Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kolo 08-19-04, 02:41 PM	This will be a long, long rant on how players that know the rules well, constantly think about their character from every angle and try to maximize the character's concept and evolution in-game, rules-wise and rp-wise, are frowned upon by many DM's to the point of harrasment. I will be using examples from my years of gaming and observations I've noted from several different groups, and will be using a recent character of mine as an example to further my point.. In short, if you don't like to read rants, go do something more productive with your time. You won't hurt my feelings if you do. :D Also, feel free to refute my points as you see fit or even post your own stories/experiences. But most of all, I ask for open minds and self-examination, both for the players and for the DM's that read the following rant. The point of this area of the forum is, after all, about improving our game. Now, on to the rant itself... In a campaign I'm currently playing in, my character (a specialist Necromancer) suffered a rather strange alignment change. He was lawful evil, but through a combination of brainwashing while feebleminded, hypnosis and lots of being bashed on the head with cudgels, he switched over to Lawful Neutral. Now, the brainwashing in question (and keep in mind that this is not the most serious of campaigns) resulted in my Necromancer being filled with lore on St. Cuthbert. to RP this dramatic shift in my character, I asked my DM to let me take a level of cleric with St. Cuthbert as a patron deity. He agreed to let me do this, but then the problems started. Originally, my concept was of a scheming and plotting powermonger who was mostly self-serving and constantly trying to be more powerful and to know more than anyone else. Mechanics wise, I felt this justified a Necromancer/Archmage combo, possibly including a few levels of loremaster as well (though this was idle speculation). I mentioned this after one session as a possibility, and the DM instantly raved about me preplanning my characters too much instead of letting RP have it's say. Okay, whatever. I see his point, which is basically why this progression is no longer a part of my plan. Now, the character is still knowledge-crazy, but is more of a follower of the party's cleric. ( it bears mention that due to certain circumstances with my character's alignment shift, the DM ruled that it would be a very short leap for me to take to actually become evil again.) So, to still follow my character RP wise, I thought about how this character would progress. As I thought about it, a Wiz/Cleric/Mystic Theurge seemed to fit the bill, even with my extremely substandard WIS score of 13. They know a LOT of both divine and arcane spells, and best yet, it can fit both possible alignments; If I continue to be LN, I can be a somewhat unusual cleric of St. Cuthbert while still keeping with my character's thirst for knowledge. If I turn LE, I will be keeping with my original concept AND actually know some decent necromancy spells at the same time. I'd just be powerful in a different fashion. So I ask my DM wether he is going to allow the MT in his campaign. He already stated that he would, but here I met strenuous resistance. Again, I was accused of overplanning my character, powergaming, munchkinism, and all sorts of other things besides which I won't mention in polite company. After a bit of circular discussion (wherein he said that a straight wizard was more powerful than a MT, thus negating his own munchkinism argument and thouroughly confusing me, making me mess up my point over and over again), and some interjection from our groups' usual DM, I came at last to what they both felt was wrong with how I play the game. Apparently, I know the system too well to RP. Now, a good character in any game is built thus; A), a concept, and B), mechanics to fulfill that concept. I know the system of 3.5 well enough to get the maximum potential out of my character concepts, and therefore end up as slightly more powerful thanI might have otherwise. I want a character that casts powerful Illusions, I make a spec. Illusionist with Spell Focus:Illusion and Heighten spell. I want a hunter-type defender-of-the-forest ranger, I go Ranger with Archery style and an appropriate favoured enemy (like, say Goblinoids), with a possible dip in Horizon Walker to represent the long hunts and the mastery I have in my natural habitat. I always try to get what I want from my character withing their specific area, and I always want my characters to get the most they can IN that area. So, yes, I min-max and optimize. This, however, is frowned upon by many DM's I've met. I've talked with other local gamers (players and DM's alike) and from those discussions, I've found that this is fairly common, especially if the DM's are vets who played 2ndE. DM's don't seem to like players that know the system well because they are afraid that they may break the game with that knowledge. Furthermore, they dislike this playing style because it smacks of powergaming. But everyone does it. I don't know how many times I've heard a player say "I can't wait till I get to the next level, then I'll get this new power" and so on and so forth. But because players like me know the system so well, we know that prestige classes are a good way to define a character. And prestige classes is exactly what DM's who want to prevent powergaming do not like at all. The eleven core classes are familiar territory; each has their specific stuff they can do and the other classes can't. But PrC's are less clear, and sometimes blur the lines between the classes. (Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge are prime examples of this, but less obvious are PrC's like the Contemplative (CD), Dervish (CW) and, yes, the Horizon Walker). PrC's also break the mold; Suddenly, you have a non-ranger two-weapon fighter who can outdo the party's ranger in his niche in combat, you have a cleric whose inner contemplation suddenly makes the party monk look like a party animal, and you have a wizard who is flinging about divine divination spells, using alignment based spells like know alignment and even healing the party in a pinch. This is unfamiliar territory. Here there be dragons. So the DM's reaction is either to flow with it and use the system themselves, or to reject and mistrust it. Dungeon Masters, when making adventures, most commonly only use PrC's when making BBEG's. It's much easier to just randomly roll an orc barbarian and jot his stats down for easy reference than it is to have a multiclassed Rogue/Shadowdancer/Assassin, who requires a bit more thought. DM's who don't play a lot or use mostly monsters in adventures don't get to know the PrC system as well as the players do, or even the benefits and drawbacks of multiclassing. Or, the other extreme, they get to know it's highs and lows and are afraid that the players will become too powerful for them to actually challenge. So, they simply hammer down on the offending players. this is not a good solution to the problem. It only begets argument and detracts fro the game. I say let the players be and roleplay what they want. Review PrC's on a case-by-case basis. Forbid any you don't want to include in your campaign. Make them hard to enter through RP. Have entire PrC organizations attack the players, and see how THEY handle multiclassed powerhouses. Most of all, don't straitjacket the players with stereotypes. (and do disallow 9 PrC's in the same build; I doubt organizations are going to approve of the same guy being in up to nine different "guilds". :P) The point of knowing the system is to enhance the game experience. Sure, we try to get the most we can out of our characters. This is perfectly acceptable and normal human behaviour. Don't let personal bias affect the game, please. In my own case, the argument is still unresolved. I hope this rant helps players who feel that their concept is being repressed get a new look and even overcome their problem, and I also hope that Dm's get the players perspective. Thank you to all who read. Comments, suggestions, criticism? :)
meabolex 08-19-04, 03:14 PM	Your argument, as you presented it, is convincing. I don't think what you presented deeply contradicted any of my own personal beliefs regarding powergaming and munchkinism. I may not have the exact same sentiments (like I won't allow any more than 1 prestige class at a time on one character), but nothing you said was, IMO, going too far. As for the 2nd edition DMs, I personally didn't play 2nd edition, but I have a grasp, after talking with a friend of mine, of how 2nd edition DMs can have some resentment with the 3.X system. 3.X is extremely detailed with explicit rules compared to 2nd edition. It's a lot easier to come up with an abusable combo-like element in 3.X than it was in 2nd edition because the DM had a lot more. . . artistic license with the rules. They were so vague that they gave DMs a lot more power to determine what did and didn't work in a campaign. So now, it's easy to become what your DM would call a 'powergamer.' A powergamer, in this sense, is a person who uses the rules to create a more effective character for doing a specific task. But that's not the same as what Trollbill defines as a powergamer: a player whose primary focus in a RPG is the increase of his character’s power, usually defined in combat terms. See the difference? It's a question between effectiveness (become a more effective character) versus power (become a more powerful character). Effectiveness and power are not necessarily the same thing -- a well-timed grease spell can kill a charging character -- he flies off a cliff. That doesn't mean that the grease spell is overpowered -- it's simply put to better use in that situation. I think the DM may be confusing the two things. I really don't think you're powergaming -- at least as I see it. With a 13 Wis, you're certainly not going to be a powerful cleric/MT. But is it flavorful and meaningful to what your character does/is -- yes. That's far more important than simple power gain. Thinking about possible directions to steer your character in the future is fine -- no one wants to play a poorly designed character -- they want to play an effective character -- which may or may not be powerful in comparison to other builds. As for your DM, sometimes it's hard to adapt to new things/editions. I'd certainly be a different type of DM if I started playing during 2E. Maybe you could explain some of the points I've made and show that the character DOES come first, not the rules and details -- but they rules and details ARE considered. A happy balance between the two is most likely optimal.
CrippleMrOnion 08-19-04, 04:10 PM	I agree with Meabolex, though I don't FULLY agree with every generalization you make. I definately can see the 2nd Ed DMs getting antsy about 3rd edition for the same reasons meabolex stated (go figure, meab). Also, I agree that preplanning is frequently looked down upon by DMs; as a DM, I've myself been victim to it. However, upon reflection, I stopped worrying about it so much and started doing the same with my NPCs. Unlike the DMs you mention, I frequently tailor my NPCs to specific combat ideas and often make use of PrCs. Nothing surprises a PC like having two Order of the Bow Initiates raining arrows down on them from the top of a tower that they can't find the entrance to. (Except perhaps dimension dooring up to the top and getting disabled in 1 round--that might surprise them more). Also, nothing fills players with true Character Fear than a large variety of abilities for your NPCs. That said, I don't understand the trend of "lazy DMs" (see Redgar's) and certainly don't abide by any of them. I bust my butt constantly to make each adventure great. However, I as a player don't "powergame" or "min-max." I often bestow limitations upon my characters just to give them some flavor. This doesn't mean I'm chump change in combat, but it does mean that in some form or another I leave a lot to be desired. My 6 Str healer was one of my favorite characters. He couldn't do crap offensively in combat, but he was wonderful all the same. I do, though, preplan my characters. Preplanning and powergaming are not the same; as Meabolex pointed out, sometimes efficiency and power are not the same. Similarly, having a map of where you're going and actually following that road--and ONLY that road, are quite different. There are many players who would just blindly do what they wanted regardless of RP situations, but you're obviously not one of them. I think perhaps your DM was struggling to throw a monkey wrench in your character plans with his alignment switch and you took the wrench and made lemonade out of it--uh--figuratively (:
lantzer 08-19-04, 04:32 PM	It sounds like your GM is gun-shy. He fears that the balance of his campaign will be upset by your 'optimized' character dominating the group. More, he may fear that one character's superior effectiveness may spark a jealous 'arms race' within the group, leading to infighting, and general breakdown of fun. Has he had trouble in his games in the past due to a single or a few very carefully-engineered characters disrupting the balance of his campaign? When a party is made up of characters that pretty much grow organically, with abilities decided pretty much on the fly as they level up, a single well-planned character will be mechanically more difficult to challenge without harming the group. At which point your party of coadventurers becomes Mr Well-Planned and his band of hippy sidekicks. I admit myself to harboring a bit of distrust and resentment towards folks who "appear" to be trying to claw their way up some power scale at the expense of my game. I've had problems in the past with those who's 'properly optimised' characters make it difficult to challenge the group as a whole in the ways I would like. I'd like to think that I'm not as gun-shy as the GM you describe. Probably because I know I can out-crunch any PC in my group - I'm the GM, after all. So I personally don't feel threatened. I just hate to turn a campaign into a power-escalation war between PCs. Now, I personally don't use the the mystic theurge or it's cousins. But I'm up front about that to begin with, and that is simply a esthetic decision of mine. I _like_ the 3rd Edition multiclass system, and the MT _feels_ like an attempt to bring back 2nd Ed. multiclassing, where anybody who could multiclass, did, because it was simply _better_. It's always seemed to me that the MT was the result of community whining because a bunch of double-casters got 'nerfed'. I do use prestige classes, usually designed from scratch to fit my world, as suggested by the DMG.
Super Guy 08-19-04, 04:39 PM	I don't have a problem with planning. It makes the game more fun for me and it shouldn't affect anyone else. It definitely doesn't affect the party, they don't even notice. The only thing it might do is help me be organized instead of being used to less-than-maximum-potential. But you know, the funny thing is, a lot of DM's who complain "You're thinking too much, you're planning too much" will often have NPCs for you to fight that are hard to beat because the DM has planned for them to make them very tough. Not every DM, but a lot, and I'm so glad that I'm not in a group with one.
lantzer 08-19-04, 05:48 PM	Heh. I'm the sort of GM who's NPCs are: "Dat NPC? Weell, 'ezz just this guy, You know?" Well, I'm kidding a little. My NPCs run the gamut from well-organised to 30-second wonders, depending on their backgound. So do my PCs, come to think of it. ;) So do my player's PCs. To clarify my position, I don't think there's anything wrong with having a plan for your character. I think the GM in question in the thread is afraid that a well-planned character will become a unbalancing character. Planning is a characteristic of a type of _player_. Let's call it player type A. Making unbalanced characters is also a characteristic of a type of player. Let's call that player type B. What the GM in question may be missing, is that the two player types do not have to overlap. They can, and it's ugly when they do. So this GM may be overreacting to a harmless type A player, thinking he's a type AB player. Or the original poster might be a type AB player, who just doesn't see it. From our perspective second hand on the net, there is no way to tell.
Fraser1986 08-19-04, 06:35 PM	You can kind of see where the DM is coming from tho (although i'd be mortified if my DM decided to change my alignment cause i'd been hit on the head too many times). He could be genuinely concerned that your "well planned" character could become more powerful than the rest of the party. Its not that there is anything morally wrong with having a plan in mind for your character. The problem arises if the other PC's dont and therefore end up as less effective/powerful characters. In my experience a situation where one character is superior to the others for any length of time or for a wide range of situations can lead to less enjoyment on the part of the other players. Having said that, it seems unlikely that the other players wont have an idea of how they want to develop their characters either, i mean, they're not just rolling a dice to decide what class they level up are they?
diaboli 08-19-04, 06:36 PM	I agree with lantzer, the DM sounds worried that your planning will upset game balance. Also, as Super Guy states, the DM gets to plan for the baddies, why shouldn't you? I'm usually a planner, both as a player and a DM, though not always. I envision a character concept develop a background/history and goals for it and then begin building from there. Depending upon the goals I've set for the character, its career path is then constructed, levels 1-20 including any PrCs allowed that fall in line with the concept. I do this for three main reasons; 1. I enjoy the creation process. 2. It allows me to quickly and efficiently level up that character. 3. It prevents me wasting feat/skill slots It typically takes me about 2 minutes to level up a character. This is because I already know what feats I'm going to take, where to put my skill points, any adjustments to saves required, etc. The only thing I need to do is roll for HP. Because I'm done so quickly, I'm available to assist others, which speeds up the leveling process at the table. As to #3 above. Many people call this powergaming/blah, blah... whatever. I'm not interested in the label of the day. Anyhow, I've played a variety of 3.x characters since playtesting days to have been thoroughly frustrated (to be nice) with myself when trying to either qualify for a PrC or a feat because I didn't take the prereqs earlier on. So now, I preplan a characters levels to make sure I don't have to wait 3+ levels just to take a feat I probably should have taken 6 levels ago. This becomes more important at higher level play. Do this means my choices are locked in stone? No. But I'm stay pretty darn close to the path I've set. If I do decide to change something, I at least have a good idea on how it will affect my character in the long run. From a DM point of view, I encourage my players to think ahead at least 2-3 levels. My reasoning is that I want the game to be fun for them. If I know the path their PCs are going to take, I can better construct challenges that allow them to showcase their unique abilities. I'm a firm believer that each PC should have a chance to show their stuff. my 2 cp worth;
FitzNighteyes 08-19-04, 06:55 PM	Originally posted by Kolo I always try to get what I want from my character withing their specific area, and I always want my characters to get the most they can IN that area. So, yes, I min-max and optimize. This, however, is frowned upon by many DM's I've met. I usually take one of two approaches to stop pure min-max or powergaming (IMO the same thing, but I know not to others). I do one or both of the following: 1) Ask: "what is you character concept?" If it is class based (even core classes), class ability based, or magic item based I say "cool, now stop being a min/maxer for a second and start over again." 2) Ask: "Why?" If they can come up with a good RP reason that has nothing to do with game mechanics (or at least, lie to me effectively), cool. Otherwise, see my response in #1. It works pretty well. Even hard core min/maxers learn eventually to not annoy me with their min/maxing, keeping it decently out of view. And they also learn how to RP somewhere along the line, if they didn't know in how in the first place. So we all win. They get to min/max their hearts content as long as it isn't their stated goal, and I get players that have a strong RP focus on the surface.
Kolo 08-19-04, 08:33 PM	Nice turnout. Now for some individual responses... @ meabolex: I think the DM may be confusing the two things. I really don't think you're powergaming -- at least as I see it. With a 13 Wis, you're certainly not going to be a powerful cleric/MT. But is it flavorful and meaningful to what your character does/is -- yes. That's far more important than simple power gain. Thinking about possible directions to steer your character in the future is fine -- no one wants to play a poorly designed character -- they want to play an effective character -- which may or may not be powerful in comparison to other builds. Exactly. It's absolutely no good making a concept and then not living up to it due to ineffectiveness. Unfortunately, ineffectiveness in a D&D environment is often lack of specialization, so I do try to get as much as I can from the mechanics while I'm at it. @ CrippleMrOnion: Unlike the DMs you mention, I frequently tailor my NPCs to specific combat ideas and often make use of PrCs. Nothing surprises a PC like having two Order of the Bow Initiates raining arrows down on them from the top of a tower that they can't find the entrance to. (Except perhaps dimension dooring up to the top and getting disabled in 1 round--that might surprise them more). Also, nothing fills players with true Character Fear than a large variety of abilities for your NPCs. ... However, I as a player don't "powergame" or "min-max." I often bestow limitations upon my characters just to give them some flavor. This doesn't mean I'm chump change in combat, but it does mean that in some form or another I leave a lot to be desired. My 6 Str healer was one of my favorite characters. He couldn't do crap offensively in combat, but he was wonderful all the same. Well, I did say many, and I'm glad it's not aLL DM's who are like that...:P Yours is, however, the FIRST case I know of of using Order of the Bow Initiates in-game without them being PC's. For a potentially cool adversareal PrC, it almost never gets mention unless it's a PC. Cookie for you! :cookie: Also, although I do min/max, I also do not powergame. Min/maxing means MAXimizing your role and MINimizing the negative consequences thereof. Most of my characters have one or more low stats (unless I get really lucky on the roll), and it is character-building, but let's be realistic; How many people would let ONE disability or weakness affect their entire career without compensating for it? They minimize the damage while maximising their strength. Simple and quite realistic. (One of my favourite characters so far was a CON 6 wizard, so don't take the above statement at face value. ;)) I think perhaps your DM was struggling to throw a monkey wrench in your character plans with his alignment switch and you took the wrench and made lemonade out of it--uh--figuratively (: Mmm, tool juice. :cool: (You make an excellent point. Better discuss this with my DM.) @ lantzer: It sounds like your GM is gun-shy. He fears that the balance of his campaign will be upset by your 'optimized' character dominating the group. More, he may fear that one character's superior effectiveness may spark a jealous 'arms race' within the group, leading to infighting, and general breakdown of fun. Nah. He himself played our group's most powerful PC so far, and we didn't particularly mind. We figured that since he was so powerful, he'd do all the real work, and since he was of a Good alignment, he shared the limelight. :) Besides, we never compete with each other that way. One PC is really good at blasting things apart with fireballs, another is particularly good at sneaking into enemies' strongholds and replacing pants with modified bags of devouring. Each can do stuff the other can't, so why bother compete? All this "My PC is better than yours" stuff really gets to me. I think his particular complaint is that he doesn't understand how a multiclassed character is defined differently from a singel core class. He played a cleric with levels of Divine Disciple (FRCS) and Hierophant, and he never once changed his RP style. He may be a bit too confined by the straitjacketing imposed by the system. Or the original poster might be a type AB player, who just doesn't see it. Oh, I KNOW I am. It just happens that I feel supreme butt-kicing powerhouses of doom make extremely dull characters. I'm more of a "Raistlin" type of player; I like power, but not Ultimate power- I need an angle and a weakness to work with. (My necromancer, for instance, has Illusion AND Enchantment for forbidden schools. No will-save-or-die for me for a LONG time- or at least until my MT levels kick in... hm. What was my point again? :P) @Super Guy: But you know, the funny thing is, a lot of DM's who complain "You're thinking too much, you're planning too much" will often have NPCs for you to fight that are hard to beat because the DM has planned for them to make them very tough. Not every DM, but a lot, and I'm so glad that I'm not in a group with one. Our group's normal DM once made a carbon-copy of my character, boosted all of his stats by 2 and gave him two more levels than I had and set him loose at me in 1-on-1 combat. I gave him a LOT of flak for that one...:mad: Apparently, he was trying to show me how "useless" it is to plan a character one way because "there'll always be someone better". DM's do it and then try to punish players for it? Bleh.:sad: @ Fraser1986: You can kind of see where the DM is coming from tho (although i'd be mortified if my DM decided to change my alignment cause i'd been hit on the head too many times). One of St. Cuthbert's teachings states that "Heresy brings lumps to the heads of the unfaithful", so it was sorta in character... :P ...Having said that, it seems unlikely that the other players wont have an idea of how they want to develop their characters either, i mean, they're not just rolling a dice to decide what class they level up are they? We all plan. It's just that the plans of my fellow gamers are usually "Ooh! that feat looks cool." Not that it doesn't make for some pretty interesting results, but I'm the only one who makes a general outline for the next few levels in my head. Or, if I'm not, then I'm the only one stupid enough to actually voice my opinions...:( (Ah, well.) @diaboli: As to #3 above. Many people call this powergaming/blah, blah... whatever. I'm not interested in the label of the day. Anyhow, I've played a variety of 3.x characters since playtesting days to have been thoroughly frustrated (to be nice) with myself when trying to either qualify for a PrC or a feat because I didn't take the prereqs earlier on. So now, I preplan a characters levels to make sure I don't have to wait 3+ levels just to take a feat I probably should have taken 6 levels ago. This becomes more important at higher level play. This is why I plan, amongst other things. And some DM's just don't like that sort of thing. My earlier DM was pretty adamant that my character wouldn't know how to qualify for a PrC unless he asked actual members of the class to help him. And, of course, I never ever found a member that was willing to talk to a potential initiate. (This is also the extent of the preplanning my group does, because it DOES suck to find a character-building PrC and not be able to take it.) @FitzNighteyes (I miss that wolf... :() 1) Ask: "what is you character concept?" If it is class based (even core classes), class ability based, or magic item based I say "cool, now stop being a min/maxer for a second and start over again." 2) Ask: "Why?" If they can come up with a good RP reason that has nothing to do with game mechanics (or at least, lie to me effectively), cool. Otherwise, see my response in #1. It works pretty well. Even hard core min/maxers learn eventually to not annoy me with their min/maxing, keeping it decently out of view. And they also learn how to RP somewhere along the line, if they didn't know in how in the first place. So we all win. They get to min/max their hearts content as long as it isn't their stated goal, and I get players that have a strong RP focus on the surface. Riiiight... I think you need to step back, take a deep breath and use a non-class based system for a while. (believe me, it does wonders for RP to not be set in stone from the word go.) It's very hard to think of a concept for, say, a fighter that DOESN'T include a mention of the fighter class, you know. :P Although, as I believe I said earlier, I feel that min/maxing is quite natural... Noone lets a weakness or disability hinder them for too long, they compensate. BUT, I agree that RP is what Role Playing games are all about, and it should be their focus. It does help to know your way around the mechanics of the game though, because doing so often helps you find a good way to achieve your stated concept.
Cymraegmorgan 08-19-04, 09:17 PM	You must have some odd DMs. I have DMed and played since first edition, and would have never thought to question a player who was planning her character's future. That smacks of control issues and lazy game planning on the DMs part. Fresh young PCs always have detailed plans for their future. Whether the world cooperates is another kettle o' fish.
FitzNighteyes 08-19-04, 09:23 PM	Originally posted by Kolo Riiiight... I think you need to step back, take a deep breath and use a non-class based system for a while. (believe me, it does wonders for RP to not be set in stone from the word go.) It's very hard to think of a concept for, say, a fighter that DOESN'T include a mention of the fighter class, you know. :P How about an army scout? He is a fighter. His class might be a Ranger, or a Rogue, maybe even a wierd wizard. If you told me "I want a fighter who is ...", you might have a good idea. Or you may have limited your idea from the start, straightjacketing your thinking into D&D classes. Okay, maybe I'm not quite that strict, but if all the key concepts of your character concept are the class or class abilities, then there may be a problem. This breaks down the most with Divine spellcasting of course, since Clerics are the only core class that is a powerful god given spellcaster (and Druids nature given). But a "priest" can be a multiclass Cleric, a devout monk, or any class really (depending on your God's portfolio).
SilverFoxKnows 08-19-04, 10:09 PM	using OOC knowledge IC. If you start at first... how many Fighters have even HEARD of a Blackguard? How many first level Rogues have heard of a Shadowdancer? See my point? If you're playing higher levels... sure, why not? By 5th you could have had contact with a couple Horizon Walkers and an Arcane Trickster. By 7th you might have tangled with an Assassin and now have a pretty good idea of what they can do. And there is a distinction between well read and a twink. In the past I have had players use OOC knowledge (ie. 1st level Ranger telling the 1st level Cleric to cast Cure Light on the zombies) How would Quilthar know that? He wouldn't but Dave did. Same thing goes in WoD, not just D&D. As a DM my reaction to twink players is to confront them with something that isn't in the books, then watch the smug look vanish from their face. As a player my response is "Dude, knock if off". I try to game with ROLEplayers not ROLLplayers. YMMV Frank
devinmdp 08-19-04, 10:22 PM	Let me start by saying that I am a veteran 2 ed DM and that I have grave concerns and a dislike of 3rd edition power gamers. First, you HAVE to plan your PC in 3rd edition. Given that there are some rather distinct chains of things, like feats, you have to know where you are going to get the higher end feats at the end of some long and sometimes complicated chains. Similarly, there are not many PrCs that you can simply stumble into. Believe me, I've tried it. Qualifying for almost any PrC requires some fairly advanced planning. Second, there is nothing inherently wrong with planning. Think about it in real life. While it is true some people are aimless and don't know what they want to do in life, a great many others, especially the exceptional people who stand out from the crowd (i.e. heroes) often have a long term goal. Just look at the current Olympics. Many of these athletes have been training since childhood. They didn't just fall into their sports. They planned to be where they are years in advance. There is nothing wrong with a bright young teenager in a D&D world who has been raised on tales of famous wizards and archmages to want to one day become one himself. So, I think the original ranter's approach is spot on.....start with a concept and then build well and efficiently into it. BUT....... The problem to this approach is that it still allows someone to back into a clearly mini-maxing munchkin PC. The original concept itself is what needs to be non-powergamer....not the actual character design. A concept that you want to play a human fascinated with the dead for various personal reasons and so becomes a necromancer is a fine non-powergaming concept. A concept that you are a half dragon minotaur who learned to wield a spiked chain in the gladitorial pits is also technically a legitimate concept...but it is also one that REEKS of powergaming. Devin
Mitchell 08-20-04, 12:09 AM	Originally posted by Kolo Again, I was accused of overplanning my character, powergaming, munchkinism, and all sorts of other things besides which I won't mention in polite company. Who said we were polite? Somebody's got some explaining to do! Anyway, I pretty much agree with Devin. Planning is necessary, but calculating every little detail can be a little off-putting. I've seen posts with people talking about using Power Attack spreadsheets for max efficiency. This is too much. Get the info, find out what's out there, and use it as a start. PrCs are a big part of it. No, I don't have anything against them, but there may be too much assumption on the players part that they are available just like anything else. Now, I don't want my DM just banning me from any PrCs, but I figure one is enough, and why should the DM just let me have it? I think you could plan an adventure around getting the PrC. The assassins guild will accept you for training, but you have to kill this guy. But when "this guy" happens to be the leader of the thieves guild halfway across the continent, well, you have some work to do. Why should the heirophant just train someone? Shouldn't they have to prove their worth? Let's face it. There isn't much prestige in the class when everybody and their crippled brother can join because they want to. It puts more work on the DM, but that is the nature of the classes.
Ithilorien 08-20-04, 12:25 AM	So in order to become a Mystic Theurge in this DM's campaign you have to just wake up one morning and say "gee, I think I'll become a Mystic Theurge today, it's a good thing I've magically manages to meet the requirements!" PrCs have lots of prerequisites, usually to represent a character who is in game training and accumulating skills which will culminate in them gaining the abilities of that PrC. In order to get into most PrCs you have to preplan, in and out of character. Do any other player's in your groups have PrCs?
bitnine 08-20-04, 01:32 AM	Originally posted by Ithilorien PrCs have lots of prerequisites, usually to represent a character who is in game training and accumulating skills which will culminate in them gaining the abilities of that PrC. In order to get into most PrCs you have to preplan, in and out of character.Bah, someone beat me to the punch. In many cases, PrC requirements all but require at least a slight measure of preplanning. Knowing that you need 8 ranks in bowcrafting instead of skill focus bowcrafting for an archery PrC (or vice versa), for example.
Nimrud 08-20-04, 04:51 AM	I feel your pain. I really hate it when the DM says "there's always somebody better than you", and then use some lame overpowered NPC to beat up on you. At least in your case you know how the NPC stomped you: That was basically a powered up mirror of opposition encounter. When my DM does that to me, she doesn't even bother to stat up the NPC. The NPC just does incredible stuff that don't even have game mechanics to them. "Oh it's a weird spell you don't recognise." (after a spellcraft check of 34) And all my spells fail for no reason. :rolleyes: Somebody mentioned a trend towards lazy DMs. I'm not sure that's true. I think the game's power level have gotten up to the point where DMs are unable to cope with all the things players can do. One might argue that the flipside is true, NPCs can be powerful too, and a powerful NPC can always beat a PC if the DM wants it to happen. Unfortunately, that's not the real problem. I think the real problem is that a well-prepared PC can easily screw up a DM's storyline and trash hours of preparation. While that has always been possible in any RPG, D&D v3.x has made it worse, with all the possibilities and options it has given players. While it is fun for players, it's a nightmare for the DM. DMs have always had to prepare a lot more than players. In the old days when I used to play 1st ed, players just turned up with their character sheets. Even then a DM had to spend hours to plan the game. These days, players spend hours preparing their characters. This means DMs have to spend a lot more time preparing NPCs and encounters to take into account the player's abilities. Multiply that by the number of players in the game and you can see how much more work that is. I think we are seeing a backlash in DMs restricting players from taking PrCs or feats, low-magic campaigns (where it's low magic only for PCs), never playing high-level campaigns and so on, because of this.
Naeron 08-20-04, 08:12 AM	Originally posted by SilverFoxKnows using OOC knowledge IC. If you start at first... how many Fighters have even HEARD of a Blackguard? How many first level Rogues have heard of a Shadowdancer? See my point? If you're playing higher levels... sure, why not? By 5th you could have had contact with a couple Horizon Walkers and an Arcane Trickster. By 7th you might have tangled with an Assassin and now have a pretty good idea of what they can do. And there is a distinction between well read and a twink. In the past I have had players use OOC knowledge (ie. 1st level Ranger telling the 1st level Cleric to cast Cure Light on the zombies) How would Quilthar know that? He wouldn't but Dave did. Same thing goes in WoD, not just D&D. As a DM my reaction to twink players is to confront them with something that isn't in the books, then watch the smug look vanish from their face. As a player my response is "Dude, knock if off". I try to game with ROLEplayers not ROLLplayers. YMMV Frank This is a common repsonse, however it falls down on a single point. Character planning is an OOC exercise not an IC exercise. I plan my characters out very finely and I want to know what PrC's may be allowed. But that is all OOC activity because in-game my PC may not live that long or there may be a change of heart and they go down a different route. And the examples you give are all common world knowledge that even 1st level PCs should now. Someone who has grown up in a world where undead are real would know what they are. And a Cleric would certainly know that healing spells harm undead, its in the spell description after all. And Rangers get healing spells. Too many times I see DM's fall back on the argument "you're a Twink" rather than realise that PCs will know a lot about the world around them - after all the majority are literate and most PC's have chosen to become adventurers which would presume some minor interest in what adventuring actually means.
Arbitrary Aardvark 08-20-04, 01:01 PM	Originally posted by Naeron This is a common repsonse, however it falls down on a single point. Character planning is an OOC exercise not an IC exercise. I plan my characters out very finely and I want to know what PrC's may be allowed. But that is all OOC activity because in-game my PC may not live that long or there may be a change of heart and they go down a different route. Right, but we need OOC character planning because PrC's have very strict requirements. If a prestige class had as requirements +5 BAB, a couple of agile fighter feats, weapon focus in some sort of fencing weapon, and a net bonus of +9 in diplomacy, then a seventh level rogue/fighter might find that she qualified for it, or could with a little work. But PrC's have very specific requirements, for toughness, or cleave, or other specific feats. They require a certain number of ranks. If you are missing a feat, say, dodge, which is required, you just can't get in. And if you won't have that feat for a couple levels, well, you just can't get in for several levels. (It's not so bad if it's just skill ranks you're missing.) There isn't a way, in the RAW, for the leader of the order to decide that, although you are missing a particular feat, the fact that you have these other two feats, one of which is really useful in the class, the other of which is given for free in the class, and that your history shows a dedication to the ideal sof the class, means that he's willing to let you in, but you gotta learn how to dodge next chance you get. The rules don't let you do that. There are two philosophies to college admission criteria. State schools (usually), such as the University of California system have tables for each campus where you cross reference your SAT score and your GPA (possibly modified by quality of your school), and see if you are eligible to attend. (They have different tables for instate and out of state students.) This is sort of like the way prestige classes work, but the tables are available to students. They can decide to cram for the SAT, or take it a second time. Other schools (usually private schools) take a look at a lot of factors -- GPA, SAT, leadership activities, extra-ciricular activities, the current mix of the student body etc. They are willing to take some students who are academically "worse" than others in order to foster diverstity, or because those students have aspects shown in recommendations, essays, etc. which indicate that they may perform better than their GPA and SAT would indicate. The mechanism for selection here is not open and exposed to the student. All the student knows is that he or she has a better chance of getting in to, say, Cornell University, if he/she is on a debate team, volunteers for political campaigns, plays D&D, and does other things which indicate a widely developed personality and an excess capability for study. In analogy with prestige classes -- the rules follow the first mechanism. If you prevent players from evolving their characters in that direction, you better relax the requirements, or have ways for the PCs to find out in game (and when they are low enough level to take the pre-requisites) what is expected. Either that or get rid of the prestige classes all-together. In the case of the "organization" prestige classes, I like the idea that a character as low as 3rd level can join the organization as a lay member (or approach the organization, or be approached by it, for mentoring.) This is a little like seeing a guidance councelor your sophmore year of high school. The character can find out more about the organization, and be guided in his or her development. In the case of non-organizational prestige classes which probably have many members (in my campaign this would be Duelists, Mystic Theurge, Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight, and a couple of others), its pretty easy to find people who can tell you what is needed. To learn how to be an Arcane trickster, you ask your master in the thieves guild (you are a member, right) how best to combine your use of magic and theivery. Do this back when you are a rogue 2/wizard 1. To learn what is required for a Mystic Theurge, talk to someone you know, or hear about, who balances divine and arcane magic. To learn what is required to be a duelist, talk to those guys who always get into fights using rapiers down at the Rainbow Parrot Tavern. For a couple of prestige classes, such as archmage, which are typically taken at high levels, you should be able to research them. Again, the key is to figure out what the big schtick of the class is (for archmage it is the ability to bend the powers of magic), and try to find out how to prepare yourself to learn that stuff. Most prestige classes which aren't related specific organizations (and many which are) are based on some sort of paradigm which can be easily expressed, often just by the title -- Holy Liberator = holy warrior working for the cause of freedom. Duelist = person who fights duels and engages in flashy swordplay. Bladesinger = someone who masters the elven arts of swordplay and magic together. Eldritch Knight = someone who combines combat and arcane spells, a combat mage. Given those descriptions, one can decide to fill those paradigms IC. At low level (say, 3rd), you find out what you need to study to be good at those. Between 4th and 6th or 7th you fulfill the prerequisites. For example, as a future Holy Liberator, you would be a cleric/fighter (or cleric/ranger) championing the downtrodden. It would be a pretty grumpy DM who wouldn't let you take the pre-requisites then.
Tony Vargas 08-20-04, 01:11 PM	Originally posted by Kolo Originally, my concept was of a scheming and plotting powermonger who was mostly self-serving and constantly trying to be more powerful and to know more than anyone else. Mechanics wise, I felt this justified a Necromancer/Archmage combo, possibly including a few levels of loremaster as well ... This part struck me as inteeresting. That really does look like a rationalization for a Necromancer/Archmage, rather than a concept that class combo would model well. I mean, to a certain extent, the concept is just "powergamer" but from the IC side of it. Now, a good character in any game is built thus; A), a concept, and B), mechanics to fulfill that concept. Sure. Given the above concept, though, I could forgive your DM for jumping to the conclusion that you'd gone the opposite direction with that particular character... DM's don't seem to like players that know the system well because they are afraid that they may break the game with that knowledge. Furthermore, they dislike this playing style because it smacks of powergaming. But because players like me know the system so well, we know that prestige classes are a good way to define a character. And prestige classes is exactly what DM's who want to prevent powergaming do not like at all. Yeah, about that... PrCs are an optional rule. They're something a DM can pull from the DMG or a suplement to add a bit of color to his world, or, he can use the system to create unique PrCs specific to his own world. When using PrCs that way, a DM /wants/ players to take them, because they make the characters more a part of his world, instead of generic D&D characters that are just sorta visiting his world for the treasure... When used by players as a tool to get a tricky concept to work in the system (like the 3.5 'multiclass surrogate' PrCs - MT, EK, etc), PrCs become much less desireable to the DM - they just make the job of challenging the PC more complicated. When PrCs are just used as grist for powergaming - dipping a level of this and a level of that to stack up some bonuses or whatever - DMs do get an urge to just hammer the abusive player. It's such a transparent ploy, and the players get so smug about thier brilliance, that it can be quite infuriating. So, they simply hammer down on the offending players. this is not a good solution to the problem. It only begets argument and detracts from the game. It's an understandable reaction, but, you're right, it's not the best solution. The /best/ solution is for players to build to concept, and to view PrCs as part of the background of the world, and a potential way to integrate thier characters into that world more fully. The second best solution is for DMs to simply not use PrCs - either at all, or just a select few - and let that be known up front. It's a praticularly good idea, if you do use PrCs and non-core material, to state what you're using in an inclusive, positive sense. That is, make a list of the PrCs and non-core feats, weapons, spells etc that exist in your campaign world. Simply banning specific PrCs, for isntance, does two undesireable things - 1) it gets the hackles of players like Kolo up from the start - it's a challenge, you're saying "build the sickest character you can without the few PrCs I happened to notice might be a problem" 2) it leaves the floodgates open - new stuff gets published constantly, and players will come to you asking for it before you've even had a chance to review it, "can I have this," "can I be that," etc. The point of knowing the system is to enhance the game experience. Sure, we try to get the most we can out of our characters. This is perfectly acceptable and normal human behaviour. Don't let personal bias affect the game, please. In a sense, that powergaming urge /is/ a personal bias, too... Actually, there's nothing wrong with players knowing the system and nothing wrong with using the system to the fullest to best model a character concept. There are problems, though, with getting the idea that you know the system better than the DM (you may have memorized more of the published rules than the DM, and found loopholes he never even thought to look for, but the DM is the final arbiter of the rules of his campaign world - those rules may be inconsistent with the published ones, and with themselves, if the DM's not very good, but that's another issue), or that the game is a rules-bending competition between DM & player. That kind of attitude will upset many a DM, leading to arguments, problems, and arbitrarily swatted uber-characters.
SureFoot 08-20-04, 01:14 PM	This is a fascinating discussion that hits close to home for me. Let me give you all an example of my situation. It's probalby not going to add a heluva lot to the discussion; so perhaps I'm just bragging about how cool my DM is. :D In our new campaing, I began with a character concept that had two parts: 1) a kid whose father wanted him to inherrit the family business, but the kid didn't want it, so he ran away from home to be an adventurer 2) a fighter using a tripping reach weapon, using mobility rather than standing there and taking hits So, I also decided to pick a feat that would tie these together: Ancestral Relic (from BoED). His father gave him a guisarme (named Razor) that had been passed down from father to son for generations. It had been unused for much of that time (hence the latent powers that the Ancestral Relic feat would awaken) So, I got excited about who this person was, and also what he'd eventually be able to do with the right feats/skills. (I'd decided to take some rogue levels, both for RP purposes and for Tumble and UMD skills, plus Sneak Attack didn't hurt). I built a spreadsheet for his level progression--classes, feats, what powers I'd awaken with Ancestral Relic, etc. Then, I read the Complete Warriors, adn foudn the Dervish PrC. I thought that this was the PERFECT fit for the style of fighter I was trying to create. I approached my DM with it, and he said "but why would Tor (my char) become part of the Dervish culture?" We had a back and forth on the nature of Prestige classes--I thought it was too limiting to find something that fit exactly what I want, but the fluffy bits prevented me from getting it; he was saying that Prestige classes were exactly that. Finally, I reread my char's back story and realized that I'd given myself the solution: my character had an uncle who was estranged from the family, and whom my character had never met. When I brought this to my DM's attention, with the assumption that the DM could make my char's long lost uncle be in the Dervish culture and thus give me a reason for sinking my teeth into it once i met him, his response was "Now you're playing smart!" What I'm getting at is, my DM was strongly encouraging me to plan out my character, in order to make him effective in-game. However, that planning had to have some RP "roots" in order to fly. Now, I'm drooling over the prospect of having a reach-weapon wielding Dervish, as well as exploring my character's RP growth. That is all.
Arbitrary Aardvark 08-20-04, 01:15 PM	Originally posted by SilverFoxKnows using OOC knowledge IC. If you start at first... how many Fighters have even HEARD of a Blackguard? How many first level Rogues have heard of a Shadowdancer? See my point? If you're playing higher levels... sure, why not? By 5th you could have had contact with a couple Horizon Walkers and an Arcane Trickster. By 7th you might have tangled with an Assassin and now have a pretty good idea of what they can do. Frank First off, in my opinion a DM shouldn't force people to delay entering a PrC beyond the level at which they make the prerequisites. Assassin only requires one to be 6th level, so if I knew a player was interested in playing one, I would make sure that hir PC was offered the opportunity to find out about them before that level. Since the only requirements are skills, most of which any good rogue would have anyway, as long as the PC knows the requirements by 4th level they can fulfill them when they make 5th by taking any missing ranks. At 1st level you should know that some people kill for money. By 3rd level you've heard of the assassins (whether they are a strange cult, part of the thieves guild, a different guild, or what.) By 4th, you know what the prerequisites are. By 5th you can have conducted your initiatory slaying. For arcane trickster, the pre-requisites are pretty simple. They can be made by a Rogue 3/Wizard 5. The tricky ones are the requirement to cast "mage hand", and the levels in "escape artist" and "decipher script", both of which are skills that not all wizards or rogues take. On the other hand, the concept, that of a roguish wizard, or wizardish rogue, is pretty darn cannonical. (However, if you build it using pure multiclassing, its also very weak.) As a DM, you could decide that the theives guild will train those members who show an aptitude for the use of magic combined with theivery. You can justify the requirements for the skills by that being the way they've always been taught. (Especially, in my mind, escape artist). Mage hand is obvious, since it is familiarity with this spell which gives one the ability to use some of the class abilities. The other possibility, especially if your campaign doesn't have a theives guild, is to just tell the player what the pre-requisites are (especially the skill ones). Look, its just a game. These are the requirements, just like you need an INT of 14 to cast 4th level wizard spells. I've even made a modified version of the class called the "divine trickster", which requires 3rd level divine spells, and the Trickery Domain rather than Mage Hand.
danielinthewolvesden 08-20-04, 05:32 PM	Originally posted by Naeron This is a common repsonse, however it falls down on a single point. Character planning is an OOC exercise not an IC exercise. I plan my characters out very finely and I want to know what PrC's may be allowed. But that is all OOC activity because in-game my PC may not live that long or there may be a change of heart and they go down a different route. Well, yes they might. But that doesn't make it OOC. I mean- I picked my classes in High School and my major in College to aim at a particular career (which I never entered). I don't know what would be wrong about a fighter striving to become a Knight and going for training & skills that would qualify him.
TheLightIsDead 08-20-04, 06:24 PM	*note: below is MY OPINION ONLY i.e. no flames* To be honest i think that DM's who are that worried about the "power balance between the NPC's and the PC's just arent putting enough work into their game. I agree with the third poster in this thread, if you are worried about one PC getting out of hand, DONT attack him with things that he will be strong against (i.e. dont attack a radient servant of Pelor with hordes of undead.) If your DM has such a problem with your caster character, he should simply have a few VOP monks with antimagic field cast upon them attack the party. In My Opinion any smart DM can EASILY destroy any party with a CR monster = to their level (with the exception of any characters that come of the min max board , hulking hurler anyone?
devinmdp 08-20-04, 06:30 PM	Originally posted by TheLightIsDead *note: below is MY OPINION ONLY i.e. no flames* To be honest i think that DM's who are that worried about the "power balance between the NPC's and the PC's just arent putting enough work into their game. I agree with the third poster in this thread, if you are worried about one PC getting out of hand, DONT attack him with things that he will be strong against (i.e. dont attack a radient servant of Pelor with hordes of undead.) If your DM has such a problem with your caster character, he should simply have a few VOP monks with antimagic field cast upon them attack the party. In My Opinion any smart DM can EASILY destroy any party with a CR monster = to their level (with the exception of any characters that come of the min max board , hulking hurler anyone? In addition, who says you have to abide by CR. If your PCs are all level 10 and are wiping the ground with CR 10 encounters, then throw a CR 11 at them. Then a CR 12. Eventually, by definition, you will arrive at encounters that eventually challenge them. Devin
Kolo 08-21-04, 08:35 PM	A fantastic response, so far. now then... @Cymraegmorgan; You must have some odd DMs. I have DMed and played since first edition, and would have never thought to question a player who was planning her character's future. That smacks of control issues and lazy game planning on the DMs part. Fresh young PCs always have detailed plans for their future. Whether the world cooperates is another kettle o' fish. I find that a good and sensible attitude to have. Why should the strapping young lads and lasses who believe the world is theirs for the taking be different from ours just because they are in a fantasy world? :D @FitzNighteyes; Okay, maybe I'm not quite that strict, but if all the key concepts of your character concept are the class or class abilities, then there may be a problem. This breaks down the most with Divine spellcasting of course, since Clerics are the only core class that is a powerful god given spellcaster (and Druids nature given). But a "priest" can be a multiclass Cleric, a devout monk, or any class really (depending on your God's portfolio). As far as the class-based system allows, that is. See, with a system like that, the class abilities become much more of a defining point of a character; to get ability A, which would really fit your concept of a character, you must have taken a few levels of class B, which in turn has it's own flavor attached... Fortunately, both the large amount of feats and the multiclassing system lets one blur those lines into near invisibility. Like alignment, they're just guidelines. But the lines are still pretty clear in most cases. (except for the bard. I love the bards for being so flexible. :) ) @SilverFoxKnows using OOC knowledge IC. If you start at first... how many Fighters have even HEARD of a Blackguard? How many first level Rogues have heard of a Shadowdancer? See my point? If you're playing higher levels... sure, why not? By 5th you could have had contact with a couple Horizon Walkers and an Arcane Trickster. By 7th you might have tangled with an Assassin and now have a pretty good idea of what they can do. I'd assume that the adventurers of any given campaign world would know about blackguards and assassins in the same way we know about Navy Seals and Shaolin monks- stories, hearsay, actual contact and so forth. Some adventurous souls would venture to find out more, and maybe even assume the roles themselves. And there is a distinction between well read and a twink. In the past I have had players use OOC knowledge (ie. 1st level Ranger telling the 1st level Cleric to cast Cure Light on the zombies) How would Quilthar know that? He wouldn't but Dave did. Same thing goes in WoD, not just D&D. As a DM my reaction to twink players is to confront them with something that isn't in the books, then watch the smug look vanish from their face. As a player my response is "Dude, knock if off". I try to game with ROLEplayers not ROLLplayers. YMMV That sort of OOC knowledge is different from the OOC process of planning a character so that you won't have to be stuck with a concept you can't fulfill, as I believe Naeron pointed out. (And I'd only assume a character of mine would know this if A) undead were my favoured enemy, B) I had encountered them before and seen it work, C) had some ranks in knowledge;Religion or Knowledge;Arcana or D) It was somehow tied in with my background.) @Devinmdp; Second, there is nothing inherently wrong with planning. Think about it in real life. While it is true some people are aimless and don't know what they want to do in life, a great many others, especially the exceptional people who stand out from the crowd (i.e. heroes) often have a long term goal. ...There is nothing wrong with a bright young teenager in a D&D world who has been raised on tales of famous wizards and archmages to want to one day become one himself... ...The problem to this approach is that it still allows someone to back into a clearly mini-maxing munchkin PC. The original concept itself is what needs to be non-powergamer....not the actual character design. Excellent points. I for one think that it's perfectly reasonable for a character to have an ambition and then mechanically realize that concept to show their progress. O'course, this does not equate with actual character happiness, offering excellent chances for RP...;) But it does allow for a min-maxing perspective. As long as it doesn't cross into powergaming (i.e. "My character is better than yours, nyah nyah" syndrome) I see nothing particularly wrong with it. I don't like players who spend their time making Excel spreadsheets to calculate the absolute maximum amount of damage the Power Attack feat can cause, but I don't mind a player who knows that Power Attack is more useful if you wield a two-handed weapon and uses this to enhance his concept (A blunt and gruff no-nonsense dwarfen fighter who cares about the resulting damage and none of this sissy "defense" stuff, for instance). Min/maxing is can be well described as getting what you want out of the mechanics to realize the concept of a powerful hero, while powergaming is more of a competitor sport. Then there are those that more or less don't care to min/max and find it derisive, but I say that it's more fun to have a strength to capitalize on when roleplaying a hero (or a villain). I don't mind a good, solid weakness to go with it, but this is a game of heroic roleplaying... @Mitchell; Who said we were polite? Somebody's got some explaining to do! Nah, don't wanna. :P Let's face it. There isn't much prestige in the class when everybody and their crippled brother can join because they want to. It puts more work on the DM, but that is the nature of the classes. Most classes would, indeed, need an initiation. There are some classes that don't really have a coherent organization or are actually focused on individual study and achievement, but for PrC's like Mage of the Arcane Order or Red Wizard there are definetly some pretty stiff regulations and rules coming with the class. As for archmage and loremaster, well, that depends on the campaign. (I'm not gonna be the one to tell the powerful wizard he can't be an archmage, and Loremasters are really just scholars plus.) I do agree that PrC's most often need a hook to go with them, but not all and only if the DM enforces it- as he likely should. @Ithilorien; So in order to become a Mystic Theurge in this DM's campaign you have to just wake up one morning and say "gee, I think I'll become a Mystic Theurge today, it's a good thing I've magically manages to meet the requirements!" I don't particularly remember there being an organization associated with the MT at all, and being a sort of "lone working scholar" class, I assume that anyone with a predilection for hard study of magic and no care for the loss of Turning and so forth could qualify. But that depends on the DM, and he obviously agrees (or at least has other reasons) that the class really doesn't need initiation into some mystical order. Besides, what would that order be like, considering that MT's can worship any god at all? PrCs have lots of prerequisites, usually to represent a character who is in game training and accumulating skills which will culminate in them gaining the abilities of that PrC. In order to get into most PrCs you have to preplan, in and out of character. Do any other player's in your groups have PrCs? Yes and yes. One of the players is progressing neatly into an Exalted PrC (from the book of exalted deeds, I believe it's the Slayer of Kharash or some such), and another is planning to become a Kensai. Of the two, I feel that the first would most definetly have an organization attached, while the other might or might not involve some training with another Kensai depending on the character, though I understand that it's a fairly loose-knit group with few responsibilities. And yes, I helped the Rogue/Slayer player to plan his character. Someone is bound to ask this one... @bitnine; Bah, someone beat me to the punch. In many cases, PrC requirements all but require at least a slight measure of preplanning. Knowing that you need 8 ranks in bowcrafting instead of skill focus bowcrafting for an archery PrC (or vice versa), for example. Which is why character planning is a slightly OOC thing, even though the actual journey is in-game. Preplanning is quite fine. @Nimrud; I feel your pain. I really hate it when the DM says "there's always somebody better than you", and then use some lame overpowered NPC to beat up on you. At least in your case you know how the NPC stomped you: That was basically a powered up mirror of opposition encounter. When my DM does that to me, she doesn't even bother to stat up the NPC. The NPC just does incredible stuff that don't even have game mechanics to them. "Oh it's a weird spell you don't recognise." (after a spellcraft check of 34) And all my spells fail for no reason. I've had that too. I hate it when it's obvious you're not being given any options or even a fair chance. :( I think the real problem is that a well-prepared PC can easily screw up a DM's storyline and trash hours of preparation. While that has always been possible in any RPG, D&D v3.x has made it worse, with all the possibilities and options it has given players. While it is fun for players, it's a nightmare for the DM. DMs have always had to prepare a lot more than players. In the old days when I used to play 1st ed, players just turned up with their character sheets. Even then a DM had to spend hours to plan the game. These days, players spend hours preparing their characters. This means DMs have to spend a lot more time preparing NPCs and encounters to take into account the player's abilities. Multiply that by the number of players in the game and you can see how much more work that is. It's not just the well-prepared PC. PC's can screw up campaigns in many wonderful ways just through sheer stubborness and dumb luck. Or just plain dumb.;) But it is a lot of work to prepare adventures, that is true. The variables are just so many more than they used to be, which sort of leads to one of my original points; Many DM's don't like these variables, and so stomp on those that use them. Which just sucks. I think we are seeing a backlash in DMs restricting players from taking PrCs or feats, low-magic campaigns (where it's low magic only for PCs), never playing high-level campaigns and so on, because of this. I notice this trend as well. I personally think it's mostly because the whole system just explodes exponentially upwards in power for certain classes at or around level 10 (notably the Cleric, Druid and Wizard), and this sort of huge powerleap frankly intimidates even the players. @Naeron; I need not quote. I agree completely. :) @ Arbitrary Aardvark; Your first post I, again, completely agree with. (Damn, twice in a row. My debating muscle must be getting limp...) As for your second post; First off, in my opinion a DM shouldn't force people to delay entering a PrC beyond the level at which they make the prerequisites. Assassin only requires one to be 6th level, so if I knew a player was interested in playing one, I would make sure that hir PC was offered the opportunity to find out about them before that level. Since the only requirements are skills, most of which any good rogue would have anyway, as long as the PC knows the requirements by 4th level they can fulfill them when they make 5th by taking any missing ranks. Ahh, the peaceful and harmonious interaction of player and DM. Much better than this detestable PvP trend, which has no home on tabletop. @Tony Vargas; This part struck me as inteeresting. That really does look like a rationalization for a Necromancer/Archmage, rather than a concept that class combo would model well. I mean, to a certain extent, the concept is just "powergamer" but from the IC side of it. That's possible with many simple and flexible concepts. "I'm a holy warrior who is filled with the urge to quest in the name of my god!" is a simple and fun concept, allows for evolution and growth, and SCREAMS Paladin, but can as easily be a devout monk or a cleric. So would "An outgoing sportsmanslike dwarfen cleric whose first love is contests of strength and second love is to do battle with those of no honor" be a cleric with two domains I think you can imagine what are. Much more detailed, yet I must ask the question; As an intellectual exercise, which one do you think is the powergamer? :) For me, concept always comes first. It's even listed as being first in the character creation rules, after all. But not all concepts need be overly complex or detailed. That's what character background is for. Sure. Given the above concept, though, I could forgive your DM for jumping to the conclusion that you'd gone the opposite direction with that particular character... Again, many concepts can be construed both ways. It's not my fault a DM decides arbitrarily that I'm a powergamer just because I have a simple concept. Yeah, about that... PrCs are an optional rule. They're something a DM can pull from the DMG or a suplement to add a bit of color to his world, or, he can use the system to create unique PrCs specific to his own world. When using PrCs that way, a DM /wants/ players to take them, because they make the characters more a part of his world, instead of generic D&D characters that are just sorta visiting his world for the treasure... Newsflash; Some DM's like PrC's flavours in their campaign setting, but still dislike player characters entering them. Any DM likes to throw an assassin at the group, but not all of those DMs like their players to be assassins. But, since the PrC is there, the option to take it is open- and if it isn't, that's unfair to the players. When used by players as a tool to get a tricky concept to work in the system (like the 3.5 'multiclass surrogate' PrCs - MT, EK, etc), PrCs become much less desireable to the DM - they just make the job of challenging the PC more complicated. When PrCs are just used as grist for powergaming - dipping a level of this and a level of that to stack up some bonuses or whatever - DMs do get an urge to just hammer the abusive player. It's such a transparent ploy, and the players get so smug about thier brilliance, that it can be quite infuriating. I dislike "dipping", unless there is a thematic component common to both classes and the organizations don't clash. I can see a Fighter/Kensai/Dervish, no problem- none of the classes clash, and work thematically well together. But when you get builds with 6+ PrC's, often with conflicting organizations and alignments, well, that just is a line that shouldn't be crossed (and should be rather easily stopped by any DM worth his salt). Besides, from my experience with seeing the MT in play, I must say that the only annoying thing about them is how many different spells they can pull out of their a..rmpits. (had you there :)) They have a lot more problems overcoming spell resistance under most circumstances than their straight-class counterparts, and the save DC's are invariably lower. It's an understandable reaction, but, you're right, it's not the best solution. The /best/ solution is for players to build to concept, and to view PrCs as part of the background of the world, and a potential way to integrate thier characters into that world more fully. The second best solution is for DMs to simply not use PrCs - either at all, or just a select few - and let that be known up front. It's a praticularly good idea, if you do use PrCs and non-core material, to state what you're using in an inclusive, positive sense. That is, make a list of the PrCs and non-core feats, weapons, spells etc that exist in your campaign world. Simply banning specific PrCs, for isntance, does two undesireable things - 1) it gets the hackles of players like Kolo up from the start - it's a challenge, you're saying "build the sickest character you can without the few PrCs I happened to notice might be a problem" 2) it leaves the floodgates open - new stuff gets published constantly, and players will come to you asking for it before you've even had a chance to review it, "can I have this," "can I be that," etc. I'll ignore that insult for now (though I have to say that there are fewer things in roleplaying that annoy me more than DM VS PLAYER attitudes. I detest them, from either side of the equation.) I agree with your first paragraph (though if you look at Arbitrary Aardvark's first post, you'll see my general feeling as to how much work it is to qualify for the MT and other "non-organizational" PrC's). As for your second, no it does not raise my hackles as long as it's up-front and made clear from the start- and it was quite clear from the beginning that all the PrC's I had considered were perfectly allowable in the campaign, even if my favorite arcane spells of Knock and Tenser's Transformation were disallowed/limited. I am perfectly fine with that, and I understood his reasoning. (Heck, Divine Power and Righteous Might, two game-breaking Divine spells, have also been removed from the cleric list and noone minded except the St' Cuthbert-loving player who precipitated my alignment change with that cudgel of his.) The second point, though, is a good one- the sheer mass of new information that can overwhelm the DM. I find it best to ask the DM a few days before the next game, so as to give him time to decide wether a given feat/spell/PrC is appropriate. In a sense, that powergaming urge /is/ a personal bias, too... NOT powergaming. Entirely different term, even if related. Powergaming has no redeeming qualities at all unless the entire campaign is explicitly focused on it, and even then I don't like it. Min/Maxing =! Powergaming. Actually, there's nothing wrong with players knowing the system and nothing wrong with using the system to the fullest to best model a character concept. There are problems, though, with getting the idea that you know the system better than the DM (you may have memorized more of the published rules than the DM, and found loopholes he never even thought to look for, but the DM is the final arbiter of the rules of his campaign world - those rules may be inconsistent with the published ones, and with themselves, if the DM's not very good, but that's another issue), or that the game is a rules-bending competition between DM & player. That kind of attitude will upset many a DM, leading to arguments, problems, and arbitrarily swatted uber-characters. See, Using the system to the fullest to best model a character concept is Min/Maxing, but it is not powergaming. Min/Maxing is a tool; powergaming is a play style that uses that tool to the extremes of good taste and durability. I'm not actually assuming I know the rules better; I do know many of them better. I don't know how many times he has asked me on the exact specifics of a trip attack, or what modifiers apply when grappling, or the specifics of magic items/feats/class abilities... (He does know spellcasting, counterspelling, spell-like abilities and the rules for monsters to a T. The rest will come with experience; I've been playing somewhat longer than he has been DMing.) BUT, I always make a point of letting the DM know about loopholes and such, and let him make the decision on what to do about them. I do not condone or like silly adversarial munhkinism contest between players and DM's; all I want is for the game to run smoothly and in an entertaining manner. @TheLightIsDead; No need to quote really... There is, indeed, easy ways to challenge pretty much every concept. Except the Hulking Hurler, which remains true to it's name by making me hurl.
Remnant 08-21-04, 11:31 PM	As a DM, I've felt the frustration of players who wish to make a convoluted mess of a character designed to mechanically dominate some aspect of the game. And when I say dominate, I do not mean "seek to excel in", I mean "will, given all challenges covered in the aspect, be completely peerless within reasonable level/CR bounds". That said, everyone plans out a character. Nobody with any idea what they are doing can be completely arbitrary without intending to be arbitrary. The necromancer/archmage and necromancer/cleric/MT combinations are far from unreasonable, do not involve true level dipping or insane class combinations. I let players know what PrCs, races, feats, and what-have-you will be available up front. I allow a single PrC, roleplayed fully, though if a player takes a 3 level lower power PrC and then wants to take a 10 level character defining PrC I am open to the suggestion. (Though, if they screw with me and turn around and want to level dip in said PrC I get pretty irate- only happened once though. I stripped the PrC level and let them take a replacement core class level.) I don't feel I'm very stringent, (save for specific instances, i.e., no oriental style characters in my all norse based campaign, etc.), but even so I've had the occasional player that has to abuse the crap out of the rules, which does make me wary and make me want to come down hard on them. If it gets too bad, there's always the fallback- "Your call, door's to the left."
RogerWilco 08-22-04, 10:44 AM	Pfff, what a lot of long answers, well I suppose you get that with a thread like this. I hven't read everything, but here's my 2 xp: - Compared to second edition in 3(.5) edition a lot of stuff has PREREQUISITES, forcing you to plan ahead to stay compettitive. If you character is an archer, then Manyshot might be a good feat, but you'll have to plan to get it. In 2nd edition virtualy nothing had prerequisites, and therefore very little planning was necessary. Maybe you DM can see that point to, and more easily understand why people plan in 3(.5). Next to that players are more focussed on progression/gain while the DM is more focussed on status quo. Have him play a sorcerer for a while, wile you DM.