Post/Author/DateTime	Post
FallFromGrace 07-22-05, 09:19 AM	All right, it seems that our DM got completely fed up with my Druid 12 magic item crafter, and he severely nerfed our campaign. He banned all non-core books, all crafting feats, Natural Spell, and most importantly, almost all magical items (we can now only have one item that gives a +2 bonus to an ability, or +1 to all saves, or +2 to AC, and other such minor items). He also unbalanced the Half-Orc by removing the penalty to Intelligence, removing Casting on the Defensive, removing the Monk class, and so on. [Basically he's an unexperienced DM who got a little bit power hungry when he discovered that DMs can alter the D&D rules] So how can I abuse this setting? :D We are allowed to create new, level 12 characters with the 25 point buy system. I don't think it's worth it to have a druid anymore, so I think I'll shift to something rather martial-oriented, specifically a mean little halfling (don't ask :D). I was thinking of Ex-Paladin 1 / Blackguard 10 / Sorcerer 1, ready to pour all other levels into Dragon Disciple. I used Blackguard and Dragon Disciple because it seems like the only way to benefit for much-needed ability and saving throw boosts. I'm using the following ability array: Str 15 Dex 12 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 8 Cha 14 I know that you optimization masters are focused on much more liberal campaign rules, but any advice or suggestions would be much apprieciated. :) SBS :)
Funny Slaughter 07-22-05, 09:56 AM	especially when starting at lvl 12 you should stick with your druid. dire ape godness! no natural spell needed and the total triumph. without magical items you are even better as a full caster, especially as a druid. gs Funny
geekpocket 07-22-05, 10:10 AM	With the limitation on powerful magic items, I would consider a Celestial or Fiendish template. It's in the MM, so it's core, and it's LA +2. Normally some people would advise against it, but given your situation, the Damage Reduction, Spell Resistance, and Energy Resistances will prove invaluable since you may not be able to readily purchase magic items to replicate them. Since you're starting at level 12, you wont be behind the power curve that much. A level 10 (ECL 12) isn't that much less powerful than a character with 12 class levels.
Faithless the Wonder Boy 07-22-05, 10:15 AM	I agree, Druid is still a strong choice, although I think no Natural Spell would drive me crazy. Removing casting on the defensive is a pain, but it can be worked around, especially with a divine caster. My personal advice is to go with Cleric. If it's Core only you're looking at, I'd suggest either... ...a melee cleric of Kord (Cleric 12, human/dwarf/half-orc, domains Strength and Luck), since by level 12 you'll have access to sixth level spells, meaning a number of rather impressive buffs that are all perfectly core and legit... ...or a summoning cleric (Cleric 7/Thaumaturgist 5, human, take the magic, healing, knowledge, or even strength domain). Abuse the cheaper Planar Ally whenever you can, let your planar cohort do most of the fighting for you, summon a lot and set up contingent conjurations frequently. With Augment Summoning, you should tend to summon several smaller foes rather than one big one.
Dark Kyosuke 07-22-05, 10:27 AM	I know that you optimization masters are focused on much more liberal campaign rules, but any advice or suggestions would be much apprieciated. :) I know this is the wrong board for this kind of suggestion, but... Leave. Take your books, get up, and leave the presence of this DM. These rules are arbitrary and launched from a position of ignorance. There is no succeeding under a DM who mistakes his own failure to compensate for his player's ingenuity for a failure of the rules. Again: Run. Now. Screaming is optional.
beaver1024 07-22-05, 11:13 AM	I know this is the wrong board for this kind of suggestion, but... Leave. Take your books, get up, and leave the presence of this DM. These rules are arbitrary and launched from a position of ignorance. There is no succeeding under a DM who mistakes his own failure to compensate for his player's ingenuity for a failure of the rules. Again: Run. Now. Screaming is optional. I wouldn't be too hard on the DM. You wouldn't expect the DM to compensate for all the crap that 3.5 throws into the game do you? 3.5 is making is life more difficult than it already is and I can understand his frustration. He's generous enough to give you the opportunity to redesign your character so abuse the new rules as much as possible. Remember everything is relative. His global changes affect other characters as much as your druid. As the druid doesn't need that many magic items to be viable, druids are still good to go. The changes doesn't seem to affect the core cleric archer build too much either. Maybe you should try to abuse that build. Remember that the cleric archer relies heavily on spells to power up his arrows.
blackbrrd 07-22-05, 11:24 AM	Actually, I don't see the problem with the nerfing. The DM probably had problems making challenging encounters, so he could: a) nerf the characters b) up the EL c) optimize the monsters option b) makes for quick tpk's option c) takes some time to do right option a) is quite simple
Dark Kyosuke 07-22-05, 11:34 AM	Yes, well, that all might be true, but three months from now (if that long), I expect a post on "What's A Player To Do?" from the topic starter. In it will be tales of woe, of armies of Monks and Wildshaping Druids with Natural Spell casting on the defensive, all bearing scores of magical items (that probably disintigrate upon capture)... I'm willing and able to be proven wrong, but it'd be the first time I'd see that such radical rules changes were performed properly, espically when they were done reflexively, as we have here.
UMiskatonic 07-22-05, 11:38 AM	I wouldn't be too hard on the DM. At least he's trying to improve. Too many DM's just roll out the same uninspired blech, week after week. This guy has noticed problems, and is trying to adjust to them. That's good. Work with this guy, and try to help him. Ask him what he's having trouble with, and see if you can't compromise, either as an individual, or as a group of players. My guess is that most of your encounters take place in the open, there is a very low amount of intrigue, and environmental effects are almost never around. I'll bet that a fight underwater where movement and missile fire are reduced would level the playing field VERY quickly. Maybe you could politely volunteer to run a sample combat, and let him play your character while you run a fight. Enforce all those little troublesome rules, and see what happens.
Pyrthas 07-22-05, 11:49 AM	This guy has noticed problems, and is trying to adjust to them. That's good.The issue here is that he hasn't and isn't. Or rhater, he's adjusting to them incredibly poorly. He's noticed that there is a problem, but clearly he hasn't diagnosed it correctly, and prohibiting certain things isn't going to solve anything. There's almost always a way to optimize things; this board is proof of that. However, I agree with Work with this guy, and try to help him. Ask him what he's having trouble with, and see if you can't compromise, either as an individual, or as a group of players.I wouldn't leave the game, but I would attempt to discuss with the DM what he's having issues with and try to work out a decent way for him to permanently fix the situation. Of couse, if the DM is unwilling to participate in such a discussion, then I'd leave. ;)
DDogwood 07-22-05, 11:58 AM	Leave. Take your books, get up, and leave the presence of this DM. These rules are arbitrary and launched from a position of ignorance. There is no succeeding under a DM who mistakes his own failure to compensate for his player's ingenuity for a failure of the rules. That's not really fair. The changes listed don't look like they're intended to nerf one specific class; they are more like general simplifications of the rules. The worst likely thing to come out of this is that encounters will be more challenging - and optimizers should find that GOOD, not bad. Natural Spell is overpowered in the first place (or Wild Shape is - take your pick). Non-Core books are optional by definition. The magic items limit is a bit harsh, but will probably apply to NPCs as well, so it should be fair (maybe he should give non-item using monsters a +1 CR mod to compensate). The boost to the Half-Orc isn't that big; Casting on the Defensive affects NPCs equally; and the Monk class isn't a huge loss. The DM might have gone a bit overboard, but it is easier to go overboard with nerfing and then build the power back up than to allow everything and try to keep the power in check.
RealMad 07-22-05, 12:07 PM	I wouldn't be too hard on the DM. You wouldn't expect the DM to compensate for all the crap that 3.5 throws into the game do you? 3.5 is making is life more difficult than it already is and I can understand his frustration. He's generous enough to give you the opportunity to redesign your character so abuse the new rules as much as possible. Remember everything is relative. His global changes affect other characters as much as your druid. As the druid doesn't need that many magic items to be viable, druids are still good to go. The changes doesn't seem to affect the core cleric archer build too much either. Maybe you should try to abuse that build. Remember that the cleric archer relies heavily on spells to power up his arrows. Ditto. As a devout min/maxer (both as player and DM), I understand the difficulties involved when DMing. As a player, you put 100% of your effort and creativity into one character. When you DM, even if you are as good an optimizer as your players, it's hard to match up when you have so many entities to handle. Personally, I just up the EL when I DM but then again, I read the new books just as much as the players. If a DM doesn't, or can't, I can fully understand his desire to limit the books used. Anyway, a limit on books is just another optimization challenge.
AviLazar 07-22-05, 12:16 PM	That's not really fair. The changes listed don't look like they're intended to nerf one specific class; they are more like general simplifications of the rules. Actually they do: Natural Spell - designed for druids Monk - totally gone Concentration - mainly used for spell casters (why is this such a problem, i tend to max my concentration and still fail often enough) No crafting feats (again spell casters) Super limited magic items (everyone, but really hurts non-spell casters the most) What will the DM do when a spell caster gets spells like horrid wilting? Will the spellcaster even be able to find scrolls in this game so they can have more then 2 spells per level? What will happen when the monsters have DR (which at their level should already be happening) and the players can't bypass this? Also, offense greatly outstrips defense at higher levels and these guys do not have this benefit. Imagine being level 12 fighter and walking around with masterwork platemail...you now have 19 AC (assuming 12 dex). In this campaign he would be lucky to have 20 AC....what level 12 critter will have a problem hitting 20 AC? The only thing I can possibly agree on limiting is Natural Spell (for a new DM) and even that is not exceedingly powerful. I rarely craft in the campaigns I play, but it is not overly powerful as it has limitations (money and exp). I think a better option is for the DM to try and utilize what he has and go core for himself (not his players). My DM utilizes only (with rare exception) core challenges for us and he challenges us very very well. There isn't a battle where someone almost dies. Mind you, he doesn't throw high ecl's at us - generally he throws low ecls at us. We did a one shot game where we were level 12 and he took a ecl3 critter who critted my character for 79 damage. My character was already half-way down with his HPs and that 79 just killed him...an ECL 3 critter took down a level 12 character. A DM does not need to utilize non-core material, or even use monsters who have higher ECL then the players to offer them challenges - that is a myth to say the least. As for the player...take the feat Far Reach and pick up wizard so you have rusting grasp. Now when your DM throws at you critters with non-magical weapons you can disintigrate them. Tell one of your melee players to get adamantine greatsword and improved sunder. Just make sure not to sunder magical EQ.
Caelic 07-22-05, 12:23 PM	I have only one comment to make on the subject: "DM who lets the players do whatever they want" does not equal "Good DM." "DM who places restrictions on his game" does not equal "Bad DM." It may or may not be the case that this is a bad DM, but it seems like every single time someone puts up a post here mentioning that his DM doesn't allow a given book/feat/class, SOMEONE pipes up with "Get up, walk away, and never talk to him again, he's a bad DM!" Me? All I can say is that, in twenty-five years of gaming, I have NEVER seen a long-term "anything goes" campaign that I considered good.
Sieylianna 07-22-05, 01:06 PM	I have only one comment to make on the subject: "DM who lets the players do whatever they want" does not equal "Good DM." "DM who places restrictions on his game" does not equal "Bad DM." I agree with this. While this is the CO board, there are a lot of DM's who don't like that style of play. It can be difficult to challenge an optimized PC without killing the PCs who are more oriented towards story-telling. Your continued focus on an optimized PC within the new restrictions is likely to cause more restrictions in the future. You need to remember that the DM and other players also need to have fun, it's not all about you. Ed
FallFromGrace 07-22-05, 06:24 PM	That's not really fair. The changes listed don't look like they're intended to nerf one specific class; they are more like general simplifications of the rules. Hmm, I think they are, if I may say so myself. My druid was the only PC benefitting from Natural Spell (of course) or item creation feats. He was the only one who used class features of the Monk class (via a monk's belt; I suspect he banned the monk class because he predicted I'd make a Monk 1 / Druid 11 instead), and the only character using Casting on the Defensive regularly was the same druid, who cast Fire Seeds adjacently to the enemy, walked away, and commanded the holly berries to explode. I don't think that my druid is viable anymore, at least not without some serious retooling of the character orientation (wildshape round the clock and focus on melee rather than support). So I'm searching for viable and interesting builds. As I've mentioned it's core only, so no Far Reach or Dire Ape, and he wouldn't allow any races other than the ones in the Player's Handbook. Where can I find that core cleric archer build? Your continued focus on an optimized PC within the new restrictions is likely to cause more restrictions in the future. I have thought of this, but frankly I think that in such a tight campaign, a mistake in character planning can spell doom for the character. The DM generally likes to have us fight spiced-up or overpowering encounters, who would clearly manage to defeat us when using their whole allotment of abilities, but "somehow" they don't (for example a monster with perfect flight maneuverability and finger of death/will, which we defeated in melee), but the tide had changed recently, which seems to have brought the rule changes. I have discussed with him the difficulties we'll face against many of the monsters in the Monster Manual, especially as far as Damage Reduction and physical attacks are concerned, but he is adamant. And I don't want to feel relieved each time he sets a 12-level Bard in our way (hmm, even this sounds tough! ;)) rather than a Leonal. I prefer to have a character that can theoretically deal with which ever challenge of the relevant level and CR, rather than expecting the DM to handpick the encounters with our disabilities in mind. Not to mention that it's usually a blast to roleplay optimized characters. Whee! :D
Timlagor 07-22-05, 08:34 PM	With a new DM I would strongly recommend that he start you off at Level 1 instead -suggest it to him.
catharz 07-22-05, 09:12 PM	Core archer cleric: If you can choose your domains, be a human with War for Prof. and Focus is the composite longbow. The other domain is probably best as something which gives good spells, like Trickery or Animal. Have your one magic item be wisdom +2. For feats, you need PBS and Rapid shot. Extend spell is nice but not neccesary. Quicken spell will eventually be a must. Grab the other archery feats too, as they become available. A side-focus on summoning could help too. For a final build, you could do worse than Cleric 12/Thaumaturgist 5/Heirophant 3. Keep it low key. Use Greater Magic Weapon on your bow, and possibly on your allies' weapons as well. Magic Vestiment, basically anything which can act as a surrogate magic item. Aside from that, just be a normal cleric.
A Man In Black 07-22-05, 09:20 PM	I don't think that my druid is viable anymore, at least not without some serious retooling of the character orientation (wildshape round the clock and focus on melee rather than support). So I'm searching for viable and interesting builds. As I've mentioned it's core only, so no Far Reach or Dire Ape, and he wouldn't allow any races other than the ones in the Player's Handbook. Where can I find that core cleric archer build? Dire Ape (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/direApe.htm) is a core creature. Personally, I prefer brown bear, dire lion, or post-errata megaraptor, but dire ape is a good form, too. I think you're giving up on druid too quickly. The Druid Handbook (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=465005) (make sure you also read the 'Updated Druid Handbook', which is linked from there and is the still-useful predecessor) can give you plenty of advice; just ignore any non-core stuff or anything you can't use. You'll have to change your fighting style and probably some of your feats, but I think you can salvage this character.
Skrimshaw 07-22-05, 09:30 PM	IMHO if you make a character especially powerful just to spite him, He will simply rule that you cannot play it...heck he's done it before I say...Make a lvl 14 Torch Bearer :D
Mist of Shadows 07-22-05, 11:43 PM	<---plays casters a lot. I abuse the concentration check to cast as much as the next guy or more. But it is a stupid feat as far as reality if you think about it. Your waving arms around and someone if your good at concentrating the fighter next to you doesn't get a free hit. Blah. As for concentration being used to still get your spell off that didn't sound like it was nerfed. Just don't be standing next to people. As for the orcs not having the minus to int that's not a big deal either. As for not having monks Thank you mister dm sir for getting rid of that class. I've done martial arts for years and what the monk does at points is silly. Warrior plus sword equals dead martial artist in 9 out of 10 cases if they both know what they are doing. So I say good riddance to the class. Or it could just be that the dm is trying for a campaign feel that doesn't have martial arts. You could ask him to explain that for you. As for natural spell come on guys yes it's nice to have your spells work in other forms but there is another way to do that, though slightly more painful Silent spell you might need still spell as well. But try to talk him into just needing silent. It seems like a fair deal. Or not druids are broken with wild shape. As for the removing of item crafting feats that hurts, I would ask him if the items that are out there are artifacts? Or if it's part of some secret sect or something. That's going to be the point where it's probably just being over handed. It's not fair for npcs to beable to craft items if you can't. I'm a poor dm and don't have all the new books so I can totally see not wanting a number of them used when he doesn't have access to them. I let people use a great deal of stuff it just requires me looking over it first. And 3.0 and 3.5 have done some things right and some things are really really stupid on how they did them. As for your druid ohh cry you can't walk up to people and cast right next to them and then blow them up. As for less magical items in general well it sounds like the wizard/cleric/druid buffer is everyones new friend. And demons and dragons are going to be a lot harder to kill. I suggest taking things like knowledge religion/arcana/dungeonering and such things so that you get a roll to see if the monster you are scouting out requires magic. On the up side in 3.5 even a simple bless spell allows you to hit things that used to (in 3.0) take a +5 magical weapon. So you aren't totally up the creek. And yes you get hit a lot now. Welcome to life. Life hurts. Play smarter. It's as easy as that. You can no longer depend on your insane ac to save you. adjust your playing style and be more catious. In books the hero doesn't normally charge through the legons of orcs and such things (until after they have no hope). So in other words look at this as a chance to expand your rp and tactic skills rather then trying to find a way to play some other broken character. I'm not putting down optimization I'm pointing out that there are more ways to optimize then just the numbers on the character sheet. I can give the best build in the world to a 5 year old and the character could still die because the 5 year old doesn't know how to play it. End of rant. In other words talk the changes through with your dm and don't just assume that he is a bad dm for changing things, maybe he has a plan work with him to make it better. If it doesn't pan out after a few weeks try changing dm's. Keep the same rules letting him play a character with those rules might help in his understanding of them. Some of the changes aren't bad ones. Can't argue his reasons though wasn't there.
amalcon 07-23-05, 12:08 AM	This is not the type of advice you'll often see on these boards, but...exactly what was the problem your DM was trying to fix? If the problem was that he was unable to challenge the party, you might be in a tough spot. What your DM needs is just some more experienced, or maybe some coaching from someone more experienced. There's another problem that I see far more often. This problem is that sometimes, either by accident or intentionally, some player/s end up doing everything in the game. It's not that tough for one character to be the top damage dealer, the top scout, the top tank, and the top healer all in one (an optimized druid in a team of not-optimized characters). This character can dominate the game and make it a lot less fun for everybody else. There are really three solutions to the latter. One is hard, one is usually met with resistance, and one is easy. The hard one is for the DM to provide challenges tailored to the strengths of everybody who isn't currently dominating the game. The one that's met with resistance is to just have the players who are dominating the game, make weaker characters. It works VERY well, and is probably the most fun, if your players don't mind. Catch is, usually they do mind. Thus, the last solution -- have the players who are dominating the game help the other people make their characters more powerful. Grow them into their own niches. It's less fun than the last one, because people don't have as many options to play with (they're pretty much stuck with the really powerful ones; no fighter-druids or healers, whereas a powerful concept can usually be tweaked either in creation or in play to be on the level of the rest of the party). On the other hand, it works pretty consistently.
Mist of Shadows 07-23-05, 12:28 AM	*you forgot the 4th option the other players kill the druid cause he is an annoying character that hogs the loot and (show.)*
UMiskatonic 07-23-05, 12:34 AM	I think Amalcon hit the nail on the head. You need to do LESS optimizing of yourself. That's the second best kind of optimization anyway. You need to do MORE optimizing of the party. Simple example: Enlarge person is a good spell. Cast it on yourself, and it's easier to beat people up. But cast it on the fighter, and he's MUCH better at it than you are. For a first level spell, you'll get more damage out of that than you will a magic missle. If the rest of the players don't know that Power Attack is a far better feat than Weapon Focus, then you need to show them why it's the case. If they know and aren't interested in playing 100% optimized characters, then you might want to consider backing down a bit yourself. That will please the DM, and probably the rest of the players. Overall, you'll have more fun when your group is all on the same page.
Mist of Shadows 07-23-05, 12:58 AM	UMiskatonic has a point as does Amalcon it's some times better to optimize your party. This can be done ic as well. How you ask. :) Well I'll use an example the fighter in the party noticed that one of the characters wasn't using a very good weapon for his strength. Was using a dagger when the character "knew" how to use simple weapons. The fighter took him weapon shopping at the next town got him a morning star and gave him some basic instructions in it for rp value and the party was happy. The guy started pulling his own weight in combat a lot better with a minor change. We also had a case where a few suggestions and a cross bow turned the party wizard into support crew. We dressed him in normal adventuring clothes and stuck a cross bow in his hands to cover us on a mission. Could he hit anything well not really. But we didn't tell the other people that. There are many many ways to hedge your bets in Dnd (d20 as well) that dm's like. Now that being said the page that people are on, isn't like a normal book page. Think of it more like a text book page with captions and various strange text and other things. For example if the bard is perfectly happy to have someone be loads and above better in combat. Then that's okay. If the fighter doesn't mind being worse then the cleric of war that's also allowable. If he does mind then suggest ways to fix him being behind. I don't complain in games when the priest does more damage to undead them I do as the fighter. I start looking at him funny when he is doing more damage minimum then I am doing max to normal creatures cause of some wierd fluke or strange combination of feats that make no sense but are legal. Your best bet is to have a talk with the other players and see what you can do to make sure everyone is having fun. Something you might concider one of the other players might have told the dm they weren't having fun. And the dm tried to fix it the only way he knew how. I suggest collecting what the other people are playing and getting some story back ground and then working on optimizing their characters with them if they want. Some times it's more fun to not worry about being opptimized though. Talking to the other players will help you out.
beaver1024 07-23-05, 05:41 AM	There's another problem that I see far more often. This problem is that sometimes, either by accident or intentionally, some player/s end up doing everything in the game. It's not that tough for one character to be the top damage dealer, the top scout, the top tank, and the top healer all in one (an optimized druid in a team of not-optimized characters). This character can dominate the game and make it a lot less fun for everybody else. Is it the player's problem that the 3.5 design team are biased and made certain classes over the top? The DM needs to recognise that the best solution is to correct the crap that the 3.5 design team made into the system. Patching it without thought like he's done will not fix anything. The druid and cleric will still dominate the game even with his nerfing in place. There are really three solutions to the latter. One is hard, one is usually met with resistance, and one is easy. The hard one is for the DM to provide challenges tailored to the strengths of everybody who isn't currently dominating the game. The one that's met with resistance is to just have the players who are dominating the game, make weaker characters. It works VERY well, and is probably the most fun, if your players don't mind. Catch is, usually they do mind. The DM has to tailor the campaign anyway due to the bad assumptions 3.5 made into the system. IOW 3.5 made an assumption that the DM will tailor the campaign to compensate for weaknesses in their class design and rules. The most obvious example of this is the need for down time for arcane casters. There is another option and that is for the DM to compensate for the crap in 3.5. i.e. Change the rules of his game thoughtfully to do what should have been done to the system in the first place. He's currently trying to do that but he's not putting much thought into the changes. Thus, the last solution -- have the players who are dominating the game help the other people make their characters more powerful. Grow them into their own niches. It's less fun than the last one, because people don't have as many options to play with (they're pretty much stuck with the really powerful ones; no fighter-druids or healers, whereas a powerful concept can usually be tweaked either in creation or in play to be on the level of the rest of the party). On the other hand, it works pretty consistently. This is potentially good unless people are just not interested in optimisation and there are many players out there that are like this. Thankfully in my group they are the minority and eventually found the joy of optimisation once their characters died a few times to appropriate CR encounters.
20goingon1232 07-23-05, 06:44 AM	Be a Wizard. Take Plane Shift, Greater Teleport, Dimension Door. See a monster with a CR of about half your party's ECL, Greater Teleport home. When the DM protest, tell him it is too dangerous to fight something like that when you are so ill-prepared to do so (ie., no equipment). It is safer back home. Rinse and repeat. Watch campaign fall apart. Ask other players if they want a game with one of you as the DM. Pointedly NOT invite current DM. Okay... The last bit might be a bit extreme, but I have a touchy nerve where stupid DMs are concerned :D
Kurama Youko 07-23-05, 08:38 AM	This comes as no surprise im sure but I think I agree with Dark Kyosuke and 20goingon1232. There really is no excuse for that kind of butchering of the rules even with the exception of the DM's always right. I've experienced the trials of new DM's who never DM'd before in their lives and none of them have ever done anything remotely close to this. I think the problem might be that the DM doesnt or hasnt spent enough time playing as a player throughtout all the different ranges of lvs and facing all the different possible encounters suitable to those levels. If he did then DMing and creating similiar experiences for players wouldnt be as awkward or over powered due to his lack of experience. Like I said, I had a friend who I introduced into DND eventually DM his own campaign, very successfully by the way (It was a short adventurer.) and he didnt feel the need to limit anything because he spent enough time playing with different classes, looking through different prc, using different magic items, and basically applied himself in terms of what makes sense and what doesnt. So yes basically I think either you should try and coach this new DM out of being the DM until he better accepts the rules as they are, its not just about what the DM wants because the Players have to like or feel comfortable with new rule changes as well or else your just gonna have a bunch of disgruntled players who care very little for your story or campaign and probably will just end up quitting or trying to purposely ruin it.
Caelic 07-23-05, 11:23 AM	Once again: limits do not indicate a bad or inexperienced DM. Sorry, but I find that ongoing assumption and implication to be just a bit offensive. In my current campaign, there are no straight casters--at all. No Druids, no Clerics, no Wizards, no Sorcerors. Very few classes from non-core supplements are permitted, and thus far, there are fewer than a half dozen prestige classes. Anyone want to take up the cry of "Nerf! Bad DM?" I'm not saying that it's not possible...I'm not even saying that THIS DM isn't a bad DM, because I've never met the guy and I don't know. I'm just powerfully tired of hearing "Nerf! Bad DM!" every time ANY limitations are mentioned.
Kurama Youko 07-23-05, 11:42 AM	I think your getting a little to emotional. No one accused him of being a bad DM, I myself stated that he seemed inexperienced. Why? Because apparently atleast ONE player (The one who started this thread.) doesnt nesscesarily understand or like his DM's call. I think thats what the people who felt it was a bad idea picked up on. Has nothing to do with him being BAD. It has everything to do with him killing some of the creativity and joy of his players. Again it has nothing to do with him being BAD.
Faithless the Wonder Boy 07-23-05, 11:51 AM	Once again: limits do not indicate a bad or inexperienced DM. Sorry, but I find that ongoing assumption and implication to be just a bit offensive. In my current campaign, there are no straight casters--at all. No Druids, no Clerics, no Wizards, no Sorcerors. Very few classes from non-core supplements are permitted, and thus far, there are fewer than a half dozen prestige classes. Anyone want to take up the cry of "Nerf! Bad DM?" I'm not saying that it's not possible...I'm not even saying that THIS DM isn't a bad DM, because I've never met the guy and I don't know. I'm just powerfully tired of hearing "Nerf! Bad DM!" every time ANY limitations are mentioned. Personally, I don't think it's the fact that any limitations are mentioned that people are calling this person a bad DM. This isn't a case of a DM who decides to run a core-only campaign or a low-magic campaign. This is a DM who changes his mind halfway through and forces his characters to oblige. I run two campaigns right now. One allows most books, provided I've seen the book at some point (I don't like nasty surprises, and I won't say I allow a book if I haven't seen it). If there's something I haven't specifically stated I allow, I let my characters bring it to me and decide based on that, though I try to be consistent. In my other campaign, I run things core-only, and it's loads of fun. Now, never once have any of the players in either group complained that I'm a bad DM because I don't allow something, or that I nerfed the game. I set out rules in the beginning and I stuck to them. However, in my game where I allow most books, if one character got out of hand or the party was defeating my challenges too easily, I would be a bad DM and an unfair DM if I immediately reacted by changing the rules I set out to fix that one problem. It strains credibility in your world to have something just change like that, and worse, it's unfair to the player, since they probably thought they were operating within boundaries you yourself set. Now, that doesn't mean I just leave things alone. I like to talk to the player, explain what any problems I have are, and talk with the whole group. When I do disallow something I do so after discussing it with my group, and explaining why from a mechanics and a roleplay perspective. Again, no one has ever complained about something I've disallowed, and I've been running both of these campaigns for over a year and a half now. Yes, I know that it's a hard thing to do - if you don't modify things post facto, perhaps the challenge will be a little too easy, or maybe it'll be unfair to the other players. But then again, if you do, you're metagaming even more than the most optimized player, you're setting the example that as the DM you don't have to obey any rules (which ends up making players feel a little helpless, since it shows that you'll do whatever you need to in order to make what you want to happen occur), and it's unfair to the player that you target, who probably didn't know ahead of time that he or she was doing anything wrong. Taking the easy route and just changing the campaign post facto is most certainly a sign of bad DMing, especially if it's done as recklessly as this DM appears to have done. Note that I'm not a huge optimizer, and again I have no problem with DMs "nerfing" campaigns. I'm designing a world right now where the only spellcasters are either ritual mages (probably NPCs, they can perform powerful rituals that require a lot of people and take days or weeks, but have very strong effects), shamans (limited witch-like spell list, very limited wild shape), and healers. But I'm not "nerfing" anything. I'm adjusting the game to better fit an idea I had in my head, and I'm doing all the balancing ahead of time. And if I find out through play that something I thought was okay was unbalanced, I'll find a way to deal with it that doesn't require hampering the game or breaking the illusion. I'm not suddenly telling my players that the cleric can no longer cast anything but heal spells, the druid's wild shape lasts minutes instead of hours, and the wizard's fireball will now take three days to cast.