Post/Author/DateTime	Post
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 03:06 PM	I have been gaming since the 80s so maybe my feelings on Character Builds are because I am old school. I DM for a group of 5. Most of the players started when I did (mid 80s), one of them is part of the new generation of gamers. During our last session, the player in question whipped out what he called his 'character build' for the other players to see. It was a detailed plan of his character's future levels, feats, stats etc. After the game, the other players thought this was unusual. We usually have a sense of where our characters are going, but chose levels and feats as we go to reflect what is taking place in the campaign. I looked around and these builds are pretty common on the Character Optimization boards. We used to call these guys 'min/maxers'. That was once a label that would brought shame to a player. He was actually proud that he had built a character that was powerful because of loopholes in the rules. Am I the only DM who does not like the direction that the game seems to be going now. All the new gamers I meet, play D&D as though it were a game of Magic the Gathering.
KurenaiYami 08-14-06, 03:42 PM	I have been gaming since the 80s so maybe my feelings on Character Builds are because I am old school. I DM for a group of 5. Most of the players started when I did (mid 80s), one of them is part of the new generation of gamers. During our last session, the player in question whipped out what he called his 'character build' for the other players to see. It was a detailed plan of his character's future levels, feats, stats etc. After the game, the other players thought this was unusual. We usually have a sense of where our characters are going, but chose levels and feats as we go to reflect what is taking place in the campaign. I looked around and these builds are pretty common on the Character Optimization boards. We used to call these guys 'min/maxers'. That was once a label that would brought shame to a player. He was actually proud that he had built a character that was powerful because of loopholes in the rules. Am I the only DM who does not like the direction that the game seems to be going now. All the new gamers I meet, play D&D as though it were a game of Magic the Gathering. I am of the newer generation of which you speak, and I frankly know no other way. Granted, I do not normally plot out all of my future levels. I normally just have a set prestige class I am going for (because there are so many nowadays, at least one is going to catch my eye.) I normally just plan on what feats and skills I will need to attain this class. I do try and make it so that my character roleplays what he is doing so that it makes sense for him to do what he does. My archers normally spend an hour while the others are setting up camp/meditation/studying spells, just shooting at a target I drew on a tree with chalk. (I even expend arrows!) I'm not sure if this is more towards what you do or more what you are against. But that is pretty much how I play.
Stumm_Dolch 08-14-06, 03:45 PM	Tell him to make a copy of it and give you one. When he produces it for you... tear it up. In his face. ((I'm not seriously suggesting this, just expressing my frustration with such players)) If you aren't comfortable with his prospected path to immortality let it be known that you will not tolerate such optimization. Planning your character's carreer is one thing, but exploiting the classes and rules cross the line. As a mature player/DM running an involved (character wise) campaign you have the responsability to the other players to end this quickly and definitively. Let it be known that exploits and min/maxing is not welcome at your table.
fatal error 08-14-06, 03:48 PM	'Tis the game within the game. And, I don't know what you would define as a 'loophole', so I can't really tell whether that should be looked down upon on or not, depending on what it is. However, I will say that I generally have the majority of my character's levels thought out beforehand, and try to figure out what feats I'm shooting (if I'm a non-caster, which I usually am) so I can get the prerequisites as quickly as possible. As the poster above me, I generally work in how my character develops into the game. Like in the game I'm currenlty in my Dwarven Defender is going to take a few levels of Occult Slayer, his reason being that we are combating an invasion of Drow and Efreet, so I feel the need to hone my skills against magic wielding foes.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 03:56 PM	Tell him to make a copy of it and give you one. When he produces it for you... tear it up. In his face. ((I'm not seriously suggesting this, just expressing my frustration with such players)) If you aren't comfortable with his prospected path to immortality let it be known that you will not tolerate such optimization. Planning your character's carreer is one thing, but exploiting the classes and rules cross the line. As a mature player/DM running an involved (character wise) campaign you have the responsability to the other players to end this quickly and definitively. Let it be known that exploits and min/maxing is not welcome at your table. Believe me i have taken many measures to prevent this. I do not allow prestige classes or feats outside the PHB. I use no optional rules. This seems to have kept him in check, but he is clever. Also, looking at all the books that Wizards puts out with Prestige classes and feats, the game really seems designed for min/maxers now.
Stumm_Dolch 08-14-06, 03:57 PM	I didn't mean to sound so anti-well thought out player. Absolutely know what you're going for, plan when to take what feats and so on. It's when you start taking classes that make no sense being combined just to get a couple key abilities that stack or work together in ways clearly unintended that I draw the line. Anyone with a strong imagination can come up with a reason why an Elf Arcane Archer somehow becomes a Halfling to get access to the Halfling Outrider class ((Not a known exploit just a crazy combination to make my point)). That doesn't mean you have to let it happen.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 03:59 PM	I didn't mean to sound so anti-well thought out player. Absolutely know what you're going for, plan when to take what feats and so on. It's when you start taking classes that make no sense being combined just to get a couple key abilities that stack or work together in ways clearly unintended that I draw the line. Anyone with a strong imagination can come up with a reason why an Elf Arcane Archer somehow becomes a Halfling to get access to the Halfling Outrider class ((Not a known exploit just a crazy combination to make my point)). That doesn't mean you have to let it happen. My experience is that players who do what you do are looking at the stats and not the character. Many combinations sound reasonable but are designed to exploit holes in the game.
Someone 08-14-06, 04:12 PM	The simplest way to mess with people who "build" characters is to end that character's career before they get to whatever the player thinks is the endpoint of the build (usually lvl 20). Character death is the most obvious, but a more indirect method, like having the group "retire" and then start up a new campaign with new characters, also works. Just be sure to chide them about their carbon-copy characters if they keep trying to use the same build over and over. Heck, change up campaign style so the character isn't as effective as the were in the last one. Which could be done in the middle of a campaign as well. If the build seems to emphasise one thing, just don't feature it very often. Yeah, this is a little rude, but realisticly the character would be specializing in what they keep doing, rather than some bizzard combination never seen in the world before.
Stumm_Dolch 08-14-06, 04:17 PM	My experience is that players who do what you do are looking at the stats and not the character. Many combinations sound reasonable but are designed to exploit holes in the game. That's why it's so tricky to bust these guys. When I plan a character's advancement I see what's required... the rest I play by ear. Starting off a rogue and want to become a shadowdancer? Ok, I know I need dodge and mobility, some ranks in perform (Dance) so ok, no problem. What's going on in game? Oh, we're headed to negotiate with a neighboring Noble and report back with his reply? As the group's liason perhaps I've gained the proper experience to consider myself a Bard next level. Not the optimum choice strength wise but it is certainly suggestive of the role I'm playing. Note the difference between choosing to be a bard as a result of what's happening instead of continuing as a rogue on the straighest path to my outward goal. Have some fun with it, I agree with you all the way. Oh, dear! I'm getting so off topic sorry. Thankfully the players I play with are more interested in having fun with capable adventurers, and not bending planes of existance with game-breaking twinks.
sicsemperjohn 08-14-06, 04:19 PM	I look at it this way: DMs generally have a sort of plan of how the campaign should go along, right? They figure they have a sort of plot with a beginning, middle, and end, but if the players aren't interested in the path they've provided for them, they should account for it and alter their plans accordingly. A bad DM is the one who knows exactly what he or she wants to happen throughout the entire campaign, enforcing a pre-made plan without considering the flow of the game. A player should also generally have some idea of how his or her character should develop, in terms of background and goals and "gee it would really be cool if I could do such-and-such by 20th level." I think it's even fine to plan for a prestige class or so, later on. But a player who just works out everything from the beginning is saying, "my character is not fundamentally affected by this campaign." Sure, you can do plenty of role-playing of your character, but role-playing should not be just fluff. It should have an effect on the characters themselves. If you are playing the game with a pre-determined build, role-playing necessarily cannot have an effect on your character. I always DM with people I've known for years. None of them have ever pulled a character build on me, and if they ever did, I'd probably ability-drain them just enough to never qualify for their precious feats.
DarkNick 08-14-06, 04:19 PM	I am an 80's gamer too and don't particulalry like the practice of planning a powerful 'build'. But then I have to admit that I do plan ahead and look at where my character is developing. Perhaps it is not all that different from planning a build. This is no longer the 80's. Things have evoloved. A lot of people view the game differently now. I thought it was a brilliant marketing strategy to repackage Dnd to appeal to the more gamer orientated generations. Another thing to take account of is that new players are often younger players. I think younger players have always been more concerned with generating powerful characters, I definitly was like that when I was younger (admitedly I still like to create a powerful character for the sake of power - maybe I am a min/maxer at heart) The great thing about the game is you can still play it how you like. All power to the builder I say. Your player is playing the way they like. If they are not unbalancing the game and the group is working well then I don't see a need for making him conform.
Sarella Starshine 08-14-06, 04:35 PM	in this day and age, min/maxing does not have the negative conotations that it used to, because nearly every player to some extent tries to minamizes the penalties and maximixes the strengths (unless they are part of some obscure but very vocal group that thinks that roleplay only happens if you do the opposite, rendering characters nearly inneffective). the proper word you are looking for to discribe someone that exploits loopholes to gain 'near immortality' is 'munchkin' who are a subclass of optimizers who are a subclass of min/maxers. a 'muchkin' deliberately bends the rules as far as they go before they break when making near impossible characters. they only look at the numbers and see nothing else. it is not 'wrong' to plan ahead with a character, just like its not wrong to take it one level at a time. btw, if this one person is so annoying with this 'character build' thing, that you are having to durasticly change your game, and you are no longer having fun, just replace him.
Inigo Carmine 08-14-06, 04:36 PM	The ability for doing things like that has been a part of D&D since at least AD&D (never played 1st ed, can't comment on it). Remember player options from 2ed? Kits, min/maxing (I always associate that term from the option of splitting a stat up and down for different things, like upping strength for melee damage but lowering your carrying capacity; I could be wrong though). I think what the problem is is that RPGs are becoming more mainstream, and are attracting more (and different) types of people to the game, and more importantly, *NEW* people to the game. You having played RPGs for a longer time will have a different outlook on it than someone new to the game. I am an example of this. I started playing right at the close of 2nd edition. Before D&D, my only experience with "RPGs" were videogames. In a videogame, the only creative control you have over a character generally *is* their stats; so it's what you come to associate with RPGs, and it's what you spend the most attention on. For my first character, I managed to roll rediculously high stats, and powergamed the hell out of it. The other gamers sort of looked down and shook their heads whenever I mentioned how powerful my guy was, and it wasn't until I had been playing for a little while when I finally understood why. After a few years of playing, I like to think I've matured, and I play for character's sake. Give the player some time to play the game. Maybe he'll come around to your way of playing. Also, as far as loopholes go, maybe you could have your characters clear with you ahead of time any unusual combat tactics they plan on using to make sure they jive with you, or that they even do follow the rules to begin with. It can save a lot of time and grief for both parties. For instance, I've seen a lot of new people on this board express frustration when they find out that their archer rogue can't "flank" from 30 ft away with a bow. On a side note, I dislike Most of the non-core material for D&D 3.x as well because I find it to be largely a combination of: 1) Completely Silly (Ooze Master anyone?) 2) horribly underpowered 3) horribly overpowered 4) Flies in the face of the fundamental principals of the game 5) The books are not cross-referenced with eachother. This results in an explosion of #3 when multiple splat books are used. Core material isn't perfect, but it's the most balanced thing out there for D&D. I've seen a few gems in the splatbooks, but I generally don't care to wade through the muck to find them.
Archangel62 08-14-06, 04:38 PM	The simplest way to mess with people who "build" characters is to end that character's career before they get to whatever the player thinks is the endpoint of the build (usually lvl 20). Character death is the most obvious, but a more indirect method, like having the group "retire" and then start up a new campaign with new characters, also works. Just be sure to chide them about their carbon-copy characters if they keep trying to use the same build over and over. Heck, change up campaign style so the character isn't as effective as the were in the last one. Which could be done in the middle of a campaign as well. If the build seems to emphasise one thing, just don't feature it very often. Yeah, this is a little rude, but realisticly the character would be specializing in what they keep doing, rather than some bizzard combination never seen in the world before. Yes, let's make life difficult for someone who has the audacity to plan ahead, how dare they? :rolleyes: And while we're at it let's also add in the rule that a player has to roleplay each skill gain and has to have used it, then make it impossible for rogues and other skill based characters to get anything, ah what fun. I don't like munchkins anymore than any of you, but that doesn't mean that you need to hit everything but the monsters and NPCs with the nerf bat. Also, define loopholes, a player that builds a tripper or something like that can have very reasonable logical reasons in game for doing so, and can have reasonable feats for it as well. Also, Core only restricts classes like Fighter and Barbarian far more than it does any of the casters. If someone wants to plan their character for a prestige class or combat style and show it to their DM to explain or ask if the prestige class is going to be used etc. then they want to make sure that they can create the character they envision. I have to do at least some plotting for fighters or sorcerers since they don't forgive mistakes easily, especially in a game without retraining rules. What precisely was this person trying to do might I ask, just because I am rather curious since I've seen more than one overreaction on these boards.
Eled_the_Worm_Tamer 08-14-06, 04:39 PM	Ive been gaming since the earlt 90s, so it was from second ed. And while I admiit I preffer the flexibility and maleability of 3.5, as well as the more cohesave ruleset even I admit that it can be abused. I just dont tolerate it from my players. We normaly have one 10 level Prestege class, posibly another 5 level if it suits ( Archmage seems inevitable for a high level arcane caster for example) but thses are the kind of things we disgus at charicter creation, and the donning of a prestege class is a defining moment, as is completion of the class. Feats, spells and the like are up for Dm aproval when ever players advance. Wich solves a lot of problems. ( example: Sam Hain wizard and Ostiomancer stole the lore to beome a magican of bones from the cult of the Dragon.) At the same time I have a folder of builds created for purely academic reasons, builds with not a vestege of rollplay or flavor where every trick my time on the CO boards has taght me is embraced. Bottom line? 3.5 gives you much finer control over your charicter, wich for DMs not used to taking an actave part in helping players advance can lead to abuse. But its esaly fixed, do as I do and make players run it past you before it makes it onto there sheet.
jasper 08-14-06, 04:42 PM	Dear Brother marcius get thee back to the nunnery. You have been clositered too long. Min/maxers who were ashamed of the label. Ha! Proud gamers because of loopholes in the rules. HA! I have met these people and gamed with them since 1E and Basic editions were out. Of course having traveled in the real world I guess I came across a lot of low end bad players.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 04:43 PM	in this day and age, min/maxing does not have the negative conotations that it used to, because nearly every player to some extent tries to minamizes the penalties and maximixes the strengths (unless they are part of some obscure but very vocal group that thinks that roleplay only happens if you do the opposite, rendering characters nearly inneffective). the proper word you are looking for to discribe someone that exploits loopholes to gain 'near immortality' is 'munchkin' who are a subclass of optimizers who are a subclass of min/maxers. a 'muchkin' deliberately bends the rules as far as they go before they break when making near impossible characters. they only look at the numbers and see nothing else. it is not 'wrong' to plan ahead with a character, just like its not wrong to take it one level at a time. btw, if this one person is so annoying with this 'character build' thing, that you are having to durasticly change your game, and you are no longer having fun, just replace him. I will stick with 'Min/Maxer' thank you. Back in the day it refered to someone who exploited loopholes. Not someone who tried to make a strong character.
Pallin Rahl 08-14-06, 04:43 PM	What you're referencing, in part, is what has become commonly known (on the boards) as the Stormwind Fallacy. See: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9165883&postcount=338 There is nothing inherantly wrong with building a "strong" character, without exploiting, within the bounds of the rules. ...and doing so has no effect on the ability of the player to roleplay his character effectively. What character building options are available to your players is totally up to you as the DM. ...but there's nothing wrong with building a (legal/non-exploitive) strong character and roleplaying them well. --- Note: I've been roleplaying for a long time now... and yes, 3.0/3.5 has really opened up the options available to characters for customization. With this new level of customization and options available and the fact that many feats, all PrCs, etc have prerequisites... there is nowadays a stronger desire (and need) to plan ahead. Personally, I'm a fan of options and customization... and to one extent or another I've always had an idea of where my character was "going"... even through past editions, where it was less of a major issue.
Someone 08-14-06, 04:48 PM	Yes, let's make life difficult for someone who has the audacity to plan ahead, how dare they? :rolleyes:Hey, the OP asked for ways to discourage "building", and I gave some.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 04:49 PM	What you're referencing, in part, is what has become commonly known (on the boards) as the Stormwind Fallacy. See: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9165883&postcount=338 There is nothing inherantly wrong with building a "strong" character, without exploiting, within the bounds of the rules. ...and doing so has no effect on the ability of the player to roleplay his character effectively. What character building options are available to your players is totally up to you as the DM. ...but there's nothing wrong with building a (legal/non-exploitive) strong character and roleplaying them well. --- Note: I've been roleplaying for a long time now... and yes, 3.0/3.5 has really opened up the options available to characters for customization. With this new level of customization and options available and the fact that many feats, all PrCs, etc have prerequisites... there is nowadays a stronger desire (and need) to plan ahead. Personally, I'm a fan of options and customization... and to one extent or another I've always had an idea of where my character was "going"... even through past editions, where it was less of a major issue. The Stormwind Fallacy. How cute. Just because you have developed a technical term for an argument, does not make it valid. I will grant, not all optimizers are unable to roleplay a character. Most poor role-players are optimizers though. But in most cases it is very difficult to play a character well if your character is an outrageous collection of abilities and powers. It is just too easy for such characters to become two dimensional.
keropie 08-14-06, 05:03 PM	Mind you, I'm a player, not a DM. But nonetheless, we players have opinions, too ;) I tend to be happier when I am playing a character that has classes, not a class that (hopefully at least) has character. I'm currently playing in two different campaigns (one PnP, one on OpenRPG), and my two characters are a) a half-elf driven by the need to avenge his father, murdered in his own inn by a band of thieves (in Eberron). He spent some time as a caravan guard while trying to figure out how best to proceed, and found some peace in swordplay (a more honorable thing than stabbing a man in the dark, after all). He's not a happy or sociable man, in general, but a lot of that stems from the fact that he's isolated himself from others for a couple of years. Now that he's joined an adventuring party (primarily as a means to make gold to fund his revenge), he's started to open up a little to his comrades, and has coincidentally found at least the next group up responsible for his father's death. b) a changeling trickster who loves practical jokes and taking things apart. She was born in Cyre, and ended up in Sharn after the Mourning. Rather than weep forever, she began taking things apart and learning how they work, and ended up apprenticed to a craftsman at a young age. As time went by, she began to be more and more interested in her 'toys,' and eventually opened up her own shop repairing and building oddities (magic and mundane alike). She's now begun adventuring because an adventurer brought her something to repair she'd never though of before, and is off to explore the world looking for inspiration. Those are the characters. Neither of them has any class information (though what class they started in should be fairly easy to at least narrow down). Character a) (Dailan) is a fighter 3 with weapon focus:greatsword who is in the process of developing an unknown dragonmark (which will end up being awkward as his father was human, and his mother an elf). I expect he'll likely stay in fighter, but I could also possibly see him ending up in one of the classes from Tome of Battle (wasn't out when I started, or I might have started in one of them) or anywhere else, depending on how things develop. The only feats that I'd like for him to end up with are the weapon specialization tree (hopefully all the way through weapon grandmaster or whatever it is in PHBII). Character b) is an artificer5, with all of her current feats in things like legendary artisan and such. I think that next level she may take a level in rogue, as she's just started exploring in the 'real world' and some more practical dungeon delving skills might be nice. But that's as far as her plan goes so far. I'd prefer it people I play with would have a character, and then pick classes/feats/etc. to fit that character. Let the character inspire the rest. I know lots of people have builds or classes/feats/whatnot and then make up a character to justify that build. I don't like that as much. But both are valid ways to play in a 'generic' game. You just need to remember that your game isn't generic. It's yours ;)
Pallin Rahl 08-14-06, 05:05 PM	The Stormwind Fallacy. How cute. Just because you have developed a technical term for an argument, does not make it valid. No, it's the actual logic that you're conveniently skipping over that makes it valid. :) I will grant, not all optimizers are unable to roleplay a character. Most poor role-players are optimizers though. That is not necessarily the case at all. I'm sure there's plenty of people out there that don't enjoy roleplaying, but moreso enjoy the hack & slash / combat simulation side of D&D... but that does not mean that "poor roleplayers" are more likely to be optimizers. I've met my share of poorer roleplayers that didn't optimize at all. I've met optimizers that have been exceptional roleplayers. There are two different dimensions of players here that are not necessarily tied to one another. But in most cases it is very difficult to play a character well if your character is an outrageous collection of abilities and powers. It is just too easy for such characters to become two dimensional. Sorry, I have to strongly disagree that this is a general rule. A person that enjoys roleplaying will do so equally well... whether he works out a detailed build to optimize his character concept or sits down and writes up a character using the PHB only. Similarly, a person who does not enjoy roleplaying will roleplay poorly, regardless if he has the most basic character or one put together using pieces from 10 different books. To assume that a person will roleplay poorly, simply because they plan ahead or try to legally (and without exploiting) optimize a character concept... is a mistake. Are there poor roleplayers that optimize? Sure. Of course there are. ...it doesn't make it the rule (or even a majority).
Archangel62 08-14-06, 05:09 PM	The Stormwind Fallacy. How cute. Just because you have developed a technical term for an argument, does not make it valid. I will grant, not all optimizers are unable to roleplay a character. Most poor role-players are optimizers though. But in most cases it is very difficult to play a character well if your character is an outrageous collection of abilities and powers. It is just too easy for such characters to become two dimensional. Two dimensional, you mean like the dumb fighter, the elven wizard, the stereotypes that tend to be forced in when playing a restricted game in order to maintain effectiveness? The Stormwind Fallacy is accurate, being able to roleplay doesn't mean your characters suck, powerful characters don't mean a lack of roleplaying capability. However you seem to be entrenched in your prejudices and don't want to be confused by inconvenient things such as 'facts' and 'logic.' I can even give you a logical strategy for advancement. I have a character in a lower magic campaign setting that uses the taint rules. My character was a farmer who got dorta dragooned into adventuring, gnolls attacked his farm and he woke up with one about to split his skull with an axe while he slept. He was saved by a halfling paladin and an elven ranger, they drove off the gnolls. He decided to take up the life on the road as well, his farm was destroyed and his various skills were that of a craftsman, useful to his new friends. He is a fighter and is built as a tripper, having decided that from now on HE is going to be the one standing and his enemies prone. (After the 12 ghoul being tripped the DM said he was seriously considering giving all his NPCs the prone fighting feat). He prefers that style of combat so he uses a reach weapon, and learns techniques to be more effective at it. But since this character is effective and planned out I would imagine that it has no place in your games.
Mikal 08-14-06, 05:12 PM	It seems to me more along the lines that the new character likes to have fun a certain way, and rather then having an open mind, you're letting you prejudicies about how you think the game should be played color your perceptions. Rather then try and discourage the builder, why not just let him do what he wants and enjoy himself, and you do the same, and let the game be a game rather then trying to force someone to play the same way you do? And the thought that optimized players are two dimensional makes me laugh. Character mechanics do NOT have ANYTHING to do with character PERSONALITY. That's old edition talking. But, from the tone of the OP, that doesn't surprise me.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 05:15 PM	No, it's the actual logic that you're conveniently skipping over that makes it valid. :) That is not necessarily the case at all. I'm sure there's plenty of people out there that don't enjoy roleplaying, but moreso enjoy the hack & slash / combat simulation side of D&D... but that does not mean that "poor roleplayers" are more likely to be optimizers. I've met my share of poorer roleplayers that didn't optimize at all. I've met optimizers that have been exceptional roleplayers. There are two different dimensions of players here that are not necessarily tied to one another. Sorry, I have to strongly disagree that this is a general rule. A person that enjoys roleplaying will do so equally well... whether he works out a detailed build to optimize his character concept or sits down and writes up a character using the PHB only. Similarly, a person who does not enjoy roleplaying will roleplay poorly, regardless if he has the most basic character or one put together using pieces from 10 different books. To assume that a person will roleplay poorly, simply because they plan ahead or try to legally (and without exploiting) optimize a character concept... is a mistake... No. A person who is good at role playing will do it well. A person who does not enjoy role playing can still be good at it. You last point does not address my concer. My concern are people who optimize by exploiting the rules. Such people, in every case I have seen do not role play well. It is possible for them to do so, yes. But by creating a character that so powerful, they lose depth. They make decision based on what numbers work, not on what their characters would do. P.S. The logic of the Stormwind Fallacy is invalid because it is built on a Straw Man Argument. Most people do not have a problem with players optimizing their characters. They have a problem with optimization that exploits and bends the rules. Optimizing your character is fine and makes for good role playing. It is when you create a chracter that stretches disbelief that roleplaying suffers.
Mikal 08-14-06, 05:23 PM	No. A person who is good at role playing will do it well. A person who does not enjoy role playing can still be good at it. You last point does not address my concer. My concern are people who optimize by exploiting the rules. Such people, in every case I have seen do not role play well. It is possible for them to do so, yes. But by creating a character that so powerful, they lose depth. They make decision based on what numbers work, not on what their characters would do. That's a fallacy. Just because someone used the rules to make an effective character does not mean they aren't effective roleplayers. While you may have seen maybe what, 1 or 2, or heck, I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt and say... 100, optimizers in your time, that's a minscule faction of those who can actually optimize. And if you're basing this off the char op boards, it's a flawed argument, as those boards are there for the express purpose of mechanics, not roleplay. The only "depth" that is lost by those characters is the depth you imagine, nothing more, nothing less. Good roleplay and good mechanical aptitude and use are not mutually exclusive. P.S. The logic of the Stormwind Fallacy is invalid because it is built on a Straw Man Fallacy. Most people do not have a problem with players optimizing their characters. They have a problem with optimization that exploits and bends the rules. Optimizing your character is fine and makes for good role playing. It is when you create a chracter that stretches disbelief that roleplaying suffers. You're playing in a fantasy game where you use bat crap to fling fireballs. There isn't much stretching of disbelief when it comes to using several classes together with certain feats to make a strong character, except in your faulty preconceptions. You need to stop clinging to your shadows and echos and use an open mind. And no, the stormwind fallacy is not a strawman, as it IS a widely regarded fact that as soon as anyone tries to optimize in almost anyway a large contingent will leap upon them, calling them such original terms like "munchkin" and "min/maxer". You yourself did just because the player in your group actually had the audacity to make a character build, after all.
Archangel62 08-14-06, 05:25 PM	No. A person who is good at role playing will do it well. A person who does not enjoy role playing can still be good at it. You last point does not address my concer. My concern are people who optimize by exploiting the rules. Such people, in every case I have seen do not role play well. It is possible for them to do so, yes. But by creating a character that so powerful, they lose depth. They make decision based on what numbers work, not on what their characters would do. P.S. The logic of the Stormwind Fallacy is invalid because it is built on a Straw Man Fallacy. Most people do not have a problem with players optimizing their characters. They have a problem with optimization that exploits and bends the rules. Optimizing your character is fine and makes for good role playing. It is when you create a chracter that stretches disbelief that roleplaying suffers. Yes, someone who doesn't like roleplaying can do it well, but they most likely won't because they'll probably be unhappy. Also, please define what you mean by exploiting the rules. I have heard this term used quite a bit and yet I rarely ever get clarification on it when I ask for it. So tell me, how is your player exploting rules? Optimization means making your character good at something, as I have said before taking feats to make your fighter more effective with a weapon of choice or with a combat style is optimization. Putting skill points a certain way to make your character more effective at something is optimization. Stormwind Fallacy is simply that people that roleplay can make cool and powerful characters and vice versa. And don't you even try to tell me that 2nd edition didn't have dozens of loopholes big enough to fly a deathstar through. The Skills and powers book is one example, as are darts, as were some of the more obscene kits. Part of your problem is that you see classes as a way of life rather than what they are, a skillset. But you don't seem to want to see that, the player might have just shown you his plotted character to know if it would work in the campaign and to explain his strategy. Some people like talking about how their character works or their tricks, some of them want to make sure that their design will work within the campaign rules. So, please, tell us what it is exactly that made his character so obscene because I would love to know how you see power and how you see rules interaction.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 05:35 PM	Yes, someone who doesn't like roleplaying can do it well, but they most likely won't because they'll probably be unhappy. Also, please define what you mean by exploiting the rules. I have heard this term used quite a bit and yet I rarely ever get clarification on it when I ask for it. So tell me, how is your player exploting rules? Optimization means making your character good at something, as I have said before taking feats to make your fighter more effective with a weapon of choice or with a combat style is optimization. Putting skill points a certain way to make your character more effective at something is optimization. Stormwind Fallacy is simply that people that roleplay can make cool and powerful characters and vice versa. And don't you even try to tell me that 2nd edition didn't have dozens of loopholes big enough to fly a deathstar through. The Skills and powers book is one example, as are darts, as were some of the more obscene kits. Part of your problem is that you see classes as a way of life rather than what they are, a skillset. But you don't seem to want to see that, the player might have just shown you his plotted character to know if it would work in the campaign and to explain his strategy. Some people like talking about how their character works or their tricks, some of them want to make sure that their design will work within the campaign rules. So, please, tell us what it is exactly that made his character so obscene because I would love to know how you see power and how you see rules interaction. By exploiting the rules I mean combining classes, prestige classes, skill sets, and feats that give PCs an unusual power or ability. Anything that exploits an obvious flaw in the game. For instance combining two feats that have an effect the designers never intended. This player does this all the time. Figuring our ways to consistently do 70 points of damage every round at sixth level. Again I don't care about taking abilities that make your character powerful. I care about using builds in order to overcome the rules, which makes the game less fair for everyone else. {WizO_Cat: Let's keep the posts polite. Thanks.}
Archangel62 08-14-06, 05:46 PM	By exploiting the rules I mean combining classes, prestige classes, skill sets, and feats that give PCs an unusual power or ability. Anything that exploits an obvious flaw in the game. For instance combining two feats that have an effect the designers never intended. This player does this all the time. Figuring our ways to consistently do 70 points of damage every round at sixth level. Again I don't care about taking abilities that make your character powerful. I care about using builds in order to overcome the rules, which makes the game less fair for everyone else. P.S. You want to take that hostile tone with me, then lets settle it like men not scribes. 70 points of damage....I could theoretically do that at 6th level but my barbarian is very unhappy during the rest of the round that his AC is almost zero, but I couldn't do it again since I would have to move back to charge again. I could theoretically do more or less than that too depending on my character, spells, and feats. Also, please make sure that you understand what he is doing, it is possible that he is misinterpreting the rules, either accidentally or on purpose, or that someone misread something. I haven't been hostile, I have said that I feel that you are incorrect and you have had a high-and-mighty tone with pretty much everyone on the board who disagrees with you. What precisely did the player do? Because explaining that to us would likely help this situation because giving us a set example of what he did or something like that would also help define your position. However you seem to be, not just to me but to others, someone who is so entrenched in their opinions of how the game should be that they ridicule and insult anyone who feels differently. And what I pointed out before is valid, every game has plenty of loopholes and mistakes, some of which could make things very unpleasant for everyone. What class is he and what is he trying to do, also how well do you understand 3.0-3.5? This isn't meant to be an insult but it does happen when people used to 2nd edition start having problems because they mix up rules or other things like that.
Magesmiley 08-14-06, 05:52 PM	There is a flip side to this problem as well. I also have DMed since the early 80s as well. I have one player who has been playing since the late 80s, but most of the others have at most 2 years of play experience, and are still relatively inexperienced. Most of my inexperienced players have absolutely no plan whatsoever when it comes to a direction for their character, taking whatever is most convenient at the time. As a result I see them constantly frustrated by not being able to take a prestige class or a particular feat (due to prerequisites). In some respects, I think the advance planning is a way to overcome this frustration. From that standpoint, I would rather see the planning than the frustration. As an example... due to a TPK, my players recently started again at level 1, and one of the newer players has been mapping out feats in advance for her fighter. We're up to 3rd level now and she is exceedingly satisfied with her character - she can see the character's abilities taking shape as her levels grow, and can see where she is headed. Yes it means her characters abilities are designed to combine well, but its also showing the other players what is possible with a bit of planning.
Mikal 08-14-06, 05:56 PM	By exploiting the rules I mean combining classes, prestige classes, skill sets, and feats that give PCs an unusual power or ability. Anything that exploits an obvious flaw in the game. For instance combining two feats that have an effect the designers never intended. And which feats are these, pray tell? If the developers had an issue with it, then they'd post errata to fix it, wouldn't they. This player does this all the time. Figuring our ways to consistently do 70 points of damage every round at sixth level. Again I don't care about taking abilities that make your character powerful. I care about using builds in order to overcome the rules, which makes the game less fair for everyone else. You contradict yourself. He isn't overcoming rules, he's using them to make an effective charater, in essence doing something you don't care about: Taking abilities that make his character powerful. {WizO_Cat: Let's keep the posts polite. Thanks.}
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 06:02 PM	70 points of damage....I could theoretically do that at 6th level but my barbarian is very unhappy during the rest of the round that his AC is almost zero, but I couldn't do it again since I would have to move back to charge again. I could theoretically do more or less than that too depending on my character, spells, and feats. Also, please make sure that you understand what he is doing, it is possible that he is misinterpreting the rules, either accidentally or on purpose, or that someone misread something. I haven't been hostile, I have said that I feel that you are incorrect and you have had a high-and-mighty tone with pretty much everyone on the board who disagrees with you. What precisely did the player do? Because explaining that to us would likely help this situation because giving us a set example of what he did or something like that would also help define your position. However you seem to be, not just to me but to others, someone who is so entrenched in their opinions of how the game should be that they ridicule and insult anyone who feels differently. And what I pointed out before is valid, every game has plenty of loopholes and mistakes, some of which could make things very unpleasant for everyone. What class is he and what is he trying to do, also how well do you understand 3.0-3.5? This isn't meant to be an insult but it does happen when people used to 2nd edition start having problems because they mix up rules or other things like that. I understand 3.0 and 3.5 well. Never mix them. WHen I see something that looks odd I look it up and read it until I understand. I do not rememer the specifics of the character that did 70 dmg (that character is from about a year ago). I do remember that it was a sacred fist. Somehow (I regret I don't remember the details) he was able to do 70 dmg every round beginning to end of fight. He had gone on the Optimization boards and found combos that worked well. I checked it out and it was within the rules. We had a similar problem when he was a druid. The reason why this kind of gameplay conflicted with role playing is because he did things like stay in wild shape the entire campaign (using illusions to appear human). For me, this kind of stuff ruins the game. I have seen this with other players like him (Not people who simply optimize but exploit the game). The last part of your previous message was hostile.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 06:04 PM	And which feats are these, pray tell? If the developers had an issue with it, then they'd post errata to fix it, wouldn't they. You contradict yourself. He isn't overcoming rules, he's using them to make an effective charater, in essence doing something you don't care about: Taking abilities that make his character powerful. Only men with small *****es need to settle things with physicality "like men". Are you saying you have a small *****? Only men who can't fight accuse masculine men of having small *****
Cifer 08-14-06, 06:05 PM	I'd say you are partly right. It happens often that optimizers are bad roleplayers and get on everyone else's nerves - but in my experience not that often that one can derive a general rule from it without being prejudiced. I, for example, usually have a general direction where my character will go and in some cases also have a specific "build" in mind - what's wrong with that? The problem begins only when other players feel obsolete because another takes over their niche - so what if the character can deal out awesome melee damage? When the enemies are flying, he will be hard-pressed to come into contact with them. On the contrary, DM and player can work together to ensure the in-game logic of the build. Say I want to go for the Corrupt Avenger and Fleshwarper classes - basically the crusader that has lost too much and only cares for his "hunt", having lost anything resembling a normal life. At that time, I can simply ask my DM whether he might implement the death of loved ones somewhere in the campaign and bring the character into contact with grafts. Ka-boom, no more logic holes because players and DM suddenly work together.
InterSilva 08-14-06, 06:06 PM	What this all boils down to is simple: You can "optimize" your character and not be a bad roleplayer. Nobody in their right mind makes a purposely crap character (although I've made a few rather weak characters because they sounded fun to play). Some people go over the top, abusing mistakes in the printed rules to their advantage. It's usuallt painfull obvious that the rules were not meant to be used in the way that they are being used, but that won't stop some people. If your player is indeed abusing the rules, using them as they obviously were not supposed to be used, talk to him about it, because that's simply not a proper and mature way to play a game. You need to talk to him about it, and if that fails, you should politely show him to your door. If your player is using an intelligent (and realistic) combination of feats and classes that is rather powerful, but is not abusing the rules, then you have an issue of the balance of the core rules (which is not uncommon) on your hands. In this case, it's up to you to lay down the law and decide that something is too powerful for your game.
Archangel62 08-14-06, 06:06 PM	I do not rememer the specifics of the character that did 70 dmg (that character is from about a year ago). I do remember that it was a sacred fist. Somehow (I regret I don't remember the details) he was able to do 70 dmg every round beginning to end of fight. He had gone on the Optimization boards and found combos that worked well. I checked it out and it was within the rules. We had a similar problem when he was a druid. The reason why this kind of gameplay conflicted with role playing is because he did things like stay in wild shape the entire campaign (using illusions to appear human). For me, this kind of stuff ruins the game. I have seen this with other players like him (Not people who simply optimize but exploit the game). The last part of your previous message was hostile. Hmmm, so he would wildshape but would use illusions and other things to look human to interact with people...how is this bad role-play? He was going to interact, his character may have prefferred a more bestial form, or maybe he felt paranoid or threatened in an area and wanted to have weapons of some sort at the ready should things go wrong. These things are logical in game, and they make good tactical sense. It sounds more like you have a problem with well built characters.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 06:09 PM	[QUOTE=Mikal]And which feats are these, pray tell? If the developers had an issue with it, then they'd post errata to fix it, wouldn't they.[QUOTE] Go into the Character Optimization board. You will find plenty of feats and class abilities that clearly exploit the rules. I do not believe that many people dispute the existence of loopholes in the game.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 06:11 PM	Hmmm, so he would wildshape but would use illusions and other things to look human to interact with people...how is this bad role-play? He was going to interact, his character may have prefferred a more bestial form, or maybe he felt paranoid or threatened in an area and wanted to have weapons of some sort at the ready should things go wrong. These things are logical in game, and they make good tactical sense. It sounds more like you have a problem with well built characters. I just found it silly: 'I am really am a human in ape form with an illusion on myself to make me look like my human form"? Come on. It just made tactical sense.
Mikal 08-14-06, 06:12 PM	Only men who can't fight accuse masculine men of having small ***** Yeah.. right. This from the guy who challenges people on a message board to a duel. Get over yourself. Go into the Character Optimization board. You will find plenty of feats and class abilities that clearly exploit the rules. I do not believe that many people dispute the existence of loopholes in the game. We're not talking about the char op boards here. We're talking about the person in your group who uses "loopholes" as you put them. Put up, or shut up, and quit moving the goalposts.
Pallin Rahl 08-14-06, 06:18 PM	Look... plain and simple... we're assuming you started this topic for a reason. It's not to discuss optimization and roleplaying, as you're obviously so set in your beliefs that you don't care what we have to offer there. Thus, we have to assume you have an issue with this person's current character that he wrote up. If you want us to discuss it further, you'll need to stop skipping around the issue and tell us specifically what this character's build looks like. Otherwise we're left with what otherwise sounds like a player who is simply planning ahead, building a strong character... that you, set in your older-addition ways, find somehow wrong. Without any further direct info... what can we offer? Either: a) Provide us concrete info to work with. b) Make a decision as the DM that whatever bothers you is "not allowed"... which may or may not be justified (noting, as DM, it's your decision for your campaign, regardless if it's justified or not) c) Maybe consider some of what we've all been discussing and go from there. Beyond that, this is just starting to turn into pointless banter... --- P.S. I just found it silly: 'I am really am a human in ape form with an illusion on myself to make me look like my human form"? Come on. It just made tactical sense. So the Druid, likely with the Natural Spell Feat (which allows a Druid to cast while Wild Shaped), cast an Illusion spell. I don't see the huge prob... /shrug Note: Natural Spell is in the PHB and specifically requires Wild Shape and specifically is directed to work with Wild Shape ...I can't see how that combo is in any way unintended or in any way inappropriate. OK, so you found it silly... nothing wrong with it... ...if indeed that's what the situation was.
Mikal 08-14-06, 06:22 PM	Sounds like someone is affraid Amused perhaps. Saddened, more likely. If you really want to act like a moron and be all macho, my hometowns in my profile. I don't see yours there, you little snert.
Archangel62 08-14-06, 06:23 PM	I just found it silly: 'I am really am a human in ape form with an illusion on myself to make me look like my human form"? Come on. It just made tactical sense. Let me guess, you also have a problem with people that have hidden holsters to keep weapons from being visible so they have an edge. Let's review here, if it makes sense tactically it can also make sense in game. If I use wildshape to turn myself into a bear and we think that there is a dangerous individual in town, we think that he is a caster of a higher level than we are, weapons are banned in the bar that we believe he is in. I wildshape into a bear, then use illusion spells to look like my character. Once in the bar we move in, he sees us and panics, trying to sow confusion and possibly kill us he summons a monster to attack, or uses some type of spell to try to catch us off guard, I attack and overpower him using my increased strength as a bear and pin him long enough for someone to throw some manacles on him or for local constabulary to arrive to sort things out. Would you also claim that I'm being unrealistic to take weapon focus or weapon specialization, or that I should have to write an essay to explain each spell choice when I level? Would you say that it 'breaks the game' to have wrist sheathes for a dagger to give me a few extra places to hide weapons should I need them? I'm not saying that it isn't something that might make people look oddly, say if they used true seeing and saw a gorilla walking with the party. They might call for authorities thinking the group planned some sort of disturbance or something like that, equally reasonable. I have also played since the 80's bub, and I know that there are jerks, munchkins, and powertripping DMs in every edition and system of game. And if you want to call fighting settlign something like a man that's fine, I say 'Show me a man who resorts to violence, and I'll show you a man who's run out of ideas.'
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 06:23 PM	Look... plain and simple... we're assuming you started this topic for a reason. It's not to discuss optimization and roleplaying, as you're obviously so set in your beliefs that you don't care what we have to offer there. Thus, we have to assume you have an issue with this person's current character that he wrote up. If you want us to discuss it further, you'll need to stop skipping around the issue and tell us specifically what this character's build looks like. Otherwise we're left with what otherwise sounds like a player who is simply planning ahead, building a strong character... that you, set in your older-addition ways, find somehow wrong. Without any further direct info... what can we offer? Either: a) Provide us concrete info to work with. b) Make a decision as the DM that whatever bothers you is "not allowed"... which may or may not be justified (noting, as DM, it's your decision for your campaign, regardless if it's justified or not) c) Maybe consider some of what we've all been discussing and go from there. Beyond that, this is just starting to turn into pointless banter... I was interested in hearing responses to the issue in general. Taken care of the problem in my own game. Again not opposed to strong characters. Opposed to the explosion of broken rules and prestige classes. Just mentioned his character build sheet because I thought it was a little odd.
Razieliffied 08-14-06, 06:24 PM	I tend to allow nearly anything in my game as long as it seems plausable and not too far-fetched. If the player can approach me reasonably and tell me what they want to play and why, we tend to find an arrangement that suits us both. That is for the good roleplayers. I have two such gamers in my group that you refer to. The first enjoy's near god-hood. He is currently playing a 4 armed dervish. The second such gamer in my group enjoys playing anything that he see's as cool and everyone else see's as somewhat broken. his favorite book is 'savage species'. He has never played one of the core races or classes, saying that they are boring, weak and he got bored having to play thim in videogames years ago. He then turns around and accuses the human fighter with a bastard sword of being overpowered. I hate these kinds of players.
Mikal 08-14-06, 06:25 PM	I was interested in hearing responses to the issue in general. Taken care of the problem in my own game. Again not opposed to strong characters. Opposed to the explosion of broken rules and prestige classes. Just mentioned his character build sheet because I thought it was a little odd. So its ok to have strong characters when its YOUR definition of strong characters. Hey pot, kettle called, said it loved your color.
Muspelheim 08-14-06, 06:26 PM	In order to give a proper assessment the OP really need to be more specific as to how this player is exploiting the rules. The way it is described, it is basically equated to cheating which is in no way the same as optimizing. However, the issue here is not really exploiting the rules, I think. Rather, it's an example of the need to have a harmonic group dynamic. The real problem as I see it is that you have one player who outshines the others by a very large margin. Optimization issues aside, this is a problem for most groups - and it doesn't really matter whether or not the 'offender' is the President of Smack in a group of decently optimized characters or a badly built barbarian with monkey grip in a group of hardcore roleplayers where the rest of the meleers picked skill focus (basketweaving) and stuff like that. What this means is simply that it really is an out-of-the-game issue. The players and the DM should come to an agreement about what is a reasonable level of power in the campaign and stick to it. This seems to be a problem for quite a few groups, but I don't really get why, except perhaps for very inexperienced or young players. Also, if the player in question is a good optimizer and the rest of the group is not, restrictions on materials is not going to do much, if any, good anyhow, since he'll most likely outbuild the others regardless.
SilverFoxKnows 08-14-06, 06:27 PM	Even today I tend to favor an organic approach to character development. I put skill points into things I use (or try to use). This has given way to some odd cross class skills. I pick Feats much the same way. Could I have made a stronger character? Probably. Do I enjoy playing him with his unusual cross class skills and his not-all-combat Feats? You bet. I like high scores as much as the next guy but I don't tend to min/max to the Nth degree. I like a slightly more well rounded character because if something happens to my Face or Tank I'm not totally SOL. I don't enjoy one trick ponies, I'd rather be versatile. YMMV I've looked at PrCs but none of them were quite right for this character. Maybe next game I'll do a Shadow Dancer. Even though they're a "basic" PrC I love the flavor. I know some old schoolers don't like templates and PrCs, at all. I don't mind a template or PrC, even both at the same time. But I've heard some tales of overkill that I wouldn't have allowed as DM. You can't be five "Half-somethings". You can't level dip Paladin and Assassin and expect to get the full benefits of both.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 06:28 PM	And if you want to call fighting settlign something like a man that's fine, I say 'Show me a man who resorts to violence, and I'll show you a man who's run out of ideas.' Very new age and sensitive of you. I say play to your strengths. If you can win by violence, then use it. Your missing the point. He was in wild shape THE ENTIRE CAMPAIGN!. Everywhere he went. In a case where it is called for fine. But the whole game? Everyone at the table said it made the campaign seem odd, like a Disney movie or something.
Archangel62 08-14-06, 06:30 PM	I was interested in hearing responses to the issue in general. Taken care of the problem in my own game. Again not opposed to strong characters. Opposed to the explosion of broken rules and prestige classes. Just mentioned his character build sheet because I thought it was a little odd. Except your definition of strong isn't very well defined. Which rules do you see as broken, the same question for prestige classes.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 06:34 PM	So its ok to have strong characters when its YOUR definition of strong characters. Hey pot, kettle called, said it loved your color. No I am OK with strong characters that are within reason (do not unabalance game) and do not disrupt role play.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 06:36 PM	Except your definition of strong isn't very well defined. Which rules do you see as broken, the same question for prestige classes. Off the top of my head, Frenzied Berserker, and monkey grip come to mind.
Muspelheim 08-14-06, 06:40 PM	Off the top of my head, Frenzied Berserker, and monkey grip come to mind. Monkey Grip really is a terrible, terrible feat ...
Archangel62 08-14-06, 06:41 PM	Off the top of my head, Frenzied Berserker, and monkey grip come to mind. Monkey grip as a poor and weak feat, yes I could see that being annoying when players take it and end up being less effective, but it's sorta funny to watch them try to be uber and end up weaker. As for the frenzied beserker, AKA Kill my own Party, it is pretty strong but many people who play them once or twice avoid doing it again because it's more likely to destroy the party than help it.
Mikal 08-14-06, 06:43 PM	Off the top of my head, Frenzied Berserker, and monkey grip come to mind. So basically you use a substandard feat and a maligned "me too when it comes to whining about it" PrC
Archangel62 08-14-06, 06:44 PM	Very new age and sensitive of you. I say play to your strengths. If you can win by violence, then use it. Your missing the point. He was in wild shape THE ENTIRE CAMPAIGN!. Everywhere he went. In a case where it is called for fine. But the whole game? Everyone at the table said it made the campaign seem odd, like a Disney movie or something. As for your one line of reasoning I'd hate to see you try to settle an argument with people if your first impulse is to attack them physically. And yes, that would make the campaign seem odd, but what surprises me is that no one noticed that he was a gorilla, no one had true seeing?
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 06:46 PM	Monkey grip as a poor and weak feat, yes I could see that being annoying when players take it and end up being less effective, but it's sorta funny to watch them try to be uber and end up weaker. As for the frenzied beserker, AKA Kill my own Party, it is pretty strong but many people who play them once or twice avoid doing it again because it's more likely to destroy the party than help it. If they have a good AT to start, monkey grip can increase their damage output alot.
Hugin 08-14-06, 06:46 PM	What precisely did the player do? From what I can see, the player mapped out everything in advance and thereby said to his DM, "nothing you design into this campaign will affect my character, your storylines have no impact on my character's development, and the life my character lives is detached from his make-up". Of course planning for a future goal is a good and satisfying thing for a player to do, but that does not require the planning of every single aspect of the character in advance. keropie said it well: I'd prefer it people I play with would have a character, and then pick classes/feats/etc. to fit that character. Let the character inspire the rest. I know lots of people have builds or classes/feats/whatnot and then make up a character to justify that build. I don't like that as much. The only reason I can see to create the absolutely most powerful build that can be created with a particular character is to be the 'winner' among the players. The DM scales a game to the power of the PCs, so to create a character that shines above the others does nothing but make the game easier for him or more difficult for the others. D&D is about a group of individual characters coming together to help each other out. Why don't players spend more time to develop team-optimization strategies? How many players spend as much time developing a character sketch (and I do not mean a drawing) for the PC as they do with the build? Not to sound too old-school, but in OD&D our 'character optimization' was developing a multi-page, evolving character sketch. ;)
KurenaiYami 08-14-06, 06:51 PM	If they have a good AT to start, monkey grip can increase their damage output alot. I believe somebody in another thread ran the numbers and showed that Power Attack does more damage on average than monkey grip. I don't feel like running those numbers right now, but if you set down and do the math, it checks out.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 06:52 PM	As for your one line of reasoning I'd hate to see you try to settle an argument with people if your first impulse is to attack them physically. And yes, that would make the campaign seem odd, but what surprises me is that no one noticed that he was a gorilla, no one had true seeing? I would feel less guilty about giving someone a physical beating than crushing them in an argument. Losing to someone in a fight is not nearly as bad as having it handed to you in an argument.
Archangel62 08-14-06, 06:52 PM	If they have a good AT to start, monkey grip can increase their damage output alot. Not as much as you might think, the actual issue is the loss of the feat. The -2 Penalty to hit means a lot since they are also likely to be power attacking, and are going to have to deal with the loss to hit there. In addition that feat is now a sinkhole, it gives less and less of a return in terms of use as you level as this feat is going to be used mostly by fighters and barbrians. Barbs get no bonus feats so they need to focus heavily on damage dealers. Fighters focus more on capstone feat chains, they have to be able to pull off effective manuevers to stay good, monkey grip is almost more than useless unless you need it for a prestige class or a handy better feat. As for the build question, how much does that actually say, if I plot out my feat progression how does that say that I'm not affected by the campaign? If I make a dragonslayer in a game where there are no dragons you might have something, but my tripper example works well in any game or setting unless you intentionally make a bunch of monsters and encounters that cannot be tripped just to spite the player. Which is metagaming, and unfair to the group.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 06:57 PM	Not as much as you might think, the actual issue is the loss of the feat. The -2 Penalty to hit means a lot since they are also likely to be power attacking, and are going to have to deal with the loss to hit there. In addition that feat is now a sinkhole, it gives less and less of a return in terms of use as you level as this feat is going to be used mostly by fighters and barbrians. Barbs get no bonus feats so they need to focus heavily on damage dealers. Fighters focus more on capstone feat chains, they have to be able to pull off effective manuevers to stay good, monkey grip is almost more than useless unless you need it for a prestige class or a handy better feat. As for the build question, how much does that actually say, if I plot out my feat progression how does that say that I'm not affected by the campaign? If I make a dragonslayer in a game where there are no dragons you might have something, but my tripper example works well in any game or setting unless you intentionally make a bunch of monsters and encounters that cannot be tripped just to spite the player. Which is metagaming, and unfair to the group. spoken like a ture min/maxer
Mikal 08-14-06, 06:58 PM	spoken like a ture min/maxer Spoken like a true jerk who doesn't like it when he's proven wrong.
Archangel62 08-14-06, 07:00 PM	I would feel less guilty about giving someone a physical beating than crushing them in an argument. Losing to someone in a fight is not nearly as bad as having it handed to you in an argument. That made little sense except to say that you don't believe that it's honest to logically point out to someone when their reasoning is poor and try to explain the situation rather than pound and pummel them into accepting. Your moral views are quite curious to me and deserve further study. If someone is making things less fun for others then THAT is the problem. People who roleplay well and like the spotlight can hog a lot of the attention, it's happened in plenty of games. If someone is really optimized in one direction then they will do well in those scenarios. In one of my games a player was going for the mage slayer design, he was an occult slayer and witch slayer, as well as having levels in fighter and hexblade. The total design made him very effective against mages, and it was logical and organic as well. In any battle against casters he shone brightly, outside of them he was more subdued. Characters that are effective and strong don't always unbalance things, that and you seem to have a rather different view of balance and effectiveness than others do. But your group may have unique instances too.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 07:00 PM	Spoken like a true jerk who doesn't like it when he's proven wrong. He did not prove I am wrong. Just proved monkey grip is not the best feat to take. I only used it as an example.
Mikal 08-14-06, 07:02 PM	He did not prove I am wrong. Just proved monkey grip is not the best feat to take. I only used it as an example. uhh... ok. he showed it was a bad feat, and not very optimizational, and thus the only reason you dont like it is personal reasoning. Especially since you know, you didn't COMBINE monkey grip with anything to BREAK THE GAME, as you claimed. So yes, Logic: 1. You: -55, so far.
Cifer 08-14-06, 07:03 PM	spoken like a ture min/maxer spoken like someone who doesn't want to listen to arguments and rather argue ad hominem (the other one is of a group that can be derided, so his arguments cannot have merit). You said Monkey Grip is powerful, which definitely is a question of rules - Archangel commented on why it isn't in a technical and precise way. Should he have answered that monkey grip is strong because of its great flavour? His other example was apt as well: There are character "builds" that work well enough flavour-wise that they can be used in just about any setting and won't be necessarily influenced by the character's experiences.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 07:05 PM	That made little sense except to say that you don't believe that it's honest to logically point out to someone when their reasoning is poor and try to explain the situation rather than pound and pummel them into accepting. Your moral views are quite curious to me and deserve further study. If someone is making things less fun for others then THAT is the problem. People who roleplay well and like the spotlight can hog a lot of the attention, it's happened in plenty of games. If someone is really optimized in one direction then they will do well in those scenarios. In one of my games a player was going for the mage slayer design, he was an occult slayer and witch slayer, as well as having levels in fighter and hexblade. The total design made him very effective against mages, and it was logical and organic as well. In any battle against casters he shone brightly, outside of them he was more subdued. Characters that are effective and strong don't always unbalance things, that and you seem to have a rather different view of balance and effectiveness than others do. But your group may have unique instances too. Perhaps a better term than powerful characters, is over powered characters. Thats what I have an issue with. Now I don't spend alot of time crunching the numbers on feats to maximize a character, so my examples may be weak. But I have seen it done numerous times, and also have seen it on the boards. Not dishonest. It is just more cruel than beating them up. Look at the faces of boxers who lose versus people who are destroyed in an argument. There is glory in losing a fight. There is only shame in losing a heated argument.
Archangel62 08-14-06, 07:06 PM	He did not prove I am wrong. Just proved monkey grip is not the best feat to take. I only used it as an example. You claimed that the feat was overpowered, I pointed out that it was fairly weak. You said that if your attack was high enough that the damage output would be higher and I showed you why that wasn't so. I read and understand the rules of the game since I DM quite a bit. Monkey grip can make for a fun character, but it generally doesn't make them more powerful, usually far weaker. And as for character plotting, that is important, tell me what you want to about being 'unaffected by the campaign' but a fighter is going to focus on combat skills, a caster is going to focus on their magical abilities. The goal is to be effective at what they do, if I make my fighter useless in combat I'm not being a 'good roleplayer' I'm gimping myself illogically and causing the rest of the group difficulties because of it. If I want my fighter to be able to do certain things I need to plan out feats to allow for those combat techniques to work and work effectively.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 07:07 PM	uhh... ok. he showed it was a bad feat, and not very optimizational, and thus the only reason you dont like it is personal reasoning. Especially since you know, you didn't COMBINE monkey grip with anything to BREAK THE GAME, as you claimed. So yes, Logic: 1. You: -55, so far. Like I said, weak examples. Interesting scoring technique.
Mikal 08-14-06, 07:09 PM	Like I said, weak examples. Interesting scoring technique. Like many people have said, you ignore the arguments, and the only weak things are your attempts to move the goalposts when denied.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 07:10 PM	You claimed that the feat was overpowered, I pointed out that it was fairly weak. You said that if your attack was high enough that the damage output would be higher and I showed you why that wasn't so. I read and understand the rules of the game since I DM quite a bit. Monkey grip can make for a fun character, but it generally doesn't make them more powerful, usually far weaker. And as for character plotting, that is important, tell me what you want to about being 'unaffected by the campaign' but a fighter is going to focus on combat skills, a caster is going to focus on their magical abilities. The goal is to be effective at what they do, if I make my fighter useless in combat I'm not being a 'good roleplayer' I'm gimping myself illogically and causing the rest of the group difficulties because of it. If I want my fighter to be able to do certain things I need to plan out feats to allow for those combat techniques to work and work effectively. Thats fine. Again, I am talking about using the rules in a way that creates a character that more powerful than the game intended. Yes, classes will focus on their strengths. No problem there. But your talking about exploiting numbers.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 07:12 PM	Like many people have said, you ignore the arguments, and the only weak things are your attempts to move the goalposts when denied. I don't think I have. I made a point about powergaming which I think is valid. I do not know alot of the details about broken rules because I don't try to exploit them myself. I have seen it done many times. I am not ignoring the argument but sticking to my initial concern.
KurenaiYami 08-14-06, 07:13 PM	Like many people have said, you ignore the arguments, and the only weak things are your attempts to move the goalposts when denied. Actually, he said that it was, in fact, his examples that were weak. I don't agree with him myself, but he wasn't calling your arguments weak.
Mikal 08-14-06, 07:19 PM	Actually, he said that it was, in fact, his examples that were weak. I don't agree with him myself, but he wasn't calling your arguments weak. Ah, my mistake.
Archangel62 08-14-06, 07:19 PM	I don't think I have. I made a point about powergaming which I think is valid. I do not know alot of the details about broken rules because I don't try to exploit them myself. I have seen it done many times. I am not ignoring the argument but sticking to my initial concern. This argument has gone in several rhetorical circles. The problem, at least as I see it, is this; you have said here that you do not study 'broken' rules heavily. If you run games (which is what most of us are assuming, correct us if we are wrong) then you NEED to understand those rules in your game because they can and will come up and understanding them prevents cheating and also shows you holes in their tactics. This is, however, assuming that you are talking about core rules, added on rules are somewhat more understandable that you might not know all of them. Also, you felt that my arguments were weak, please explain to me why you feel that way. What did I leave out or what problems did you see in my logic? And as a side note, I've been in many arguments on the board, some I've won, some I've lost, some I think we reached an impasse on. I've learned a lot from each one, when wrong I try to be graceful about it and avoid hurting anyone. But, you have simply said 'Broken' over and over again, and when I point out logically how things can work both in and out of game, or ask for an example of what is going on with the build sheet or character design, or what you feel is overpowered you either skirt the issue or give vague examples and get angry if anyone points out flaws in your logic.
Cifer 08-14-06, 07:19 PM	I don't think I have. I made a point about powergaming which I think is valid. I do not know alot of the details about broken rules because I don't try to exploit them myself. I have seen it done many times. I am not ignoring the argument but sticking to my initial concern. I think it is known to us that there are rules that should not be used in certain ways in D&D. However, when they are used, many people do so for academical purposes - Pun-Pun and its kind are not meant to be played, just to be built for the fun of it. So yes, there are players that try to break the game - I doubt there are many that dispute this. So... what exactly is your point? That there are rules that should not be exploited (which is undisputed) or that people who plan their characters are bad roleplayers (which is easily disproved as a general statement - I consider myself to be relatively good, but also enjoy the crunch aspect of the game)?
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 07:23 PM	This argument has gone in several rhetorical circles. The problem, at least as I see it, is this; you have said here that you do not study 'broken' rules heavily. If you run games (which is what most of us are assuming, correct us if we are wrong) then you NEED to understand those rules in your game because they can and will come up and understanding them prevents cheating and also shows you holes in their tactics. Also, you felt that my arguments were weak, please explain to me why you feel that way. What did I leave out or what problems did you see in my logic? And as a side note, I've been in many arguments on the board, some I've won, some I've lost, some I think we reached an impasse on. I've learned a lot from each one, when wrong I try to be graceful about it and avoid hurting anyone. But, you have simply said 'Broken' over and over again, and when I point out logically how things can work both in and out of game, or ask for an example of what is going on with the build sheet or character design, or what you feel is overpowered you either skirt the issue or give vague examples and get angry if anyone points out flaws in your logic. I don't believe I said your argument was weak. I said my own examples were weak. Again, seen it in many games. Did my research when it first happened a year ago (don't recall the details anymore) and found several problems with splat books. Don't allow non-core books anymore. No more problem in the game. This player is doing his best in the absence of these books, but I keep putting a stop to it. Have no problem using violence against people I disagree with.
Gneral Kass 08-14-06, 07:25 PM	My experience is that players who do what you do are looking at the stats and not the character. Many combinations sound reasonable but are designed to exploit holes in the game. You have to remember that you're also gaming in a brand new version of the game. Prestige classes, alternate rules, entire different campaign settings are the new flavor of the day. With new classes, new rules and, ultimately, more powerful combinations available there comes new types of gamers. These include the "min/maxers", power gamers, etc. You can't knock a person for their play style. They've only learned from the metagame they grew up in. What you can do is let him know that he won't be pulling that stuff in your game. One of our DMs doesn't like this play style, either. And while none of really play this way (though some of us do like to pick our Prestige Class and plan to get to it) he limits us to the PHB and DMG when it comes to classes. We get one base class, one Prestige Class. Maybe this helped you out. Maybe it didn't. But you can't knock the guy for gaming the way he was more likely taught to game.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 07:26 PM	[QUOTE=Cifer] That there are rules that should not be exploited (which is undisputed) QUOTE] You are the first person to say this
Archangel62 08-14-06, 07:27 PM	I don't believe I said your argument was weak. I said my own examples were weak. Again, seen it in many games. Did my research when it first happened a year ago (don't recall the details anymore) and found several problems with splat books. Don't allow non-core books anymore. No more problem in the game. This player is doing his best in the absence of these books, but I keep putting a stop to it. Have no problem using violence against people I disagree with. Supplement books aren't broken so long as you know what each thing allows for, I use them in my games and haven't had a single problem yet. Also, those books make fighters, barbarians and non-casting classes more effective through the full game rather than making them bystanders at level 14 and up. That last part has me honestly disgusted.
geekling 08-14-06, 07:29 PM	During our last session, the player in question whipped out what he called his 'character build' for the other players to see. It was a detailed plan of his character's future levels, feats, stats etc. Gather around young grasshoppers and I shall tell you a story. This is the story about a little gnome... It's all part of the fun for some players, and yes I'm one of those. Planning to see where a character can go, if I do this... They are purely an academic exercise, especially the one ones on the char-op board. Something to keep one amused between gaming sessions. It does no mean that what happens in the game have no effect on the character or that the character does not grow organically. Back the the little gnome. This little gnome was a 1st level character in a D&D game. Before the game even started, it did indeed have a 'build' planned out in great detail from level 1 to level 20. Come level 3, that 'build' was out of the window. There had probably been 10 'builds' replacing it during the months of gaming between level 1 and 3. And the feat actually chosen? Part of none of them. - Part of shedloads of 'builds' since then, sure. One have to see where this new path could lead. - But right then and there, one choosen because of what was logical for this character and what had been going on in the game. Now, sure there are those that will make a build and stick to it no matter what. Because this is the vision they have for the character they want to play and the levels between here and there is just a means to get to this vision. But before you freak out, perhaps it would be an idea to find out if this really is the case with your player.
Cifer 08-14-06, 07:31 PM	You are the first person to say this Possibly, but I'm most certainly not the first person to mean this. Do you truly think anyone here would want to play Pun-Pun?
Archangel62 08-14-06, 07:33 PM	Possibly, but I'm most certainly not the first person to mean this. Do you truly think anyone here would want to play Pun-Pun? I might, just to at some point go up to a very big monster and scream "I AM THE KOBOLD OF DOOOOOOOOM!" And actually be able to back it up, but that desire is more out of my own amusement than anything else. I would never play something like that in a real game because it eliminates all challenge.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 07:34 PM	Gather around young grasshoppers and I shall tell you a story. This is the story about a little gnome... It's all part of the fun for some players, and yes I'm one of those. Planning to see where a character can go, if I do this... They are purely an academic exercise, especially the one ones on the char-op board. Something to keep one amused between gaming sessions. It does no mean that what happens in the game have no effect on the character or that the character does not grow organically. Back the the little gnome. This little gnome was a 1st level character in a D&D game. Before the game even started, it did indeed have a 'build' planned out in great detail from level 1 to level 20. Come level 3, that 'build' was out of the window. There had probably been 10 'builds' replacing it during the months of gaming between level 1 and 3. And the feat actually chosen? Part of none of them. - Part of shedloads of 'builds' since then, sure. One have to see where this new path could lead. - But right then and there, one choosen because of what was logical for this character and what had been going on in the game. Now, sure there are those that will make a build and stick to it no matter what. Because this is the vision they have for the character they want to play and the levels between here and there is just a means to get to this vision. But before you freak out, perhaps it would be an idea to find out if this really is the case with your player. My player is a good player. I actually give him credit for some of his characters. I do find his builds to be odd. By not using the splat books we have had few problems. When I have allowed them, other players had less fun because he was so powerful.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 07:35 PM	Supplement books aren't broken so long as you know what each thing allows for, I use them in my games and haven't had a single problem yet. Also, those books make fighters, barbarians and non-casting classes more effective through the full game rather than making them bystanders at level 14 and up. That last part has me honestly disgusted. {WizO_Cat: Let's keep the insults off of the boards. Thanks.}
Archangel62 08-14-06, 07:36 PM	My player is a good player. I actually give him credit for some of his characters. I do find his builds to be odd. By not using the splat books we have had few problems. When I have allowed them, other players had less fun because he was so powerful. Next question is was he powerful because he was a super build, or more powerful than others because they don't know how to make effective characters? (This example has been shown many times on the forums before anyone gets angry)
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 07:42 PM	Next question is was he powerful because he was a super build, or more powerful than others because they don't know how to make effective characters? (This example has been shown many times on the forums before anyone gets angry) NO he was super powerful. The other characters were fairly strong (Paladin, Fighter, Thief). He just did so much damage in battle compared to the fighter and paladin that it was insane. If all the characters were on equal footing (or the other guys had made bad choices making their PCs) I would not have cared so much. But I could see the other players losing interest every time he shined in battle. I thought OK. No big deal, he made a really, really good character (he also explained to me where he found the build online). Next campaign, same thing happened, but he was even more deadly. He then showed me some of the other characters he had planned for the campaign. They were all very, very powerful. It was just the combination of feats and classes he got off the boards. He showed me one character that did an average of 150 damage each round at 10th level with its ranged weapon. I wish I could remember how it was done.
geekling 08-14-06, 07:46 PM	My player is a good player. I actually give him credit for some of his characters. I do find his builds to be odd. By not using the splat books we have had few problems. When I have allowed them, other players had less fun because he was so powerful. My apologies, it is well after my bedtime so somehow I missed that this was not a new player in your group. Although the question arises that if he has a tendency to build powerful enough characters to disrupt the game. If this presenting the 'build' early on is not a good thing. As it gives you as the DM a chance to look it over and nix combinations you would be uncomfortable with allowing, for this very reason? Possibly, this could be his way of trying to help you from having that problem come up again. In a sort of roundabout manner...
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 07:54 PM	My apologies, it is well after my bedtime so somehow I missed that this was not a new player in your group. Although the question arises that if he has a tendency to build powerful enough characters to disrupt the game. If this presenting the 'build' early on is not a good thing. As it gives you as the DM a chance to look it over and nix combinations you would be uncomfortable with allowing, for this very reason? Possibly, this could be his way of trying to help you from having that problem come up again. In a sort of roundabout manner... Yes, but the build is still there. And I do not really want to 'cheat' around his build. I do think that would be unfair as well. As I have said. There is no longer a problem. When I see something that is an obvious misuse of rules I tell him to change it.
Cifer 08-14-06, 07:56 PM	Don't be such a girl [unless you are a girl-never can tell on these boards] Er... let me get that straight. You have problems when a character becomes so strong that the other players feel obsolete - but you find it completely acceptable when a character becomes so weak his player feels obsolete? Because that's almost exactly what happens to a pure fighter if he has no access to prestige classes or interesting feats. A cleric is at least as good in melee as he is and has spellcasting on top of it.
Archangel62 08-14-06, 07:57 PM	NO he was super powerful. The other characters were fairly strong (Paladin, Fighter, Thief). He just did so much damage in battle compared to the fighter and paladin that it was insane. If all the characters were on equal footing (or the other guys had made bad choices making their PCs) I would not have cared so much. But I could see the other players losing interest every time he shined in battle. I thought OK. No big deal, he made a really, really good character (he also explained to me where he found the build online). Next campaign, same thing happened, but he was even more deadly. He then showed me some of the other characters he had planned for the campaign. They were all very, very powerful. It was just the combination of feats and classes he got off the boards. He showed me one character that did an average of 150 damage each round at 10th level with its ranged weapon. I wish I could remember how it was done. That one isn't as difficult as it might sound, I know how it might be done but the numbers seem somewhat inflated. Also, which edition was this being done in? Side note, I find the idea that you can, without qualm or question of conscience, use violence on someone simply because you disagree with them. I do find that disgusting because it is what has fed many of the worst atrocities in human history.
Sarella Starshine 08-14-06, 08:05 PM	Don't be such a girl [unless you are a girl-never can tell on these boards] as a girl, i am deeply ofended that you some how think that being a girl is an insult. the only time that being a girl should be insulting is if you are 6 years old, and even then should be extremely discurraged in its use. no self respecting person over the age of 10 should ever use gender as a an insult.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 08:08 PM	as a girl, i am deeply ofended that you some how think that being a girl is an insult. the only time that being a girl should be insulting is if you are 6 years old, and even then should be extremely discurraged in its use. no self respecting person over the age of 10 should ever use gender as a an insult. Being a girl is an insult if the person it is directed at is a man. Being a guy is an insult if the person it is directed at is a woman. Sorry but no guy likes being called a girl.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 08:13 PM	That one isn't as difficult as it might sound, I know how it might be done but the numbers seem somewhat inflated. Also, which edition was this being done in? Side note, I find the idea that you can, without qualm or question of conscience, use violence on someone simply because you disagree with them. I do find that disgusting because it is what has fed many of the worst atrocities in human history. I have no problems with violence. I have no problems with diplomacy. If diplomacy is not your strength, use violence.Violence has also stopped some of the worst atrocities (WWII) in history. Why is it disgusting to use violence on someone I disagree with? It is a genuine human impulse. I would not do it over a mild mannered debate. But when I start detecting hostility from someone, sure.
Comus 08-14-06, 08:13 PM	Guys, this thread is like pounding on a brick wall with your bare hands - there's no result and it leaves you frustrated and tired. Therefore, I suggest the sane solution - Stop posting and let the thread die. Nothing is really being discussed or resolved. This is "BrotherMarcus won't listen, so let's yell until he does". Don't bother. It won't work. This thread has dissolved into insulting each other and vague threats of physical violence. Just. Let. It. Die.
Kresalak 08-14-06, 08:17 PM	This thread has dissolved into insulting each other and vague threats of physical violence. Vague? The guy has stated, quite clearly, that he wishes to physically fight the people he disagrees with, in person. I smell a troll...
Comus 08-14-06, 08:19 PM	Vague? The guy has stated, quite clearly, that he wishes to physically fight the people he disagrees with, in person. I smell a troll... And trolls are weak to people that ignore them. I'm not going to post in this again, and I suggest others follow my example.
finbury 08-14-06, 08:21 PM	Eh. It's all a question of degree. Making a D&D character is a matter of choices. Because the game system is not perfect, some choices are clearly better than others, and some choices are clearly worse. Every D&D game has an average power level. There are characters who might be overpowered for your game but who'd fit pretty well in other games out there. There are characters who are underpowered for your game too. (I'm pretty sure that if I showed up at most game tables with a Cleric1/Druid1/Sorceror1/Rogue1, I'd be underpowered and probably not as effective as the rest of the party.) There are may reasons to make suboptimal choices when designing a character. For example, one might have a concept or an archetype that you're building towards. One might make class choices based on events in-game. Or one might be unaware that one is making a bad choice. One of the easiest ways to make an accidental bad cahracter choice in 3.5 is to mess up prestige class qualifications. It's pretty easy to do, even with the core books. Your 15th level Wizard hits 16, and is all set to take that level of Archmage you've been looking forward to, when you realize you don't have a second School Focus Feat. You won't get another feat until 18th, so you won't be able to take that Archmage level until you hit 19. Oops! There's only one real way to avoid this kind of self-screwage. Plan ahead. Simple as that. The rules directly penalize people who don't plan ahead. Fundamentally, it's an issue of understanding. Game systems always penalize players who make decisions without understanding their consequences. I think it's grossly unfair to pick on the guy who spends the time to work out what those consequences are. There's also the issue of character imbalance. If you have one well-built character at your table, and the rest are haphazardly thrown together, then you have a balance problem. You want all your characters to be of roughly equivalent power level, so that everyone gets to contribute to the group and gets their chance to shine. So really what you should be trying to do is get your other players to be more like the planner.... Of course, it's your game, and if you don't like this being a part of your game, there's always Rule Zero. If you're prepared to cut your PCs a bit of slack with PRC qualifications, then this kind of behavior becomes a lot less necessary. Of course, that means more work for you. What you do is as follows: - You tell your players that they can't just pull a prestige class out of a book, that you'll only let them play stuff that shows up in game. - However, you let them come to you with class ideas that fit their character concept, and you work out ways to fit these prestige classes into your universe. - Because you are no longer relying on the playtesters at WoTC to balance your game, you then become responsible for balancing their characters and making sure that all characters are an acceptable power level for your game. You can probably enlist your planner to help you with this. He probably enjoys that kind of thing.
STAT 08-14-06, 08:24 PM	I smell a troll... Seriously. I personally think it's just a joke and the guy set up the whole thread just so he could mess with people. It's not like it hasn't been done before on this forum. My character was a farmer who got dorta dragooned into adventuring, gnolls attacked his farm and he woke up with one about to split his skull with an axe while he slept. He was saved by a halfling paladin and an elven ranger, they drove off the gnolls. He decided to take up the life on the road as well, his farm was destroyed and his various skills were that of a craftsman, useful to his new friends. He is a fighter and is built as a tripper, having decided that from now on HE is going to be the one standing and his enemies prone. I just want to say that's a great concept and I got a good laugh out of that last line. Made the thread worth reading.
Voran 08-14-06, 08:59 PM	I'm thinking character builds are fine, with the 20 level system, and the inclusion of prestige classes, I find that I need to do some forward planning if I want to be eligible for a particular class. This usually means figuring out skill sets and feat arrangements well before the prestige class becomes available. However, I still see it as DM's call on whether or not a particular prestige class will become available to be. So at chargen, I'll let the DM know what direction I intend to head, and ask if he thinks I'll be able to go in the direction I planned. A means of preventing super min/maxing is to add artificial measures, such as house rules preventing dipping without consequences. Even though its not clearly spelt out in the books, I'm not really thinking the idea of taking 2 levels here 2 levels there 1 level here was intended. Also some players seem to forget that some prestige classes require more than "I want to be one" kinda thinking. The DM is fully in their right to say considering the region of play, or character knowledge, the player char wouldn't 1)be able to find a teacher to join the class or 2)even KNOW about the class. This sorta stuff is something that NEEDS to be addressed at the initial game meetings. Likewise, character planning is all well and good, but some players assume since they made their plan to 20, they'll automatically get it, and forget that there's that chance they may not even live to get there :P
EldonG 08-14-06, 09:43 PM	Very new age and sensitive of you. I say play to your strengths. If you can win by violence, then use it. Your missing the point. He was in wild shape THE ENTIRE CAMPAIGN!. Everywhere he went. In a case where it is called for fine. But the whole game? Everyone at the table said it made the campaign seem odd, like a Disney movie or something. Unbelievable. You, my good sir, ARE a contradiction in terms. First, you moan and cry about a powerful character, then you bluster with, "If you can win by violence, then use it." He did. You lose. Go home. Next game.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 10:36 PM	Unbelievable. You, my good sir, ARE a contradiction in terms. First, you moan and cry about a powerful character, then you bluster with, "If you can win by violence, then use it." He did. You lose. Go home. Next game. Power and violence aredifferent. Now if I said: "I don't like overpowered characters" and then advocated using steroids before resolving a conflict violently, your point would have been valid.
BrotherMarcus 08-14-06, 10:39 PM	Vague? The guy has stated, quite clearly, that he wishes to physically fight the people he disagrees with, in person. I smell a troll... Not a troll. Just an oldtime gamer who refuses to change his ways. Builds? Freakishly ****. Overpowered Characters? Not what God intended.
TRCEttin 08-14-06, 10:56 PM	I disagree. I WILL FITE U IRL.
EldonG 08-15-06, 12:03 PM	double-friggin' post.
EldonG 08-15-06, 12:04 PM	Not a troll. Just an oldtime gamer who refuses to change his ways. Builds? Freakishly ****. Overpowered Characters? Not what God intended. No, you are not an oldtime gamer who refuses to change his ways. In fact, you are just like the child on the playground who sees something he doesn't like and resorts to violence to change it. An oldtime gamer who refuses to change his ways tells a player who plays in a way he doesn't like that he can't play in his game, he doesn't whine on the internet and then threaten others who point out how much of a child he's being...even resorting to using gender as an insult... No, children do that. Grade school children, and they should be disciplined for doing it. I, at 45, am an old-time gamer. So is my father, and my brothers, as well. We do *not* resort to name-calling, or violence. May I suggest a little maturity may be in order?
Pallin Rahl 08-15-06, 12:18 PM	Just let this thread die. It has been clear (for at least a couple pages now) that the OP either: a) Doesn't care what any of us have to say (unless we agree with him). or b) Is trolling. In either case, nothing is accomplished by further discussion.
Zaigre 08-15-06, 12:29 PM	Starting off a rogue and want to become a shadowdancer? Ok, I know I need dodge and mobility, some ranks in perform (Dance) so ok, no problem. What's going on in game? That's the way my players and I do it. Most of my players new to D&D and don't want to make a huge mistake and hate they'r characters later on in the game. Marcus I find that you're being really narrow minded about not having new things in your game.
Gottwick 08-15-06, 12:32 PM	Also, looking at all the books that Wizards puts out with Prestige classes and feats, the game really seems designed for min/maxers now. Horse biscuits. You determine what's allowed and what isn't. You also determine the spirit of your own house rules. If he blatantly breaks the official rules, kill the character and express in strong terms he won't do it again and remain in the group. If he breaks the spirit, talk to him and explain the situation. More rules and options don't mean anything, since you determine which are allowed.
Tormsskull 08-15-06, 12:49 PM	I am an old time gamer. I don't care for overpowered characters or players only concerned with the numbers. I have noticed in my experience that optimizers tend to be less concerned about role-play. None of us are going to be able to factually prove anything, we only have our own experiences to go off of. I personally believe that newer players are missing out on the real D&D experience. Instead of being engaged in an epic storyline they are too concerned about adding a +1 here or there. All that being said, OP I think the way you presented this topic and the way you are defending it is in very poor form. I recomend a cease and desist.
BrotherMarcus 08-15-06, 12:56 PM	No, you are not an oldtime gamer who refuses to change his ways. In fact, you are just like the child on the playground who sees something he doesn't like and resorts to violence to change it. An oldtime gamer who refuses to change his ways tells a player who plays in a way he doesn't like that he can't play in his game, he doesn't whine on the internet and then threaten others who point out how much of a child he's being...even resorting to using gender as an insult... No, children do that. Grade school children, and they should be disciplined for doing it. I, at 45, am an old-time gamer. So is my father, and my brothers, as well. We do *not* resort to name-calling, or violence. May I suggest a little maturity may be in order? Let me get this straight. You, your brother, and father do not resort to name calling or violence against each other? I don't believe it. Thats just natural. Me and my brothers fight all the time.
Pegasos989 08-15-06, 12:57 PM	Bah... Not this idiotic argument that "min/maxing" is bad again... Even more stupid that "build design is bad"... I roleplayed WoD for years in storytelling chronicle before starting DnD. Any form of choosing stats unrealistically was unknown to me. ("What?! Why in hell would I give STR over 14 to fighter? He is supposed to be human. What is he? A bodybuilder? STR 12 seems more than enough...") But when I understoon DnD, I saw that this is not about realism. This is about heroes. If I now roll 18 for a fighter, I put that in STR. That is already min/maxing - you take use of the rules to make most powerful character that you can with the stuff that has been given you. Do you know what I did as a first thing after I realized that people did not care if you had out-of-ordinary stats? I made a 20 level build on how I would like to go! Now that I don't need to worry about realism, I could make a character with interesting combat capabilities. And know what else? It did not lessen my ability to RP in ANY way at all. The opposite! I knew my character would be trying to become best tripper (build was for that) in the world, so ideas of him looking for teachers, magical items for that, etc. flooded my little brains. I suddenly got a clear picture of him as a young child and tried to hit his father, but the father just harmlessly tripped him with a stick saying "go back to work, son. You don't have knock for fighting..."... You understand? Oh, and more about builds? My friend and DM who has played since 1st ed and is 100% into roleplaying every detail, decides 20 level builds for his characters beforehand. He is not a munchkin, but he is a min/maxer, aknowledges it and is actually quite proud of it. As half of your characters RP is how he acts in combat and what his techniques are, I find writing a build for him just as good or even better RP than writing a history! History is what has happened to him, build is what has happened, how he reacted and how he will react if nothing changes it! Oh, and really, making builds is nothing towards munchkinism... I can make ECL 7 character with AC 60+, ECL 20 with AC 100+ (personal record being at 105 without items), etc. and I could take rediculous stuff from alter-self and the like but I do not. Making build is not "SHEES! He is gonna ruin game for everyone!" Oh, and I would like to see this build! I mean, he might not be owerpowered! If you design "I will make TWF fighter" and decide "I need these 3 TWF feats, these 3 feats to achieve some extra AC, these feats to get to tempest at earliest levels...", your character will be decent powered and those who just each time they level say "this one looks interesting" will be very underpowered... What is freakishly underpowered then? Go to char op boards, find the arcane channeling thread and see polymorphing into hydra and doing 330-1000 (average 660) damage in turn and others saying that it is rather weak. Anyone with some understanding of rules can do such builds with a bit experience and thought put into it. Anyone choosing not to, shows that he has some respect for game balance and the non-fighting parts.
EldonG 08-15-06, 08:04 PM	Let me get this straight. You, your brother, and father do not resort to name calling or violence against each other? I don't believe it. Thats just natural. Me and my brothers fight all the time. No, we don't. As children, me and my brother did. We were children. If your response wasn't so pathetic, I'd call it laughable. Have a nice day...or, spend your night locked up after a foolish bar brawl. I could care less. I find your comments beneath me...or any other sensible, civilized human being.
EldonG 08-15-06, 08:06 PM	Bah... Not this idiotic argument that "min/maxing" is bad again... Even more stupid that "build design is bad"... I roleplayed WoD for years in storytelling chronicle before starting DnD. Any form of choosing stats unrealistically was unknown to me. ("What?! Why in hell would I give STR over 14 to fighter? He is supposed to be human. What is he? A bodybuilder? STR 12 seems more than enough...") But when I understoon DnD, I saw that this is not about realism. This is about heroes. If I now roll 18 for a fighter, I put that in STR. That is already min/maxing - you take use of the rules to make most powerful character that you can with the stuff that has been given you. Do you know what I did as a first thing after I realized that people did not care if you had out-of-ordinary stats? I made a 20 level build on how I would like to go! Now that I don't need to worry about realism, I could make a character with interesting combat capabilities. And know what else? It did not lessen my ability to RP in ANY way at all. The opposite! I knew my character would be trying to become best tripper (build was for that) in the world, so ideas of him looking for teachers, magical items for that, etc. flooded my little brains. I suddenly got a clear picture of him as a young child and tried to hit his father, but the father just harmlessly tripped him with a stick saying "go back to work, son. You don't have knock for fighting..."... You understand? Oh, and more about builds? My friend and DM who has played since 1st ed and is 100% into roleplaying every detail, decides 20 level builds for his characters beforehand. He is not a munchkin, but he is a min/maxer, aknowledges it and is actually quite proud of it. As half of your characters RP is how he acts in combat and what his techniques are, I find writing a build for him just as good or even better RP than writing a history! History is what has happened to him, build is what has happened, how he reacted and how he will react if nothing changes it! Oh, and really, making builds is nothing towards munchkinism... I can make ECL 7 character with AC 60+, ECL 20 with AC 100+ (personal record being at 105 without items), etc. and I could take rediculous stuff from alter-self and the like but I do not. Making build is not "SHEES! He is gonna ruin game for everyone!" Oh, and I would like to see this build! I mean, he might not be owerpowered! If you design "I will make TWF fighter" and decide "I need these 3 TWF feats, these 3 feats to achieve some extra AC, these feats to get to tempest at earliest levels...", your character will be decent powered and those who just each time they level say "this one looks interesting" will be very underpowered... What is freakishly underpowered then? Go to char op boards, find the arcane channeling thread and see polymorphing into hydra and doing 330-1000 (average 660) damage in turn and others saying that it is rather weak. Anyone with some understanding of rules can do such builds with a bit experience and thought put into it. Anyone choosing not to, shows that he has some respect for game balance and the non-fighting parts. You dirty min/maxer...why...one might even think it was your goal to emulate a hero in modern fantasy. ;)
Archangel62 08-15-06, 10:44 PM	I'm going to reprint something here I wrote a while ago but don't have off hand. What I wrote (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9169870&postcount=352) This was in response to a similar debate, the main problem that I have with the arguments that we are having here. Also, as much as I hate to say it, plenty of the problems people have with what something can or cannot do comes from people playing a class the wrong way. This isn't meant to insult or anything, but it's in the vein of damage spells for a wizard or trying to make the fighter or paladin massive damage dealers. These are more mistakes born of perception than anything else, a fighter has power because he has techniques that can allow him to do very frightening things on the battlefield, rather than deal super damage to everything in sight he trips them, tosses their weapons away, dodges every blow, pins them to a wall with arrows, and has fast healing the whole time he does it. The paladin can be a super tank, and can sometimes deal big damage but instead is more of a support based fighter who uses spells to buff himself and fellow party members to be faster and stronger and more effective. Marcus, your earlier comment about the fighter and paladin being outdamaged on average has me thinking that you view the stuff differently than most on the boards do, as do your players. If he built himself to deal a lot of damage a round it depends on what he was too, a monk can theoretically do more damage a round due to their flurry.
Archangel62 08-16-06, 11:40 PM	This thread should be bronzed, I think it's the only one that BrotherMarcus started that didn't get locked/.
Gamandria 08-17-06, 01:16 AM	This thread should be bronzed, I think it's the only one that BrotherMarcus started that didn't get locked/. seconded. Do you believe that guy!
kalmarjan 08-17-06, 02:38 AM	LOL Quite a lot of discussion on this topic. Some retarded, but others good. Let me throw my 2 CP into this mix, just for kicks. Min/Maxing vs Roleplaying vs Munchkinism. When will this crap ever end? Seriously. The OP and quite a few others feel like they are on a one sided crusade to "encourage roleplaying". No offense, but that whole mindframe is based on a load of crap. Did you all ever read the section of the DMG (Pick the version) about reading your players? About adjusting your style of game to make everyone happy? Why does this have to be a question of who is wrong or right? Is the Min/Maxing player having fun? Does he like kicking some ass? THEN GIVE IT TO HIM! What is so freaking wrong about that? Why is it that every once in a while, we have someone who comes up and says that they are an "old time gamer" and they cannot accept things the way they are? People have mentioned that D&D is now played like a MtG game. I got news for you. Of course it is. WOTC bought TSR remember? Take a look at a magic card one day, then compare it to a feat in the game. Notice any difference? You shouldn't, because they are both written in the same format. Is it so hard to fathom that you can have the roleplayers roleplaying, and the min/maxer kicking ass because he dared "exploit a loophole" in the rules? BTW, just what the hell does that mean anyway? A loophole in who's interpretation? Finally, old school gamer, remember a few things. 1) I have played since the first incarnation of this game. That's right. The original rules with the chits that you pulled out of a hat. There was no roleplaying back then, it was purely strategic. 2) I have always had large gaming groups. I think it is because I remember one thing. I always try to give something to every player. EVEN IF they have min/maxed. Seriously, it is not hard to adjust the game to bring about balance. The guy who is dealing out 43 damage to the kobold with his build is not really that more effective against a fighter dealing out 9 damage with a longsword. The kobold is still dead. :) 3) When you just cannot get over the whole thing, switch back to your old system. If the system you are playing is causing you to post here needlessly to "prove" your point, it is time to seriously examine whether you are having fun while you are playing this game. 4) Opinions are like *******s. Everyone has one, no one wants to hear one. Sandeman
Archangel62 08-17-06, 03:47 AM	The other thing is this too, loopholes are a result of mistakes or unthought consequences that led to things like Pun-Pun or a few other tricks that were shown on the char-op boards for infinite loops or 50000 actions a round. And, much as I hate to say it, half the problems come from either DMs misreading things or players building inneffective or weak chars. Repeat after me, Effective does not mean munchkin.
tsuyoshikentsu 08-17-06, 04:15 AM	This thread is bad. Mondo bad. It's worse than the thread Archangel quoted himself from, which I still regard as one of the nastier debates I've ever been in around here. I think everyone, from me to Tormsskull, has agreed that Marcus here is in some way wrong. Doesn't matter if it's the argument or the presentation, we all think he's not doing something right. Hence, I too think it is best that this thread be left to die.
Yami 08-17-06, 11:05 AM	Have no problem using violence against people I disagree with. :eek: I pray you are unmarried, or your wife has a gun on her at all times.
Gamandria 08-17-06, 11:07 AM	The other thing is this too, loopholes are a result of mistakes or unthought consequences that led to things like Pun-Pun or a few other tricks that were shown on the char-op boards for infinite loops or 50000 actions a round. And, much as I hate to say it, half the problems come from either DMs misreading things or players building inneffective or weak chars. Repeat after me, Effective does not mean munchkin. Loopholes are created by game designers who do not take the time to find them before releasing new, expensive, hardcover books.
Archangel62 08-17-06, 11:16 AM	Loopholes are created by game designers who do not take the time to find them before releasing new, expensive, hardcover books. Loopholes can occur with a ton of playtesting and checking too, a lot of it has to do with how many books are released, the faster they are put out the tougher it is to check.
oxybe 08-17-06, 12:11 PM	kalmarjan i have but one thing to say to you: :clap: you sir, have won at D&D. people, this is a game. nothing more, nothing less. this is no holy symbol you pray to every night, this is a game played by people once a week/month while drinking mountain dew (or whatever). I have been playing D&D since 2nd ed, before we even heard of a 3rd edition. i still remember sitting around the kitchen table trying to create a "Master Character Sheet", we did pretty good too... i only wish we still had those :( when 3rd came out, we were all relieved. the game was much improved for the best, in our opinion. things were streamlined, every character class had the same XP chart, there were no stat requirements to enter ranger, paladin or specialist wizard. there were no racial level limits. THAC0 was now a memory and the new improved AC system was in place. non weapon proficiencies were replaced by the much more effective skill system. feats opened a whole new world of customization. PrC's were like class kits, only better. and that was just the beginning. I too am sort of an old-schooler. i haven't been playing D&D for the 20 some years, closer to 9-11 years probly. did we love our monster hunting, yup yup. we enjoyed spending time with our buddies even more though. I play D&D the for the same reasons i play M:tG, MMORPG's, Board Games, Mario Kart... i like having fun with my buddies rolling dice, killing a few monsters, being the heroes. back when we were kids, it was fun being the heroes. we were being the heroes we were watching on TV: Hercules, Sinbad, the Power Rangers, ect... we were them. when i was a pre-teen/teen, we were the heroes. we weren't a bunch of kids in a living room rolling dice, we were saving towns and princesses, kingdoms were hailing our arrival. now, as we are sludging away at our jobs, trying to make ends meet, we find great pleasure in being able to every now and then kill a few orcs and catching up on each other. sometimes we make powerful heroes with awesome abilities to mimic the ones we imagine. powerful barbarian warlords able to slice through armor like a hot knife through butter, wizards able to warp reality, a druid from an ancient sect able to move mountains, a pious cleric who is the avatar of his god, a warhero who counts his victories like a king counts his gold. we care not if it is a strange amalgamation of Fighter/barb/ranger/rogue/woodchuck, as long as it is our character. remember it is just a game people, once it becomes a chore, it's not a game, it's work. as long as it's fun who cares if the character is planned out or not. all the charsheet does is define what mechanics the character can do, it should not, in any way or form, define his entire personality. i guess what i'm trying to say is this: as long as you & your players are having fun, who gives a bumfart? does him planning out his character really disrupt the game that much? is it really such a crime to have a plan? does your knowing he is going to take 2 more levels of fighter, then 3 levels of peerless archer really detract from the game's fun? if so, take a deep breath, close your eyes and relax. it's just a game.
wonlee76 08-17-06, 12:15 PM	Going back to Brother Marcus' original post, the "problem" he sees with pre-planned characters builds is not a problem but rather the nature of the 3rd edition rules. (I'm going to just ignore the debating over min/maxing, munchkinism, and all that jazz). Prior editions did not offer the amount of options/customizability that 3rd edition offers. Multi-classing was set in stone once you picked what type of multiclass based on race. Humans could only dual class with stringent requirements. There were only Weapon Proficiencies and Non-Weapon Proficiencies which defined your PC's abilities. In other words, prior editions didn't really need any kind of planning. Most of the planning was all front loaded with your initial decision as to race and class. You didn't have an option for your Elf Fighter to suddenly pick up level of Mage to become a Fighter/Mage. That decision had to be made at character creation. 3rd edition introduced a lot more flexibility then the prior editions of D&D. Feat Chains, multi-classing, Prestige Classes, Skill Points, etc. Because of the number of options and angles available to a player to create a character, it requires some planning on the players part to work within the rules. Planning includes picking up the pre-reqs for some prestige class or picking up pre-requisite feats to pick up later feats, etc. There is nothing really wrong with that. I tend to do it just to remind me of what the pre-reqs are so I don't screw it up. Simply put, its very easy to make an ineffective character in 3rd edition due to all these options and the open ended multi-classing then it was in prior editions of the game. Having a "build" for a PC is really just a way to avoid making mistakes. By the same token, 3rd edition gives you the ability to make an effective character in certain niches just like prior editions of D&D had, without the planning needed.
Magesmiley 08-17-06, 01:21 PM	Having read some of the additional posts made since my last, I've thought a bit more on the subject and have a couple of observations/questions: 1. When your player is doing these "optimized" builds, is there a particular style that he's focusing on? If he's spent all his efforts in becoming an uber-melee fighter, odds are that he's going to sit there useless when faced with a ranged battle. Generally, one can be a generalist (which is what it sounds like your other players are) or a specialist - there's very little middle ground. 2. Do your encounters typically follow a basic formula or is there a wide variety of encounter styles? In many cases, I've seen optimization occur because players come to expect a particular style of encounter. Having a wide variety of encounter types (melee combat, ranged combat, spells, traps, non-combat situations) encourages generalists rather than specialists. If 80-90% of your encounters are straight melees, I entirely understand optimizing for it - the character gets to use his abilities nearly all the time. If on the other hand, melee only accounts for 25% of the encounters his specialization is going to be more of a hindrance than a help - he isn't really prepared to handle the other encounter types. I try very hard to have a variety of encounters in my game so that specializing in a particular style doesn't cause one person to outshine everyone else constantly. 3. Even if a player has levels mapped out in advance, it doesn't mean that he's going to follow it. As time marches on, his thoughts will change, and so will what he wants to do. 4. You didn't mention how often you play. The less frequently you play, the more often I think you'll see these plans. Its often hard to keep focused on where your character is going when you play it infrequently. A plan helps. 5. If it's actually a case of taking broken combinations (as opposed to just overpowered), explain to your player that he can expect the NPCs to be able to use the same thing (and then do so). Then give him a chance to retract/change his selection. Often this is sufficient to convince players that something is broken.
wanax 08-19-06, 02:58 PM	As I am the player himself, referred to in the original post, let me shed some light on the situation. The offending character was Shalm, a Sacred Fist. At tenth level (the campaign was last summer only, we all started at first level and went up to tenth) he was a Clr4/Mnk2/SacFist4. The "loophole" the OP objected to was using his cleric spells to buff up STR and damage and then fight as a monk. I can't imagine this was unforseen by the designers. The limitations of this that the OP didn't see, thus the accusation of being "unbalanced", was it would take 3 non-combat rounds to cast the buffs, it was only effective in melee encounters, and because of his limited spells, he could only use this combo in one encounter per day. I was not doing "70 pts of damage, every round, every fight, from beginning to end" as the OP claimed. Maybe that's just his selective memory forgetting how many rounds I was doing nothing but casting spells or how many encounters I was doing nothing but d8+3 kicks because I had used up all my spells. The party was a group of demon-hunters employed by the Church. The campaign was set in a country ruled by a Roman/Catholic-esque theocracy. To the north was a monk/oriental society that was once close to the "Roman" country, but had grown apart in views. To the south was a land of druids. There was also a tribe of ogres within the "Roman" land, set up like a "native american" -early-inhabitants-now-pushed-aside-living-on-reservations. Before the campaign started and after the DM described the cultural lay-out, I pitched the idea for a Sacred Fist character, who fought for the Church but used the foreign martial-arts ways of the north. He approved the concept. The "build-sheet" that he objected to was just an outline of the path to meet the seven prerequisites for Sacred Fist. I did decide beforehand that this is what I wanted the character to become, but the path was not written in stone, and it had a lot of blank slots for feats to be chosen later. As it was, through role-playing in the campaign, my original plan/concept of the character changed. He developed organically through role-playing from a young naive devotee of the church, through having seen political corruption within the church, to struggling how to serve both his church which he had lost faith in and his god. He also developed from a closed-minded xenophobe, through seeing the value of the other neighboring cultures, to a ecumenical bridge between faiths and an ambassador from the Church to its neighbors. This I thought still fit his Sacred Fist choice in the context of the campaign world. One thing that the OP neglected to mention as far as being unbalancing and overpowering was the amount of wealth he allowed us to have through gifts of the Church, booty from fallen enemies, and having been able to go on a "magic item spending spree". At sixth level, he had allowed my character to have: Mantle of Faith 76 000 Ring of Evasion 25 000 Amulet of Fists +2 24 000 Ring/Protection +3 18 000 Bracers of Armor +4 16 000 Sandals of Tiger Leaping 3 500 "Trousers" of Resistance +1 1 000 for a total of 163, 500 gp just in magical items. The other characters also had wealth equivalent of 14-15th level characters at 6th level all given to them by himself. Then he's scratching his head, after seeing us in action with our new toys, "How did they become so overpowered?! It must be because of those broken prestige classes and new feats!" Please.
Wopple 08-19-06, 03:44 PM	This is kindof a typical dilemma. I honestly think that it depends alot on the players, and that the power dosen't really matter unless you are dealing with an *******. For example in VERY high level 2nd ed campaign one Pally has Excalibur. Depending on initiative, she could probably kill anyone in the party. But she is a true roleplayer, does stuff based on character motives, not quest for power, and no one cares at all that she is WAY overpowered. The problem comes in when you have someone overpowered AND an *******. *******s can just be made examples of easily. But if, say, they can take a CR 5 situation, and other, maybe less experienced players could only handle like a CR 3, it's hard to get at them without making it seem like you JUST are going after the munchkin, which is not fair and sometimes even bothers the other players. It's best to just tell any annoying munchkins to cut out talking **** and being annoying or they will be disinvited. Best way to deal with it is out of game. They can say it's not them, it's their character, but then just tell them to make a new one. If one person ruins it for everyone else, it's time for a convo or a kick out. So, basically, I don't think it matters how powerful someone is as long as they know how to play well, and it stays away from CRAZY extremes like a 5 CR disparity between what they can accomplish.
Aegeu 08-19-06, 07:47 PM	I can say from experience that build mapping is not a problem. One of my players is currently a ninja-swashbuckler-wizard, trying to go into dervish/scout/tempest (It's a gestalt campaign, by the way). When I saw it, I thought, "ZOMG! He has a ridiculous heap of attacks!" But, I didn't ban it. I thought, "How can I beat this?" Then I found the build's weakness. He has lower damage output and less attack, making him vulnerable to big heavy bruisers. I also think it makes sense flavor wise. He's the quick hero. It makes sense for him to train in fighting styles that will use his best abilities. Every build has a weakness. Find it, exploit it, bring the build in line with everyone else. In the sacred fist mentioned above, the weakness is the long buffing time and small spell list. Encounters tailored to high-output spellcasters will make that guy look like a chump.