Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Atheus 01-18-08, 05:41 PM	I'm getting started on a new campaign. Our campaigns are run by different DM's each time, and now it's my turn. Our last few have been super-powerful campaigns with each character having probably 500,00-700,000gp worth of magic items each...and still 100,000 to spare. I've decided I want my campaign to have tons less gold and almost no magic items. To compensate non-spellcasters, they get feats every other level while spellcasters are still every 3. My guidelines are: 1. 4d6, subtract the lowest die for stats 2. any +0LA race (including open-source at my discrection) 3. any class (but monk)...but I reserve the right to disallow or modify a class or prestige class to keep the power level down/balanced 4. bonus feat at first level which must be used as a heritage-type feat 5. every character gets 4 skill points at 1st level which must be used for a profession Now the problem. We have 2 serious serious powergamers in this group who have already approached with character ideas that will decimate things (one was a kensai). Once I determined that the build was against what I was going for I banned the kensai prestige. Now he's ****** and trying to turn everyone in the group against me so we can start his new campaign. And the other powergamer will follow suit once his over-powered build gets rejected. I'm not trying to be a dick about all this. Every other character idea thats been brought to me has been given the OK...after a few agreed upon modifications. But these two powergamers came with unfair character builds and refuse to alter them. Am I being a DnD Nazi?
wrecan 01-18-08, 05:48 PM	I don't think there can be a right of wrong in this situation. One player (maybe two) aren't happy with your rulings, so they might walk. You need to sit everybody (even the ones who haven't raised stink) down and talk out what sort of game you want and what your concerns are about their characters. And be prepared to have things not go your way. There is a significant difference between being a DM and a dictator. Sometimes, compromise is necessary.
Atheus 01-18-08, 05:55 PM	I brought all of these up to the entire group. That's where they got the guidelines for their characters. And I told them upfront that their characters were subject to my rulings. Majority of the players don't seem to have a problem...it's just those two.
toucanbuzz 01-18-08, 05:59 PM	Are you trying to run a game that makes YOU happy or your PLAYERS happy? A good DM doesn't railroad his players to take away the fun, and a good player should realize when they're hogging the spotlight and step back. Your rules are VERY strict! Why should they take a profession? Why can't monks be played? Why must they take a heritage feat? Players ask this cause you're changing the CORE rules. Why take away magic items? Start at 1st level like the rest of us and play it like normal. They won't have many for awhile! The rules are very balanced, and giving non-casters that many feats is unreal, magic items or no. As for players who try to "min-max" and make super characters, are the other players upset about this? Is it ruining their fun? If not, there's no need to "ban" ideas, but do make sure they're playing by the rules. As a DM, you're free to nix any proposed use of prestige classes that don't make sense, but the players don't buy books only to see them collect dust. I don't think you're a D&D nazi; you're just reacting to a flawed campaign where folks start off with way too much. Go with level 1.
nowiwantmydmg 01-18-08, 05:59 PM	Tell the two to get bent.
I_roll_ones 01-18-08, 06:02 PM	Instead of saying that races with no LA can be used, say which ones can be. And don't ban classes(And why monk? my overall impression of it was whoop-de-trala-doo, watch me be outdamaged by the fighter, out-skilllmonkied by the rogue AND ranger, and out-gimmicked by any spell caster, and yet remain largely ineffectual) ban BUILDS. And get rid of say...20 spells. Not too many, but you might be able to get rid of some problem spells that way. A wizard doesn't lord over the universe without some spells, after all, fireball isn't going to get him there. If you have issues with spell casters, sneak a copy of Tome of Battle to your meleeing friends. A bit powerful, but a spellcaster done right(wrong?) still blows them out of the water. The feats only works if you have feats to do, and you run into the problem of if the warrior can't trip it or hit it, he's got nothing to do. And run the builds by the other players. See what they think of them. If they agree, then yeah, you definitely have a case. What is the reason for the heritage feat? Sounds like it's mandatory flavor, which can't work if someone just throws it in there. Do characters get 4 skill points at first level, or four EXTRA skill points?
Atheus 01-18-08, 06:15 PM	I am trying to make the players and myself happy. I want them to want to play, but I also have to want to DM. Half of our group LOVES money. The other half complains we have too much. And we always play with tons of money. I want to change it up for once for the other players and have one with very little money. We are starting at 1st level. But I'm planning to run the campaign where they get very little money as they go...so that a +1 weapon is awesome for a long time. I'm giving them points for a profession for two reasons. First is because the idea of the campaign is a group of friends who've known each other for a long time, all work a 9to5 type job and get together every night at the tavern decide they want to do something else with their lives and try adventuring (so it would make sense that by this time they've gained skill in a given profession). And second because during the time off between quests (I want them to have a week or two between quests as we go) they can use their profession to make some money. The heritage feat is optional but its free to take. I said no to the monk because from reading on these boards, I've seen tons of people chatting about how the monk overpowers at higher levels. If I'm mistaken on this, then I am fine with being corrected on it. And yes, the other players do complain about the two powergamers, how their characters can kill everything and are basically untouchable. The other players hate how their characters can't hold a candle to the powergamers. I'm not saying the players can't use their other books, but certain combinations of class/prestige are just overpowering.
iserith 01-18-08, 06:35 PM	1. 4d6, subtract the lowest die for stats 2. any +0LA race (including open-source at my discrection) 3. any class (but monk)...but I reserve the right to disallow or modify a class or prestige class to keep the power level down/balanced 4. bonus feat at first level which must be used as a heritage-type feat 5. every character gets 4 skill points at 1st level which must be used for a profession Try this instead: 1. 4d6 (or whatever) but they have to accept their stats IN ORDER and can't change it. Tell them this is a challenge for them to be creative. Tell them you don't expect a standard, cookie cutter balanced party. If possible, use a Three Dragon Ante deck and the alternate rules for using them to generate statistics and background that was given in that issue of Dragon. (Google this.) I did this and the characters I'm running a game for now are so awesome. It was just plain fun, too, for everyone. We call it "consulting the gypsy." 2. Limit classes to Core and Complete's, plus any campaign setting specific material (if applicable). 3. Allow all classes as long as Rule #2 is followed. 4. Forget about that. 5. Forget about that, too. You don't have to have skillpoints to have a background. Just say they were blacksmiths/plumbers/jesters instead. As for limiting magic, just be stingy with money and don't allow the opportunity to buy magic items. They must be found or created (or in rare cases traded for services). Then just hand out magic items in adventures as subtle rewards for good play. For example, if the party fighter has really been playing his role well and everyone is having fun with his character, stick a nice suit of armor that only he can use. Making selling magic items impossible or nearly so. When telling them what you want, focus on the positive possibilities, not on what they can't have.
annoyinglizardvoice 01-18-08, 06:36 PM	I think it's a clash of playing styles that's getting slightly out of hand. Personally I agree with you Atheus, but I've always hated powergamers, so my oppinions on this might be a little prejudeced. A DM is well within his/her rights to change a rule because he/she thinks the change helps balance the game.
chocolate_jesus 01-18-08, 06:40 PM	I am trying to make the players and myself happy. I want them to want to play, but I also have to want to DM. Half of our group LOVES money. The other half complains we have too much. And we always play with tons of money. I want to change it up for once for the other players and have one with very little money. We are starting at 1st level. But I'm planning to run the campaign where they get very little money as they go...so that a +1 weapon is awesome for a long time. Low magic items campaigns can be a wonderful thing, but you have to change up the CRs of most monsters starting at mid levels: without the items, your players will be less powerful. Forget about the feat thing altogether, just limit to use of the strongest spells (like celerity). I'm giving them points for a profession for two reasons. First is because the idea of the campaign is a group of friends who've known each other for a long time, all work a 9to5 type job and get together every night at the tavern decide they want to do something else with their lives and try adventuring (so it would make sense that by this time they've gained skill in a given profession). And second because during the time off between quests (I want them to have a week or two between quests as we go) they can use their profession to make some money. The heritage feat is optional but its free to take. Its your game, but I personally frown upon DM's that attempt to limit the backstorys of the PCs. Let your players decide what their characters have been doing, and if it sounds too unreasonable, just veto. But make sure you give them other options (what if someone wants to be a dark anti-hero? average-joe 9to5 just won't cut it). I like the free heritage feat idea, as long as its not absolutely necessary. I said no to the monk because from reading on these boards, I've seen tons of people chatting about how the monk overpowers at higher levels. If I'm mistaken on this, then I am fine with being corrected on it. Consider yourself corrected. The monk is kinda underpowered, it gets a lot of cool abilities, but many of them of pretty underwhelming. And yes, the other players do complain about the two powergamers, how their characters can kill everything and are basically untouchable. The other players hate how their characters can't hold a candle to the powergamers. There's actually a rather simple method of dealing with this problem. Give the powergamers a simple choice: either tone down their characters, help the other players build stronger characters, or find a more optimized group to play with. The point here is to even out the general level of optimization, and you shouldn't have to ban anything.
I_roll_ones 01-18-08, 07:05 PM	Uh...I doubt some people are going to become adventurers overnight. Being an adventurer requires a certain amount of desperation, greed, drive, or just the wish to kill a bunch of people. I imagine that they have a crummier survival rate then the guy who feeds the tiger in a suit made of tasty steaks. With the Delicious flaw. Also, it would require a bit of training, few characters pick up a weapon and then decide that it would be swell to kill someone with it. As for monk...Take a peek at the spellcaster lists and then the CharOp boards. Four of the most broken classes are Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Artificer, and such. The fighter can do more damage on a hit then the monk with a bastard sword, thanks to his better strength and fighter feats. A rogue has a hard enough time taking up all of the skill monkey skills with twice as many skills as a monk. A monk could work as a secondary, but the cost in melee doesn't help the character much, since they lose on damage, ability to hit, crit range, and hit points. And with the need for a good SR, DEX, WIS and CON score, being a talk monkey would be difficult, and the cost to get INT is high. And guess what the highest level monk ability is? A low level wizard spell! And of course, by the time the monk is moving fast the wizard has fly, and the druid can turn into a flesh raker(MMIII) AND cast spells at the same time, and has their little animal buddy. And the fighter is VERY limited, as they can't do much outside of combat and tend to rely on trip to be effective in higher levels. In essence, the monk loses in melee to a class that is a one-trick pony. A very pitiful one trick pony. And the monk doesn't have much else going for it. Oh. You can dodge spells. That would help if you could, say...Do more then flurry(I will admit, I despise things that reduce my AB, but that is personal taste. Of course, the fighter will also hit more, thanks to their higher strength score and better BAB...But flurry isn't going to make a fighter with less potential for AC and damage be better by itself) which they are limited to. They're not as good as a ranger for a rogue/fighter hybrid. Then you at least get spells and such. You could probably make any class broken with the right material, but monk isn't powerful by itself. Re-allow it for those who want it(But smoosh monk 1/druid 19 builds, and anything with Vow of Poverty). I still say that Tome of Battle will help the melee more, because there is rather a limitation on feats you can take to make yourself useful in different situations as a meleer. As for your power gamers? Let them leave. You tried to talk, and they won't listen.
Atheus 01-18-08, 07:12 PM	I think I got mixed up between monks and druids somewhere along the lines. Thanks for the straightening out.
I_roll_ones 01-18-08, 08:46 PM	No problem, having power gamers with people who spend five minutes on the character sheet and five hours on the backstory won't end well. And remember, as a DM you can make changes to a class. If someone wanted to play a druid: 1) Remove natural spell 2) Limited shapes for the druid(perhaps a theme, such as cat or something) 3) encourage rangers and take the variant to use wildshape instead of a weapon stlye (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#ranger) 4) Alternate druid wildshape: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm#wildShapeVarian tAspectOfNature) 5) Nerf wildshape and say medium and small animals only Flesh rakers are still an issue, so consider removing dinos from the list. Visit the CharOp boards for more things to be wary of...And remember, it's not the class, it's the player, and it's not just the combination, it's play style After all, you can play a kobold wizard who doesn't become a god. Candles of Invocation should be a bad sign, consider nerfing those or removing them completely.
Andrew 01-18-08, 09:57 PM	It helps if you can understand the mindset I expect is at work here. Some of us approach the rules that power a character as a challenge in themselves, just like any monster or obstacle in the game. Overcoming such a challenge is done when you build a character that can meet the subsequent challenges you'll face in the game. There are a lot of features you can define about a character with story and style, but you can't add "successful" as a write-in. Naturally, with the parameters of your game, different concepts and features will be stronger or weaker - sometimes wildly so. I have tried to shift bits and pieces of the game around to fit my concept for short games, and have always fallen victim to one key failing: you cannot change the basic features of the game and leave the balance of power unchanged. There are such an amazing variety of things that change in power without magic items: every sort of magic, any long-duration magic, any effect that increases stats (from a barbarian's rage to polymorph), ranged attacks... it's impossible to predict them all. I've also discovered to my detriment that attempting to play an active role as the gatekeeper on the power level of a game rapidly becomes a thorn with players. At some point, you have to lock up your meddling and let it play out or else make pregens for whatever players you can find. You can change things around to try to make a level playing field, but you can't make your players generate characters as if nothing is different. In the future I hope grow enough to guide games based on what can fit in the setting, not what is strong or weak. I've played in games that did allow some things they probably shouldn't have, but I also respect those DM's for the tacit encouragement to play what you like and what fits instead of what you can get away with.
Atheus 01-18-08, 11:33 PM	but if the powergamers' characters are making the game not fun for everyone else (including the DM), then doesn't the DM have the power to try and present a level playing field for everyone? I know as a player in our group, it's beyond frustrating that those two characters can do everything and never get hit and deal tons of damage, while the rest of us just sit there and act more like pack-mules than anything. And the only way to change that (other than through DM meddling) is to have my own power-build. But that's not why I (or the others in my group) play the game. I put together a character that seems like it would be fun and different, without consideration for how powerful it is. It doesn't seem fair to require myself or anyone else to create power-builds to keep up with the powergamers. The only other solutions I really see are booting those two or altering the campaign from level 1.
I_roll_ones 01-18-08, 11:38 PM	Er...The point of the rule changes is to shift the power changes. And no, it's hard to catch them all. But if you know a build before a character does it, it'll probably be easier to catch. Say, a shadowcraft mage and some over the top spell. And some builds will be more powerful then others, but a DM can also try to decrease that gap. limited magic items for UMD? Warn rogues and bards before they sink a lot of skill points into it. Planning on a lot of talking and deal making? Warn the players. As for house rules? If it is applied equally and fits the flavor and you state the rules BEFORE the game, then I'd say it's okay. If you go overboard, then you'll lose the non-power gamers as well. Use them as a baseline, but try to be fair to the other two, and perhaps talk to them about trying to work with, not against the other teammates. DnD is meant as a cooperative game, not a competition.
iserith 01-18-08, 11:44 PM	You could also have the power gamers help the other players create characters on par with their own. It would be a good lesson in using the rules and put everyone on an even playing field, which is what you say you want. Once you as a DM have gauged the level of power of the newly tweaked characters, design your encounters accordingly. This way, the power gamers get what they want and maybe the rest of the players learn a facet of the game they've not really given much thought to before. As long as you control their wealth and acquisition of magic items, no character should get out of hand.
I_roll_ones 01-18-08, 11:47 PM	Not a bad idea, but take a look at them to make sure that the powergamers are not giving their buds less powerful builds. (If it has more then four fighter levels and you've allowed Tome of battle, be wary. If they discourage the other players from playing a spell caster, be wary) Not saying that they will, it seems like they just want choice, but do they want to pwn NPC's or PC's as well? Do they threaten PC's constantly, knowing that their builds are better? Do they try to work together or hog the spot light?
Knute 01-19-08, 12:11 AM	Looking at your requirements, I think you are absolutely reasonable. 1. 4d6, subtract the lowest die for stats Thats a regular rolling style. 2. any +0LA race (including open-source at my discrection) Level Adjustment is a debated rule and you can simply avoid it. 3. any class (but Druid)...but I reserve the right to disallow or modify a class or prestige class to keep the power level down/balanced Just don't give their arch opponent better classes etc.... If the setting has no druids explain how that came about. Don't include them in the world but exclude them from the table. 4. bonus feat at first level which must be used as a heritage-type feat 5. every character gets 4 skill points at 1st level which must be used for a profession Considering that this is a gift and takes nothing away from their characters I see no issue with it. If they don't like it they don't have to take it - its up to them. A number of adventures, notably Burning Sky from Enworld & Savage Tide from Dungeon, do the same thing. Ask the group of players what they want to do as a whole. If your renegade players don't like your rules have them speak up. If you don't get cooperation and compromise remind them of who will be doing the most work to get the game off the ground. Tell them it doesn't fit your concept and if they absolutely want a different game they need a DM prepared for that concept. K
sblaxman 01-19-08, 12:28 AM	I wouldn't recomended having the PGers train the others to make better "builds", because then you're just making more PGers... your rules aren't bad, giving some extra feets/skills at 1st level for background and adding feats doesn't hurt. Monk is fine (there is some hate because it isn't 'powerful enough', but it's a fun character to play w/ IMO. A recomendation to lower caster powers would be to read some 2E versions of spells, and maybe use them. A primary example would be the polymorph spell. In 2E, it gave you the shape and physical abilities of the shape, but none of the powers. If you turned into a wyrmling dragon, you could swim or fly, but not cast breath fire... if you turned into a mind flayer, you could look all scary but you wouln't gain any mind abilities or spell resistance.... in otherwords, it changed your shape only. Taking away natural spell is another good idea, and restricting the types or sizes (say, small to large) of animals would help. Good luck either way
Andrew 01-19-08, 12:52 AM	By all means, you should adjust the rules and material to fit with the concept of your campaign and try to provide a level playing field. However, from what you're describing now, that isn't your problem. Even if you had the most even playing field possible, you would have the issue that you have two players who believe that when you give them choices, they are allowed to take the better ones and probably should. In more relevant terms, it's really easy to micromanage yourself mad trying to legislate a different gaming mindset. I personally love the ideas you have for starting the game with characters that are rooted in their "real jobs." Kensai is a good class, and indeed is more powerful in a low-wealth setting - but more of the problem is that it's against the spirit of the setting and trying to sneak around the basic limits of the campaign. However, if it's mainly a power issue, I think you either need looser expectations for power or much stricter guidelines for characters. After working out the rules bits, my best advice to deal with the social divide is unfortunately one of the most taxing, which is to broaden the scope of the game. Provide concrete benefits for story, social interactions, building relations with prominent NPC's, negotiating, and investment in knowledge. It's more often the case that evil gets overthrown because of the content of a character sheet rather than due to copious backstory. You have two players that are really good at making hammers - if fewer problems look like nails, perhaps they'll reward you by putting the same energy towards aspects of the game other than character build and combat if those are what yield results.
kelcimer 01-19-08, 12:59 AM	I'm siding with the DM here. Atheus I find all thew rules you laid out to be very reasonable. I also find your goal of making a game that pleases the other half to be a good idea. You are fine in your rulings. I like the idea of 4 and 5. Nice touch.
Knute 01-19-08, 01:24 AM	The clearer you can be from the beginning, the fewer expectations you will ruffle. My only other piece of advice (its free and worth every penny :) ) is that you sound like you are trying to implement other people's rules. While I think that what you say is reasonable you may want to compromise, in places, with the attitude of we'll fix it when it happens. Stick to your guns but ask the players over all for help. Tell them that you want to have a change of game strategies for everyone. If things go too far back the old way you'll simply ask them if this is on track. If you feel its not on track power and wealth level wise you will change things. If you are told by players its same old, same old, you will change things. Management of this sort is really hard and a last resort. My advice is don't try to find cheap or clever ways to change things after the fact. Say to your player(s) - Such and Such isn't working and we need to make it fit. This is the problem (try to explain it in the context of the enjoyment of others). Then ask the player to offer solutions before next session or you will have a solution when you next meet. Listen more than speak.
eamon 01-19-08, 08:03 AM	I think you won't end up happy if you follow this road. If these players enjoy optimizing their characters, then no matter what, if the rest of the party isn't optimized, they'll outshine them. No amount of class banning can fix that, nor any amount of build banning. The only thing you can do is punish them by harassing them until they stop - and if you do that you'll be damaging your fun, their fun, and the entire group spirit. If you need to ban more than a few things, your approach is fundamentally not going to work harmoniously. Be happy that these players enjoy optimization - it'll be easy to keep them happy! Realize that there is only ONE problem you have: - They might outshine the rest of the party, particularly in combat That's it! If you can fix that, you're fine. If the party as a whole is over/underpowered, you can compensate by awarding more/less XP and wealth. The only thing that matters in terms of powergaming is the intra-party balance. How can you avoid strife: Don't ban more than absolutely necessary. You're better off improving bad classes than banning good ones, it's less frustratring for the players. Instead of banning a druid, consider banning natural spell, or requiring that (s)he use the PHB2 shapeshift variant instead. Encourage the powergamers to fill tactical and party-support roles. This makes it in their interest to optimize the others, as well. Let the powergamers help the others optimize their characters. Usually, they'll enjoy it, and the non-powergamer will enjoy having a better working character in combat. You want to avoid them dictating another players' choices, but optimizing within a general concept, or letting them advise others on possible good builds works. I let powergamers actually optimize some NPC's. When they encounter an NPC that will travel with the group for a short while, I tell them what it is, and they'll build the details. To avoid really game-breaking combo's I have a rule which tends to work very well: In addition to Core+Campaign Setting (and in my case PHB2), a player may use One splat book (such as a "Complete XYZ" or a "Races of ABC" book). This limits odd interactions and makes many broken things impossible. You can allow additions on a case by case basis. (For example, I'll let em buy a spell compendium spell for 50XP per spell level). Generally, if you're the person who says: "Yes you can", instead of "No you cannot", everyone will have more fun. Provide strict rules and be willing to loosen them rather than banning things after you see them. When DM-ing, focus also on non-combat skill and roleplaying encounters to make sure that the powergamers don't want to make a completely one-sided character. If there's a dungeon, hint that there is treasure they just can't find without a skillmonkey, and in negotiations, give them the sense that the various parties have some common ground, if they could just find it... Good luck dealing with them! I hope I've given you a few idea's how to resolve the issue at least somewhat constructively :).
Senevri 01-19-08, 08:18 AM	First of all... I find those rules quite reasonable. The "I reserve the right" bit is a bit scary, since that may mean the PCs never get to be anything besides mediocre. Basically, best case you'll limit cheese, worst case, your players don't get to play anything cool. Second, some DMs seem to have strange notions about what is "average". An average 20th level warrior-type will reliably deal 200+ points of damage at level 20. A fighting Rogue will be doing the same thing at level 15. An average fifth-level mage will have combat-time AC of 20-26 - if they have a habit of being targeted by strikers. It's also possible for a 20th level mage to have an AC of 14, if unprepared, but that's a mad mage. Why did you BAN kensai, anyway? I thought you intended to modify it somehow. It's not very impressive, anyway - on a power scale of 1 to 10, where 5 is average, it's maybe a 6+. A basic Cleric is a 8, already. But.. there's not a big problem, really. You have two games, which seem to going for different playing styles. One of them will be voted the more popular, and you'll play that, or the group splits into two games. Might not be bad, that, either.
kelvinaw273 01-19-08, 09:41 AM	I think your ideas a re very reasonable, and I have played in some good campaigns like this. The only thing I would add is that if you want a truly level playing field, use point-buy. I suggest you are just straight with everyone: "This campaign is a low money, low magic campaign where I want the emphasis on role-play, not power-gaming. Power gaming is OUT. If you power game I will just up-gun the bad-guys and throw them at the power-gamers, so don't. This is about characters, not builds. If you really don't want to play that way, I won't be offended, but the rest of us are starting on date X and you are welcome. "Character backgrounds will have to incorporate the following {describe setting} and you have four extra skill points for a profession or craft to fit in with this, and a heritage feat for free as well. Enjoy!" Encourage your power-gamers to get with the program, suggest to them that they may enjoy a change in style and play for once. There's more to life than conquering the world after all. EDIT: Actually, the last time I played a game like this, we provided part of the backstory to the character, described how we wanted them to be and the DM did all the crunch and passed out character sheets at the first session. It worked really well and I enjoyed the game a great deal. ANOTHER EDIT: If they are starting at 1st level, why did you need to ban a prestige class?
Rood_Inverse 01-19-08, 10:19 AM	EDIT: Actually, the last time I played a game like this, we provided part of the backstory to the character, described how we wanted them to be and the DM did all the crunch and passed out character sheets at the first session. It worked really well and I enjoyed the game a great deal. ANOTHER EDIT: If they are starting at 1st level, why did you need to ban a prestige class? So... you told your DM what you wanted, and he made the characters for you? As a DM, I tend to ban/restrict PrCs right off the bat. Part of it is my fear of PrCs and the abuse they tend to get. (I have one player who knows, liberally, how to abuse them. And he even knows the rules better than I do.) The other reason I ban PrCs is to prevent people from cherry picking just for the bonuses it gives. I personally feel they lose their prestige when you have a character who atuomatically builds and expects to go into that class at a certain level. Watch the characters grow, listen to what your players want to do long-term, and introduce player options from there. "Jim, you've been travelling with Cyrus for a while now, and he's been impressed with your skills. Since you're looking at levelling now, he's willing to train you as an Initiate of Double-Edged Sword, or you can continue to take another level of your current class." Or something like that.
Senevri 01-19-08, 11:24 AM	So... you told your DM what you wanted, and he made the characters for you? Actually... While building their own characters is a big part of the fun in the game for many, if a player tells me to make their character, well... I shall optimize them for their concept as well as possible.
McPoyo 01-19-08, 11:43 AM	I see nothing wrong with those creation restrictions. You've got two rules (1 and 2) that are actually pretty standard (Starting with an LA race requires optional DM approval, as stated in the DMG), rule 3 I have no issues with. In all honesty, I've both played in, and ran, games that had classes banned due to power, flavor, or rarity in the world. I see nothing wrong with that. Rules 4 and 5 are bonuses, so I don't see what the big deal with that is. In all honesty, other than rules 3,4,5 it's a pretty straightforward and core game. Also, if someone wants to play a character that doesn't fit with the campaign, it's his responsibility to come up with something that fits both the party, and the game. If someone wants to play something completely against the flavor and style of the campaign, then that's his problem when it's turned down. It's not like there'll never be another one, after all.
Khan2000 01-19-08, 11:59 AM	As the DM, you have the right to allow or disallow things in your upcoming campaign. I tell all my players what's allowed and what's not allowed. My two major restrictions are: 1) no evil; and 2) +2 LA max. That leaves the players six alignment choices and still plenty of races to choose from. It's assumed (at least on my part) that everything is subject to my approval. Of course, my players always check with and ask me if they can do something; they just don't arbitrarily decide something on their own and then surprise me at gametime. Of course, I give a lot of goodies at character creation, too. Such as max skill ranks at first level; special character creation dice; and individual things for each player (which I normally try to tie into the game and create some party tension). Yeah, my players and I have a love/hate relationship; they love to hate the things I come up with. Everyone has fun and there's no shortage of XP and availability of resources.
Andrew 01-19-08, 12:57 PM	ANOTHER EDIT: If they are starting at 1st level, why did you need to ban a prestige class? It's good form to walk a DM through the material your character is expected to grow into. If you have advanced up to being a Cleric3/Wizard3, and then find out that Mystic Theurge isn't allowed, there would be... words.
Faelar006 01-19-08, 03:16 PM	I'm getting started on a new campaign. Our campaigns are run by different DM's each time, and now it's my turn. Our last few have been super-powerful campaigns with each character having probably 500,00-700,000gp worth of magic items each...and still 100,000 to spare. I've decided I want my campaign to have tons less gold and almost no magic items. To compensate non-spellcasters, they get feats every other level while spellcasters are still every 3. My guidelines are: 1. 4d6, subtract the lowest die for stats 2. any +0LA race (including open-source at my discrection) 3. any class (but monk)...but I reserve the right to disallow or modify a class or prestige class to keep the power level down/balanced 4. bonus feat at first level which must be used as a heritage-type feat 5. every character gets 4 skill points at 1st level which must be used for a profession Now the problem. We have 2 serious serious powergamers in this group who have already approached with character ideas that will decimate things (one was a kensai). Once I determined that the build was against what I was going for I banned the kensai prestige. Now he's ****** and trying to turn everyone in the group against me so we can start his new campaign. And the other powergamer will follow suit once his over-powered build gets rejected. Personally, I don't think the rules you have implemented are all that unreasonable and, indeed, are fairly standard as far as I know. The only exceptions I can see are the outright banning of a core class and the part about wanting "my campaign to have tons less gold and almost no magic items". Desiring a low-wealth, low-magic campaign isn't inherently a problem, but the implementation of such a campaign by many DMs, even experienced ones, can be disastrous, speaking from personal and other anecdotal experience. I was once a player in a low-wealth, low-magic campaign. At the time I thought it was a great idea because I had just picked up the first book in Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series and liked the low-magic setting of Westeros. The implementation, however, was atrocious. It turned out that the PCs were the ones who were low-wealth, low-magic. Our adversaries literally bristled with powerful magic items, allowing them to escape us again and again without defeating them (because that would then allow us access to those items). In addition, the DM was not particularly careful in his choice of opponents that we fought, and equal or +1 CR creatures with damage reduction, regeneration, flight, or other special advantages regularly wiped the floor with us. The DM eventually conditioned us to start relying on classes that were not gear dependent. Your two "power-gamers" may have had similar experiences in the past. Also, I'm a bit concerned by a couple of your statements that instead of aiming for a low-power campaign, you're aiming for a no-power campaign. From everything that I know, and I admit I could be mistaken because I've never researched one as I'm not into that kind of flavor for my characters, kensai is not a particularly powerful prestige class, and is certainly not broken by any stretch of the imagination. I can understand if you want to ban or restrict the class because it doesn't fit in with the flavor of your campaign, but if a kensai will be too overpowered at higher levels in your game, then you are running an extremely low-power campaign. The other statement that concerned me a little was the one regarding you wanting to run a type of game were a +1 weapon is "awesome for a long time". I'm not so much concerned about the +1 part, but about the "awesome for a long time part". You might want to be careful that you aren't squashing the "oh, cool! look what I got!" factor a little too much. This "cool" factor is not applicable solely to magical equipment, but also to class and PrC abilities, non-magical but important possessions of the PCs, such as deeds of land, titles, keeps or castles, etc. Maybe you don't need a low-wealth and low-magic campaign so much as you just need a low-magic campaign. Let the PCs pool that excess wealth they would usually spend on magical gear to instead spend on things like building their own castle, setting up their own trade consortium, or building their own wizard's tower. Then it moves from "oh, cool! Look at my new +5 vorpal, thundering, wounding, keen sword of Uberality" to "oh cool! Look at our new completed castle, complete with its very own wizard's tower and a mercenary army to boot!" The most important word a DM can know is compromise. You obviously know your players better than I do, but one thing I do know is that, out of a group of 1 DM and 4 players, there will be five opinions on what makes a fun game. Just because a player is a power-gamer doesn't mean they are a bad roleplayer. Just because a player is not a power-gamer doesn't mean they are a good roleplayer. Incorporate elements into your game that will please all your players, regardless of whether you think that is the "right" way to roleplay or not. Good luck. Faelar
Nephlite 01-19-08, 03:37 PM	Kensai lets them get magic weapon using XP instead of gold: smart since low wealth. Power Surge gives Str Bonus useful if low money to buy Str items. Drawback after first use Concentrate check increase by +5 (+10 after that). So till level 6 Kensai, doesn't last very long (1 round is too low, while 3 is reasonable). These are the only abilities that are much use. I hardly consider this overpowered even in low money games.
Atheus 01-20-08, 02:32 AM	rather than giving the PC's money to build things with (which, I'm almost certain they'd use to buy a ship and sail to somewhere they could buy magic items), I plan on them acquiring pieces of land and buildings, etc. as far as the +1 being awesome for a long time, I mean that a +1 weapon will last for a few levels, not one level and then its out the door for the new and improved +2 model. I want a +1 to survive for 4 or 5 levels, which I don't think is unreasonable at all. Kensai doesn't fit the flavor of the campaign. (I'm sure there are others that don't, but I really don't know every prestige class which is part of why I want them to run them by me).
Etarnon 01-20-08, 02:58 AM	The utterly simple solution is thus: The players who like to have optimized characters are ruffling the feathers of the rest of the group. Have it out in the open: "Look, I'm the DM, and there's been entirely too much treasure and such for my taste. These are my rulings and how I'm gonna run it. You've said as to how you don't like it. If you don't like it, and are not willing to adapt, we can find other players who will to fill your seats. Up to you to play or not. Decide, right now, cause we are not gonna re do this same argument over the next few months." They will hush, or swear and moan, or leave. They have given you no other realistic choice. The other players were willing to play by their and the other DMs rules in the old game, but they weren't happy, You need to stand up to them, and make the ruling. They can of course choose to bail. It has reached that point. Force the choice. The players that stay will admire your leadership, grit, and determination, as what was happening, was not good for the rest of the group. It will now be an all new all clean, level playing field for the remainder. It's one of the toughest things a DM has to do...Call a Player's bluff, and deal with the consequences. In 30 years, I've had to do it three times. Once, they submitted, and became agreeable for another year, then moved away. The other times, two players each left the campaign to form new groups that shortly died or just sputtered along for a long time, because they couldn't find players who wanted to play what they wanted to run, and their wives weren't into it, either. C'est la Vie. In the end, don't care what they do, or choose, and don't get exercised about it. But. Under.No. Circumstances. Allow them to run you, or your game, or say what goes. You say. Good luck.
kelvinaw273 01-20-08, 03:39 AM	So... you told your DM what you wanted, and he made the characters for you? As a DM, I tend to ban/restrict PrCs right off the bat. Part of it is my fear of PrCs and the abuse they tend to get. (I have one player who knows, liberally, how to abuse them. And he even knows the rules better than I do.) The other reason I ban PrCs is to prevent people from cherry picking just for the bonuses it gives. I personally feel they lose their prestige when you have a character who atuomatically builds and expects to go into that class at a certain level. Watch the characters grow, listen to what your players want to do long-term, and introduce player options from there. "Jim, you've been travelling with Cyrus for a while now, and he's been impressed with your skills. Since you're looking at levelling now, he's willing to train you as an Initiate of Double-Edged Sword, or you can continue to take another level of your current class." Or something like that. Yep. I've run games like this too, and I've not had disappointed players. Restricting PrCs is actually recommended in the DMG, and players should ALWAYS ask before taking a PrC. The entry requirements are recommendations, and DMs are encouraged to be flexible with them depending upon their campaign. They may require higher or lower entry requirements, or may refuse use of the PrC. Funnily enough some players forget this ...
sblaxman 01-20-08, 11:25 AM	rather than giving the PC's money to build things with (which, I'm almost certain they'd use to buy a ship and sail to somewhere they could buy magic items), I plan on them acquiring pieces of land and buildings, etc. as far as the +1 being awesome for a long time, I mean that a +1 weapon will last for a few levels, not one level and then its out the door for the new and improved +2 model. I want a +1 to survive for 4 or 5 levels, which I don't think is unreasonable at all. That's the only way I run my games. I've never run a game where players can just buy anything above minor magic items (<1,000 gp). Usually go by non-magic = 1-3 +1 = 4-6 +2 = 7-10 +3 = 10-14 +4 = 15-18 +5 = 18+ That's give or take of course, and the lower levels is the minumum that weapon type will start to appear. I've never had a problem with it and never had a complaint. If done right you shouldn't have a problem. Just don't go tossing enemies with +2 DR at them when they just have non-magic weapons. I've always played in low magic campaigns, so the concept of magic shops anywhere always seemed just silly. Items that cost more than a castle being sold in a shop just doesn't make sense, when the rest of the city is living on 2 copper a day. It's all up to the DM though, and I think you're doing all right
Atheus 01-20-08, 03:24 PM	See, Sblaxman, we have never done a campaign where we limited magic items. We always end up with very rich characters who can buy anything. I can foresee some of them being annoyed that they are not getting new stuff all the time because they are not used to it. But they are going to have to find a way to deal with it.
IceFractal 01-20-08, 04:31 PM	One thing though - making magic items scarce will not turn a +1 sword into a legendary force to be reckoned with. Sure, it will remain useful for a longer time, but not mind-boggling. In fact, even if there was only one +1 sword in the entire world, it still wouldn't be a legendary weapon of destruction you could take over a kingdom with. Because you know what it's actual, observable, effects in the game world are? +5% chance to hit, +10% to +20% more lethal when it hits (less boost the stronger the wielder is). Sure, the first time people see it, they'll be impressed. But eventually, they're going to realize that it's just a highly effective sword. And this happens a lot faster in the presence of PCs with standard class abilities. Once you get Greater Magic Weapon, a normal sword becomes better than +1. When you have Greater Rage, Gauntlets of Ogre Strength aren't so impressive anymore. I think the important question to ask is this - do you want low-wealth, or low-power? Because they aren't at all the same thing. If you just want low-wealth, with the same level of asskicking, I'd give the characters inherent bonuses based off of what Vow of Poverty gives you. So instead of killing the dragon and taking its hoard, you kill the dragon and wash in its blood, giving you the toughness of a dragon (bonus to natural armor). Instead of rescuing the nymph and getting a magical amulet, you get to drink from the pool of time and gain great wisdom (bonus to Wisdom, as you might guess). Maintains balance a lot more cleanly than ad-hoc adjustments. If you want low-power, the solution is much easier. Just keep the game at lower levels. Up to 6th level or so, abilties don't get as world-changing and a +1 sword is still relevant. If you want to keep progressing when you hit 6th level, but still stay in the same power range, there's a variant called the E6 system that does just that.
Knute 01-21-08, 08:34 PM	rather than giving the PC's money to build things This is actually the first statement you make that worries me. If the players have money they use it for what they want. That is the benefit of an autonomous player. If you have a world with any magic there should be a path to that magic for someone with resources or the resources are worth less. If you have 4 players you can't stop the one player who stockpiles and eventually has a lot of money. Neither is it fair to look at their money and price everything beyond their reach. You should strive for consistent world structure that rewards player and NPC alike for good resource management. Players will smell it early if there is one rule for them and another for NPCs and Opponents. Players have free will and you should prepare for that. They may buy into what you want out of the world but they shouldn't have to. Players with too much setting power (ie Wealth, henchmen, land etc...) tend to become part of the setting. They get less fun to play. You should examine your reluctance to have magic items and consider if you aren't being more afraid than informed. -k
Atheus 01-21-08, 10:40 PM	I'm by no means going to make the PC's have no magic items and give everyone else in the world one of everything. Magic shops will be extremely rare, and they won't have much in the way of items. Powerful leaders will have a few big items and thats all. It seems a lot have gotten the wrong idea about what I'm doing. I'm not going to make the players try to survive in a rich world where they end up as beggers. The entirety of the world will be low-wealth.
sblaxman 01-21-08, 10:53 PM	See, Sblaxman, we have never done a campaign where we limited magic items. We always end up with very rich characters who can buy anything. I can foresee some of them being annoyed that they are not getting new stuff all the time because they are not used to it. But they are going to have to find a way to deal with it. I'm sure it would be a transition, and it may not work (they may reject the idea). I'm used to playing darksun and dragonlance, which are both low magic campaigns, so it's more just how I run my games. I wouldn't go the route of your last sentence though... Don't make them 'have to deal with it'. If they are honestly and openly AGAINST a low magic campaign, don't force it one them. If you want to experiment with it, maybe try something mid-range first before going all out. If they are interested but hesitant, give it a try and test the waters. Not all players will enjoy it. The older players will be more likely if they played older editions, but a lot of the newer edition players don't quite understand the low magic style. I'm a personal fan of the low power game. I think it's because I've always been more a fan of the "rise to power" hero in literature (LOTR vs Conan, or anything in a lot of the 1e/2e settings)... where players are not the most powerful things in their world, and there are things that are beyond their scope, but they are working and making motions where they can, and growing to power slowly. although I love low power (for both the good guys and bad), I am loath to kill a player, and do what I can to keep things challenging, but survivable... I'm not the kind of DM that is playing "against" my PCs... I want them to thrive, just in a world that I enjoy building :D
Atheus 01-22-08, 04:33 PM	Most of them are interested in trying it as very low wealth. It's just that player or two that live and die by magic items rather than their characters abilities. They are a bit hesitant. But, in general, the group is all for it.