Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Fraser1986 06-11-07, 08:21 AM	I am planning on running a martial themed campaign in which the players are enlisted in the army as irregulars and their adventures are themed around heling the army in a dangerous war. The focus of this thread is not on how to make this theme work (that is the thread martial campaign) but rather another problem I am facing. The players are all very good at making powerful character builds, and do so habitually. I would not call them powergamers as this has too many negative contitations. They make well themed and interesting characters which also happen to be mechanically very powerful. For example, in one game I played a player had some class from the book of nine swords and killed everything by throwing large swords at it. I think my fighter did about 12 damage the whole game. (They are nice guys and I had a good time anyway.) The point is, I am not very good at making powerful characters, nor do I really want to change my style to focus on that. (I don't make intentionally weak characters, I just dont have the time or inclination to scoure D&D books making deadly combinations of classes/abilities.) My worry is that the players will unintentionally make characters that are too powerful for the campaign and will find it far too easy, thus making it boring. There seems to be two ways to proceed as far as I can see 1.) Try to spend more time making more powerful opponents 2.) Convince them to make less powerful characters. I don't think option 1 is appropriate for two reasons. Firstly, if i tried to make more powerful challenges the game could escalate into a "powerful builds" competition which I would losse. Secondly, I dont want to spend too much time working on mechanics when I could be having fun ideas for the game. (I don't want to give the impression that I am an obsessive storyline DM, I enjoy combat as much as the next one, and by good ideas I mean interesting combat situations as much as I mean cunning plot twists.) So, after that rather long ramble what I need advice on is how to persuade the players to make less powerful characters? I would rather not do this by constraining there choice of books to use as there is quite a lot of interesting stuff out there but are there any books that may just be too powerful? Also, do you think players who usually play powerful characters would enjoy this style of campaign as a little break or might they find it dull? Any further advice you can offer would also be appreciated. Thanks for taking the time to read this, it's hardly the most interesting thread but any advice will be used to make our game better.
Roivas 06-11-07, 08:32 AM	This problem is actually very easy to solve. Tell the players to make one 20th level evil warlord using any books they choose under your normal rules that you have in place. They can be any class but should focus on leadership and combat, this shouldn't be a hard sell since the players enjoy making powerful characters. Also advise them to make warlords who can work well as a group since they will be the war concil for an evil overlord, they can make their characters to plot to overthrow their liege too. Once they finish their massively powerful evil overlords ask them to hand the sheets to you for review. Then thank them for the NPCs leaders of your army and tell them to make their characters at their current level [whatever it may be]. Then use these leaders as a method of learning how to build powerful characters and test out these NPCs at lower levels. The players might resent you for taking their handcrafted monsters away from them, but tell them this should make the final battles all the more interesting.
Drag0nUL 06-11-07, 09:56 AM	Tell the players to make one 20th level evil warlord using any books they choose under your normal rules that you have in place. This is a good one. My DM did that to me once in an Eberron game. We were having a casual talk on the IM about a character concept that looked like a paladin, could display paladin abilities but was not a paladin(the talk started from the witnessing a friend's D&D game earlier that day, and noticing that most players tend to trust NPC paladins almost blindly, and this coud be exploited for a fun twist in a story). Anyway he asked me how I would do it, and I produced something along the lines of cleric 1/fighter 2/fallen paladin 2/bone knight 1/chameleon 10/warblade 4. Since I had no intention to actually play that char, I put maximum optimization into it, including stuff I consider a bit too cheesy for nice play(wraithstrike abuse, greater mighty wallop, divine metamagic+persistent spell etc.). The thing is he took the build and used it for Erandis d'Vol's second in command. When we had to battle him, it took both my halfling druid and a swordsage/bard/sublime chord/JPM to provide an even battle with his guy. Back to the OP's questions, I think talking to the players and working out a solution together is the best way to go. As for convincing an optimizer to make a weaker character on purpose ,it might not be so easy. I know this because I was in a similar situation a few months ago: the DM wanted to talk to me because my characters were constantly overshadowing the rest of the party. I tried but just couldn't go under a certain power level without doing something completely crazy and not fun, like levels in commoner:) In the end it proved much simpler to bring the other players up, rather than bring me down. I made somewhat less optimized characters; still strong, but not mixing 123456 classes for the maximum effect (for example going straight EK instead of the usual spellsword 1/abj. champ 5/EK the rest) and I started giving the other players items/feats/spells suggestions, and everyone was happy. So I advise you to try and seek a compromise with your playeirs.
Zandilar 06-11-07, 09:58 AM	Heya, Not sure if this is very helpful advice, but restrict the books they can use for the campaign. If you want to be extreme, restrict them to the Core books only (that is, they can only create characters by using PHB classes and feats, and can only take DMG PrCs when they get that high... Don't let them have templates and whatnot from the Monster Manual, though).
Eled_the_Worm_Tamer 06-11-07, 10:00 AM	I can see a problem here, The ability to create 'powerful' characters is intensely subjective, and it is a function of experience and understanding of the rules. To address the first point, what do you consider 'powerful' Is a human Fighter with Combat Expertise, Improved trip, Combat reflexes and Exotic weapon proficiency: spiked chain too powerful? Is a straight Druid who picked Natural spell too far? Unless you very clearly establish what is 'too powerful' before they create characters and stick to it I can see a lot of bad feeling from this. To address the second point, as players use a system is entirely natural to notice that certain tactics and choices give higher benefits than others. From the obvious ones like moving so the Rogue flanks getting sneak attack, to things like not touching Toughness unless its a prerequisite for a PRC, and realizing that Power attack gives a better return than Monkey Grip in terms of damage. If your going to discourage intelligent play a lot of players will find the game disengaging. My advise on this one is to provide non-combat benefits to less optimal choices via rp and 'world response' Gregor Trollarm who Monkey grips a sword few other men could lift is going to be more visible to superiors, bards and civilians than someone who wields an ordinary blade and hits a little harder, gaining reputation that might lead to better prices in stores and more cooperation from his superiors. Things in that vein may make less powerfull feats more appealing to players.
nlentz88 06-11-07, 10:08 AM	I don't see why making more powerful enemies necessarily needs to take more time. If the party has an average level of 5, then throw some EL 7 stuff at them. Not enough? Kick it up to EL 8. Worried that the party is receiving XP too quickly? Then give them less. Look, the DMG and MM are full of challenging NPCs and creatures. If the players create powerful characters, then simply up the EL to balance it out.
Need_A_Life 06-11-07, 10:08 AM	Well... I'd probably say treat them as a level or two higher for the purpose of XP... Example: Level 3 against a Large Earth Elemental (CR 5) would get XP as had they defeated a level 3 opponent. Also, try to get the players to work with you... Try to get them to create three types of character each (without looking over oneanothers work!), one for each of these categories: Mook, Leader, Overlord. Or simply wing-it. They'll probably never know. Decide on an AC 5 points above the first attack against the "boss," give him an attack bonus of [his level*1,5] and let him deal 1d6 damage per level. They might be curious why you're rolling so many dice, but that's when you smile and continue counting up damage. I've used this to great effect, when an encounter was going to be severely anticlimatic (1d8+3 vs. a 6HP "boss"... maximum damage. I decided that the boss would be dead once the player (solo-adventure) started to worry)
Furion Thamior 06-11-07, 10:19 AM	A relatively simply way to offset the power of a good build is to simply increase the CR of the creatures the party fights, by 1 or 2 tops. Rather than throwing 4 goblins at the party, go ahead and send 8 at them, or make the four goblins into hobgoblins. Also, try to pick creatures with DR, energy resistance, or other interesting abilities that perhaps they haven't taken into account (grapples, disarm, bull rush, overrun, sunders, ect). Have your spellcasters use battlefield control spells like Web, Evard's Black Tentacles, Darkness, Wall of XX, and cloud/ fog spells. Almost every book has something powerful in there; even with just the PHB it's very easy to build a very powerful character. In general, a player who wants to build a powerful character is going to build a powerful character irregardless of what you say or do, and restricting them may irritate them. If this is the first game you're running for your friends, you may be able to ask them to tone it down and play something simpler. That said, you're running a martial, "we're irregulars working for the army game" which I've usually seen as an open invitation to build a very powerful character, since there's going to be lots of combat. Also, you do run the risk of asking you're players to make something less powerful, and they come to you with a character that doesn't seem to be too powerful, but really is extraordinarily strong: core-only Clerics, Druids, and Wizards being good examples of this. One thing to do to put a dampener on a few of the more unreasonable and insane builds is to limit the amount of multi-classing that can happen, particularity with prestige classes. For example, in my game you get to take one prestige class. One. I also reason that a PC needs to have a RP-derived motivation for multi-classing or taking up a PrC (which is also why you can only take one PrC) The aforementioned "cleric 1/fighter 2/fallen paladin 2/bone knight 1/chameleon 10/warblade 4" would never be allowed to exist It is a good idea, however, to spend some time learning about effective character building from a mechanical standpoint: as a DM, you do need to know what your PCs are capable of. That way, there are no surprises for you that affect the pace of the game, and you can even plan an encounter or two that turns the PC's abilities around and makes them fight uphill.
Drag0nUL 06-11-07, 10:26 AM	Heya, Not sure if this is very helpful advice, but restrict the books they can use for the campaign. If you want to be extreme, restrict them to the Core books only (that is, they can only create characters by using PHB classes and feats, and can only take DMG PrCs when they get that high... Don't let them have templates and whatnot from the Monster Manual, though). Restricting him to core won't be of much help against an optimizer. After all, PHB is the most imbalanced D&D book:D ; it contains the Cleric and Druid. The Druid for example, doesn't lose too much of his potential by restricting to Core only(of course it is a bit harder without feats like Greenbound Summoning, Storm Elementals or the Bite of the were[something] spell, but the good ol' Dire Bear with barkskin does the job pretty well).
Fraser1986 06-11-07, 10:30 AM	First of all I would like to thank everyone for the helpful replies. I especially like the idea about reputations, with the monkey-gripping character being famous etc. In response to some of the suggestions. As it is a military themed campaign they will be fighting a lot of humanoids so just using loads of higher level stuff from the MM isn't feasible. Secondly, I am perhaps over-estimating my lack of skill with optimising. People seem to have drawn the conclusion that the players are playing the standard way and I am somehow unable to make decent characters. The way I see the situation is a make avarage powered characters. I am not trying to make a game where players intentionally make weak characters. Of course the rouge is going to try to flank to sneak attack etc. The problem as I see it is the players routinely make up their characters using several different prestige classes, unusual classes etc, often with only 1 or so levels in certain classes. When I talk about taking a lot of time to make powerful opponents, that is what I mean. When I make bad guys I tend to only use a couple of classes. I might have a figher/rouge or a baseclass/prestigeclass combination. I am not saying the players are wrong to make their characters the way they do, rather it doesn't fit in well with the style of my campaign. As for the poster who enquired how to decide what is too powerful, that is something that can be difficult to do without experience. For example, the scimitar hurling character I referred to in my original post was far too powerful, he walked through the combats killing everything without breaking a sweat. Far from being cool I don't understand how he could enjoy playing such a character as the "challenges" were'nt really challanges at all. Basically what I am getting at is do you think it possible to persuade the players to build characters who are less optimised, perhaps by sticking to only a few classes, but not necessarily intentionally weak? [In my opinion, when you start using calculus to decide the optimal level of power attack, you have taken things too far. Yes, its a fairly simple first order optimisation problem but it seems to be an unnecessary level of abstraction from what should be bloody combat]
Furion Thamior 06-11-07, 10:35 AM	The problem as I see it is the players routinely make up their characters using several different prestige classes, unusual classes etc, often with only 1 or so levels in certain classes. When I talk about taking a lot of time to make powerful opponents, that is what I mean. When I make bad guys I tend to only use a couple of classes. I might have a figher/rouge or a baseclass/prestigeclass combination. I am not saying the players are wrong to make their characters the way they do, rather it doesn't fit in well with the style of my campaign. As I said above, this is something you can reasonable negate by requiring the PCs to RP into a new class and allowing them only one prestige class. Or, you could even disallow PrCs altogether, simply because the players never meet someone with a PrC to introduce them to the class. After all, it really doesn't make sense for a character to "suddenly" figure out how to whip swords around like a bloodstorm blade. That's something that they need to learn how to do from another or spend a great deal of time refining how to perfect the technique.
Kouk 06-11-07, 10:43 AM	You could say "Stick to Core, and if you want something non-core ask me first". You should definitely limit the books to what you personally own and/or have easy access to. Don't allow all races/feats/classes just because they were printed. Many times there are balance issues, or you may feel it is just not right for your campaign. You should always completely understand the features of the classes you allow. If they multiclass a lot, they may not even be able to keep it all straight so you should have some idea of your own what they can do. Absurd power is often the result of using rules and abilities incorrectly, stacking things when they shouldn't, using abilities that the class is barred from, etc. Also, get copies of all the characters on separate sheets, and have them updated each time the players level. It can be annoying but it is better for you to know exactly what the characters are capable of, and also to make sure that the players are aware of their limits. People make mistakes on their character sheets all the time, it is good to have someone else check it over. If you know what they can do, they are less prone to making mistakes during the game as well, people can get confused if they play in multiple games. You can look up their abilities at your leisure this way. Also, if someone forgets their sheet one time, you have the old one as a backup. You could consider allowing a single prestige class as normal, but each after the first can incur multiclassing penalties the way base classes do (count them as additional base classes for purposes of multiclassing penalties). This will make them seriously consider "dipping" in various classes just to get the most reward, because their XP gain will be slowed (which can make sense considering they are doing the dipping to get ahead in power). Here is the option that might be most controversial: Use a point buy system. This will keep all the PCs on more even footing for character creation, and also allow you to generate NPCs that can match the same general level of power without rolling. Any PC with all 16+ stats will be tough to challenge during a game, this can help you keep things under control. The biggest objection people tend to have is the characters are weaker, but that is kind of the idea, at least in this case. Try 28 or 32 point buy, but if this is still not enough, you can always make up your own number point buy.
Eled_the_Worm_Tamer 06-11-07, 10:51 AM	From the way you describe you Scimtimar thrower it sounds like you don't know ToB that well. ban that, I hate to say it as its a wonderful book and actually gives meeleists the shot in the arm they sorely needed mid to late game, but my first rule has always been 'If I don't own it, I wont DM it' ToB is Sublime :rimshot: but if you dont know how it works and dont face like with like it is a big step up (a needed step up) in power for meele types If Players taking a multitude of classes is a problem its perfectly fair that they are either limited to 1 or 2 prcs, (I say 2 as moast prcs will cap out at 15th level or so and returning to a base class can feel anticlimatic)must finish the first before starting the next (Except in exceptional circumstances) or must find a story reason to multi class as well as finding a teacher. Frankly my favorite charicter of all time only had 3 classes, less is more. If you want to limit the available books, do not be deceived into thinking that Core = balanced a core only game favors casting classes and unfairly limits the options of more combat focused classes, just compare a 5th level wizards Fireball to anything a 5th level barbarian could do in core. If you do restrict classes try not to limit too far or it can get very hard to create a charicter who stands out from the others, especially when your already limiting the theme to a military campeghn. Perhaps Broaden the scope so the players are eencouraged to make more well rounded characters, involving them in military politics and espionage as well as straight up military operations would make it less rewarding to spechalise and make for a more varied play experiance.
Drag0nUL 06-11-07, 11:05 AM	One thing to do to put a dampener on a few of the more unreasonable and insane builds is to limit the amount of multi-classing that can happen, particularity with prestige classes. For example, in my game you get to take one prestige class. One. I also reason that a PC needs to have a RP-derived motivation for multi-classing or taking up a PrC (which is also why you can only take one PrC) The aforementioned "cleric 1/fighter 2/fallen paladin 2/bone knight 1/chameleon 10/warblade 4" would never be allowed to exist As I said, this guy was never meant to be played. It was just a theoretical optimization exercise fitting the mentioned restrictions(being able to impersonate a paladin). Although my DM actually managed to create a decent background that justifies this crazy class combination. As for the part with limiting the number of PrC's a character is allowed to take, this may lower the power a little,but only if your players optimize to the highest degree. Most optimized builds do well with only 1 or 2 PrCs; or none at all if we talk about clerics and druids.