Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Random Sasquatch 07-05-07, 01:59 PM	Hey guys, Due to a disasterous conclusion to our last game (which included: two players completely dominating gameplay via various shows of powergaming force, a lackluster, unfullfilling storyline (voiced by all the PCs), a frustrated DM who left the group), I'm trying to discourage powergaming and encourage skill use and roleplaying in an upcoming campaign I'm running. I'm in the midst of creating some house rules that will help facilitate this and I'm wondering what your guys opinions are, regarding which feats you think are broken/easily abuseable. As far as feats go, which feats do you guys think that I should not allow in my game? Here is a short list of feats that are on the docket for possible banishment: Divine Metamagic Natural Spell Persistant Spell Spell Matrix Any input is appreciated, -RS
UndeadPenguin 07-05-07, 02:26 PM	Instead of setting up a banlist or feats, spells, etc. I would simply ask your players to give you their character sheets ahead of time and review them preferably with backstory and fluff (if you're into that). If any character seems overpowered tell them and have them repick the offending characteristic(s). If the player feels that removing said aspect would ruin their character they have enough to time to rethink their character concept and make the necessary changes.
Random Sasquatch 07-05-07, 02:44 PM	The problem with doing that is that I am a mediocre power gamer at best and I don't think I'll be able to recognize feats that could, potentially, be game-breaking.
Sunic_Flames 07-05-07, 02:47 PM	The problem with doing that is that I am a mediocre power gamer at best and I don't think I'll be able to recognize feats that could, potentially, be game-breaking. The board collectively has a Knowledge (Optimization) modifier of +30 (+60 if in CO subforum). So ask. ;)
tui 07-05-07, 02:52 PM	Yeah, just agree on the level of powergaming that is acceptable before hand... A hastily thrown together serious of house rules without anyone changing their attitude won't work; they'll just find new ways to abuse your house rules. You just need everyone to be mature, talk it out, and decide how much powergaming they'll do. If people can't understand that their level of optimization is preventing other people from having fun, and adapt, you probably don't want to play with them. But note that you can't just legislate this sort of thing; you really all need to get together and talk it out. People optimize because its fun for them; just flat out telling people they can't do it won't help things. Oh, yeah, and like UndeadPenguin said, be sure to look over their character sheets before you start playing... and do that at every level as they proceed. But let players know you're going to do that, so they should map out their feat, spell, and PrC plans for you ahead of time, if they've thought ahead that far. (Don't MAKE people plan ahead if they don't want to, but if someone's building towards Planar Shepherd, and you're not going to allow it, they ought to know that before they build their character around it.) For more tips on this side of things, you should probably post in What's A DM to Do?. On the Feats side of things, I don't think there's anything wrong with Persistent Spell, without DMM. And with DMM, you can just require that the character be able to cast spells of the level that the DMM is replacing. That eliminates some of the real abuse.
not Yoda 07-05-07, 02:54 PM	Sounds like spellcasters are the problem. Don't let casters take feats. Give them Item Creation Feats and be done with them.
Derren S. 07-05-07, 03:03 PM	Get a other group. Its no use to try to force powergamers to play normal characters. Either they will still find a way to powergame and to ruin the game for the others or they will be bored themself.
Lawlicron 07-05-07, 03:04 PM	Sounds like spellcasters are the problem. Don't let casters take feats. Give them Item Creation Feats and be done with them. Then everyone will complain about how all spellcasters have "Teh 1337 g3@Rz!!one!11!"
Clawhound 07-05-07, 03:20 PM	Having recently compared an optimized DMM cleric vs. a poorly build Fighter, and the fighter being smack-down better at melee, I no longer see DMM/Persistent as a bad thing. To make a DMM Cleric work takes so much from levels 1-10 that you should encourage you powergamers to take that combo. I suggest the following: - Elite Array (15,14,13,12,10,8) - Average Gold - Stick to the MIC for treasure These things should make a far larger difference.
Pentar 07-05-07, 03:25 PM	As a side note, I believe "Natural Spell" is a feat that is considered "banned" in RPG tournament play or something like that. I don't participate in those myself, but friends of mine who keep up with that stuff told me that the entire idea of Druids casting in animal form has been nerfed. Meanwhile, I agree with everyone else about power-gaming. Almost any feat can be made to be "broken" is willfully misinterpreted, or put into the correct combination with other, seemingly "unbroken" feats. It all depends on what the player is attempting to accomplish and if they can hoodwink you. Banning a bunch of feats may cut off certain avenues of power-gaming, but it certainly will not stop it. One option to control this as a DM is to simply not reward power-gaming. Put them in play situations where power-gaming doesn't help. Where their uber combination feat/spells/abilities avails them nothing. A lot easier said than done, I know, but that's really the only thing to do, aside from leaving the group and finding more like-minded players.
CaoSlayer 07-05-07, 03:26 PM	Persistent spell isnt broken itself but because divine metamagic. If you want to balance divine metamagic to aceptable levels you only have to include one little line: the cleric should be able to prepare normally the divine metamagiked spell. This means, no persistent spells until the cleric can cast level 7 spells.
jaelis 07-05-07, 03:26 PM	A better solution than banning natural spell is to use the PHBII version of wild shape. It's just better. (Not more powerful, but better to play with.)
Kursk 07-05-07, 03:28 PM	As far as feats go, which feats do you guys think that I should not allow in my game? Non-core is banned by default in my game. Out of Core I only banned Natural Spell. As the junk in the splat books isn't really play tested for balance I suggest looking at them on a case by case basis as only you know what will work in your campaign. Maybe tell your players Core only and they can petition on a case by case basis.
bob_the_great 07-05-07, 03:44 PM	The problem isn't feats. The problem is players. The problem will only be resolved by talking to, or kicking out, the problem players. Some players just can't seem to find a way to enjoy the game while not doing so at the expense of the other players. So they like to optimize? Challenge them to make the best straight-swashbuckler they can. They can use any feat or item, but cannot multiclass or prestige class out of swashbuckler. They get a challenge, you get sanity. *edit* I do agree, natural spell and DMM are lame. My wife is building a druid right now and has already decided she won't take natural spell. I explained to her how useful/powerful it is and she didn't care. "I should have to choose between fighting and spellcasting. I shouldn't be able to do both at the same time," she said. I love her.
PurinaDragonChow 07-05-07, 03:57 PM	This is probably a stupid question, but if DMM and Spell Matrix are causing problems, couldn't you just hit the party with a few dispels, or an anti-magic field?
tui 07-05-07, 06:11 PM	This is probably a stupid question, but if DMM and Spell Matrix are causing problems, couldn't you just hit the party with a few dispels, or an anti-magic field? And then a lot of undead.. nothing like having used all 30 of your Turn Undead attempts for Persistent spells, then unexpectedly run into a whole mess of undead! :D
Nezkrul 07-05-07, 06:32 PM	/rant To anyone who bans CORE material (aka natural spell, and other stuff), but allows splat: I'll never play in any of your games, even if I'm not playing a druid. Banning core material shows to me you have no clue how to DM well, and how to handle the power curve of players. It's a red flag that tells me your campaign will get ruined no matter what you do - or the players will be so darn bored that they'll just quit. /end rant If your powergamers rely on multiclassing/prestige classing, then feats really aren't the problem. Just hamstring them for multiclassing (more than 1 base class = 20% xp penalty no matter what levels they are) and make prestige classes actually prestigious (ALL of them have a special requirement to take them that they must meet, and they don't know what the special requirement is until you inform them they may now take levels in the (insert class) class).
Neutronium_Dragon 07-05-07, 08:18 PM	> "I should have to choose between fighting and spellcasting. I shouldn't be able > to do both at the same time," Being able to fight and cast spells is considered normal in modern 3E. It's not just the druid - the cleric has been able to do it all along, even in core. In modern game design, it's no longer an area where developers fear to tread. The problem, in any case, is not Natural Spell. The problem is Wildshape. Wildshape is still riddled with all of the problems which Polymorph brought to the table, and the Polymorph errata didn't really solve anything as far as Wildshape's issues go, and a druid who does nothing but fight in Wildshape while ignoring his spellcasting and not having Natural Spell will still create game issues because of that. The Shapeshift variant in the PHB2 is better balanced for the simple reason that it took a completely different approach.
BugHunter 07-05-07, 08:29 PM	If DMM is a problem remember the errata for it you must have the metamagic feat that you are going to use DMM on.
zeratulcraft 07-05-07, 08:39 PM	Still only means 3 feats for Persistant. Extend -> Persistant -> DMM Persistant.
The_sleeper1 07-05-07, 08:40 PM	For Persistant Spell I would sudgest that you keep it in and change it to 10X duration increase so you can get some benefit from it but not dominate with it. A spell measured in rounds changes to minutes and one in minutes changes to tens of minutes. Theres many spells only ment to last a short while and are unbalanced by all day use but useing them for 1 minute per level is not overpowering and lets you do helpful things like a wizard casting a mage armor that lasts 100 hours at level 10 or just over 4 days, more helpful than overpowering.
BugHunter 07-05-07, 08:46 PM	Still only means 3 feats for Persistant. Extend -> Persistant -> DMM Persistant. True but also having to use 7 turn attempts can be bad if you must fight undead at the same time.
o_b_livion 07-05-07, 09:35 PM	Then again, powergamers have WAY too much time to think about how to win an imaginary game. I do like the idea that DMs should look at the character sheets and hear the player's view, background story, and how it relates to their character as well as use of such feats in-game. And, why not use the same tactics on them as well. One good turn deserves another.
Crimson_Concerto 07-05-07, 10:01 PM	I B& Leadership, but that's about it. I'm just of the opinion that cohorts and followers should be in-game roleplaying reward, not a feat... Anyways, onto your feats, I think DMM is okay, actually. It's powerful, but it's okay. Also, onto Persistant Spell, same thing. Powerful but okay. When you combine the two? THAT'S where the problem lies. To remedy this, I suggest house ruling that DMM cannot allow you to cast spells of an effective level higher than you would normally have access to... but that's just me...
Ketone 07-06-07, 01:19 AM	Personally, I don't think DMM and persistent pose a real problem for a DM that has any clue what he's doing. You're playing a human cleric, you get to level 10, so now you have access to some good buffs. Along the way you have to waste all 5 of your feats on things that are pointless until then (extend, persistent, DMM persistent, extra turning). So Finally you have a character that's worth something mid game. He uses all his turn attempts on a couple of good buffs, which maybe makes up for his ability scores being spread too thin (cha for the turn attempts, wis for the spell DCs, con, str, dex for fighting). So now he's a decent fighter. Then you have the party fight some undead. And then some more undead. And maybe after that, some undead. And then some rust monsters. See where I'm going with this? If you use every trick in the book, you should be able to beat any trick in the book.
TheRealOrion 07-06-07, 01:31 AM	Two things: First, go to a PHB-only game and you'll solve a lot of problems. The core book is quite balanced all on its own, with a few exceptions (but only a few). Second, if your players get their jollies as powergamers, then you either need to step up and be a powerDM or get a new group of players. I had this exact same problem. I wanted to be a role-play/storyteller DM and they wanted combat/tactics. I struggled for years, but the fact of the matter is that they enjoyed it and I didn't. Because I didn't want to stop participating, I consciously got better at builds/tactics and as a result found a whole new kind of fun. My point is that experience tells me that power gamers aren't going to change nor should they be forced to. It's like dating a girl who doesn't like Star Wars. You can try to make her like it or you can find a girl who already does. The latter feels far less manipulative, to me.
flaiquiri 07-06-07, 01:40 AM	I would kick and scream if my DM did it, but maybe Keen Intellect? I know that I have visions of powergamed stuff with that all the time. I could see Grappling Block being powergamed, but of course it doesn't do squat against a spell or unarmed attack.
OneWinged4ngel 07-06-07, 01:48 AM	Persistent spell isnt broken itself but because divine metamagic. Not really... there are several other ways to get around the level adjustment. Divine Metamagic is just the easiest.
ArcTan 07-06-07, 02:08 AM	And then a lot of undead.. nothing like having used all 30 of your Turn Undead attempts for Persistent spells, then unexpectedly run into a whole mess of undead! :D Hence the third vertex of the Broken Cleric triangle -- buying hundreds of Nightsticks.
ArcTan 07-06-07, 02:14 AM	/rant To anyone who bans CORE material (aka natural spell, and other stuff), but allows splat: I'll never play in any of your games, even if I'm not playing a druid. Banning core material shows to me you have no clue how to DM well, and how to handle the power curve of players. It's a red flag that tells me your campaign will get ruined no matter what you do - or the players will be so darn bored that they'll just quit. /end rant Dude, that's crap. I really dislike some of the core/non-core talk that gets bandied around here. Core isn't any more balanced than non-core. Some non-core books are a great deal *more* balanced than core rules. (The Expanded Psionics Handbook, Magic of Incarnum and the Tome of Battle are all more balanced than the PHB's spellcasting rules and list of spells.) Core is just *older* than non-core, which means two things: 1) People are more familiar with the rules and can deal with them better, but 2) The rules were made when the designers knew less about the game and had less experience to draw on and still contain a lot of stupid mistakes. Dude, even *WotC* admits that core isn't balanced. That's why they sneakily told us to stop using the polymorph tree, even though they can't actually delete polymorph because it's core. Even so, the whole concept of polymorph is just as if not more broken than whatever random feats or Spell Compendium spells you want to pick out. Automatically banning "splats" but allowing everything core is the sign of a lazy thinker who hasn't actually examined all the rules he's looking at to make a case-by-case decision. The sign of a good DM is someone who *thinks* before they ban something and has a *reason*, which means that what gets banned will be based on the nature of the rules themselves and not the simple fact that the DM is too lazy to read splats but trusts WotC implicitly for the three core books.
FponkDamn 07-06-07, 02:30 AM	Don't give them character sheets. Seriously. In the campaign I run (which has been going on for two years, and has no power balance issues, a great storyline, and captivated players even after all this time) the PCs have never seen their character sheets. They know their story (they've played the characters from farm kids up) and abilities. The wizard knows he can cast spells, and what spells he can cast (though I gave them more flavorful names to evoke the spirit of the world). The fighter knows she can trip someone with her chain, because she trained to do it. She doesn't need to know what her attack roll modifyer is, because I roll all the dice. They know their abilities because they gained every one in game. Tabitha knows she's quick, but stubborn; Abdiel knows he's smart and charming, but not a swordsman. It's all roleplay. Every rule of the game is still obeyed - every five-foot adjustment, every immediate action, every attack of opportunity. It's more work for you as the DM - you need to track all of it, for both sides. You also need to be good at describing things - "Abdiel, you've circled around the Ravager and he's too busy trying to kill Tabitha to notice you. His flank is wide open, his ribs bare." And you need to encourage your PCs to be more descriptive than "I attack him" so you can guage what they're doing - "I try to sweep out his legs, but always keeping an eye on my own hide, since I know well the sting of his blade" means make a trip attempt while fighting defensively. "I take my time, pacing myself to the guard's breathing, before stepping forward and sliding my knife into his ribs" means take a five-foot adjustment and sneak attack the guard from hiding. The end result of this extra work, however, is a great game. Since the players have nothing but their own knowledge to work with instead of character sheets, they always pick the role playing solution. The act in-character constantly, because it's their only option. Things happen organically; character's tend to be less specialized, because the world is more realistic, and realistic people do not spend every second of every day learning how to jump at someone for the most devastating power attack they can muster. The characters are more rounded, and some interesting things occur - Nathan, the wizard, is the strongest person on the party, because he was the son of a blacksmith. He learned magic not because he thought he'd be great at it, but because he found it fascinating. As a result, he's not the best wizard in the world, but he's a complex, diverse character. You get to control the pacing more (they don't know how much XP they get) as well as gaining very intimate knowledge of the players and their abilities. Plus, you get a very, very character- and roleplay-driven storyline. Just a thought. It's worked well for me. - Johnny
runestar 07-06-07, 02:55 AM	Dude, that's crap. I really dislike some of the core/non-core talk that gets bandied around here. I agree. Feats should be evaluated based on individual merit, and not just whether they are core or not. Druid 20 is the best counter argument to anyone claiming that core is as balanced as it gets.;)
Ketone 07-06-07, 03:02 AM	Everything is up to the DM to balance, and there are a lot of ways to do it. You can just say no, or you can thwart the players with game things. For instance night sticks (which I just read about and decided are unfair). Someone wants to be a DMM powergamer cleric. You can either say no, or else let him have his class and reasonable abilities. But if he tries to buy a ton of night sticks, you can say there aren't any at the market, or maybe just one. No one's gonna be selling 100 of them. Or maybe a sneaky merchant sells him a cursed one, and he doesn't realize it's cursed until he really needs that DMM in a dangerous situation.
timidbarbarian 07-06-07, 03:03 AM	From my experience, powergamers tend to specialize, becoming extremely good at a single thing. So, to compensate, do what life does to people who overspecialize: throw something at them that they can't deal with. Make them regret specialization. Example: for your cleric with DMM Persistant anything, use hordes of undead and make turning undead a great tactic when otherwise it would be sort of mediocre. Either they will waste turn attempts on the undead and be unable to use persistant spell, or they will come to regret the fact that they expended all of their turn attempts. Hit them at their weak points and hit them often. Give them a smart nemisis who knows how they fight. This works because often powergamers are powergaming because they are interested in the mechanics. It's a puzzle, really, and oftentimes the puzzle is just too simple. The trick is to change the context. Give them a situation that has to be resolved with skills, like a diplomatic situation with much more powerful NPCs. Characters, like organisms, adapt to fit their environment.
NoldorForce 07-06-07, 03:06 AM	Druid 20 is the best counter argument to anyone claiming that core is as balanced as it gets.;)Incorrect. It's in the top ten, but it's not the best counter. Rather, the Candle of Invocation is, with its ability to generate an infinite loop of wealth and free Wishes.
NoldorForce 07-06-07, 03:16 AM	Everything is up to the DM to balance, and there are a lot of ways to do it. You can just say no, or you can thwart the players with game things. For instance night sticks (which I just read about and decided are unfair). Someone wants to be a DMM powergamer cleric. You can either say no, or else let him have his class and reasonable abilities. But if he tries to buy a ton of night sticks, you can say there aren't any at the market, or maybe just one. No one's gonna be selling 100 of them. Or maybe a sneaky merchant sells him a cursed one, and he doesn't realize it's cursed until he really needs that DMM in a dangerous situation.That's a bit close to the Oberoni Fallacy.From my experience, powergamers tend to specialize, becoming extremely good at a single thing. So, to compensate, do what life does to people who overspecialize: throw something at them that they can't deal with. Make them regret specialization. Example: for your cleric with DMM Persistant anything, use hordes of undead and make turning undead a great tactic when otherwise it would be sort of mediocre. Either they will waste turn attempts on the undead and be unable to use persistant spell, or they will come to regret the fact that they expended all of their turn attempts. Hit them at their weak points and hit them often. Give them a smart nemisis who knows how they fight. This works because often powergamers are powergaming because they are interested in the mechanics. It's a puzzle, really, and oftentimes the puzzle is just too simple. The trick is to change the context. Give them a situation that has to be resolved with skills, like a diplomatic situation with much more powerful NPCs. Characters, like organisms, adapt to fit their environment.Some methods of powergaming involve intense specialization, but other methods (like, y'know, the cleric, druid, and wizard) use massive amounts of versatility. The very reason CoDzilla is feared is because it can do so many things, and often do them better than the people that are supposed to be doing them. Well optimized characters generally don't have glass jaws; they instead have a number of tactics, all of which are highly potent in certain circumstances. This is why Natural Spell heads many ban lists. It simply removes the choice of whether to cast or fight, because you can do both without having to suffer at all. Plus, turning undead sucks for characters who aren't at low level, with turn resistance and undead hit dice in gross excess of CR at increasing levels. That's why the concept of the divine feat was introduced, to get the turning characters to actually do something useful with their turning attempts. (Along those lines, DMM does need the usual and oft-suggested stipulation that you can't apply metamagic beyond your normal casting limits.)
Dazzer 07-06-07, 03:25 AM	The very simple solution to a very complicated problem. So the paladin can smite for 800 damage on his horse, with his lance of smiting, with his feats and his charging and he's a catfolk and he fullrounds on a charge and he has spirited charge and 10 levels in cavalier... The cleric is becoming a CoDzilla and the fighter is actually a druid. The rogue hasn't been seen since level 6...except for that one time where he one shotted the red dragon with an alchemists frost volley, sneak attack, critical hits all round while hasted in the first round while the dragon was still flat-footed.... Send the villainous party at them...appropriately the villainous party contains 4 members. Each of them are 2 levels lower than the party (making the encounter the party level + 2 when they meet them all at once.) ________________________________________ _______________ Fallen Paladin (Blackguard 10...traded in his levels) Cavalier 10 (lower it as appropriate). He took Draconic Mount and rides the biggest dragon he can get. Specialist Abjurer 3/Master Specialist 10/Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil 7 Scout 1/Rogue 1/Ranger 18 (with the feat that allows sneak attack to stack with ranger levels, and skirmish to stack with ranger levels) (he's their rogue). Cleric or Druid 20 (party healer) ________________________________________ __________________ fun times... Assuming that they beat this massive combination...this...huge mess of killing death that flies there way...they'll feel good about optimizing but likely never want to do it again. Assuming they lose (more likely). They'll never want to optimize amazingly again, but would rather play more realistic characters...not ALL clerics have DMM...not ALL druids have natural spell....just some....and they'll meet more campaign specific villains which are also more realistic. Have Fun!
NoldorForce 07-06-07, 03:49 AM	@ Dazzer: Challenging the players for the sake of challenging the players is fine, but you're talking about doing more. That's either an arms race, adversarial DMing, or both. In any case, it's highly inappropriate to be solving OoC issues in the game, or IC issues out of the game. And THAT'S what you're describing here.
Bob Loblaw 07-06-07, 08:57 AM	I wouldn't worry about banning those feats. As Clawhound mentioned, if you run a 25 point buy game, you will find that many of the problems are resolved because the characters become dependent upon more than one attribute. I would also make sure that I am using all the rules. For example, wizards must pay to scribe spells into their spellbooks (they get two free ones each level, and that's all). This gets costly. Many DMs simply ignore or don't know about this rule. Make sure that the cleric and druid are following the tenets of their faith. Don't allow Generic Clerics, have them follow a god. If they stray from the path, then they lose their powers. This will require that you, as DM, make sure that they understand what their faiths require. It is unfair to spring this on them in the middle of the game. The druid must continue to revere nature or suffers the same problems as the cleric. Note that nothing I suggested is a new rule. All of these come straight from the PHB.
tui 07-06-07, 09:47 AM	Hence the third vertex of the Broken Cleric triangle -- buying hundreds of Nightsticks. That's actually the easiest part to control.. just don't have Magic Walmarts. Don't give them nightsticks, and don't let them buy them, unless YOU want them to. Although I also don't see any reason why nightsticks should stack with themselves. You want your nightstick to give more turn attempts? Pay for it, like you would increasing any other bonus provided by a magic item.. bonus squared x whatever.
Clawhound 07-06-07, 11:19 AM	Something that some DM's forget is that an encounter is: 1xCR 2xCR-2 4xCR-4 8xCR-6 My ideal of any level is: 1 CR+2 3 CR 3 CR-2 3 CR-4 3 CR-6 ------------------ 14 TOTAL ENCOUNTERS This helps keeps any single build from being optimal all-of-the-time.
Arniha 07-07-07, 07:18 AM	All of them. Feats remove a massive amount of the ingenuity of 2e. Besides, characters survived for long enough without them. They make the game far too easy to twink, and limit your imagination.
Bob Loblaw 07-07-07, 08:35 AM	All of them. Feats remove a massive amount of the ingenuity of 2e. Besides, characters survived for long enough without them. They make the game far too easy to twink, and limit your imagination. Or, just the opposite is true. Now you can build the character the way you imagine him. Now you have the tools that were missing in previous editions. As for surviving long enough without them, the monsters from earlier editions are weaker. The characters need an edge to keep up. As for ingenuity, that's not something limited by edition. Any thoughts of that show a limit on the imagination, which is something that should be avoided in a roleplaying game.
PurinaDragonChow 07-07-07, 10:20 AM	While we're at it, wouldn't the game be so much more fun if there was only one character class? With no class features? And only one kind of weapon? And only one kind of monster? Then it would really take some ingenuity to have fun. Better yet, there could be only one dungeon with only one room. :rolleyes:
Elana 07-07-07, 10:54 AM	Strangely enough, you don't need to ban feats out of splat books. If it's not core than it's optional and can be included if the DM agrees to it. but if he doesn't agree to it, it isn't banned as it's not part of the game. (Really, that is like saying someone banned the 2nd spare tire, just because he has only one spare tire in his car) And in regard to fighting abilities of classes. The BAB of the fighter and his old THAC0 are practicly the same, while every other class was seriously buffed up in that regard. If we had taken the progression from AD&D the BAB for a level 20 cleric would be 13. (Rogue would have a 10 and the wizard a 7)
Cartigan 07-07-07, 11:29 AM	*snip* I didn't realize "choose your own path" books had made it into D&D.
runestar 07-07-07, 01:20 PM	Don't give them character sheets. Won't that defeat the purpose of playing dnd and essentially take away everything that makes dnd unique? Dnd is in essence a tactical wargame, and the fun mainly comes from number-crunching and coming up with new and inventive ways to kill people and take their stuff. Then use it to upgrade your character and kill more stuff. Rinse and repeat...:D
Pentar 07-07-07, 02:06 PM	Won't that defeat the purpose of playing dnd and essentially take away everything that makes dnd unique? Dnd is in essence a tactical wargame, and the fun mainly comes from number-crunching and coming up with new and inventive ways to kill people and take their stuff. Then use it to upgrade your character and kill more stuff. Rinse and repeat...:D Well, maybe in your games. We (our group) tends to focus more on story and character development ;) Admittedly, combat and character improvement are great incentives, but oft-times, being a super-powerful character with no heroic deeds under your belt gives a less than satisfactory sense of accomplishment.
FponkDamn 07-07-07, 02:08 PM	It will absolutely do that. I love D&D - I love tactical wargaming, and I love smashing stuff. In many, even most, of my games I do just that. But the OP asked for a way to make the campaign more storyline-driven and balanced. I obliged. It's certainly not the only way, and it may not be the best, but it does strike me as easier than banning many feats, PrCs, races, weapons, spells, items, and familiar template variants all in the name of balance. Also, to paraphrase an earlier post, allowing certain books rather than banning certain ones is often preferrable. Most campaigns do not need access to every book. For each game I run, I create a "canon" of books I use for it - and you can have stuff from those books, and no other. This ensures that there is a more limited pool from which to create weird combos, and that I have read everything being used by my players. As long as you don't surprise your players with this fact, I imagine you'll find them surprisingly cool with the idea. Just create a short list of books you want to use (your own specialized "core" if you will) and use that. See, there's plenty of ways to skin a cat. - Johnny
Arniha 07-07-07, 02:55 PM	It depends, if you have access to them, bring as many splat books as you can. Then, pointedly ask all the players to use them as much as they like. Then use splatbooks of your own for monsters. If the party becomes too powerful, send something more powerful at them. If certain players are dominating the game and hurting it for the others, make a monster that is specifically tailored to deal with them. If all your melee characters are dominating the magic, send a monster at them with dr/melee. if just a couple are dominating, give it dr against the type of weapon they are using. If a spellcaster is dominating, give the monster spell resistance. Remember, you are the dm. you MAKE the rules. If someone abuses them, change them. Say they have a massive number of ranged weapons feats, and are sniping down anything you send at them? Tell them that they have been carrying their bow around strung and it snaps in their hands. They fail an int check and forgot to sharpen their sword. whatever you want.
Jackmojo 07-07-07, 03:44 PM	There is no such thing as an over or underpowered party, there are only DMs who fail to correctly judge the party's strength. Your PCs' Party (probably) operates in isolation from all other gaming groups, it doesn't matter how tough they are in the 'grand scheme' of all possible 3.x games, just how powerful they are compared to the challenges you expect them to face. Some parties are smart/resourceful/powerful enough to tear through equal CR enemies/EL encounters like a buzz-saw through tinfoil, other parties have trouble fighting their way out of a wet paper bag, its up to you to know what sort of group you've got and making the game work with their tendancies not against them. Case Study: My current group is playing Dark Sun, consists of 5 level 13 PCs during this encounter. They recon a village occupied by roughly 100 enemies of CR -3(level 10). Locate the living villagers who have been taken prisoner. Teleport into the medium sized building holding the hostages and kill 33 of their opponents in 3 rounds, teleport out the hostages and then use a single spell to raze the village killing the remaining enemies. Elapsed time slightly more then a minute, this is not a group who fails when they have the advantage of surprise. Clearly enemies either need some sort of terrain advantage/surprise to pose a threat, or they need to be more powerful. The DM knows this and adapts for the future, the game continues to be fun for all. Jack
BatGnat 07-07-07, 10:06 PM	I know, Ban every book except for the core books. That solves the problem. If your going to ban stuff for one class, ban it for others. Or... Have a DM that was a power gamer Or... Have a DM that can think ahead.
Crimson_Concerto 07-08-07, 12:11 AM	I know, Ban every book except for the core books. That solves the problem.You can't be serious. :uh-huh: Let me introduce you to a Druid with Natural Spell...
KamelGuru 07-08-07, 06:50 AM	DMM: How is a self-beefing caster scary in ANY way? Targeted "Dispel Magic" and a little fudged dice-rolling on the behind-the-screen level checks on the most horrible spells. And suddenly the overpowered caster/combatant is equal to/weaker than a basic warrior-type. Natural Spell: The druid is the problem in itself. It is really powerful. A druid well applied is downright scary. But toss some psionic characters with Deep Strike or the unarmed/ranged equivalents with some of the mage-killer feats, and watch their AC be bypassed, and the druid go down in a blaze of gory. Persistent spell is not worth it in my opinion. You won't be able to use it until lv15 or so, unless you go for DMM, in which case they turn in their turning ability and TWO feats for relatively minor self-beefing, which is still subject to dispel magic. Bottom line is: Everyone and their uncle has substantial weaknesses, and every thrust can be parried and leave the opponent open to a riposte. Example: I had a group with a weretiger Frenzied Berserker, a Fist of Raziel AND a Windwalker cleric-build. And I had no problem challenging them and making them strive to overcome the problems I laid out. Giving out some potions of displacement, sending in a few flyers and a supporting sniper made a group of 5 NPCs five levels lower almost decimate them. Surprise round: The only one who gets to do anything in that group was the windwalker, since he had a perverse spot skill. Frenzied Berserker victim to a confusion spell. Rest of the baddies drink potions of displacement. First Round: Wind Walker came after the flyers, the sniper now with a clear line of fire took a full-round of pure ouch to almost swat him out of the sky. Fist of Raziel dispelling the confused Frenzied Berserker so it doesn't decimate the party. Flyers dump spells on the party to deliver some hurt. Displaced enemies move in to start hurting them. Second Round: Fist and Frenzied take their shots and take down one of the enemies, since half their attacks plain missed. Wind Walker flying up to hurt flyer, but almost going down since the flyer five-footed back and sent a line-spell through him and hurt the party. Sniper dealing even more damage, but without the benefit of surprise, and thus no sniping bonus. (Hell, even with his invisibility and maxed hide, he couldn't snipe and hide from that spot-monster) And so on. Clever use of baddies makes for a hard challenge. Just make sure that the dead mage has Rary's Telepathic Bond in his book to justify hiveminding the NPCs.
The_sleeper1 07-08-07, 10:09 AM	DMM: How is a self-beefing caster scary in ANY way? Targeted "Dispel Magic" and a little fudged dice-rolling on the behind-the-screen level checks on the most horrible spells. And suddenly the overpowered caster/combatant is equal to/weaker than a basic warrior-type. <snip> (croped for length) As a DM you can do that now and then but you can only reasonably cripple a character so often before players start dropping out. The fact that a DM needs to jump through hoops to make things even shows that there can be imbalances in the game. Stop the imbalances before they wreck the spirit of the game. I think E4 will bring a bunch of changes to balance the classes versus each other with the different feats and such.
runestar 07-08-07, 10:52 AM	DMM: How is a self-beefing caster scary in ANY way? Targeted "Dispel Magic" and a little fudged dice-rolling on the behind-the-screen level checks on the most horrible spells. And suddenly the overpowered caster/combatant is equal to/weaker than a basic warrior-type. All our die rolls are done in the open, so there is no room for fudging, to our equal parts dismay and relief. :P Persistent spell is not worth it in my opinion. You won't be able to use it until lv15 or so, unless you go for DMM, in which case they turn in their turning ability and TWO feats for relatively minor self-beefing, which is still subject to dispel magic. Define "minor self buffing"...Plus, we rarely used turning anyways. Bottom line is: Everyone and their uncle has substantial weaknesses, and every thrust can be parried and leave the opponent open to a riposte. And I think there is a clear line between tailoring a campaign to their relative strengths/weaknesses, and blatant metagaming. The DM should be the one setting the example after all. It is like continuously sending undead against the TWFing rogue in a bid to neuter his strength. Might work, but leaves a bitter aftertaste in everyone's mouth.:(
KamelGuru 07-08-07, 07:53 PM	I see no unfairness in dispelling beefers. If you were standing there with a dispel magic at the ready, and a neon-glowing spell-girded monster of a man is coming at you, swatting your allies left and right like they were flies in his presence... WHAT WOULD YOU DO? All I am saying is: Play the opposition smart. A spellcaster without one of the most BASIC countermeasures against magical menace is being played plain WRONG. And the whole argument of bombarding the poor rogue with undead and constructs is not valid. There is a fat glow-in-the-dark line between using common spells and methods, and just plain taking the spiked nerf-bat to a player's D&D fun. Besides, if the players make monstrous characters, then you should inform them that you WILL scale the game after that decision.
Grave_Accomplice 07-08-07, 08:01 PM	/rant[size=1] To anyone who bans CORE material (aka natural spell, and other stuff), but allows splat: For those of us still playing 3.0 (largely), natural spell IS splat material. :) To the OP: you're doing good to use just core material to start, nerfing what does and doesn't work in your world (Natural Spell does not exist in universe X; the gods of natural seek balance in their minions, etc). Introduce thosse things you start feeling comfy with after consulting your local gaming board, ignoring those feat chains that no one was working towards (reduces the 'If I had known that was available...! arguements).
Vaelan 07-08-07, 09:14 PM	Optimizers work within rules. If you add more rules, they will just work within those and your problem will not be solved. Try talking to your group. Discuss the possibility of not aiming to break the damn game in half. If they are receptive, problem solved. If not, nothing you do is going to make a difference anyway.
The_sleeper1 07-08-07, 09:27 PM	I see no unfairness in dispelling beefers. If you were standing there with a dispel magic at the ready, and a neon-glowing spell-girded monster of a man is coming at you, swatting your allies left and right like they were flies in his presence... WHAT WOULD YOU DO? All I am saying is: Play the opposition smart. A spellcaster without one of the most BASIC countermeasures against magical menace is being played plain WRONG. That just sounds wrong that is the DM metagameing. Decideing that a guy that is pwning you is a cleric with a lot of buffs how would they even have a clue let alone if they have teh spell ready and if it succeddes. Unless you have a silly amount of casters ready to counter that one character with there dispelled you dont mitigate the codzilla and if you do then you negate that player. A targeted dispell every now and then and AMF sometimes too but if you need to go to that length to stop them there was a problem from the start that was never addressed. Address the problem and dont try to counter play to the problems.
CryoSilver 07-08-07, 09:39 PM	In my games, I outright ban only two things: Frenzied Berserkers and knives. FBs because I've had three parties raped by one. Knives because I've had to intervene when one player pulled a knife on another IRL. Everything else is ruled as "let me see your character sheet to get final approval or denial."
ravenshrike 07-08-07, 09:56 PM	Assuming that they beat this massive combination...this...huge mess of killing death that flies there way...they'll feel good about optimizing but likely never want to do it again. Assuming they lose (more likely). They'll never want to optimize amazingly again, but would rather play more realistic characters...not ALL clerics have DMM...not ALL druids have natural spell....just some....and they'll meet more campaign specific villains which are also more realistic. Have Fun! Of course, the SAME ****ING THING would apply no matter how unoptimized they were. Unless they gained major DR or something for one set of levels. Even then, however, the outcome would be the same, optimized or not. For those of us still playing 3.0 (largely), natural spell IS splat material. :) You're playing 3.0. Given the longer durations the buff then wildshape at high levels becomes just as viable as the wildshape then buff.
BatGnat 07-09-07, 06:39 AM	You can't be serious. :uh-huh: Let me introduce you to a Druid with Natural Spell... Sorry, should have enclosed my original comment with <sarcasm></sarcasm> quotes. I was trying (unsuccessfully it seems) to convey how silly this discussion is. I dont like the Cleric Class, i know, lets ban it!!!! :P
Steely_Dan 07-09-07, 07:16 AM	Core isn't any more balanced than non-core. Some non-core books are a great deal *more* balanced than core rules. (The Expanded Psionics Handbook, Magic of Incarnum and the Tome of Battle are all more balanced than the PHB's spellcasting rules and list of spells.) Totally, feats aren't the problem with D&D; it is the antiquated, overpowered, Gygaxian magic/spell system. Until they rebuild the D&D magic/spell system from the ground up, and get rid of the silly, un-fun spells (save or die, save or screwed for the entire encounter, disjunction, polymorph, wish etc) there always be a serious balance problem.
Eater_Of_Souls 07-09-07, 12:16 PM	Well easy solution would be " feats from PHB only" should clean the table pretty well since most broken feats come from various splat books which in some case seem to exist only because they provide a bunch of new broken feats waiting to be abused. I would class the famous Pun Pun as a prime example of abusing splat books ;P
Clawhound 07-09-07, 04:00 PM	I encourage you to keep open as many paths as possible to your character. Part of the fun of D&D is the huge variety of ways to play your character. Some feats are broken in competent hands, but not in the hands of some players. My party's druid has natural spell. However, she doesn't know how to crank up her AC, so when she's in animal form, she goes down pretty quick. For her, natural spell is not a problem. She's powerful but fragile.
Twylyght 07-09-07, 04:53 PM	Totally, feats aren't the problem with D&D; it is the antiquated, overpowered, Gygaxian magic/spell system. Until they rebuild the D&D magic/spell system from the ground up, and get rid of the silly, un-fun spells (save or die, save or screwed for the entire encounter, disjunction, polymorph, wish etc) there always be a serious balance problem. That reminds me of a time the party wizard got hit by feeblemind. At 2nd level. Spent the next several levels as a d4 hit die fighter with no armor proficiencies, a dagger, couldnt understand anything going on, grunted alot. Also hit our rogue with insanity, both in the first round of an ambush, at 2nd level. Oh and predictably, there was no available NPC capable of casting Heal, limited wish, or wish. No scrolls available either..... so we had to play it out for 6 levels until we got back to civilization. The rogue ended up dead after attacking our barbarian 3 times in a row. Some spells are just not conductive to fun as they exist now. When in the position to run, theres a pretty good list of spells I wont use against the PCs atleast without tinkering durations or results.
ArcTan 07-09-07, 11:49 PM	That reminds me of a time the party wizard got hit by feeblemind. At 2nd level. Spent the next several levels as a d4 hit die fighter with no armor proficiencies, a dagger, couldnt understand anything going on, grunted alot. Don't forget a 1/2 rather than full BAB. Also hit our rogue with insanity, both in the first round of an ambush, at 2nd level. Oh and predictably, there was no available NPC capable of casting Heal, limited wish, or wish. No scrolls available either..... so we had to play it out for 6 levels until we got back to civilization. The rogue ended up dead after attacking our barbarian 3 times in a row. Some spells are just not conductive to fun as they exist now. When in the position to run, theres a pretty good list of spells I wont use against the PCs atleast without tinkering durations or results. To be fair, that's a very overpowered encounter for 2nd-level characters. Feeblemind and insanity are a 5th- and 7th-level spell, respectively. That's an 11th-level Wizard. An 11th-level Fighter could've simply killed your whole party outright with a simple charge and full-attack routine. It wasn't fair for you to face a character of that level, period.
Twylyght 07-10-07, 12:23 AM	Don't forget a 1/2 rather than full BAB. To be fair, that's a very overpowered encounter for 2nd-level characters. Feeblemind and insanity are a 5th- and 7th-level spell, respectively. That's an 11th-level Wizard. An 11th-level Fighter could've simply killed your whole party outright with a simple charge and full-attack routine. It wasn't fair for you to face a character of that level, period. Well I dont think he fully planed out the effects of those spells in a long term setting. The encounter was basically meant to be a non-lethal set up to kick off the meat of the campain, we were on a sky ship that was wrecked by the "evil" wizard. As the "only survivours" he got us as we were searching for surivors/salavage after we found some sort of artifact, then made off with it. Granted that wizard could of easily blasted us with a fireball. The wreck happened in a unpopulated stretch of jungle, escaping from which made up those first 6 levels. The characters didnt really know each other yet at that point appart from as other passengers, so when the rogue attacked the barbarian blindy, he did what he does to any other stranger that swing at him. The "good" wizard made every effort to get himself slain, charging into each battle with his "stab stab" and got into it after a session or two. We ended up killing that guy around level 10... so it all worked out in the end. Still though, permanent spells that outright destroy a whole class are out of whack, and I still avoid using even the standard save or die spells against players from anything less than BBEG encounters, and make sure if the party wins, theres some way direct or otherwise to recover.
KamelGuru 07-10-07, 06:04 AM	That just sounds wrong that is the DM metagameing. Decideing that a guy that is pwning you is a cleric with a lot of buffs how would they even have a clue let alone if they have teh spell ready and if it succeddes. Unless you have a silly amount of casters ready to counter that one character with there dispelled you dont mitigate the codzilla and if you do then you negate that player. A targeted dispell every now and then and AMF sometimes too but if you need to go to that length to stop them there was a problem from the start that was never addressed. Address the problem and dont try to counter play to the problems. No, I do not agree. Dispelling is a basic tactic, which any half-decent spellcaster I've ever played, or seen played (note that the key-word is half-decent) will and SHOULD use. And there are plenty obvious ways to "justify" it. 1: The opponent caster notices spell casting/religious apparel, such as holy symbols, wands, scrolls etc, and puts two and two together, since he can do it HIMSELF. And the discussion is right out if the effects are OBVIOUS, such as righteous might. 2: Detect Magic/Arcane Sight, both possible subjected to "Permanency" (this is something every high-level wizard in ANY game I've been in do, since it lends them a definite edge) 3: The buffer CASTS several spells on self, which is a dead give-away to anyone with spellcraft. 4: The spellcasting stat is usually int or wis. A person with high int will puzzle it together. Using a non-player character with int18/wis18 or higher should OUTRIGHT allow him to make correct guesses in his field of specialization. (Ever seen Death Note?) And how is it DM metagaming to use enemies with spellcasting abilities? Half the monster manual have them, there are evil clerics about, most evil organizations favor spellcasting agents, a clever rogue would want a way to combat his most feared opponents with a few scrolls or wands at the ready since he has UMD. If a player called foul on me in my game for using spellcasters, I would give them a little reminder that magic ain't uncommon in a D&D setting. Besides, dispel is no worse than disarm, just with spells instead of swords. And for the sake of argument, how is Dispel Magic a metagaming spell? It is low-level, on every list, and the most basic countermeasure you HAVE to battle spellcasters. But, if you want to be creative, have a couple of apprentices bomb the CoDzilla with a few rays of enfeeblement instead, since touch attack beats plate.
The_sleeper1 07-10-07, 06:55 AM	1: The opponent caster notices spell casting/religious apparel, such as holy symbols, wands, scrolls etc, and puts two and two together, since he can do it HIMSELF. And the discussion is right out if the effects are OBVIOUS, such as righteous might. 2: Detect Magic/Arcane Sight, both possible subjected to "Permanency" (this is something every high-level wizard in ANY game I've been in do, since it lends them a definite edge) 3: The buffer CASTS several spells on self, which is a dead give-away to anyone with spellcraft. 4: The spellcasting stat is usually int or wis. A person with high int will puzzle it together. Using a non-player character with int18/wis18 or higher should OUTRIGHT allow him to make correct guesses in his field of specialization. (Ever seen Death Note?) In second ed a lot of those points would make more sence but when you see a guy with cleric symbols there is no way to put it together that they are fighting with anything but natural tallent. I dont think a persistant cleric is so common that everyone would know it, also that cleric guy that you are getting destroyed by could just as likely be 1cleric/ 2 fighter/ 17 barb and you would be none the wiser. If the buffer already cast all there persistant spells on themselves then they dont need to cast. Noteing someones clothing and makeing a DC check for spell craft for a magical effect thathas no apparent effect is a different thing. Wis 18 does not help with a spell craft check thats likely over 25. And even if you can still detect the spells in effect you still need to have dispell memed and succedde in a versus level check and clerics have ways to up there caster level for buffs easyer then someone would on average have while just wandering around and encounters a randome persistant cleric.
Rowan_Whispercloak 07-10-07, 07:10 AM	I don't find natural spell to be a problem, nor do I have a problem with wildshape. Polymorph never was a big part of the game I ran (as most of my players came from the learned a little about DnD through the PC 2nd games). If Divine Metamagic is such a problem when combined with nightstick then you can ban the the feat and/or nightsticks or you could rule that nightsticks are usuable only for turn undead and not for fueling any divine feats. Isn't there a bardic version of DMM that using bardic music, but only require one feat plus any metamagic feat that you plan to use?
Lana "Silvertongue" 07-10-07, 11:53 AM	Druids are easily nerfed by knowledge checks or the rule of you can only morph into something you have seen or encountered in game.
DocBeard 07-10-07, 12:03 PM	As far as the nightstick thing goes, I would probably rule that (a) the benefits of multiple nightsticks don't stack and (b) they do not grow on trees. (And also (c) you have to be able to normally prepare/cast any spell you'd use Divine Metamagic with, assuming I'd allow the feat at all, which I probably would not.) And anyone who thinks that the having an enemy use the SINGLE MOST USEFUL MAGICAL COUNTERMEASURE THERE IS against the players is metagaming...I have no words. Obviously not every enemy would or should open up with a Dispel Magic, but clearly some should have it in their arsenal. Especially since at the level that things like Persistent Divine Power would be available via Divine Powergaming, Permanent (or even temporary) Arcane Sight would *also* be available (and a sensible investment for any wizard), so it's not like it's a stretch for Mister Evil Wizard to take one look at your buffed-to-the-gills cleric and say "WHY HELLO, THAT IS A BUFFED-TO-THE-GILLS CLERIC, PERHAPS I SHOULD DO SOMETHING TO AVOID BEING TURNED INTO A FINE MIST BY HIM!" (Also, it's not like Dispel Magic always succeeds.) On the notion of druids spending all day wildshaped...eh, it's certainly possible. I didn't do it the last time I played a non-shapeshift druid, largely because (a) I like opposable thumbs (and you can shut up about dire apes), and (b) I like being able to talk to my fellow party members. But yes, Natural Spell is certainly powerful. I'd also...not ban, but perhaps de-power...Animal Growth, were it me. (I'd probably restrict it to a single target, and make its duration rounds/level rather than minutes/level.)
TiwazTyrsfist 07-10-07, 01:08 PM	So, wait, RAW, DMM allows you to cast spells with metamagic that would normally put them above your caster level? For example, a 9th level cleric could concievably cast a maximized flamestrike, without having the maximize spell feat? Am I reading what you guys are saying right? If that's right, that's totally broken. At the very LEAST, I gotta agree with the homerule above that says "you must be able to cast spells of the level that the spell would normally be." Probably also require the actual metamagic feat.
DocBeard 07-10-07, 02:23 PM	Divine Metamagic *does* require you to have the metamagic feat in question, but that's buried in the Complete Divine errata (and not printed in the actual book), so not everyone's aware of it.
Eater_Of_Souls 07-10-07, 02:26 PM	Druids are easily nerfed by knowledge checks or the rule of you can only morph into something you have seen or encountered in game. That's actually wild shapes requirement for shaping to desired animal form in the first place.
NoldorForce 07-10-07, 02:30 PM	So, wait, RAW, DMM allows you to cast spells with metamagic that would normally put them above your caster level? For example, a 9th level cleric could concievably cast a maximized flamestrike, without having the maximize spell feat? Am I reading what you guys are saying right? If that's right, that's totally broken. At the very LEAST, I gotta agree with the homerule above that says "you must be able to cast spells of the level that the spell would normally be." Probably also require the actual metamagic feat.That first part is an oft-suggested houserule. There's a similar feat for bards that implements it already. That, and it's powered by bardic music uses, which aren't granted by magic items nearly as much. The DMM errata includes the second restriction mentioned, by the way. @ DocBeard: The problem was that KamelGuru seems to be suggesting that dispelling is THE first-round tactic for spellcasters. As you've said, it shouldn't be uncommon, but it shouldn't be the only tactic used either. Plus, people can boost their caster levels. As an extreme example, I'd made an arena character with a bunch of spell-based CL increases, all of which were applied twice to benefit from an increased CL.
KamelGuru 07-10-07, 03:32 PM	@ DocBeard: The problem was that KamelGuru seems to be suggesting that dispelling is THE first-round tactic for spellcasters. As you've said, it shouldn't be uncommon, but it shouldn't be the only tactic used either. No no no no. The first thing ANY caster does is to cast defensive spells. Or they won't last through the first round. I am saying that any caster worth his salt is gonna prepare a dispel magic, the single most useful spell I KNOW OF, apart from limited wish. To oppose the concept of an enemy spellcaster having Dispel Magic is like opposing the concept of an enemy barbarian having power attack.
NoldorForce 07-10-07, 03:37 PM	No no no no. The first thing ANY caster does is to cast defensive spells. Or they won't last through the first round. I am saying that any caster worth his salt is gonna prepare a dispel magic, the single most useful spell I KNOW OF, apart from limited wish. To oppose the concept of an enemy spellcaster having Dispel Magic is like opposing the concept of an enemy barbarian having power attack.That sounds better. The problem was likely that of miscommunication rather than anything else. I agree that all casters should have some sort of dispelling prepared if they can.
The_sleeper1 07-10-07, 03:39 PM	No no no no. The first thing ANY caster does is to cast defensive spells. Or they won't last through the first round. I am saying that any caster worth his salt is gonna prepare a dispel magic, the single most useful spell I KNOW OF, apart from limited wish. To oppose the concept of an enemy spellcaster having Dispel Magic is like opposing the concept of an enemy barbarian having power attack. Not true some casters cast a save or die spell first and if that does not win the battle then cast a quick one and if that fails they hid behind the melee types. Web at level 3 is brutal to a bunch of kobolds.
spoogemonkey 07-11-07, 06:20 PM	The solution to powergaming isn't Feat banning, or even splat book banning. You stop powergaming by: 1) not allowing "heroic" stat builds - make them roll stats in front of you - and don't give in to their whining when they get a 7, and two 9s. 2) start the campaign at FIRST LEVEL. Most of the Feat-whoring occurs when a character doesn't have to play through his first 5 levels and survive. 3) don't Monty Haul magic items, money, OR XP..... if they aren't gaining levels every week..... they aren't abusing Feats! Also, I hate DMs that prepare monsters/villains to take advantage of the ONE weakness in the party - that's DM Metagaming.... and it sucks as bad as Player meta-gaming. Your Monsters should be situationally appropriate - not DM vs PC cage battles. Now, IF the villain has already encountered the party and learned a weakness - then, the next time they meet..... well, he IS evil, right?
Werral 07-11-07, 08:54 PM	Rewards too. If you use more story rewards then power gaming is less effective. If the players think of their characters as CHARACTERS then power gaming is less likely. No that doesn't mean they have to play a half-orc sorcerer or Str 7 Fighter. It just means that they don't go looking through all available materials for crazy feat combos. If they wanna make a "build" they should be playing Magic. IMHO
Merestil Haye 07-12-07, 07:31 AM	You stop powergaming by: 1) not allowing "heroic" stat builds - make them roll stats in front of you - and don't give in to their whining when they get a 7, and two 9s.It's quite possible that a set of ability rolls including a 7 and two 9s is illegal and should be rerolled. Check carefully before insisting the player keeps them.
Saric 07-12-07, 07:52 AM	In my games, I outright ban only two things: Frenzied Berserkers and knives. FBs because I've had three parties raped by one. Knives because I've had to intervene when one player pulled a knife on another IRL. Everything else is ruled as "let me see your character sheet to get final approval or denial." Sounds like my games, with everyone at the table sporting knifes.
Endarrion 07-12-07, 08:24 AM	Powergaming is not a problem. The DM not knowing how to challenge the characters IS a problem. As a player, you are given tools for creating a character. If you understand that one build will give you more power than another, then it is only natural to use the more powerful one. Why create a subpar (subpar being something below the power level of what you know you could create otherwise) character on purpose? That would just limit the survivability of your character, and every D&D character wants to live for as long as possible. If you have problems with certain feats, then banning/nerfing them may be the solution. I had a player who took divine metamagic without taking the corresponding metamagic feat (b/c as others have said, the errata for that is not in the book) and walked around casting maximized cure spells all day. He also had an insanely high AC and HP. Oh well. I dealt with it. The rogue could also TWF. Is anyone calling that broken? Eventually the characters become powerful and certain tactics other than "CR 10 for 10th level characters" are called for. Do not punish the players for having foresight or good mathematic capability. EDIT: Replace "Powergaming" with "character optimizing." Powergaming (trying to be better than everyone else for the sake of having good stats) and optimizing (what my post was trying to get at) are two different things.
arjomanes 07-12-07, 03:14 PM	I think some of the suggestions here are pretty good. Here are my personal opinions on house rules you could consider. I would not allow Natural Spell or Wilding Armor, but I would allow the Shapeshifting variant from PHB2 as an alternate to Wildshape if you don't like my wildshape nerfs. I would require that you be able to cast the metamagicked spell normally before you use alternate means to circumvent metamagic (DMM, Anima Mage, etc). That means you must be able to cast level 7 spells before you can persist a 1st level spell using DMM. I would require a knowledge check to Wildshape, Polymorph or Shapechange into a monster, using the CR of the monster to set the DC. Not all monsters in all the monster books would be available in my campaign world, so those limitations would also restrict these spells. I would shorten the distance of Teleport to one mile/level maximum. I would not allow specific campaign material (except with special permission) unless I was running a game in that campaign world. I would give the fighter and sorceror a few extra bonus feats and skill points. I would allow the Oriental Adventures Samurai to replace the Complete Warrior one. I would get rid of the 'attack everyone in sight' feature of the Frenzied berzerker. Those rules are probably not for everyone, but I think it would make things in easier for me as a DM.
Tealgorthian 07-12-07, 08:32 PM	Druids are easily nerfed by knowledge checks or the rule of you can only morph into something you have seen or encountered in game. I do something similar. I let Druids pick a natural setting (forest, tundra, plains, savannah, etc). They know of animals up to 10 HD there. Then they have to my Knowledge checks for other animals. Standard animals require 1 hour research per HD, and a Knowledge check with a DC equal to 1.5 times HD, subject to ad hoc mods based on odd abilities. Dire animals are 2 times HD, with 2x HD in hours. Dinos (In appropriate settings. FR has a few, as does Eberron) are 4x to 5x. With 1 day per HD research The time limits are mostly what limits forms. I make them keep a damn list, and they have to have the stats predone BEFORE the game. You no touchy my MM mid game! Research can be anything from Summoning one and messing with it, to book research.. to talking to other Druids. "Research" is a pretty loose term. Banning stuff is bad.
Irving 07-12-07, 10:00 PM	This might be asking a great deal, but... Train the table to think of how the whole group can have fun, not just them. A specialized "powergame" character can actually be tremendous fun for the whole party, but only if everyone plays to a different strength and cooperates with the rest of the group. Kinda like the "combined arms" strategy of warfare. Or the Superfriends, take your pick. If everybody relies on the rest of the team to make it through, then everyone's going to have more fun. You'll be challenged as a DM, but you can also throw a wide variety of things at the group and have a good time.
KamelGuru 07-13-07, 05:01 AM	Also, I hate DMs that prepare monsters/villains to take advantage of the ONE weakness in the party - that's DM Metagaming.... and it sucks as bad as Player meta-gaming. Your Monsters should be situationally appropriate - not DM vs PC cage battles. Now, IF the villain has already encountered the party and learned a weakness - then, the next time they meet..... well, he IS evil, right? Oh come on! How do baddies even SURVIVE if they do not learn to take advantage of weaknesses? It's common knowledge that clerics aren't particularly agile, so you use spells with reflex saves or bypass their armor with touch attacks. Most warriors will survive the reflex-spells, but are weak willed, so use mind-affecting powers and bypass their vast HP-pool. Rogues tend to be agile and have decent touch AC, so avoid evocation, but they DO have meager physical resistance, so use poisons and fortitude based crap. While a smart wizard have prepared some resistances, and a monk is good at all saves, so they require a good physical thrashing to go down. Most spellcasters KNOW all this, and are wise to prepare so they can DEAL with it. I mean, why charge the burly master swordsman with a blade when you can shoot him? (/Indiana Jones reference) Those who GET that, survive. Those who don't DIE. Where am I going with this? Just think back to your comment on situationally appropriate, and ask yourself "Would Zalgabar the Child-Melter SURVIVE to be a level 20 necromancer/warlock/eldritch theurge without relying on these simple facts?" Of course, if you keep hitting their weak spots and never giving players a change to shine, then you must be beaten with a stick.