

Turns out that I had completely misunderstood what GM1 had said; he was describing what you are with regards to using bluff to run and hide at -10 penalty. The poisons I have don't do a lot of damage (think about d3 each), but the saves are definitely up there; well, except for the blister oil, but that's for special circumstances.

[Jonesy89CPFD]

GM2 just lost a player. I would recap what happened, but it was more of the same, except this time when I floated the idea that I was interested in doing my thing (poisoning, guerilla tactics, etc.) over doing a lot of direct damage because it seemed fun, GM2 insisted that I was hurting the whole party (a claim I find questionable, given the assessments of my sheet that posters have left) and that he would not be saving my character from dying because he presented such a liability. It took him a few seconds to realize what he said was upsetting, at which point he proceeded to offer a deadpan apology with all the emotion and sincerity of Willy Wonka saying "stop, don't, come back", assuring me he had only said that because he was grumpy due to having not eaten. I kept packing my bag to leave at that point, and had to resist the urge to scream when he remarked in a snarky tone that apparently his apology wasn't good enough, instead telling him that I was too upset to begin to process his apology right before I left.

Setting aside the passive aggressiveness near the end, I am baffled and horrified at the way he tried to play off his actions on an external force. I say horrified, because this is the same crap excuse that a friend of mine had to deal with from her verbally abusive husband, and the last thing I need these days is to deal with another person trying to deny responsibility for their thoughtless actions. I get that some people get cranky when they haven't eaten, but (1) he was still a human being with free will who could have chosen to not manifest his "grumpiness" in this manner, and (2) if his mental state upon not having eaten does not make him able to control how he acts, then it was irresponsible as all hell for him to be talking on a subject with which he has a history of unpleasant reactions (which GM2 has also blamed on being "grumpy"). If he can't reign himself in from behaving this way or make sure that he has eaten/gotten enough sleep/whatever he needs to not be in a disagreeable state, than I have no interest in sticking around (especially since if this does become a campaign, he may be running subsequent sessions).

[OldTrees1]

Sad, but well handled. I wish you a short journey to find another group.

[Jonesy89CPFD]

GM1 responded to my email; he says that if I change my mind, he would be perfectly happy if I came back. I thanked him, but this was too much.

Now to see how this affects the Planescape game on Saturday. Oi.

[Jonesy89CPFD]

Sad, but well handled. I wish you a short journey to find another group.

Thanks, I deeply appreciate it. Was hoping this wouldn't happen, but better now than wait for GM2 to make good on his threat.

[Jonesy89CPFD]

I had been holding off on telling GM2 I was withdrawing. When I finally did, he insisted on withdrawing himself; the way he phrased it, he could either leave so that I could keep playing, or keep playing and be known as the reason I left. As a charming touch, he mentioned that if I still wanted to leave as well that the one shot would die (what with only two players being left). I couldn't make him understand that his train of logic put me in a comparable position, but at the very least I seemed to make a dent with regards to just how reprehensible he has been acting.

Considering sticking around for the one shot if GM2 is serious about not playing in it; it should be a fun way of spending Spring Break, and I've already put this much effort into it. As far as I'm concerned, if people are going to blame me for GM2 not being there after the way he has been acting, then I shall have no ****s to give.