Throwing heavy objects in combat

[mehs]

I made a character that has an obscene carrying capacity, and during one combat, I threw a troll corpse at a guy as an improvised net. It functioned pretty much just as a net heavy enough that the other person couldn't easily get out.
The abilities and such that went into this, 15 base strength, efficient packer, sword of the society, cut your losses, masterwork backpack, muleback cords, and heavyload belt.

The gm is now saying that the muleback cords (The wearer treats his Strength score as 8 higher than normal when determining his carrying capacity. This bonus does not apply to combat, breaking items, or any other Strength-related rolls, it only contributes to the amount of equipment or material the wearer can carry.) flat out don't work in combat, possibly to the extent of the guy being immediately overloaded as soon as combat starts.

At this point I'm just wondering if I would be the ******* for just leaving, because between it taking 5 hours for 2 combats and some talking, the gmpc, and one of the other players trying to backseat gm and challenge me on how my carrying capacity works rather than leave it to the gm.

[JNAProductions]

I made a character that has an obscene carrying capacity, and during one combat, I threw a troll corpse at a guy as an improvised net. It functioned pretty much just as a net heavy enough that the other person couldn't easily get out.
The abilities and such that went into this, 15 base strength, efficient packer, sword of the society, cut your losses, masterwork backpack, muleback cords, and heavyload belt.

The gm is now saying that the muleback cords (The wearer treats his Strength score as 8 higher than normal when determining his carrying capacity. This bonus does not apply to combat, breaking items, or any other Strength-related rolls, it only contributes to the amount of equipment or material the wearer can carry.) flat out don't work in combat, possibly to the extent of the guy being immediately overloaded as soon as combat starts.

At this point I'm just wondering if I would be the ******* for just leaving, because between it taking 5 hours for 2 combats and some talking, the gmpc, and one of the other players trying to backseat gm and challenge me on how my carrying capacity works rather than leave it to the gm.

That ruling alone wouldn't make me leave. It's... Dumb, but tolerable in general-I doubt you need 8 more strength of encumbrance in combat.

But the rest... Yeah, if you aren't having fun, then no point staying. Be polite with your departure, but no gaming is better than bad gaming.

[mehs]

He ruled that *any* of the effects (feat, traits, items and magic items) I was using to boost my carrying capacity don't function in combat. And while he edged away from ruling that I would fall prone upon entering combat, trying to use it in any way in combat such as picking up or dropping large objects, just wouldn't function. And seeing as one of the feats I was using is literally (Whenever you withdraw as a full-round action and have at least one free hand, you can pick up one unattended object or unconscious ally of your size or smaller at any point during your movement without provoking attacks of opportunity. Any additional movement performed on your turn still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. In addition, you treat your Strength score as 2 higher for the purpose of determining your carrying capacity.) That would F over not just the fun that I was going for but also the actual mechanics. In general, it seems to be him interpreting muleback cords "this bonus (to strength for carrying capacity) does not apply to combat..." as "this bonus (to carrying capacity) can't be used *in* combat", then applying that to everything that boosts carrying capacity.

[Batcathat]

Yeah, that seems like a weird ruling. It also doesn't really make any in-universe sense, since... well, why would any magic item work like that?

On its own, it probably wouldn't make me leave a game, but since it seems like the GM is either actively trying to screw you over or is the kind of GM that goes by the letter of the rules rather than what makes sense (and a rather questionable interpretation of the letter, no less) it would certainly make me wary.

[sleepyphoenixx]

This kind of issue should have been brought up when the DM approved your character.
Didn't you talk about what you wanted your build to do before the game? That alone would be a big red flag for me.

Allowing a character into play and then going "lol no it doesn't work like you thought it would" is a pretty ****ty move for a DM, especially if it's combined with a "you're useless now, hehe" ruling on top of it.
Any half-decent DM should try to work with you to at least fix the build even if he won't budge on his rulings.

If you think you can stand to continue playing with the group i'd suggest asking for a rebuild.
Otherwise i'll second the suggestion to politely leave and look for a better group.

[Telonius]

It's possible he's concerned about some Hulking Hurler-esque shenanigans. The prestige class was one of the early ones to be recognized as abusable - doing silly things like shooting down the moon, tossing planets around, doing millions of damage, etc. It's been a well-known exploit for years, and expanding carrying capacity was a key part of it, for the more "normal" optimization. (Festering Anger from Book of Vile Darkness was the main component for theoretical optimization, but that's its own can of worms).

Seeing somebody optimized for carrying capacity flinging a Large corpse during combat might be setting off some alarm bells for him.

I'd suggest talking it out with him, and making it clear that you're not trying to crack the planet in two.

[Phhase]

You've spent a lot of effort specializing into a very specific niche that is currently preforming Pretty Ok as a combat utility without being too ridiculous. I truly don't understand the rationale here, you should be allowed to reap the reward for a hyperspecific build. Why shouldn't you get to do the One Cool Thing you're specifically going for?