Post/Author/DateTime	Post
dndfencer 09-21-07, 10:44 PM	One thing that I've found a lot on boards is that some DMs just cannot stand characters that are powerful. This pisses me off. Any powerful character will always have a weakness. 13th level tanks that deal over 200 a round (which is perfectly possible without pun pun) inevitably have poor acs and low HP. Also, the DM should not penalise a player simply because he has found a legal way to make his build powerful. The player has been smart and the DM should be equally smart in both countering and using this player's power. If a DM feels a player deals to much damage he should set up an ambush to take away some of that players hit points (hopefully without making the player feel that the DM is out to get him) so that in the rest of the encounters that day the player has to pull back a bit and use caution or risk death. I once had a psion who could teleport like crazy and deal some pretty serious damage so the DM set up encounters where we had to roleplay and encounters where our magic is limited. Thus, he negated my crazy teleportation and damaging abilities. However, I've also got to say that it is pretty stupid to make a crazily powerful build that relies upon dubious or unagreed upon interpretation of the rules because then the DM is perfectly within his rights to simply say that the player is cheating and must rebuild or reform his character. But, unless the player is using dubious interpretation he should not be penalised. Also, other players complaining about other characters being to powerful is annoying because often it only seems this way because their characters simply haven't had a chance to shine yet or they didn't build their own characters intelligently. I mean really, some things work and others really just don't and if you really want that concept you should just find something similiar and edit flavor text. For example, if you want a bolt wielding wizard and can't find any good bolt spells then just use a ray spell and have the visuals be that of a bolt. Really, the names and texts are just there to help, they don't define a class or prestige class narrowly in terms of role playing them (a navy commander build could use the dread pirate prestige class but just change the name and 'identity' of the prestige class). So DMs, please embrace your powerful pcs so that if a time comes when the party needs that kind of person so you can throw an interesting challenge at them, you'll have them. Otherwise you end up with an assortment of interesting characters who have to be baby fed each encounter so they can survive. In fact, encourage players to build intelligently.
Suzu 09-21-07, 11:08 PM	13th level tanks that deal over 200 a round (which is perfectly possible without pun pun) inevitably have poor acs and low HP. What? Who?
Lormador 09-21-07, 11:09 PM	You make it sound as though DMs would dislike a character simply because he is powerful, but I don't think this tells the whole story. A more honest description of the problem would be a player who chooses a particular combination of race, class, feats, skills, equipment, etc for the SOLE PURPOSE of being powerful in game terms, regardless of how tacky, tasteless, or nonsensical these choices are from a roleplaying standpoint. If a character is powerful and completely coherent from a story perspective there should be no problem. I say this because it is preposterous that there could be even the slightest hint of difficulty for a skilled DM to challenge a player character, no matter how high and mighty in game terms a player character might be. They are numbers. Add something to the numbers. The result is a more powerful being that can now challenge the mighty PC. And this is absolutely fair, because the game wouldn't be fun if the player just breezed through the encounters. The jealousy of other players, now, is a very serious issue and there are only a few answers to it. The imbalance typically results from a lack of education among the new players, who didn't know how to optimize their characters properly. The experienced player should help them, along with the DM, come up with builds that work and teach them how to do this without being condescending. Help that half-elf barbarian with ranks in Profession: Cook learn about taking heavy fighter ranks and entering Frenzied Berserker. Remind the gnomish druid about Natural Spell. Encourage the Warlock to.... well, not play a Warlock!!!!
archerpwr 09-21-07, 11:50 PM	The easiest way to make a DM like powerful characters is to convince the DM to run a commoner only campaign. After the third party wipe the DM will start asking if the players are ready for the overpowered base classes.
Ongorth 09-22-07, 12:02 AM	I think of the point that is often missed is that the game of D&D runs best when you have a balance point that everyone is playing at. When a minority of people are playing at a drastically different power level, it messes things up. Its also annoying when you can't use modules, CR ratings or sample NPCs because the characters are so powerful (or, so weak) that they aren't relevant. You can't just ramp up CRs, because this creates false solution expectations and lots of reverse paper tiger battles, neither of which really very fun. Playing a powerful character is cool, but as a player its your responsibility to make sure you're playing at the same power level as everyone else.
albinomonkeyking 09-22-07, 01:52 AM	You make it sound as though DMs would dislike a character simply because he is powerful, but I don't think this tells the whole story. A more honest description of the problem would be a player who chooses a particular combination of race, class, feats, skills, equipment, etc for the SOLE PURPOSE of being powerful in game terms, regardless of how tacky, tasteless, or nonsensical these choices are from a roleplaying standpoint. If a character is powerful and completely coherent from a story perspective there should be no problem. I say this because it is preposterous that there could be even the slightest hint of difficulty for a skilled DM to challenge a player character, no matter how high and mighty in game terms a player character might be. They are numbers. Add something to the numbers. The result is a more powerful being that can now challenge the mighty PC. And this is absolutely fair, because the game wouldn't be fun if the player just breezed through the encounters. The jealousy of other players, now, is a very serious issue and there are only a few answers to it. The imbalance typically results from a lack of education among the new players, who didn't know how to optimize their characters properly. The experienced player should help them, along with the DM, come up with builds that work and teach them how to do this without being condescending. Help that half-elf barbarian with ranks in Profession: Cook learn about taking heavy fighter ranks and entering Frenzied Berserker. Remind the gnomish druid about Natural Spell. Encourage the Warlock to.... well, not play a Warlock!!!! So much truth it hurts. The fact is I don't care how strong my players are as long as they are all going to have fun. Well, sort of. If they are all optimized to a degree where it becomes frustrating then I talk to them. Aside from that it's all about balance.
Tunllaw 09-22-07, 01:58 AM	Having only one super powered character in the party is annoying because what do you do? If you ramp up the CR then the rest of the party feels underpowered and if you keep it the same he feels overpowered, brags and makes everyone feel worse. Only problem I have with power gamers is their ego, my advise would be to ramp up the roleplaying element and give the other players a chance to be in the spotlight while the powergamer gets left in the "hulk smash" aspect in the game.
Crimson_Concerto 09-22-07, 02:02 AM	You misunderstand the problem of overpowered characters. Echoing what others have said, the problem doesn't come from powerful characters. The problem comes from players who build their characters specifically to be powerful and characters who are so off the power curve of the party that presenting a challenge to the rest of the party means the powerful character wipes the floor with it or presenting a challenge to the powerful character means the rest of the party stands no chance. Thus, you see, it's not about being overpowered. It's about (A) being powerful at the expense of any kind of logical role-playing, and (B) being completely out of sync power-wise with the rest of the party, which causes challenge rating and encounter level difficulties. Also, it should be stated that just because a character plays something that has a weakness doesn't mean that the DM wants to use monsters who exploit that weakness if said monster makes no sense to incorporate into the game. There's no sense creating an encounter purely to challenge a specific player; it's a waste of time, and if it needs to be done to keep the player in check, then the player needs to tone down his power level, because it's costing valuable game time and DM effort that could be put to much better use, like developing the story or otherwise enhancing the game and making it more fun, and that's really the bottom line, isn't it?
shadzar 09-22-07, 03:50 AM	if one character if more powerful than others then it becomes a problem. either by fault of the players or DM. most often refered to as a problem by the single player with the powerful character. this due to the fact the other players may not wish to powergame, or they brought in a character that didnt fit. which would be also partially the fault of the DM for allowing either to happen. a too powerful character can be hard to desing for that will challenge the single power charactere, and the rest of the party. thus causing a problem in the group.
Drag0nUL 09-22-07, 06:16 AM	I think there are quite a few circumstances that would make a DM hate a powerful character: 1. This character is way over the average power level of the rest of the party. This is a potentially game-breaking situation, since it becomes almost impossible to challenge both him and the rest of the party in the same encounter without seeming you are targeting that player on purpose(not that I mind when that happens, but some do). In this case the DM and the player should have an out of game talk. It usually works. 2. The DM is to inexperienced at dealing with powerful characters. Challenging an optimized party requires playing smart, but many less experienced DMs, who consider the CR system to be letter of the law would just panic when they see that the party mops the floor with the appropriate CRs from MM1 (which are really unoptimized by the way) and respond by increasing the CR. This is a bad idea. More powerful monsters means more/better items, therefore the party would get stronger, which means that they would have an even easier time with the enemies, so the DM will throw even more powerful creatures at them and the loop goes on until TPK. A 10th level druid may be much better tank than a 15th level fighter (fighter is the default melee class Wizards assumes you would use), but for effects like Holy Word/Blasphemy he is still a 10 HD creature. Sometimes using 1 smart Balor is better than 2 dumb ones. I for one can understand some people's frustration about others' characters. Let's say guy A wants to play a fighter. He intends to be the party frontline. It is normal to be frustrated if guy B's Cleric/Druid does this job better while still being able to fulfill a multitude of other tasks. Still, the hate goes in the wrong direction. Why hate the guy who plays a good class? If you really have to hate someone, hate the guys who made the fighter so underpowered. Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate playing only the most powerful classes (though the most powerful party I have ever played in looked like 1 Druid, 1 Cleric, 1 Warblade, 1 Wizard, and 1 Rogue/Wizard). But when you play a less powerful class, be aware that it is a suboptimal choice and live with it.
Sunic_Flames 09-22-07, 10:36 AM	CRs are based on 25 PB single classed core only characters who are played tactically inept. Even if you do play 25 PB single classed core only characters, chances are your players are not complete morons. Even if they were, CR is about 70% accurate from 1-10 and less after this (11-20 was tested much less). It takes nothing special to throw off CR. Furthermore, sample NPCs are almost always a joke as not only are they extremely weak for their CR (and therefore, better targets for getting rich than dragons by far due to having as much or more wealth but being considerably easier to defeat) but they are often illegal by the rules and not valid anyways. Also, 'tank' is not the right word for someone with low AC and HP, no matter how much damage they do. Glass cannon is the word you want. Anyways, it's a matter of relativity. If the game is like... half orc bards, even a fighter 20 is going to be overpowered by comparison. If the rest of the group looks like fighter rogue healbot cleric (not saying clerics are healbots, just that this one is) then bringing in a natural spell druid in the form of a battlebriar with his fleshraker companion optimized and venomfired etc is going to be way over the top. If his teammates are going for super strong characters as well then the main issue is optimizing their opposition.
Drag0nUL 09-22-07, 10:46 AM	CRs are based on 25 PB single classed core only characters who are played tactically inept. Even if you do play 25 PB single classed core only characters, chances are your players are not complete morons. Even if they were, CR is about 70% accurate from 1-10 and less after this (11-20 was tested much less). It takes nothing special to throw off CR. Furthermore, sample NPCs are almost always a joke as not only are they extremely weak for their CR (and therefore, better targets for getting rich than dragons by far due to having as much or more wealth but being considerably easier to defeat) but they are often illegal by the rules and not valid anyways. Also, 'tank' is not the right word for someone with low AC and HP, no matter how much damage they do. Glass cannon is the word you want. Anyways, it's a matter of relativity. If the game is like... half orc bards, even a fighter 20 is going to be overpowered by comparison. If the rest of the group looks like fighter rogue healbot cleric (not saying clerics are healbots, just that this one is) then bringing in a natural spell druid in the form of a battlebriar with his fleshraker companion optimized and venomfired etc is going to be way over the top. If his teammates are going for super strong characters as well then the main issue is optimizing their opposition. Very true. As both a player and a DM I have seen quite a number of times how changing a few feats and skills for a monster can turn what seemed to be a walk in the park into a challenging encounter. And if by your 'tank' comment you are referring to the druid, I have to say you are wrong. Just try a dwarf druid, 32 pointbuy, 18 Con&Wis, 8 in all others. At level 10 he can wildshape into a Dire lion for a base AC of 15. Add: Breastplate +2 with wilding clasp for +7 AC,gloves of dex +2 with wilding clasp for +1 dex, Ring of Protection +2 and Bite of the wereboar for +8 natural armor and Stoneskin. This gives the druid an AC of 33, DR 10/adamantine for the first 100 damage received and a total of 95 hp (or 115 if he uses bear's endurance). Pretty decent for a level 10 character. And I think you can wildshape into forms with higher AC; lion was just a quick pick.
Sunic_Flames 09-22-07, 11:46 AM	My comment was directed at the OP. 13th level tanks that deal over 200 a round (which is perfectly possible without pun pun) inevitably have poor acs and low HP.
Drag0nUL 09-22-07, 12:19 PM	My comment was directed at the OP. Sorry then. I misunderstood that part of your post:)
wonlee76 09-22-07, 12:55 PM	And if by your 'tank' comment you are referring to the druid, I have to say you are wrong. Just try a dwarf druid, 32 pointbuy, 18 Con&Wis, 8 in all others. At level 10 he can wildshape into a Dire lion for a base AC of 15. Add: Breastplate +2 with wilding clasp for +7 AC,gloves of dex +2 with wilding clasp for +1 dex, Ring of Protection +2 and Bite of the wereboar for +8 natural armor and Stoneskin. This gives the druid an AC of 33, DR 10/adamantine for the first 100 damage received and a total of 95 hp (or 115 if he uses bear's endurance). Pretty decent for a level 10 character. And I think you can wildshape into forms with higher AC; lion was just a quick pick. Just as an aside, I don't think the wilding clasp works for armor. And if it does, that's pretty darn cheesy when you got Beastskin armor enhancement or Wilding Armor enhancement which costs a bit more than the price of a wilding clasp.
Lormador 09-22-07, 05:25 PM	AC 33? A barb/fighter/frenzied berserker can hit that in a walk by level 10 with 32 point buy, 18 Str to start, 20(22) by 10th level, rage+frenzy, weapon focus and a +1 adamant weapon for +23/+23/+18/+13, average damage without critical hits is 29.375 from the Greataxe. Monsters of that CR sure have a hard time connecting though. I thought the best high AC build was the monk 2/ psychic warrior X with Vow of Poverty? That guy can only be feasibly hit by dragons and the Tarrasque in MM1!
Drag0nUL 09-22-07, 06:18 PM	AC 33? A barb/fighter/frenzied berserker can hit that in a walk by level 10 with 32 point buy, 18 Str to start, 20(22) by 10th level, rage+frenzy, weapon focus and a +1 adamant weapon for +23/+23/+18/+13, average damage without critical hits is 29.375 from the Greataxe. Monsters of that CR sure have a hard time connecting though. I thought the best high AC build was the monk 2/ psychic warrior X with Vow of Poverty? That guy can only be feasibly hit by dragons and the Tarrasque in MM1! It would be stupid to go into melee with a build that was specifically designed for such a thing. This guy was built to tank the average CR 10 encounter. for annihilating the said barbarian more appropriate would be something along the lines of enveloping cocoon+baleful polymorph, meaning Reflex save DC 21-23(depending on the druid's items) or become a cute little puppy. And btw. at level 10 you would have only 3 attacks in frenzy, not 4. The highest AC build I have ever created(for a level 20 1v1 duel against a melee powerhouse) was dwarf Monk 1/Druid 19. Shapechange into pit Fiend, bite of the wereboar and use wilding clasp on: Gloves of Dex +6, Bracers of armor +8, ring of protection +5, Periapt of wisdom +6 and an animated tower shield +5 this put my total AC at 86 (10-1 size+31 natural+11 Dex+8 armor+9 shield+12 wisdom+5 deflection+1 inherent). I could have added +5 defending shield spikes, Dodge and Combat expertise(didn't from cash/build reasons) I could have brought the AC to 97. Still, I think that If you bring Fist of the forest, Deepwarden and Drunken master in the mix you could go over 100 AC (I have seen such builds on the CO boards; can't remember the figures but pretty impressive). And yes, checked and wilding clasps work on any item 'worn on the body'.
Vanraya 09-22-07, 06:51 PM	...This pisses me off. Any powerful character will always have a weakness. 13th level tanks that deal over 200 a round (which is perfectly possible without pun pun) inevitably have poor acs and low HP. Also, the DM should not penalise a player simply because he has found a legal way to make his build powerful. The player has been smart and the DM should be equally smart in both countering and using this player's power. If a DM feels a player deals to much damage he should set up an ambush to take away some of that players hit points (hopefully without making the player feel that the DM is out to get him) so that in the rest of the encounters that day the player has to pull back a bit and use caution or risk death. I once had a psion who could teleport like crazy and deal some pretty serious damage so the DM set up encounters where we had to roleplay and encounters where our magic is limited. Thus, he negated my crazy teleportation and damaging abilities. I guess I'm not seeing the difference in exploiting the tank's HP and AC weakness and exploiting your dependance on teleportation.
navar100 09-22-07, 07:17 PM	Encourage the Warlock to.... well, not play a Warlock!!!! Ahem. I'm quite powerful enough deceiving magic items, blasting opponents from the air, and +22 Diplomacy, thank you very much.
navar100 09-22-07, 07:19 PM	Anyway, I agree with OP. I especially hate it when a DM loathes a 1st level character who just happens to have an 18. If you can't deal with a 1st level chaarcter with an 18, you shouldn't be a DM.
Mock26 09-22-07, 08:21 PM	One thing that I've found a lot on boards is that some DMs just cannot stand characters that are powerful. This pisses me off. Any powerful character will always have a weakness. 13th level tanks that deal over 200 a round (which is perfectly possible without pun pun) inevitably have poor acs and low HP. Also, the DM should not penalise a player simply because he has found a legal way to make his build powerful. The player has been smart and the DM should be equally smart in both countering and using this player's power. If a DM feels a player deals to much damage he should set up an ambush to take away some of that players hit points (hopefully without making the player feel that the DM is out to get him) so that in the rest of the encounters that day the player has to pull back a bit and use caution or risk death. I once had a psion who could teleport like crazy and deal some pretty serious damage so the DM set up encounters where we had to roleplay and encounters where our magic is limited. Thus, he negated my crazy teleportation and damaging abilities. However, I've also got to say that it is pretty stupid to make a crazily powerful build that relies upon dubious or unagreed upon interpretation of the rules because then the DM is perfectly within his rights to simply say that the player is cheating and must rebuild or reform his character. But, unless the player is using dubious interpretation he should not be penalised. Also, other players complaining about other characters being to powerful is annoying because often it only seems this way because their characters simply haven't had a chance to shine yet or they didn't build their own characters intelligently. I mean really, some things work and others really just don't and if you really want that concept you should just find something similiar and edit flavor text. For example, if you want a bolt wielding wizard and can't find any good bolt spells then just use a ray spell and have the visuals be that of a bolt. Really, the names and texts are just there to help, they don't define a class or prestige class narrowly in terms of role playing them (a navy commander build could use the dread pirate prestige class but just change the name and 'identity' of the prestige class). So DMs, please embrace your powerful pcs so that if a time comes when the party needs that kind of person so you can throw an interesting challenge at them, you'll have them. Otherwise you end up with an assortment of interesting characters who have to be baby fed each encounter so they can survive. In fact, encourage players to build intelligently. This is why players and DM all need to sit down and discuss, before the campaign even starts, all sorts of factors that will affect the campaign. And, one of those factors is the desired power level of the campaign in general and the characters in particular. There has to be a certain amount of give and take on both sides of this discussion, and if the DM desires a campaign without powerful characters and players want powerful characters, then both the DM and the players have to make concessions on this. Remember that the DM has just as much of a right to an equal amount of enjoyment as do the players. And if the DM has to make concessions to the game to make the players happy then the players have to make concessinos to the game to make the DM happy. It is that simple. It is also a good thing to remember that players are not entitled to anything in the game except that which the DM grants. The DM is entitled to approve or disapprove any and all books as he so chooses. And, according to the RAW, the DM can also alter any rule that he so sees fit to alter. Now, this doesn't mean that the DM should run his campaign as a dictatore. In fact, a good DM will sit down with the players and discuss everything that is to go on in his campaign, and this includes letting the players know beforehand of any house rules, and disallowed books, etc. I feel that the DM is obligated to do such. But, at the end of the day, the DM has the final authority. Now, as for a DM constructing encounters specifically to counter the abilities of certain characters, there is nothing wrong with that if it is done every once in a while. If it is done all the time, though, then the DM and the players have a problem. Please remember, though, that the DM might not be doing it out of spite, but might simply be doing it in an attempt to find a certain level of balance in his game in order to make it enjoyable for himself and that he simply doesn't know how to find that balance.
dndfencer 09-22-07, 11:54 PM	good points all around. I'll make a concession here and say that yes characters designed solely for power are annoying. But, finding a cool build and optimising it very well is perfectly fine. Also, there are no sub par choices. Simply choices that are not conventionally good or choices one hasn't figured out how to optimise yet. Also, I guess DMs do have a right to set the level of power in their campaign. But they should do that by starting characters at the the right level, not by penalising intelligent players. Players, should also help each other out so that they can optimise all their characters (in fact, they can even trade gold for skills and stuff with each other; ie, I'll take lock pick in exchange for 2000 gold because otherwise I'd have room for jump). Also, one should be willing to make a couple concessions between coolness and power and vice versa. I mean if you have a really cool but ineffective build and another player says that by changing your concept just a little (and taking a couple different not-fitting feats) you could make an okay character than you should do so. However, it also goes the other way. If you're in a party of mercs and you want to use a very holy prestige class just for a little bit more power (and thus ruining the party concept) than one should not do so. But still, DM involvement in determining party power should be limited to determining level. If a DM knows he's got a smart party then he should start them off at lower levels because they will optimise their builds. Also, DMs must remember that each powerful character has a weakness and by tailoring encounters (at least occasionally) he can limit any players power. And, if other players feel left out then the DM should try tailoring encounters to make them shine as well because sometimes it happens that one player builds more to fit the DM's style than the rest.
Vanraya 09-23-07, 03:41 AM	But still, DM involvement in determining party power should be limited to determining level. If a DM knows he's got a smart party then he should start them off at lower levels because they will optimise their builds. Also, DMs must remember that each powerful character has a weakness and by tailoring encounters (at least occasionally) he can limit any players power. And, if other players feel left out then the DM should try tailoring encounters to make them shine as well because sometimes it happens that one player builds more to fit the DM's style than the rest DM involvement in determining party power shouldnt be limited at all. You seem to think that the DM's fun plays second fiddle to the player's, that he cant determine which classes make sense in his game, which feats or spells wouldnt break his game, or which magic items even exist. Indeed you seem to think other people's fun plays second fiddle to your own with comments like this little gem: If the DM knows he has a smart party... Really, could you be more condescending to players that choose not to optimize?
Cold Napalm 09-23-07, 04:10 AM	You know what irks me? WEAK characters. Yeah that's right, I have the opposite problem. Me: Okay we can play either a intrigue based game or a hack and slash. Players: hack and slash. Me: Okay, well you should optimize. It's a hack and slash... What do I see...straight fighter and BARD...wtf?!? And then there are the people that listened.
shadzar 09-23-07, 08:04 AM	You know what irks me? WEAK characters. Yeah that's right, I have the opposite problem. Me: Okay we can play either a intrigue based game or a hack and slash. Players: hack and slash. Me: Okay, well you should optimize. It's a hack and slash... What do I see...straight fighter and BARD...wtf?!? And then there are the people that listened. maybe the players did optimize, but not for what you wanted them to? i think you mean they should have powergamed or min-maxed. optimizing is jsut geting the most out of what you put into something. it doesnt mean jsut making a character into a combat machine.
Witch 09-23-07, 08:47 AM	You know what irks me? WEAK characters. Yeah that's right, I have the opposite problem. Me: Okay we can play either a intrigue based game or a hack and slash. Players: hack and slash. Me: Okay, well you should optimize. It's a hack and slash... What do I see...straight fighter and BARD...wtf?!? And then there are the people that listened. Bards can be awesome at combat. And I'm not kidding. Straight Fighters can manage fine too, although somewhat less significantly so.
Sunic_Flames 09-23-07, 10:35 AM	You know what irks me? WEAK characters. Yeah that's right, I have the opposite problem. Me: Okay we can play either a intrigue based game or a hack and slash. Players: hack and slash. Me: Okay, well you should optimize. It's a hack and slash... What do I see...straight fighter and BARD...wtf?!? And then there are the people that listened. They were level 4 or less... right? Right?
Wiredude 09-23-07, 12:23 PM	I tend to agree with a couple of points here, first I totally agree that the DM MUST be involved with character gen. If for no other reason than to assure a bit of balance between the PCs. Let's face alot of us game in groups that have a fairly wide variety of player types, from hard-core gamer-freaks, to semi-recreational people, to noobies. Not everyone knows all the rools, has all the books, or either has, or is willing to put the time into figuring out that "If I take this class, that feat, a level of this, and ....." If the DM just lets the more experienced players run willy-nilly, the newer, or less intense players will find themselves at a disadvantage. Yeah, the more veteran players could help them out, but then the newer players are sitll left with remembering how to use this, that, and the other thing in combination, and it becomes less about playing the game and having fun, and more about an excercise in memory and number crunching. And that can be rather overwelming for a newbie, and really could detract from their enjoyment. Secondly, I dislike overly powerful characters in general for the following reason. It creates an upward spiral. First one character, than another, then the opponents all eng up ramping up, and it jsut continues... Sure having a powerful character is fun, but (at least for me) most of the fun is in the challenge. The more powerful you are the bigger and badder stuff the DM has to whip at you for it to be a challenge, so really, it doesn't make that much of a difference. Remember, D&D isn't a game that's about winning or losing, it's about having fun!! Thirdly, the way a character is played can make a huge difference. In the group I game with, we recently had a character, that was capable of routinely delivering in the neighborhoods of 150 points of damage per round (at level 8). Well optimized? Yeah, Overpowered? Probably a bit, but, jsut in game mechanics, he almost never had any AC, and he couldnt' make a will save for crap. But more than that, what ballanced him out was the way he was played. He was forever rushing headlong into the thick of battle, with absloutely no regard for his own safety. And there was no backing out when the HP started getting low, someone had to go get him all the time... Or the time he was on fire, without his armor one (we got ambushed in an inn) and was running around wildly hacking at everyone, wearing no armor whatsoever, and literally aflame. (Hold person and doused with oil, then lit). I'm sure some of you are cringing at the actions, but I can tell you this, it was honestly one of the more fun characters that I ever played with, jsut because he was fun to be around. And his power level had nothing to do with that, however, the way he was played somewhat softened what could have been a very unbalancing character within the group... Steve
Drag0nUL 09-23-07, 12:27 PM	maybe the players did optimize, but not for what you wanted them to? i think you mean they should have powergamed or min-maxed. optimizing is jsut geting the most out of what you put into something. it doesnt mean jsut making a character into a combat machine. In my view, optimizing is employing the best possible solution for a certain task. In case of a hack and slash game this means making a very effective monster killing machine. Which neither a bard(which may or may not be useful depending on the party composition) and a straight fighter are.
Cold Napalm 09-23-07, 12:34 PM	maybe the players did optimize, but not for what you wanted them to? i think you mean they should have powergamed or min-maxed. optimizing is jsut geting the most out of what you put into something. it doesnt mean jsut making a character into a combat machine. When they said they want a hack and slash...optimized means for combat.
Cold Napalm 09-23-07, 12:35 PM	Bards can be awesome at combat. And I'm not kidding. Straight Fighters can manage fine too, although somewhat less significantly so. Bards can be...but not if they use a whip (for flavor) and don't bother to take feats like improve trip... The fighter would not have been so bad if he didn't insist on light armor...
Cold Napalm 09-23-07, 12:36 PM	They were level 4 or less... right? Right? sadly...no.
Sunic_Flames 09-23-07, 01:21 PM	sadly...no. *facepaws* Ok, now that's just wrong. Then again, I've been seeing a lot of people playing fighters lately (as opposed to crusaders, warblades...). Though they have an excuse - they're level 1 games. They won't necessarily take that dreaded level 5. Some of these games allowed ToB and/or did not allow PHB2 as well.
Cold Napalm 09-23-07, 01:28 PM	*facepaws* Ok, now that's just wrong. Then again, I've been seeing a lot of people playing fighters lately (as opposed to crusaders, warblades...). Though they have an excuse - they're level 1 games. They won't necessarily take that dreaded level 5. Some of these games allowed ToB and/or did not allow PHB2 as well. No only was there the dreaded fighter 5...but there was a whole 9 levels of fighter...in light armor no less...yeah facepaw...and yes ToB was allowed.
Sunic_Flames 09-23-07, 02:25 PM	No only was there the dreaded fighter 5...but there was a whole 9 levels of fighter...in light armor no less...yeah facepaw...and yes ToB was allowed. Now that's just wrong. Thou shalt not take a fifth level of fighter, unless thou art a Dungeon Crasher. If thou art a Dungeon Crasher, thou shalt not take a seventh level of fighter, lest thy suffer death by awesome. Lemme guess. 'Roleplaying' reasons? :rofl:
Cold Napalm 09-23-07, 02:33 PM	Now that's just wrong. Thou shalt not take a fifth level of fighter, unless thou art a Dungeon Crasher. If thou art a Dungeon Crasher, thou shalt not take a seventh level of fighter, lest thy suffer death by awesome. Lemme guess. 'Roleplaying' reasons? :rofl: ding ding ding...we have a winner.
Vanraya 09-23-07, 02:39 PM	You guys floor me with your smug sense of superiority in regards to your fellow players. Roleplaying reasons are just as valid as any, and if the player enjoys playing higher than 4 lvls of fighter, more power to him. He shouldnt be looked down by this little "optimization clique" because of choices he made to his character. I always suggest no more than 2 lvls of fighter to my players, I know how this whole optimizing thing works. If that player wants to pursue fighter even after all its faults though, more power to him. I'm certainly not going to come to the forums and snicker and point about it like some bizarro high school jock.
archerpwr 09-23-07, 02:53 PM	You guys floor me with your smug sense of superiority in regards to your fellow players. Roleplaying reasons are just as valid as any, and if the player enjoys playing higher than 4 lvls of fighter, more power to him. He shouldnt be looked down by this little "optimization clique" because of choices he made to his character. What's the RP difference between a fighter and a warblade?
Vanraya 09-23-07, 02:59 PM	What's the RP difference between a fighter and a warblade? Very little when you get down to the base mechanics of it, they both hit stuff (one decidedly better than the other, and even in time qualifies for fighter feats). But maybe the player doesnt want to play a warblade? maybe he thinks fighter better suits his story? Maybe the warblade's use of manuevers and stances doesnt work with his story, and the fighter's heavy armor prof and plethora of feats do? I'm saying dont knock a player because he chose personal preferance instead of the cookie cutter melee builds, that while effective, can water down some players fun.
Thubby 09-23-07, 03:01 PM	single super characters severely disrupt my ability to generate a fun and interesting adventure for everyone. I either have to make challenges specifically for the character, which makes little sense in game, and force everyone else to wait for him to be done. or i make everything harder, in which case the super character is constantly in the spotlight and everyone else is struggling to survive. making characters of such high caliber is selfish when you know not everyone else can do that.
Cold Napalm 09-23-07, 03:06 PM	You guys floor me with your smug sense of superiority in regards to your fellow players. Roleplaying reasons are just as valid as any, and if the player enjoys playing higher than 4 lvls of fighter, more power to him. He shouldnt be looked down by this little "optimization clique" because of choices he made to his character. I always suggest no more than 2 lvls of fighter to my players, I know how this whole optimizing thing works. If that player wants to pursue fighter even after all its faults though, more power to him. I'm certainly not going to come to the forums and snicker and point about it like some bizarro high school jock. Okay 1) they ASKED for the hack and slash meat grinder. I gave them a choice in what kind of game to run and this is the one they picked. 2) Then 2 players came in with very VERY sub optimial builds. 3) they died...alot. 4) they then complained that they died alot. 5) they then refused my offer of rebuilding their characters to be stronger with a reselection of classes and feats because of "role playing reasons." This merits much mocking. Aside from that...what archerpwr said.
Cold Napalm 09-23-07, 03:14 PM	Very little when you get down to the base mechanics of it, they both hit stuff (one decidedly better than the other, and even in time qualifies for fighter feats). But maybe the player doesnt want to play a warblade? maybe he thinks fighter better suits his story? Maybe the warblade's use of manuevers and stances doesnt work with his story, and the fighter's heavy armor prof and plethora of feats do? I'm saying dont knock a player because he chose personal preferance instead of the cookie cutter melee builds, that while effective, can water down some players fun. You know...if he had actually USED heavy armor, that might have worked...but he used light armor...with 13 dex...in a meat grinder campaign. As for feats...well he did pick up some good feats...no real complaints there...but in all honesty, he didn't need more then 4 levels of fighter. My rebuild option for what he was doing actually involved fighter 4 (so he can keep the core of his feet trees) and warblade 5 to keep it simple. This way he can keep his light armor with 13 dex role play reason and still survive by using the warblade's counters, but no.
Vanraya 09-23-07, 03:17 PM	Okay 1) they ASKED for the hack and slash meat grinder. I gave them a choice in what kind of game to run and this is the one they picked. 2) Then 2 players came in with very VERY sub optimial builds. 3) they died...alot. 4) they then complained that they died alot. 5) they then refused my offer of rebuilding their characters to be stronger with a reselection of classes and feats because of "role playing reasons." This merits much mocking. Aside from that...what archerpwr said. -If the players want to play hack'n slash, thats great, DM's happy, players are happy, everyone is happy. -If 2 players come in and die a lot because of greatly sub-optimal builds, that sucks, and you shouldnt have to completely change your game if it only benefits a minority of players. You could try and tweek things, but you are in no way required to. But the players likewise shouldnt have to change their builds. The complaining about being ineffective in a hack and slash game aside (as that's the player's problem really), their choices as players in no way entitles you to come to the forums and jeer at them behind their backs. Player choices made because the player wants to play his character one way vs the way you think they should play merits nothing on any of our parts.
Sunic_Flames 09-23-07, 03:25 PM	You guys floor me with your smug sense of superiority in regards to your fellow players. Roleplaying reasons are just as valid as any, and if the player enjoys playing higher than 4 lvls of fighter, more power to him. He shouldnt be looked down by this little "optimization clique" because of choices he made to his character. I always suggest no more than 2 lvls of fighter to my players, I know how this whole optimizing thing works. If that player wants to pursue fighter even after all its faults though, more power to him. I'm certainly not going to come to the forums and snicker and point about it like some bizarro high school jock. I wasn't 'bashing' roleplay. I was 'bashing' 'roleplay'. The difference between the two is the latter is based on the false assumption to be good at roleplaying you must suck at everything else. Combine that with what the last few posts have added and the point is clear. Furthermore it should be obvious from the nature of our posts that it's more a bit of ribbing than actual bashing. Also, fighter fails at flavor as much or more as mechanics if for no other reason than most martial archetypes cannot conceivably be realized by them. Whereas a warblade, a crusader, or even some non ToB martial classes can. Unless his story calls for 'guy who thinks he's good at things when he's not', I'm just not seeing it. Replace 'things' with 'leading', 'guarding', 'scouting', 'swashbuckling'... basic martial roles. Not even counting more oddball roles such as arcane school guard. (Knowledge (arcana), Spellcraft, Use Magic Device) Am I missing something here? *casts See Invisibility* The fighter’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Ride (Dex), and Swim (Str). Leader: Diplomacy, Knowledge (history or war tactics) or Martial Lore. Guard (as in a simple town guard): Listen, Spot, Sense Motive. Scout: Hide, Move Silently (also Listen and Spot). Swashbuckler: Balance, Tumble, Bluff (for inflated claims/feinting), Sense Motive (for countering feints if nothing else). Maneuvers: Special strikes. Stances: Combat styles. Do martial characters have more than one type of strike, typically meant to accomplish different things? Yup. Do martial characters have one or more combat styles they draw techniques from? Yup. Conflict? I think not. Now what Cold Napalm is describing basically amounts to his players drawing the hammergun, firing it upon themselves, then complaining that being shot with a hammergun is bad and that it causes headaches, whereas from his viewpoint it's good as it saves him the trouble of drawing the folding chair. Would you say this is an accurate assessment?
Vanraya 09-23-07, 03:37 PM	role-play wise, yes even crotchedy old me will admit both are similar, if you scalpel all the fluff from the warblade, they can accomplish similar roles (except multiple weapon expert, the warblade is going to have a tougher time filling that super glamorous niche.) But here we had 2 players that made admitidly bad decisions in a hack and slash game. They made concious choices to do this I assume, the whip is a pretty blatant bad weapon. This can only mean that thats how they wanted to play. That said, I dont think Cold Napalm's game is the game for them. But I dont think it warrants looking down on them because of choices they made for the only characters they can control in the game world.
Sunic_Flames 09-23-07, 04:00 PM	role-play wise, yes even crotchedy old me will admit both are similar, if you scalpel all the fluff from the warblade, they can accomplish similar roles (except multiple weapon expert, the warblade is going to have a tougher time filling that super glamorous niche.) But here we had 2 players that made admitidly bad decisions in a hack and slash game. They made concious choices to do this I assume, the whip is a pretty blatant bad weapon. This can only mean that thats how they wanted to play. That said, I dont think Cold Napalm's game is the game for them. But I dont think it warrants looking down on them because of choices they made for the only characters they can control in the game world. O rly? Fighter: Specialized in one weapon, or not any better with one than any other (same as any other full BAB class). Warblade: Weapon Aptitude. Nuff said. As for the fluff, read em both one after the other.
Drag0nUL 09-23-07, 04:05 PM	But here we had 2 players that made admitidly bad decisions in a hack and slash game. They made concious choices to do this I assume, the whip is a pretty blatant bad weapon. This can only mean that thats how they wanted to play. That said, I dont think Cold Napalm's game is the game for them. But I dont think it warrants looking down on them because of choices they made for the only characters they can control in the game world. I don't think Cold Napalm's posts are looking down on the players because they made suboptimal choices, but because they: -chose a type of game -built characters that were not very appropriate for the said type of game -complained that their characters were inappropriate for the game
Vanraya 09-23-07, 05:05 PM	I don't think Cold Napalm's posts are looking down on the players because they made suboptimal choices, but because they: -chose a type of game -built characters that were not very appropriate for the said type of game -complained that their characters were inappropriate for the game Already said that was the player's problem, not Cold Napalm's.
Vanraya 09-23-07, 05:16 PM	O rly? Fighter: Specialized in one weapon, or not any better with one than any other (same as any other full BAB class). Warblade: Weapon Aptitude. Nuff said. As for the fluff, read em both one after the other. I believe there are a number fighter feats in PHB II that accomplishes a great deal in giving the fighter more flexability with weapons of certain damage types, as well as more weapon mastery type stuff. Granted warblades get a better version for free (assuming they took the feats) and you dont need yet another splat book to do it, but no one is arguing here that fighter is better than warblade, that'd be silly. The fluff for the war-blade is very much a template for a glory seeking melee type, it encourages chaotic over lawful and cha over wis, thats fluff the fighter markedly lacks.
Ogiwan 09-23-07, 05:33 PM	One time, I ran a 20th level one-shot with my group, sans the powergaming friend I had (i told him it was 'cause I already had 6 players for it, so all niches were filled and i didn't want a seventh), and he told me about how the character he made could out-damage the leap-attacking barbarian, heal better than the Radiant Servant of Pelor, and i think out-stealth the Shadowdancer. Or something along the lines of, "Do better in the chosen role of 3 other PCs", i don't remember what the build was 'cause I didn't listen and it probably involves psionics, which i have negative interest in (ironically enough, because of the same player). Of course, this is basically what I was afraid of him doing, hence why I didn't ask him if he wanted in on the session. Now, looking at that, I'd say that when a character detracts from the fun of others, it is an issue. If, in combat, one character can "one man army" the encounter, that's a problem, primarily 'cause the other players feel useless and they're not having fun.
Drag0nUL 09-23-07, 07:16 PM	Now, looking at that, I'd say that when a character detracts from the fun of others, it is an issue. If, in combat, one character can "one man army" the encounter, that's a problem, primarily 'cause the other players feel useless and they're not having fun. Unfortunately, the PHB contains 2 already made one-man-army characters: the cleric and especially the druid.
dndfencer 09-23-07, 09:33 PM	Vanraya, I never said DMs shouldn't be able to ban stuff so that the characters fit the campaign. That makes sense. Also, if the DM finds something REALLY out of whack and crazy and truly seems to be without weakness or WAY to good at one thing then he should ban it. But only if it is truly crazy and really he should ask wizards first and post a thread first. Better yet, if he finds something he can't deal with he should ask on the What's a DM to do forum to see if anyone has a solution. Also, remember that the DM is just one person. Admittedly an important one but that doesn't mean he shouldn't make concessions to the party. In fact, part of the DM fun is finding ways to counter the party's strength and really challenge them Also, yes power does go in an upward spiral but it is usually more fun to be powerful, kick powerful creatures butt, and know that you could totally DOMINATE the rest of the world. Finally, newbie players should not feel like their being condescended to when veteran players help them out. After all, everyone starts somewhere and has to be helped out. I mean you can't expect the first building you design to be any good unless a pro architect helps you out and the pro architect can't expect to run a 5 min mile without help from the pro racer that can't design. And also, if newbie players feel condescended to they can always make a group with other new players so that everyone is on common ground; the same way veterans can have their groups if they don't want to help people out. Really, lets be a little practical
Vanraya 09-23-07, 10:02 PM	Far be it for me to dictate what is fun for others dndfencer, indeed I too enjoy powerful characters, I enjoy DMing for powerful characters but some dont, and your comment of: If the DM knows he has a smart party seems to convey a sense of "smart players play optimized characters". This is not always true, sometime players chose not to optimize to test their resourcefulness, sometimes just to not have to deal with all the crunch. Fighter is a lot easier than warblade, Sorc is a lot easier than wizard, etc etc. The DM is one person, and I wouldnt even say he's more important than the players. But you said explicitly that the DM's only role in power level should be dictating what lvl the players will start at. This just isnt true, and now you're backpeddling. Yes he can ask others about a character, and he probably should, but he doesnt have to. I personally dont ask questions on the DM forums, but prolly because there are uh...butt-hats? Like me that can be very negative. I talk to my players if their character threatens to end my campaign, and I suggest that be every DMs very first action. As for challenging the player, may I direct you to my first post in this thread. You gave an example of character weakness in a melee build with a weak point in its AC and Hit Points. But you also complained when your DM thwarted your psi user's teleportation reliance. So do you as a player really want to be challenged or just, as you yourself put it, "DOMINATE the rest of the world." Again, either way as a play style is fine, as long as the DM and players feel fine about it, but it weakens your argument if you include both. While we're on the subject, there are some builds with exceptional strong points and "meh?" weak points. Druid and cleric builds are rife with these. My "condescention" comment wasnt assuming new players, and again it's kinda condescending that you propose new players are the ones that play sub optimal characters. But I agree, new players should be taught which abilities go well with others, this only makes sense. Indeed, let us be practical, but let us not for a minute believe that characters who do not optimize are rookies or arent playing the game well.
Mock26 09-23-07, 10:31 PM	...but it is usually more fun to be powerful, kick powerful creatures butt, and know that you could totally DOMINATE the rest of the world. That is your opinion. There is nothing that says that the increase in enjoyment is in any way directly connected to the power level of the game. While you may feel that more power means more fun, that is still nothing but an opinion. There are lots of people who have just as much fun as you do playing a non-optimized character.
ravenshrike 09-23-07, 10:54 PM	If the game is like... half orc bards, even a fighter 20 is going to be overpowered by comparison. I can pretty much guarantee that a group of Half-orc Bard/20s will be more dangerous than a group of Half Orc Fighter/20s. In fact, I'd almost assume that that would be true straight through progression.
ravenshrike 09-23-07, 11:03 PM	You guys floor me with your smug sense of superiority in regards to your fellow players. Roleplaying reasons are just as valid as any, and if the player enjoys playing higher than 4 lvls of fighter, more power to him. Not when everyone has agreed on a hack 'n slash game. It would be like running a Frenzied Berserker in a D20 adapted Seven Seas game.
Vanraya 09-23-07, 11:19 PM	Not when everyone has agreed on a hack 'n slash game. It would be like running a Frenzied Berserker in a D20 adapted Seven Seas game. I'm going to split hairs here, but the player in question didnt agree for it to be a hack'n'slash game, he entered into it knowing it would be hack'n'slash, so maybe he didnt realize how hacky and/or slashy. Regardless it was his decision to play a sub optimal fighter and I dont think anyone should knock it. Now the fact that he complains about it, sure open up on that one, but not his character decisions.
Cold Napalm 09-24-07, 12:31 AM	I'm going to split hairs here, but the player in question didnt agree for it to be a hack'n'slash game, he entered into it knowing it would be hack'n'slash, so maybe he didnt realize how hacky and/or slashy. Regardless it was his decision to play a sub optimal fighter and I dont think anyone should knock it. Now the fact that he complains about it, sure open up on that one, but not his character decisions. Actually the funny thing is that the two sub optimized players were 2 of the 4 player out of 6 that REALLY wanted the hack and slash because they were no good at puzzle and social situations. So not only did they agree to it, they INSISTED on it. Even if not however, if you know your going into a hack and slash and you make a primadonna bard that contributes little to the party, then it's not just a character decision, your beeing a drain on the resources of the party which is gonna ruin their fun. Just like making a brainless warhulk who INSISTS on going everywhere you go to be not left out in a intrigue mystery game is gonna be a drain on the party as you thoughtlessly ruin leads and clues and warn plotters from a mile away. There is an expection of minimal effort to make something that is just gonna bring the party down. For instance a 13 dex light armor fighter is gonna be a HUGE resource drain because they will use up the healers spells and wands at a fast rate. This was already an issue before the two players started to complain since in any fight, the cleric chould do NOTHING else but heal the fighter because in any fight where the cleric didn't/couldn't do this, the fighter died. The cleric player was so bored of this that he started playing the PS2 every fight. In a hack and slash. Effectively nullifying a party member is unacceptable. If this was a intrigue game and somebody played a full plate wearing fighter that followed the spy around ALL the time because roleplaying wise she was his most cherished sister and he didn't want her out of his sight for a moment...well that's great, but the fact the spy is now useless for all intents and purpose in the game is not. Even if they had not complained, I would have offered a rebuild option since the cleric player was basically being removed from the game because of them and that wasn't fair. When they refused the rebuild, the cleric player quit. Too strong is a problem...but so is too weak. This does not just mean combat...but for the type of game your in, you MUST be able to do SOMETHING for the party.
Mock26 09-24-07, 02:30 AM	Even in a hack and slash campaign a straight up fighter can still be able to contribute to combat and can still be fun. Just because someone can optimize a same level character that is twice as powerful doesn't mean that a single class fighter shouldn't be taken. Just as there needs to be a balance of play styles between the players and the DM, there also needs to be a balance between individual players. One player might think that the only way to have fun is to optimize and another might think that a straight up fighter is the way to go, both for the same hack and slash campaign. Well, guess what? Both players have the right to play those characters. If this happens then both players had better sit down and talk about what they have in mind for their characters and had better figure out a way to work together.
MrCustomer 09-24-07, 03:14 AM	One thing that I've found a lot on boards is that some DMs just cannot stand characters that are powerful. This pisses me off. Any powerful character will always have a weakness. 13th level tanks that deal over 200 a round (which is perfectly possible without pun pun) inevitably have poor acs and low HP. Also, the DM should not penalise a player simply because he has found a legal way to make his build powerful. The player has been smart and the DM should be equally smart in both countering and using this player's power. The problem is two-fold. First D&D is a roleplaying game, unfortunately some treat it as a board game for chess. Heavily min/maxed characters for combat generally do so by sacrificing any roleplaying or utility they have, Thats the min part of the min/max. Their solutions in the game for any problem are also predictably "use violence" They ignore any roleplay involvement in any class to do their hack and slash. Here you get the good cleric or Paladin that acts more CN or NE then Good. The second problem being the other players. A DM has to balance encounters for the Party and not a single player. When you have such a "smart" player who is maxed out, he so outclasses the other players that eny encounter that is chalenging to him will slaughter his fellow party members. Encounters are cake walks, players find their characters useless, or often dead when encounters are tough enough to chalenge that one PC. And while those uber PCs pat themselves in the back for being smart, they are ussually ruining the game. The fact is that the PC's didn't need to be that strong, and besides the DM ramps up the enemies to counter their strangth anyways. However the weaker party members suffer, plus they bring little else to the party when it comes to puzzle solving, needed utility, social dealings with NPCs and roleplaying encounters.
shadzar 09-24-07, 03:21 AM	i still think the proper choice of terms is min-maxing, not optimizing.
Drag0nUL 09-24-07, 04:13 AM	Far be it for me to dictate what is fun for others dndfencer, indeed I too enjoy powerful characters, I enjoy DMing for powerful characters but some dont, and your comment of: If the DM knows he has a smart party seems to convey a sense of "smart players play optimized characters". This is not always true, sometime players chose not to optimize to test their resourcefulness, sometimes just to not have to deal with all the crunch. Fighter is a lot easier than warblade, Sorc is a lot easier than wizard, etc etc. The 'problem' with smart players is that they will play smart. Sometimes dominating the game isn't all about building an optimized character, but also about the way you play it. A few moths ago one of my friends decided to start a new campaign with some people that were new to the game and he asked me to join since he thought the addition of an experienced player would be beneficial to the group. |Apart from me and the DM none of the other players had played D&D before, so I decided to play something suboptimal, but good for the storyline. I chose tiefling sorcerer. Among the other party members was a human wizard. Through selecting spells with a desired effect in mind and casting them at the right time and place as opposed to selecting them almost randomly and casting the one that looked more flashy(like an empowered fireball in the middle of 5-6 wererat rogues), I was able to outperform the wizard in most situations. Still that guy was quick learner and by the time he reached level 10-11 and started taking Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil levels he was dominating the game.
Sunic_Flames 09-24-07, 08:06 AM	The problem is two-fold. First D&D is a roleplaying game, unfortunately some treat it as a board game for chess. Heavily min/maxed characters for combat generally do so by sacrificing any roleplaying or utility they have, Thats the min part of the min/max. Their solutions in the game for any problem are also predictably "use violence" They ignore any roleplay involvement in any class to do their hack and slash. Here you get the good cleric or Paladin that acts more CN or NE then Good. The second problem being the other players. A DM has to balance encounters for the Party and not a single player. When you have such a "smart" player who is maxed out, he so outclasses the other players that eny encounter that is chalenging to him will slaughter his fellow party members. Encounters are cake walks, players find their characters useless, or often dead when encounters are tough enough to chalenge that one PC. And while those uber PCs pat themselves in the back for being smart, they are ussually ruining the game. The fact is that the PC's didn't need to be that strong, and besides the DM ramps up the enemies to counter their strangth anyways. However the weaker party members suffer, plus they bring little else to the party when it comes to puzzle solving, needed utility, social dealings with NPCs and roleplaying encounters. O rly? Roleplaying is a player skill. Having the right power tools for the job is a character skill. Unless you're refering simply to taking a charisma of 8 in which case I say - don't play 25 PB so you can play characters with meat on their bones. :P If you'd like I can point out two characters of mine made recently that were deliberately designed to be strong yet had backgrounds at least as good as the other applicants and were as long or longer to boot, typically several times longer.
Clawhound 09-24-07, 12:28 PM	I'll get back to powerful characters. I've done a whole lot of number crunching on the game. The results are simple. The game is rigged for the players to succeed. There are a few caveats. The game was designed as an direct encounter game. When playing a direct encounter game, even an average fighter works just fine. One problem comes in a stand-off game. Stand-off strategies make eliminate an entire layer of complexity from the game. For example, spellcasters do not need to worry about movement. Spellcasters can summon creatures further away than a fighter can move in one round, through areas that would otherwise trigger attacks of opportunity. At the end of the combat, they don't need to heal anything. Standoff eliminates the need for armor and protections, allowing you to put more power into attack, eliminating your foes even faster. This is clearly an optimal way to play the game. This way also nerfs any melee-centric characters. This changes the nature of many encounters. Here's the kicker. You don't need to play the game that way. If you play an engaged game, you still win. It doesn't matter whether you TKO your opponent in one round or four. At the end, the opponent is still down and you've still won, and you've gotten XP. Powerful character don't help you win. You are going to win anyway. Powerful characters only make other players feel unnecessary.
MrCustomer 09-24-07, 05:12 PM	O rly? Roleplaying is a player skill. Having the right power tools for the job is a character skill. Unless you're refering simply to taking a charisma of 8 in which case I say - don't play 25 PB so you can play characters with meat on their bones. :P If you'd like I can point out two characters of mine made recently that were deliberately designed to be strong yet had backgrounds at least as good as the other applicants and were as long or longer to boot, typically several times longer. Roleplaying involves how you build a character as much as how you play him. Diversifying your abilities rather then min/maxing for the optimal death machine in combat, choosing abilities that match your character concept or that enhance non-combat situations. See the problem min/maxers have is that they ussually think that there is only a single job, Death machine! Having the right tools for the job means selecting the right tools for your various jobs, tools that support your Character development, your Role Playing, tools that make you PC more then just a 1-dimensional tool. I've had players who wrote backgrounds that were practically novels to atempt to justify having an Neutral Celestial Hound Archon as a starting character. Now, min/maxing isn't really the issue, super powerful characters are great, it's overall party balance that becomes an issue. If a Player is extremely more powerful then the other party members then it becomes a balance problem. It's actually ussually worse when they also draw up an complicated background story about how the game's story should revolve around their extremely powerful character's quest to avenge his parent's killer.......
MrCustomer 09-24-07, 05:22 PM	Here is an example of why Power Characters can be bad. Player A and B are the same class and level 5. Player A, I rolled a natural 17, thats a critical threat, and a total or 33 to hit, my second attack is 25 to hit. Ok I roll 30 to confirm my crit, woot triple damage. Thats hmm, 76 and 30 damage, total of 106 damage. Player A: I got a 16 to hit, I miss -again- DM, ok the caster sees player A slaughter his minion and so casts a fireball 36 damage, make a reflex save to Player A: Woot I rolled 23 to save, plus I have a resistance of 10 to fire, I take 8 damage, I am down to 96 HP, grins, anyone have a heal? lol. Player B: I fail my reflex save, I only have 26 HP total, I'm dead -yawn-
solbergb 09-24-07, 07:34 PM	You're describing a situation (26 vs 100+ hitpoints) which is a much larger divergance than a build can normally provide. My experience is that player skill can halve or double the effectiveness of nearly any character (variance of 1 to 4, mostly by more effective use of the most precious of resources - actions) My experience is that character build adds or subtracts maybe 20% from an "iconic" build (the kind the CR's are designed for), barring edge condition exceptions which GM's usually houserule away on the high side, or deliberate attempts to cripple the character by the PC's on the low side (like a "archer" paladin who at level 8 had exactly 8 strength, did not have rapid shot, had only a plus 1 longbow and refuesed to summon his mount. We used him to touch cursed objects, mostly. He wasn't much use for anything else, but he seemed to like being the center of attention when it came time to poke or carry the nasty cursed plot objects)
archerpwr 09-24-07, 08:57 PM	Has no one here read the stormwind fallacy?
High Octane 09-24-07, 09:19 PM	First, lets dispel a few myths by clarifying or debunking them: Myth 1: Fighters are underpowered. Truth: Fighters can actually manage to stay on, and sometimes surpass the curve of the power of other base classes easily until around 6th level, and then can still keep up with (or surpass) the other classes in combat prowess until 13th-15th level, but only if their feat selection is not limited to core. However this requires far more skill in optimization than should be necessary. Myth 2: Bards are underpowered. Truth: Bards have an element, which is socialization. Unfortunatly, due to the seriously underdeveloped social aspect of D&D, the general desire for dungeon crawl, and the myriad of enemies immune to a bard's more powerful combat abilities (enchantment and illusion), bards are far too often taken out of their element, and their time to shine is often limited to a single diplomacy or bluff check which is one roll. More importantly, DMs have a tendency to forget that the player is playing a character who is good at social skills, but that player may not actually have those social skills. Thus the DM is more judgemental on the player's ability to come up with social graces than his character, which is unfair since none of the other classes are as dependant on the player's ability to do anything but pick feats/spells and roll a die. In short, the bard is underpowered because his strong points so rarely come up due to DMs not having any idea how to make them useful. On the flip side Bards can also be the most overpowered class in the game due to the lack of clarity with the diplomacy skill. Combining the synergies, a +10 magic item than adds to diplomacy, full ranks, a focus on charisma and a few other sources that can add circumstance or unnamed bonuses, a bard can have a diplomacy modifier that could unbalance the game completely. Without a save or even an opposed roll, bards can turn hostile enemies friendly or even helpful as a full round action, which depending on your DM can mean that they will hand over their weapons or even become your follower (even if they are levels above you!) The bard is not underpowered, the social aspect of D&D is underdeveloped. A rogue with all his ranks in charisma based skills instead of sneaking or disarming traps would not be much better off than the bard. Myth 3: The druid is overpowered. Truth: Although the druid is given full spell progression, his spells do not pack as much of the damaging punch that a wizard has (though somewhat more damaging then a cleric) and has nowhere near the healing or enhancing capabilities of a cleric. However, they have a large myriad of abilities that are powerful, but not truly overpowering. The real issue with the druid is a combination of a few abilities. For one, until errata changed it, wild shape enabled a druid to have absurdly low physical stats without having to worry too much. When combined with the natural spell feat however, whatever little need for physical stats was eliminated. That combined with the fact that wild shape is so mind-bogglingly useful to a fairly creative player. The class has far too much time to shine. Myth 4: The game is easy to unbalance because the game assumes you are using a gimped character. Truth: The game is balanced around a character built to withstand all sort of challenges, in a world where many different skills are tested, where you face tons of different creatures without knowing a thing about them, based on a 25 point build, at or near per level wealth guidelines. This does not happen in the real world. In the real world, many DMs are starved for players enough to give out 18s like candy, resulting in 50-60 point builds or higher. Also, DMs rarely end up calling for skills, and often enough I find DMs are so open with skills, desiring a player to make a check, that they will allow near any knowledge check to cover any fact with a low DC. Many skills are just plain near worthless to put points into. Some DMs ignore checks altogether (when was the last time you asked your druid player for a handle animal check to push his animal companion anywhere? Don't lie. You just have him controlling his wolf like it's another character.)Seriously people, aside from some roleplaying and class qualification and synergies, when was the last time you ever had a need for ranks in: Appraise, Craft (any but alchemy), Decipher Script, Forgery, Handle Animal, Heal, Knowledge (Architecture, nobility, geography, history, local), Profession, Ride, Sleight of hand (unless used as a substitute for bluff for a feint) Swim, or Use Rope? I hope in 4th edition that you get extra knowledge skill points instead of having to waste your skill points on them. I am truly sorry about that, but I felt a need to rant there. DMs hate powerful characters for a reason. They ruin the game for others. How fun is the game when Bourbon the drunken barbarian can kill anything the DM throws at him in a round, and anything he couldn't one shot would 1 shot Bourbon or most certainly 1 shot anyone else that was attacked? The DM then has to tailor the game to balance Bourbon or it isn't fun. How artificial does it feel when all the enemies seem to be custom made to be easy to be killed by anything but a melee person shortly after the melee guy wiped out a whole dungeon (that was meant to be 8 encounters) by himself? Optimized characters that are built to withstand a large area of different enemies and encounters are rarely the type that DMs hate. It's the 1 trick ponies that expect to be in their element all the time and are often utterly useless when not, the type that are ridiculously metagamed, those are the types that annoy DMs. A fighter with a spiked chain won't annoy a DM (normally) but a half-ogre fighter with a spiked chain who combines the right feats to allow him to be 15 feet away with a 15 foot reach at the end of his turn against another fighter every time with combat reflexes so he gets 2 attacks of oppurtunity as WELL as his own attack verse any medium or smaller creature wasting 5 feats total? That's the type of 1 trick pony who Dms hate, since they rarely carry a bow, and end up useless verse air and underpowered verse melee creatures with 10 feet of reach or more, and tend to be quite weak as well verse any ranged attacker or anyone with tumble.
Thubby 09-24-07, 09:20 PM	Has no one here read the stormwind fallacy? something about optimized characters aren't necessarily less roleplayable than less opti'd characters, or that flavor heavy characters arent necessarily weaker. am i right? its a simple fact that there are more sub optimal builds than optimal ones, and every single build has 1 or more roleplayable options. by that math alone there are less roleplay options available to optimized characters. not even taking into account the heavy restrictions many builds carry, in particular the often class dipping optimized ones.
Mock26 09-24-07, 10:41 PM	Has no one here read the stormwind fallacy? Yeah, and it's an utter crock of dragon dung.
archerpwr 09-25-07, 08:35 PM	Yeah, and it's an utter crock of dragon dung. LOL. Roleplaying is completely independant of PC power.
Mock26 09-25-07, 08:40 PM	LOL. Roleplaying is completely independant of PC power. For some people, yes that is true. But, some people believe that the two or inversely related, that with an increase in power gaming comes a loss of roleplaying. And, for those who believe that, it is true. Sometimes you can reduce the game to the two facets of roleplaying and rollplaying. Sometimes.
archerpwr 09-25-07, 08:59 PM	For some people, yes that is true. But, some people believe that the two or inversely related, that with an increase in power gaming comes a loss of roleplaying. And, for those who believe that, it is true. Sometimes you can reduce the game to the two facets of roleplaying and rollplaying. Sometimes. And those people are idiots. Munchkins may be good at cheddar and bad a RP and there might be great roleplayers that barely know the rules, but that by no means makes an inverse relationship. I only have to show one occurance of good RP with mastery of mechanics or crappy RP and crappy mechanics to prove the stormwind fallacy correct. Powergaming is specifically trying to "win" at the cost of any sense of RP. Unless you can prove that all people that can build competant characters powergame the stormwind fallacy holds true.
Mock26 09-25-07, 09:04 PM	And those people are idiots. Munchkins may be good at cheddar and bad a RP and there might be great roleplayers that barely know the rules, but that by no means makes an inverse relationship. I only have to show one occurance of good RP with mastery of mechanics or crappy RP and crappy mechanics to prove the stormwind fallacy correct. Powergaming is specifically trying to "win" at the cost of any sense of RP. Unless you can prove that all people that can build competant characters powergame the stormwind fallacy holds true. Actually, they aren't idiots. There is no set of rules that define any of this. The stormwind fallacy and any contrary view points are nothing more than opinions, and opinions are just that, opinions. They are neither right nor wrong. Arguing the stormwind fallacy is like arguing what it means to be Lawful Good. A million people can come up with a million different definitions and they will all be correct. As I said, sometimes you can reduce discussions about the game to only two aspects, roleplaying and rollplaying. There is nothing wrong with that.
archerpwr 09-25-07, 09:23 PM	Actually, they aren't idiots. There is no set of rules that define any of this. The stormwind fallacy and any contrary view points are nothing more than opinions, and opinions are just that, opinions. They are neither right nor wrong. As I said, sometimes you can reduce discussions about the game to only two aspects, roleplaying and rollplaying. There is nothing wrong with that. And all the stormwind fallacy says is that the following is not true: Rollplay and Roleplay are inversely related To say the stormwind fallacy is an utter crock of dragon dung is to say that the above statement is true as a function.
shadzar 09-26-07, 02:21 AM	i think the stormwind fallacy has its own fallacies built into it.
Ongorth 09-26-07, 09:24 AM	And all the stormwind fallacy says is that the following is not true: Rollplay and Roleplay are inversely related To say the stormwind fallacy is is to say that the above statement is true as a function. And if that is the case, the statement is meaningless, so why do you keep bringing it up?
archerpwr 09-26-07, 05:51 PM	And if that is the case, the statement is meaningless, so why do you keep bringing it up? Sunic Flame's post. I mentioned it once, you called it bull, and I explained what it means to you. I like to instruct I guess.
Voran 09-26-07, 07:44 PM	SHENANIGANS! Ok I've used that response like 4 times in the past few days. I'll stop for awhile. In my experience, it was not so much the "DMs hate powerful characters" its more of a "DMs hate the fact that <x> has managed to pull together yet another super powerful character, largely to replace the one they were just playing, mid-game, because a new splat book came out" Plus I've also seen that those who make chars and say "Yeah but he has <X> as a weakness!" get rather bent out of shape if you actually...yknow...exploit said weakness.
Ongorth 09-26-07, 07:46 PM	Sunic Flame's post. I mentioned it once, you called it bull, and I explained what it means to you. I like to instruct I guess. Well, if it means nothing it is bull when you try to apply it in a way that means something.
archerpwr 09-26-07, 08:58 PM	Well, if it means nothing it is bull when you try to apply it in a way that means something. I'm not understanding you. Elaborate?
Ongorth 09-26-07, 11:47 PM	I'm not understanding you. Elaborate? As you presented it the Stormwind Fallacy says nothing. It makes no claims about anything in reality. It instead says that two socially constructed concepts don't have an absolute relationship. I don't think anyone who's ever seriously thought about the subject does and anyone who hasn't seriously thought about the subject doesn't care about some jerk on the internet yelling "Fallacy!" anyway, so the only people you're pleasing are the ones who already agree with the underlying "point" of the fallacy. It doesn't actually speak to the issue in any way, shape or form, instead hiding under a guise of "logical soundness" over an arguement that no one is having. No one has to prove its wrong because it isn't saying anything. Using a logical statement to "solve" a complex social issue (at least as far as roleplaying gamers are concerned) is worse then useless. Its insulting.
archerpwr 09-27-07, 12:51 AM	As you presented it the Stormwind Fallacy says nothing. It makes no claims about anything in reality. It instead says that two socially constructed concepts don't have an absolute relationship. Past this you kinda lost me. I originally brought up TSF because I was seeing very illogical logic that TSF specifically proves wrong. Obviously we are thinking on different wavelengths. I'll just drop the point in this confused state and hide now.
Stev Beren 09-27-07, 09:08 AM	And all the stormwind fallacy says is that the following is not true: Rollplay and Roleplay are inversely related To say the stormwind fallacy is is to say that the above statement is true as a function. IN practice "Stormwind Fallacy" Is largely used as a strawman to attack an argument noone is making and to distract attention away from the argument that IS being made.
Nephlite 09-27-07, 11:20 AM	IN practice "Stormwind Fallacy" Is largely used as a strawman to attack an argument noone is making and to distract attention away from the argument that IS being made. No, in practice it reminds people that the two concepts do not affect each other inherently. People can force them to, but nothing inherently about roleplay affects rollplay. If you disagree than, it is not a strawman, but a point of debate. So you either agree or you disagree. Unless, one can prove that it can affect it inherently. But as there have been those good at rollplay as well as roleplay: that is proven wrong. Upholding the Stormwind as it is.
Ongorth 09-27-07, 11:50 AM	No, in practice it reminds people that the two concepts do not affect each other inherently. People can force them to, but nothing inherently about roleplay affects rollplay. If you disagree than, it is not a strawman, but a point of debate. So you either agree or you disagree. Unless, one can prove that it can affect it inherently. But as there have been those good at rollplay as well as roleplay: that is proven wrong. Upholding the Stormwind as it is. Upholding a useless point doesn't make it useful. And applying it to situations where it is irrelevant is still insulting. You're taking two socially constructed concepts, entirely divorcing them from their context, then saying that they don't conflict. I could just as easily "prove" that just any two possible socially constructed conflict or don't conflict by putting them in unrealistic contexts. Its meaningless and stupid. If you aren't discussing the concepts in the contexts in which they exist, you aren't actually discussing the concepts because they are in a very real part defined by that context.
The_Levitator 09-27-07, 12:55 PM	I believe that a DM has a responsibility to his group to design a game that is fun for everyone at the table. If you have a powergamer at your table and you make a game with a 32 point buy that allows every splatbook published, then you are just asking for trouble. I have had several min-maxers breeze through our group, and honestly, they didn't last long. Firstly, we play a 25 pt. buy or roll 4d6 for stats. How hard is to make a really fast sports car when someone just hands you the keys to a Ferrari? We've had more than 1 player come into our group bragging on their abilities to make dual-raced, quintuple-classed freaks of nature, yet barely managed to keep a human fighter alive to 2nd level. Secondly, the only books we use are Core + FR. Limited access to splatbooks does level a playing field a bit. Thirdly, we play a highly modified version of 3.5, which is much grittier. Every time you add a variant, it makes traditional min-maxing more difficult because most builds are based on Core rules. Min-maxing is still possible with any system, but it at least makes it a little more difficult which helps a little to level the playing field. There are a lot of great powergamers out there. But my experience has been that there are many more wannabe's than strong min-maxers. I don't believe that a player should knowingly gimp a character to "prove" they are good roleplayers. The stats on the sheet have NOTHING to do with roleplaying. Players are responsible for their ability to roleplay, not the pieces of paper that represent their characters. I've met several self-proclaimed powergamers over the last couple of years who really seemed to be hiding behind overly complex builds so that nobody at the table could really tell if they were good players or not. If you are a true powergamer, then you could make a human fighter shine in a balanced game, right? Well, these people couldn't, and nearly died at 2nd level. They didn't have their 32 points to make genetic freaks. They didn't have 140 splat books to pull from. They didn't have a full understanding of our modified system to try and take advantage of. In other words, when they were on a level playing field, they didn't shine any more or less than anyone else at the table. This whole argument really comes down to playing style. If you see D&D as a Diablo-style videogame that can be "won" by creating the mathematically perfect killing machine, and you are playing in a heavy-RP, story-centric campaign where you have to know how to do more than kill stuff, you aren't going to have any fun. There's nothing wrong with playing D&D as a Diablo-style videogame, as long as everyone else at the table is playing it that way too. If you are the only powergamer at your table with a RP heavy DM, you may shine at the table, but you probably won't have much fun in the long run, and neither will anyone else. The very idea that "DM's hate powerful characters" is ridiculous. This is a question of gaming style, and nothing more. If you don't like your DM because you think they hate the way you are building your character, guess what? Neither one of you are wrong, just wrong for each other. You both have 2 options; find a way to create a game that is fun for both, or find new people to game with. My table is very storyline heavy, yet we still average 3-6 encounters per session. My players prefer a "cinepic" feel to the game, so I try and make combat feel as much like roleplaying as the rest of the game with highly detailed descriptions. We don't really have a single min-maxer in our group, but we don't make fun of that playing style. Taking an elite stance in something like how to roleplay is something I just can't wrap my head around. To even argue that there is a "best way" to game defeats the real purpose of roleplaying at its core. I'm a DM. I have been since 1981. I don't hate powerful characters. I don't hate min-maxers. I don't hate munchkins. I don't hate anyone who shares my interest and love for a great hobby. I am very clear about our playing style and house rules, and welcome anyone into the group who wants to give our game a shot. If that person decides it's not their cup of tea, that doesn't make them a bad person in my book. I've had many more stay than leave, so I believe in our gamestyle. But that said, it isn't for everyone and I certainly don't think less of anyone who doesn't like the way we game. I'm hopeful that in time, the younger players who have all this hostility toward other gamers who are, in their minds, "doing it all wrong", will stick with this hobby long enough to realize that there is no one true way to roleplay. I believe that the key to enjoyment to this type of game hinges on finding like-minded people, who perceive a similar game style. The upside for younger players is that the game is much more popular now than it was in 1981, so finding like-minded players is much easier. :)
Sunic_Flames 09-27-07, 02:06 PM	Actually, lower PB encourages min-maxing. See, min maxing is about being good at one thing, even if it means sucking at everything else. This is not the same as optimization which involves being good all around. As lower PB means fewer resources, said resources must be used in the most efficient means possible. Meaning, min maxed stats, and due to the trickle down effect to a lesser extent min maxed everything else to cling tightly to your little niche. Also, 25 PB discourages the already weak characters more than the stronger ones as the stronger ones tend to be dependent upon fewer attributes, which explains much of this. End result? Wider gap between classes like fighter/monk/paladin, and classes like cleric/druid/wizard. It's somewhat of a running joke around here to reply to anti splatbook sentiments and the like with play CoDzilla. There is much truth to this. After all with the gap wider between the haves and the have nots, the haves are more desirable and things are less balanced. Fighters are really a bad example of this, because their class features by design are 33-50% as strong as real class features (deliberate design decision on feats) combined with the fact that a bonus feat is only as good as what you can fill it with, and without the absolute minimum of PHB 2, this means 'not much'. Although this is largely irrevelent at level 2. By the way, if used for pure power those 7 points don't do much. What they're more apt to do is result in a well rounded character that doesn't suck, or put another way a multiple attribute dependent character.
The_Levitator 09-27-07, 02:45 PM	Actually, lower PB encourages min-maxing. See, min maxing is about being good at one thing, even if it means sucking at everything else. This is not the same as optimization which involves being good all around. As lower PB means fewer resources, said resources must be used in the most efficient means possible. Meaning, min maxed stats, and due to the trickle down effect to a lesser extent min maxed everything else to cling tightly to your little niche. Also, 25 PB discourages the already weak characters more than the stronger ones as the stronger ones tend to be dependent upon fewer attributes, which explains much of this. End result? Wider gap between classes like fighter/monk/paladin, and classes like cleric/druid/wizard. It's somewhat of a running joke around here to reply to anti splatbook sentiments and the like with play CoDzilla. There is much truth to this. After all with the gap wider between the haves and the have nots, the haves are more desirable and things are less balanced. Fighters are really a bad example of this, because their class features by design are 33-50% as strong as real class features (deliberate design decision on feats) combined with the fact that a bonus feat is only as good as what you can fill it with, and without the absolute minimum of PHB 2, this means 'not much'. Although this is largely irrevelent at level 2. By the way, if used for pure power those 7 points don't do much. What they're more apt to do is result in a well rounded character that doesn't suck, or put another way a multiple attribute dependent character. Thanks for the clarification. This post makes a lot of sense. Sorry about the mixup in terminology, but I rarely have stat-driven players in my groups, so I admit to not having the lingity down pat. While your logic makes a lot of sense and probably applies to those who really do know how to min-max or optimize well, I still believe that many people who fancy themselves as powergamers/min-maxers/munchkins/insert cool name here, are really only able to do so with very high point buys and lots of splatbooks. Those have been more the people I have dealt with lately. I would actually like to have a strong optimizer or min-maxer in our game because it would give me a better idea of the balance in our modified game. Unfortunately, I've only been able to play with players who like the title, but don't seem to be good at either min-maxing or optimization. Per your definition Sunic_Flames, I would consider my group of grognards (2 of them have been playing longer than me!)to be pretty efficient optimizers, but not min-maxers. :) Again, I don't really care what "style" a player is, as long as they can find a way to fit in with the rest of the group and add to the fun, not detract from it. And I'll do anything I can to accommodate a new player, short of ruining everyone else's idea of a good time. :)
Drag0nUL 09-27-07, 03:37 PM	Fully agree with the PB issue. I often find that lowering the PB actually lowers the roleplay potential of the game, and not the power level. Most powerful classes (Cleric, Druid, Wizard) are SAD after all. Using a low PB only discourages people from trying interesting stuff. I have never played in a 25 PB game; most of my games are 28 or 32 PB. And, at least for me, the 4 points usually go into character flavor(like 10 str for a wizard instead of 8 so that he is not so physically weak , 2 extra points in int so that I can pick some extra background skills, like a few ranks in a profession or craft). The only time I felt I really needed 32 points was when playing a gish, and that was also a roleplay decision. I play gishes because I like them, not for power reasons. Actually I was having just this sort of talk with my DM a few days ago. He is going to start a new campaign after everybody is back from the summer holiday and he planned using 28 point buy. I asked for 32, so he wondered what 'power build' I was planning. I presented him my cleric: 28 PB: 14 str, 10 Dex, 14 Con, 10 int, 16 Wis, 10 Cha 32 PB: 14 str, 10 Dex, 14 Con, 12 int, 16 Wis, 12 Cha Those extra 4 point would have no effect upon the overall power level of the character, but an extra skill point/level could allow me to also pick diplomacy as a class skill and add a new pretty interesting dimension to the character's personality. This guy functions as well in a 28 PB campaign or even 25 (drop Str to 13 and Cha to 8) but is a more entertaining character with 32 PB.
solbergb 09-27-07, 04:55 PM	Yeah...folks good at character design can optomize any system. High attributes tend to favor the less skilled, because everything caps at 18 and at some point all you can do is bump attributes unimportant to your concept (and the newbie is more likely to accidently allocate enough points to key attributes to be effective) Low magic item access is another thing that favors the optomizer. He is going to know which classes are more sensitive to that and avoid them, choosing classes that still perform well even with no eqiupment (generally full spellcasters, druid for melee). High magic access but not allowed to buy or craft anything (all is found loot) tends to minimize the impact of optomization, because the GM can give out more powerful stuff or useful stuff to the newbie and let the optomizer mostly work with his class abilities. One thing that does favor the optomizer is just a raw increase in options (more books etc). But the PHB has most of the worst culprits right there, and the MM1 and DMG provide many of the rest.. These following feats and spells are more powerful than anything in a splatbook. (ok...at least as powerful. The lion totem pounce barbarian class feature is just stupid for its cost) power attack empower spell on anything with a fixed value as part of the variable(ie, 1d12+10) quicken spell wildshape rage All three "prepared caster" classes (wiz, druid, cleric) animal companion and paladin mount class features divine power righteous might the entire polymorph chain (alter self to shapechange) wall of thorns web, glitterdust, solid fog and evards tentacles (for their level) wall of force dim door, teleport forcecage gate (it should not give instant obedience for round/level) Holy word spells and their ilk, especially combined with templated monsters with high hit dice, or caster level boosters like orange ioun stone and bead of karma, both in DMG. limited wish, wish and miracle The "pounce" mechanic that monster manual I cats all have I'm sure I could come up with more. Some of these get more powerful with more splatbooks, eg polymorph and animal companion are more powerful if stuff off the PHB lists for companion or monster manual 1 for polymorph are allowed. But it is the core mechanic that is broken, and limiting the campaign to "Core only" doesn't change it. As for stormwind - it's true. There is zero correlation between roleplay skills and character optomization skills. The two are independent. I've got nearly 30 years of evidence of this, in many game systems, including 15 years Hero Games in various editions whose point buy system for everything gives far more opportunities for optomization variation on power level than D&D does (anyone with a 3rd edition Champions variable power pool above a certain size could become a pun-pun like creature...there were a number of infinite loop tricks). I've also got experience with hundreds of players of 3.5, actual play not board conversations. Ability to contribute in combat and ability to play an interesting and unique character have no correlation. There are some people who are the equivalant of "Script kiddies". They see an interesting character or theoretical build and attempt to play it without understanding it, either at the roleplay level or the mechanical level. You then get somebody at your table who plays a wooden character (or silent one) in the roleplay parts of the game, that on paper is very strong but in practice is an empty chair when the fighting starts. I often wonder if they're the source of the fallacy.
Stev Beren 09-27-07, 08:50 PM	No, in practice it reminds people that the two concepts do not affect each other inherently. People can force them to, but nothing inherently about roleplay affects rollplay. If you disagree than, it is not a strawman, but a point of debate. So you either agree or you disagree. Unless, one can prove that it can affect it inherently. But as there have been those good at rollplay as well as roleplay: that is proven wrong. Upholding the Stormwind as it is. It can be a valid logical construct and irrelevant at the same time - if the 'fallacy' has _nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand_ and is being used to 'disprove' and argument that noone is making. In fact, that would make it the very definition of a straw man.
Clawhound 09-28-07, 12:42 PM	I've found that PB is independent of roleplay potential. I've played 25 point buy before. It's fun. I find that campaign difficulty destroys roleplay potential. I played in a game where our first encounter at first level was CR5. Everyone had to optimize or die, which left little room for developing our characters, or even making mistakes.
SokenzanMarauder 09-28-07, 01:03 PM	One time, I ran a 20th level one-shot with my group, sans the powergaming friend I had (i told him it was 'cause I already had 6 players for it, so all niches were filled and i didn't want a seventh), and he told me about how the character he made could out-damage the leap-attacking barbarian, heal better than the Radiant Servant of Pelor, and i think out-stealth the Shadowdancer. Or something along the lines of, "Do better in the chosen role of 3 other PCs", i don't remember what the build was 'cause I didn't listen and it probably involves psionics, which i have negative interest in (ironically enough, because of the same player). I used to game with someone like this. I wouldn't be caught dead playing or DMing for them anymore. Powergamers in general, irk me (my definition of powergamer is somewhat different than the norm, I think), especially since every one of them that I've played with was a total asshat. Kinda gives the whole group a bad rep in my eyes. Of course, not all powergamers are jerks, just the ones I've played with. I'm also among the group that feels having a character that is too 'weak' is a bad thing. If a player has made a character that he (and to a lesser extent, I) believe is very weak compared to the rest of the party, I generally allow a rebuild quest so that he can get back on track. Very few people enjoy playing characters that are inept at what they were originally made to do. -Gene
solbergb 09-28-07, 01:30 PM	I'm also among the group that feels having a character that is too 'weak' is a bad thing. If a player has made a character that he (and to a lesser extent, I) believe is very weak compared to the rest of the party, I generally allow a rebuild quest so that he can get back on track. Very few people enjoy playing characters that are inept at what they were originally made to do. -Gene Yeah. It is bad roleplay to play an adventurer who is inept at adventuring. Why would the other people, whose lives depend on each other, and who get into life and death situations more often than soldiers in a combat zone, keep him around?
Drag0nUL 09-28-07, 01:32 PM	I've found that PB is independent of roleplay potential. I've played 25 point buy before. It's fun. I find that campaign difficulty destroys roleplay potential. I played in a game where our first encounter at first level was CR5. Everyone had to optimize or die, which left little room for developing our characters, or even making mistakes. The only way I see PB influencing roleplaying potential is that a higher PB allows people to try more interesting stuff(most of them MAD builds) without falling so much behind the party. A SAD build like the druid needs precisely 16 points to be effective(18 wisdom). The rest is bonus. If you try building a gish or a paladin with 16 PB you will see it comes out quite weak. As for campaign difficulty affecting roleplay potential, it depends. I have played (and will play again since next week when summer holiday is over:) ) in a pretty optimized group. Most of our campaigns feature highly optimized characters and opponents (it allows very little room for error and you must constantly be on your toes if you want to live to see another day). And I don't find it prevents us roleplay in any way. Well, the truth is that we tend to go a little easier in the beginning( CR5 at level 1 is a bit over the top) until level 5-6. After that all hell breaks loose(the builds are already beginning to look powerful and the players are beginning to get the necessary funds to access resurrection magic in case anything goes wrong).
SokenzanMarauder 09-28-07, 02:02 PM	Yeah. It is bad roleplay to play an adventurer who is inept at adventuring. Why would the other people, whose lives depend on each other, and who get into life and death situations more often than soldiers in a combat zone, keep him around? My sentiments exactly (stated better too :D). -Gene
Sunic_Flames 09-28-07, 02:43 PM	Thanks for the clarification. This post makes a lot of sense. Sorry about the mixup in terminology, but I rarely have stat-driven players in my groups, so I admit to not having the lingity down pat. While your logic makes a lot of sense and probably applies to those who really do know how to min-max or optimize well, I still believe that many people who fancy themselves as powergamers/min-maxers/munchkins/insert cool name here, are really only able to do so with very high point buys and lots of splatbooks. Those have been more the people I have dealt with lately. I would actually like to have a strong optimizer or min-maxer in our game because it would give me a better idea of the balance in our modified game. Unfortunately, I've only been able to play with players who like the title, but don't seem to be good at either min-maxing or optimization. Per your definition Sunic_Flames, I would consider my group of grognards (2 of them have been playing longer than me!)to be pretty efficient optimizers, but not min-maxers. :) Again, I don't really care what "style" a player is, as long as they can find a way to fit in with the rest of the group and add to the fun, not detract from it. And I'll do anything I can to accommodate a new player, short of ruining everyone else's idea of a good time. :) Any remotely competent optimizer could break a game in half with 25 PB and no splat books. This of course serves no purpose except proving it is possible, but it is easily done. Alternately, they could play normally, but some classes just won't run on 25 PB, they need too many 13+s. Fighter? Str to hit things, con to be hit by things, int 13 for special maneuvers like tripping, likely dex 13 for combat reflexes... And then wis and cha not dump statted likely for roleplaying reasons. That's what? 40% of the points just in dex and int, leaving 15 for everything else? Even worse on a monk or paladin, they don't have the choice to forego the extra to just be a brute. Higher values tend to lead to more options, not better options. It favors those who don't optimize as they're less likely to know better. Of course really high values throw everything out of whack, but most games use something reasonable. Now, there is some stuff in splat books that is decidedly better than comparable core only material. But for the most part, ironically splat books act as a balancer. Notice the newer martial classes tend to be of a higher and more versatile level, and the new casters are generally not overpowering like their predecessors. This is important because versatility means more consistent performance. One trick ponies (what min maxing results in) do really well at those times and crap every other time. Not only is it hard to gauge from a balance perspective and very extremish prone, it leads to less fun play as you can't do something as often. In other words, it fixes them to a reasonable level on both the power and fun scales while fixing the casters to a not overshadowing level. Also, there are some concepts that are essentially impossible without either crazy multiclassing, or non core material. Generally the latter comes out cleaner than the former, because instead of having to make a class mixture to be a gish for example, you can be one 1-20, without so much deviation. And most DMs get wary when they see a long list of classes, so this is more likely to be accepted even if it means a new book. Max optimization will still almost always not be xxx 20... Max optimization is also rarely necessary. And the classes more prone to being valid xxx 20 options are also the ones that tended to be produced later, after they had learned through trial and error what is and is not too much. Are there things broken in every book? Sure. Yes, that includes core. But by no means does some iffy content in a book make the book iffy. The easy path to fix excessive power is core only, 25 PB. The easy path is a false path, counterproductive. Don't do it. It's a trap. On a final note solbergb, you're the second person I've seen to call rage overpowered. It's also the second time I've ever heard this statement. Why is that?
solbergb 09-28-07, 04:39 PM	Rage is good enough that any fighter build that isn't lawful usually works in a level of barbarian and extra rage feat. +4 strength that stacks with everything makes you better at hitting, damage, grapple, bull rush, tripping etc. Plus a hitpoint, fort save, will save boost. It lasts an entire combat and there is almost never a meaningful downside. I'm not saying it is a bad thing as such. But like power attack (which probably should be a class ability, or even free to all characters in some form like fighting defensively vs combat expertise) the fact that melee character without it is unusual is a sign that it's probably too strong, especially as a class level 1 ability. Maybe all fighters should just have a maneuver that raises their to-hit and damage while lowering their AC. It would come out about the same, and let them feel free to give the barbarian more. You can look at every other melee character and PRC and not find anything comparable. The closest is the power surge of Kensai, which is pretty good but takes a move action and wears off in a round. So yeah....any melee optomization that goes to splatbooks usually starts with a level of barbaran, power attack and extra rage. Two of the three are core. It gets considerably worse when the stupid lion totem alternate class ability for barbarians is added. Now my level of barbarian gets me "pounce" too. Anyway. That's the "Rage" is overpowered thing. (and yes, 3 of four melee builds I play have rage in some form, two with extra rage, and the fourth is a monk who is explicitly trying to wean orcs from the "path of rage". 3 of four also have power attack, and the fourth will get it as his next feat. I just can't help myself heh...)
Sunic_Flames 09-28-07, 05:00 PM	Rage is good enough that any fighter build that isn't lawful usually works in a level of barbarian and extra rage feat. +4 strength that stacks with everything makes you better at hitting, damage, grapple, bull rush, tripping etc. Plus a hitpoint, fort save, will save boost. It lasts an entire combat and there is almost never a meaningful downside. I'm not saying it is a bad thing as such. But like power attack (which probably should be a class ability, or even free to all characters in some form like fighting defensively vs combat expertise) the fact that melee character without it is unusual is a sign that it's probably too strong, especially as a class level 1 ability. Maybe all fighters should just have a maneuver that raises their to-hit and damage while lowering their AC. It would come out about the same, and let them feel free to give the barbarian more. You can look at every other melee character and PRC and not find anything comparable. The closest is the power surge of Kensai, which is pretty good but takes a move action and wears off in a round. So yeah....any melee optomization that goes to splatbooks usually starts with a level of barbaran, power attack and extra rage. Two of the three are core. It gets considerably worse when the stupid lion totem alternate class ability for barbarians is added. Now my level of barbarian gets me "pounce" too. Anyway. That's the "Rage" is overpowered thing. (and yes, 3 of four melee builds I play have rage in some form, two with extra rage, and the fourth is a monk who is explicitly trying to wean orcs from the "path of rage". 3 of four also have power attack, and the fourth will get it as his next feat. I just can't help myself heh...) Sounds more like the problem is barbarian is too front loaded than rage is too good. Kinda like saying wis to ac is too good because druids and to a lesser extent clerics use it via monk 1. As for Power Attack... that comes with the system so heavily favoring 2 handed weapons and/or reach weapons. Enemies get bigger, and being at a reach disadvantage is a quick way to die. But AC generally scales slower than to hit, anything that lets you use that excess attack bonus to hit harder and kill the enemy before they kill you is automatically awesome. The Lion Totem thing is Pounce being too good, as you'd expect from anything that at least doubles your damage output. The fact it's a barbarian variant while making it even more front loaded is coincidental. It's also not the only way of doing it, though the other big one is overpowered in its own right. Lastly assuming by fighter you mean Fighter and not martial class... they need the help, let em have it. :P Even if not... they need the help, let em have it. :P
MrCustomer 09-28-07, 05:01 PM	Rage is good enough that any fighter build that isn't lawful usually works in a level of barbarian and extra rage feat. This is why adhering to the rules is so important, unless the DM knows what he is doing. FYI, Barbarians are illiterate, ignorant and primitive, NOT CIVILIZED, hence the term barbarian. Being educated or otherwise training in another level means the barbarian is no longer a barbarian, he becomes civilized. A Barbarian looses his Rage ability and cannot advance in barbarian levels once he trains in another class. A Fighter also cannot train in barbarian levels because he is already civilized. This is the other reason why Dms often dislike Min/Maxers, often they are ussually the ones who twist the rules as much as possible, ignoring minor inconveniences etc to make their uber power character work. Not always the case but generally where you find someone who wants to "change the rules" you also find he is the min/maxer as well. This leads to the stereotype.
Sunic_Flames 09-28-07, 05:06 PM	This is why adhering to the rules is so important, unless the DM knows what he is doing. I see where this is in your opinion. Can you show me where it is in the rules as you claim it to be?
Nephlite 09-28-07, 05:20 PM	This is why adhering to the rules is so important, unless the DM knows what he is doing. FYI, Barbarians are illiterate, ignorant and primitive, NOT CIVILIZED, hence the term barbarian. Being educated or otherwise training in another level means the barbarian is no longer a barbarian, he becomes civilized. Civilized means lawful because in D&D. Barbarian lose Rage if they become lawgful not if they become another class. Secobd, 2 skill points gives literacy. Because you are more skilled compared to a Fighter: you can afford 2. There is no rule that they are ignorant. A Barbarian looses his Rage ability and cannot advance in barbarian levels once he trains in another class. A Fighter also cannot train in barbarian levels because he is already civilized. This is the other reason why Dms often dislike Min/Maxers, often they are ussually the ones who twist the rules as much as possible, ignoring minor inconveniences etc to make their uber power character work. Not always the case but generally where you find someone who wants to "change the rules" you also find he is the min/maxer as well. This leads to the stereotype. Yeah, at least they read the rules.
MrCustomer 09-28-07, 05:44 PM	Civilized means lawful because in D&D. Barbarian lose Rage if they become lawgful not if they become another class. Secobd, 2 skill points gives literacy. Because you are more skilled compared to a Fighter: you can afford 2. There is no rule that they are ignorant. Yeah, at least they read the rules. Sorry a barbarian who takes another class cannot train in barbarian levels, so a fighter could not take a class level in barabarian. (by ignorant I meant they are not civilized, thus ignorant of civilized behavior, thus raging) Being a barbarian is as much a background as it is a class.
Nephlite 09-28-07, 06:45 PM	Sorry a barbarian who takes another class cannot train in barbarian levels, so a fighter could not take a class level in barabarian. (by ignorant I meant they are not civilized, thus ignorant of civilized behavior, thus raging) Being a barbarian is as much a background as it is a class. Rules source? Because houserules prove nothing.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 09-28-07, 06:55 PM	Sorry a barbarian who takes another class cannot train in barbarian levels, so a fighter could not take a class level in barabarian. (by ignorant I meant they are not civilized, thus ignorant of civilized behavior, thus raging) Being a barbarian is as much a background as it is a class. I call bullmanure.
navar100 09-28-07, 07:36 PM	When Mystic Theurge first made the scene, people shouted "Too powerful! Full arcane and divine spellcasting? Munchkin!". When Warlock first made the scene, people shouted "Too powerful! At will abilities? Never ending, all day long? Munchkin!" When Tome of Battle first made the scene, people shouted "Too powerful! A fighter who can heal himself? Send out a fireball? Deal +100 damage? Munchkin!" These people knee-jerked in seeing something new. A player character was able to do something interesting and different than in the past. This is not to say a particular DM must allow Mystic Theurges, Warlocks, Crusaders, Warblades, and Swordsages, rather it's the idea that they balked at the notion of a player character doing something different. They hear Teleport with Righteous Might and don't want to dicuss any further. They hear "at will" and don't want to discuss any further. They hear a fighter casting a fireball and don't want to discuss any further. Psionics still has its detractors. "Balance" is irrelevant. One player character being clearly more powerful than the rest combined is a problem that needs to be addressed. However, too often the "solution" is to make everyone weak instead of everyone quite competent. If everyone is "powerful", then there's no problem with "balance". However, there are those DMs who only want player characters to have +1 to something and will always balk, talk to the hand, to any suggesstion player characters having a +3 or +4, not even if every party member has it.
navar100 09-29-07, 10:46 AM	Then you have DMs who hate multi-classing. "Oh know, he's playing a fighter/rogue! He has feats *and* sneak attack, power attaking with a greatsword! The nerve! Worse, he took rogue at 1st level so he's rolling in the skill points. Munchkin!" "Oh woe is me! I have a player playing a monk/paladin and his savings throws are high. My villain spellcasters have a hard time casting save or screwed spells on him."
geekling 09-29-07, 11:14 AM	It is really quite easy. I only have X number of hours to spend on the prep work for running this game each week. I can spend those on the armsrace of ever more munchkinized PCs. Or to create an interesting and fun game. If the players vs. DM armsrace of getting the most powerful character possible is the most important thing to you. Don't play in my games. Because I will go for option B everytime. Optimizing one character is fine and dandy. But, know what, by the time you get to NPC #57 it has completely lost its charm, and is nothing more than a chore that makes this game not-fun! If the DM don't have fun, niether do you. Most likely, if the DM don't have fun, you're looking for a new DM because there is no more game.
ravenshrike 09-29-07, 03:56 PM	This is why adhering to the rules is so important, unless the DM knows what he is doing. FYI, Barbarians are illiterate, ignorant and primitive, NOT CIVILIZED, hence the term barbarian. Being educated or otherwise training in another level means the barbarian is no longer a barbarian, he becomes civilized. A Barbarian looses his Rage ability and cannot advance in barbarian levels once he trains in another class. A Fighter also cannot train in barbarian levels because he is already civilized. Technically speaking the barb should be the berserker class. Because really, that's what it is, the FB just being a more powerful extension of his abilities. But nooo, they went for stereotypical flavoring. Being a berserker has no bearing on your other abilities.
Drag0nUL 09-29-07, 05:38 PM	It is really quite easy. I only have X number of hours to spend on the prep work for running this game each week. I can spend those on the armsrace of ever more munchkinized PCs. Or to create an interesting and fun game. If the players vs. DM armsrace of getting the most powerful character possible is the most important thing to you. Don't play in my games. Because I will go for option B everytime. Optimizing one character is fine and dandy. But, know what, by the time you get to NPC #57 it has completely lost its charm, and is nothing more than a chore that makes this game not-fun! If the DM don't have fun, niether do you. Most likely, if the DM don't have fun, you're looking for a new DM because there is no more game. I really think that the campaign's power level should be chosen in agreement by both the players and the DM. Both when I play and DM I enjoy powerful characters, and the people I play with feel the same. But I fully understand that others just don't want to invest too much time in creating an optimized character. For me, building (and discussing options for) a strong character is a really fun process; for others it isn't. D&D is all about having fun, so whatever achieves that works.
MrCustomer 09-29-07, 06:18 PM	Rules source? Because houserules prove nothing. Ah, no I was wrong, shows me for posting at work while far away from the books.
MrCustomer 09-29-07, 06:46 PM	When Mystic Theurge first made the scene, people shouted "Too powerful! Full arcane and divine spellcasting? Munchkin!". When Warlock first made the scene, people shouted "Too powerful! At will abilities? Never ending, all day long? Munchkin!" When Tome of Battle first made the scene, people shouted "Too powerful! A fighter who can heal himself? Send out a fireball? Deal +100 damage? Munchkin!" These people knee-jerked in seeing something new. A player character was able to do something interesting and different than in the past. This is not to say a particular DM must allow Mystic Theurges, Warlocks, Crusaders, Warblades, and Swordsages, rather it's the idea that they balked at the notion of a player character doing something different. DMs should always balk at anything new. The very first thing out of a DM's mouth when asked for something new should be a resounding "NO" At least until he has the new mechanics down pact. The reason is that balance is more then just stats on a sheet, and balancing an encounter is more complex then selecting an EL vs the Player's average levels. A half dozen goblins is far more dangerous to the players in the hands of a capable DM then they are at the hands of a novice. Understanding the rules and mechanics enables the DM to properly balance encounters. Now if the DM doesn't understand the rules and mechanics then making balanced encounters is extremely difficult. So when a player makes a character that the DM doesn't understand the rules for, especially if it's a player who can maximize really well, then the DM is screwed. Not because the PC is too powerful, but because the DM doesn't understand that power and how it works in his game. As a consequence as well the PC ends up being too powerful because the DM does't expect the things that the PC does or how the NPCs should react. Of course the DM could memorize the new rules, but even then until you see them in action is is often hard to guage the power. Why not allow Psionics in the game? Well that means learning an entire new rulebook, and becoming familiar to all the powers and capabilities of psionics. This is actually alot of work to expect of many DMs for just one single PC. Basically when you create a PC that is going to make the DM go "Um, your going to do what? er what does that do? Oh... ok.. um...ya, so hmmm, I guess the uh that you killed it then...." then you are going to win encounters, notr because your PC is powerful, but because the DM is ignorant of how to handle your PC.
Nephlite 09-29-07, 11:40 PM	Basically when you create a PC that is going to make the DM go "Um, your going to do what? er what does that do? Oh... ok.. um...ya, so hmmm, I guess the uh that you killed it then...." then you are going to win encounters, notr because your PC is powerful, but because the DM is ignorant of how to handle your PC. Same for when I madea Wu Jen which compared to a Wizard is not as good. Just has foreign spells. DM Ignorance does not make a Player powerful: Player cheating might, but that is a seperate topic.
DracoPhoenix 10-01-07, 08:10 AM	I get it either way - can't be too powerful, can't be too weak :( It's really hard to knock up something within (undefined) "acceptable" power levels. Though I had to laugh, recently rolled a psion(telepath) due to a party member death. Nothing but XPH with a power or two from Comp Psi. (Ok, was dragon born too, but class wise just XPH) Got an earful over the power of energy missiles. As we have a long running dispute over the relative power of psion v wizardwhich the DM always mis-represents as I think psions are weak vs wizards. I don't - I think they pay for the "flexibility" a few too many times (along with the sorc) - like forced discipline that bars ALL other disciplines, 2 powers / level flat rate. Especially when compared to either comp. divine or PHB2's domain spontenaity(sp) abilities (a well chosen domain or two and you're sorted)). Oh, and the recent addition of reserve feats. /rant Despite having to spend a feat on that 1 power, which can be blocked by anything that can block L2 spells / power even if I pump 20pp into it (at L20) Then if I build a caster without full casting progression, or multiclass I get an earful on how I'm going to be too weak. (Well, not so much the latter as I tend to do quite nicely on power.) Had ~+11/+7 atk on both hands (4 attacks total). (Including str & +ench IIRC), Gtr Cleave Bound Airstep Sandles, flame mantle, crystal helm, planar ward. Go figure.
Ddraiglais 10-01-07, 09:30 AM	I've said this before, and I'll say it again and again. It's called role playing, not roll playing. I am a DM and a player. As both a DM and a player I hate people who min/max. As a DM I can do things to limit min/maxing. It ruins the fun for everyone. It is not for the players to find every glitch in the rules and make the most uber powerful character that they can. The game is about making a character that is fun. Sometimes that can even include faults. As a player, all I can do is sit there and be bored while the uber powerful min/maxed PC kills everything. On the flip side, if the whole party is equally (or close to) powerful; then it's fun for everyone. In one game I was DMing, I allowed a half dragon that was pretty unbalanced. You should have seen the toys I handed out to the other PCs (vorpal blade, sun blade, artifacts, etc). By the time I got done, the half dragon wasn't close to unbalanced. Of course the monsters were a bit over the top too.
Sunic_Flames 10-01-07, 10:43 AM	Half dragons have an LA of 3. Unless you are ignoring this, or the others are screwing up monumentally, he should not be outclassing anyone, quite the opposite. Sounds like you massively overcompensated to boot. On a side note, vorpal sucks for the cost. 70-150k (depending on existing enchantments pre vorpal) for 1 in 20 instant kills? Any decent character is already doing that with any weapon. They just need to do 50+ damage a hit, which is not only achievable but expected by the time vorpals come into play. Of course, massive damage should be house ruled out anyways but still.
Karish 10-01-07, 10:48 AM	Encourage the Warlock to.... well, not play a Warlock!!!! But I kill wizards and druids with a warlock... :'(
DracoPhoenix 10-01-07, 11:49 AM	Half dragons have an LA of 3. <snip> There's also a +L0 variant that has a racial class progression to allow it to be played from L1. Races of Dragon IIRC.
solbergb 10-01-07, 02:42 PM	Going back to "rage" and "roleplay" what the rage mechanic being a bit overpowered means is that your best warriors are savages or have anger management issues. A GM being strict about culture doesn't change much, it just means level 1 is barbarian and they get more "civilized" through exposure during adventuring (and thus take other classes). A GM can't stop somebody who is both good at optomization and good at roleplay by trying to "Balance through roleplay". All that does is color what types of backstories and personalities the characters have who want to be whatever it is that encourages the optomization behavior (as rage does melee fighters). He'll still get whatever mechanical stuff he needs into the build to achieve the vision of the character. For the record, my three barbarian-dipped characters in play are: Dwarf from a clan outcast by Moradin (their clan name means "Hungry Mountain"). They live more on the surface than most dwarves, don't work metal at all and have to trade to get some stuff. (he's a bard/barian who eventually became a warchanter). This character has unusually good social skills (for a dwarf) but still was trained to fight like his clanmates. His sister, who he travels with and normally buffs/protects, is a full on barbarian-type fighter who likes rocks (barb/fighter/stonelord - but feats are the same as a normal straight barb or barb/fighter would take). He's considered somewhat wimpy by his clanmates. His sister is considered tougher than normal. Teenage human female from a nomadic, warrior culture (think mongols except the women fight too) who scares horses because she smells like a cat and her "rage" is kind of half-shifting into cat form. She's inhabited by the tiger-totem god and she's adventuring to gain conscious control of this, to become his manifestation on Oerth. (she's a barbarian who then became a druid to control her shapeshifting and will eventually also be a warshaper - she's more like a bear warrior than a traditional druid in outlook and behavior, although she abides by druidic code of conduct because failing to do so would cause her to lose her ability to express her tiger nature in any form except rage) Teenage human male from a civilized culture that was invaded by and destroyed by barbarians (and then armies of an evil god that walks the earth, and then by an extraplanar threat, and then by the removal of that threat, and then by another war with the 3 powers who moved into the vacuum after extraplanar threat was removed....it was a terrible place to grow up). His view of "warrior" is the barbarian invaders and he's got a lot to be angry about, so in combat he fights like a barbarian. Out of combat though, he's pretty much a classic "rogue" in attitude and behavior. He survived by scavanging, he mostly looks out for himself and his reputation and he's an expert at "intrusion". Until he loses it in combat, he's in general analytical, pessimistic and mildly cowardly except when "showing off". (he's a mix of various classes, but his trapfinding and alertness skills are maxed, while he fights in armor and with big weapons. He could be built quite a number of ways, the only essential parts of the build are barb1 for the rage, a class with trapfinding and fighter for the heavy armor and tower shield proficiency. I actually ended up using beguiler as the trapfinding class because it allowed him to remain lazy and poorly socialized...eg, he can only "read" by casting comprehend languages, he does "diplomacy" by casting charm person on defeated, unconscious enemies until it sticks, he'll eventually be able to "scout" using silence and invisibility, etc) They're all barbarians because it fit the story....but the story might have been different if the best way to become a decent melee fighter in D&D from a medeocre one included more paths than "rage". None of these three are as effective as a normal fighter-type without the rage (at least not till the tiger-girl gets her actual tiger form). With the rage though, they're as good or a bit better.
Sunic_Flames 10-01-07, 03:23 PM	There's also a +L0 variant that has a racial class progression to allow it to be played from L1. Races of Dragon IIRC. Still loses class levels and HD, and therefore is almost always not overshadowing (because it's weaker than class features) by default.
Ddraiglais 10-01-07, 08:02 PM	Half dragons have an LA of 3. Unless you are ignoring this, or the others are screwing up monumentally, he should not be outclassing anyone, quite the opposite. Sounds like you massively overcompensated to boot. On a side note, vorpal sucks for the cost. 70-150k (depending on existing enchantments pre vorpal) for 1 in 20 instant kills? Any decent character is already doing that with any weapon. They just need to do 50+ damage a hit, which is not only achievable but expected by the time vorpals come into play. Of course, massive damage should be house ruled out anyways but still. I know, but I decided to ignore the LA in favor of giving out gifts. The players were pretty balanced after the gifts. The vorpal blade was +5 at level 10 and had other powers. A lot of that adventure was just everything was over the top. Normally I'm a lot more cruel than that.
navar100 10-02-07, 04:08 AM	I've said this before, and I'll say it again and again. It's called role playing, not roll playing. I am a DM and a player. As both a DM and a player I hate people who min/max. As a DM I can do things to limit min/maxing. It ruins the fun for everyone. It is not for the players to find every glitch in the rules and make the most uber powerful character that they can. The game is about making a character that is fun. Sometimes that can even include faults. As a player, all I can do is sit there and be bored while the uber powerful min/maxed PC kills everything. On the flip side, if the whole party is equally (or close to) powerful; then it's fun for everyone. In one game I was DMing, I allowed a half dragon that was pretty unbalanced. You should have seen the toys I handed out to the other PCs (vorpal blade, sun blade, artifacts, etc). By the time I got done, the half dragon wasn't close to unbalanced. Of course the monsters were a bit over the top too. Shows the point, assumption that because someone mix/maxes he's only interested in being so uber powerful to kill everything. To go with the stereotype, it can be fun to play Superman. A character doesn't need to have a game mechanical weakness for someone to "role play". He doesn't need a negative ability modifier. He doesn't need a +1 saving throw modifier at level 10. He doesn't need to be a dedicated warrior with less hit points than the rogue. How nice you allowed half-dragons and vorpal blades and sunblades and artifacts. It could very well have been a fun game. However, that is not absolution. Having a "powerful" character doesn't mean playing a "god". That is the extreme DMs who hate powerful character always tend to believe about powerful characters, hence why they hate powerful characters. Such games aren't typical. You wouldn't expect such characters with such magic items in your average game. Having a powerful character does not require an LA race or artifact-like magic items. A combination of PHB races with various PHB classes and various PHB feats and various PHB spells with varying ability scores can achieve the powerful character. The splat books add some spice. However, there is such a thing as something being too powerful where "too powerful" is defined as something that can grind the game to unplayability. 3.0 Haste was such a thing. 3.0 Harm was arguably such a thing. Even for 3.5 Divine Metamagic Persistent Spell can be such a thing, especially with nightsticks. However, a half-orc barbarian/rogue with ST 18 (before rage) in a rage power attacking with a greatsword while flanking is not, and that's before the bard sings, the cleric casts Bull Strength, and the wizard casts Greater Magic Weapon.
Archtyrant Terevoth 10-02-07, 05:54 AM	Any powerful character will always have a weakness. 13th level tanks that deal over 200 a round (which is perfectly possible without pun pun) inevitably have poor acs and low HP. Also, the DM should not penalise a player simply because he has found a legal way to make his build powerful. The problem tends to be that such builds are boring. They tend to be one-hit-wonder glass cannons who rely on one overpowered combo to get huge damage totals and have little other in the way of effective tactics. But they're just not fun or good for the game. Look at it from the flip side. What if every monster had the same collections of one-hit-wonder feats that the PC chose. It'd sure be legal, but it wouldn't be very fun to play in that game, because getting hit by a monster = death. Yeah, you can make all your dragons and what not use pounce + shocktrooper or wraithstrike+power attack, but what's the point? Do people really want to play a game of D&D where every battle is a nuke fest? Such games inevitably always end in TPKs. Powerful characters are fine, but designing one-hit-wonder glass cannons ruins the game in the long run.
Ddraiglais 10-02-07, 09:25 AM	Shows the point, assumption that because someone mix/maxes he's only interested in being so uber powerful to kill everything. To go with the stereotype, it can be fun to play Superman. A character doesn't need to have a game mechanical weakness for someone to "role play". He doesn't need a negative ability modifier. He doesn't need a +1 saving throw modifier at level 10. He doesn't need to be a dedicated warrior with less hit points than the rogue. Having a powerful character does not require an LA race or artifact-like magic items. A combination of PHB races with various PHB classes and various PHB feats and various PHB spells with varying ability scores can achieve the powerful character. The splat books add some spice. However, there is such a thing as something being too powerful where "too powerful" is defined as something that can grind the game to unplayability. 3.0 Haste was such a thing. 3.0 Harm was arguably such a thing. Even for 3.5 Divine Metamagic Persistent Spell can be such a thing, especially with nightsticks. However, a half-orc barbarian/rogue with ST 18 (before rage) in a rage power attacking with a greatsword while flanking is not, and that's before the bard sings, the cleric casts Bull Strength, and the wizard casts Greater Magic Weapon. While I agree it can be fun to play a powerful character. I have no place for min/maxers as a DM or a player. It's not a stereotype. Those kind of players are playing the game to somehow win (even though most of us know that's impossible). I agree with you. You don't need negatives. You also don't need the same exact two or three builds for each class that maximizes everything. I agree with you here too. That was a one off game for S&G. Certain combinations are nice in a party. My problem is when players are thinking more about maximizing combat effectiveness than role playing. It seems a lot of players only want the most powerful builds they can get. They have a set group of spells they will take every time. They take the same fighter feats every time. It gets old. Those are some things that WotC fixed or need to fix. When game mechanics are unbalanced, it's time for a rewrite. DMs can also throw out or change rules as well to help balance. Oh and for the record, I have been playing a lot more than DMing. Players min/maxing and whining is worse for me as another player than as a DM. It takes all the fun out of the game. I have easy fixes for min/maxers as a DM.
SokenzanMarauder 10-02-07, 12:12 PM	While I agree it can be fun to play a powerful character. I have no place for min/maxers as a DM or a player. It's not a stereotype. Those kind of players are playing the game to somehow win (even though most of us know that's impossible). I believe you're thinking of powergamers. They generally 'play-to-win' whereas min-maxers just seek to build a character with a maximal number of strengths and a minimal number of weaknesses. With how you're saying this (and I mean absolutely no offense when I say this) you're kind of coming of as an elitist. Do you mind optimizers in your games by any chance; seeing as they're pretty much the same things as min-maxers. They simply like having characters that are good at what they're supposed to be doing. -Gene
Sunic_Flames 10-02-07, 04:19 PM	Two things. First, do your characters have goals? If so, are you trying to achieve them? And would you consider it a victory if you did? You are playing to win. And you are a good roleplayer for doing it. Second, are your characters ever at risk for any reason? If so, are they trying to circumvent the risk in a way suited to their abilities to the best of their abilities so they don't die/fail/etc? You are treating your character like a real person and not just an avatar. Self preservation instincts are good roleplaying. Putting reversed spins on this stuff is fun. :D
Vanraya 10-02-07, 08:39 PM	...Second, are your characters ever at risk for any reason? If so, are they trying to circumvent the risk in a way suited to their abilities to the best of their abilities so they don't die/fail/etc? You are treating your character like a real person and not just an avatar. Self preservation instincts are good roleplaying. Putting reversed spins on this stuff is fun. :D Self preservation, and "OMG PIMPD OWT BILDZ" are 2 very different things. Again, I'm not against powerful characters, but lets not confuse self preservation, which a simple lvl 20 fighter could do, with imploding internal organs with a thought, like pun-pun. (The hyperbole and misrepresentation of the optimization community has been noted.)
Ddraiglais 10-02-07, 09:52 PM	I believe you're thinking of powergamers. They generally 'play-to-win' whereas min-maxers just seek to build a character with a maximal number of strengths and a minimal number of weaknesses. With how you're saying this (and I mean absolutely no offense when I say this) you're kind of coming of as an elitist. Do you mind optimizers in your games by any chance; seeing as they're pretty much the same things as min-maxers. They simply like having characters that are good at what they're supposed to be doing. -Gene I don't see much difference. Why can't players take new feats for their characters? Why is it the same combination of spells? I've actually thought about banning certain combinations because they are so abused. Having a good character is one thing. Thumbing through the rules to create the most powerful character without any regard to role playing or character developement is another. If wanting to have my players (or other players when I'm playing) to role play and develope CHARACTER makes me an elitist, then I guess I'm guilty. I've been playing since the early 80s. There was a time when I had a similar mindset to what I find on these boards. I understand how much fun it can be to be super human(oid). However, I have discovered how much fun the game can be without worrying about having the perfect stats, skills, feats, or whatever. Two things. First, do your characters have goals? If so, are you trying to achieve them? And would you consider it a victory if you did? You are playing to win. And you are a good roleplayer for doing it. Second, are your characters ever at risk for any reason? If so, are they trying to circumvent the risk in a way suited to their abilities to the best of their abilities so they don't die/fail/etc? You are treating your character like a real person and not just an avatar. Self preservation instincts are good roleplaying. Putting reversed spins on this stuff is fun. :D There are always new goals. There is no winning in D&D. There are victories, but that's it. If most of the party comes back, they all get the same XP, and they split the treasure equally; who won? What about when one of them dies on the next adventure? You said it. They can circumvent a situation. They don't have to be super heroes to do this. They can usually pick their fights. They can find other ways to accomplish their goals. Also, as Vanraya said, there is a difference between self preservation and the most pimped out character.
Slider33 10-03-07, 12:38 AM	To the OP: I can only speak of myself, but I have sort of a love/hate attitude towards powerful characters. I applaud the ingenuity that my players have when coming up with a new character concept. I too, like to have powerful characters as a player, it would be ridiculous for me to discourage that when I'm being the DM. That being said, players who try to build "broken" or simply powerful characters definitely challenges the DM. For new DM's this can be a daunting task. For experienced DM's, they probably welcome the challenge. So, the "hate" part, at least for me, stems from the amount of extra work it can sometimes cause a DM. I find it tough to challenge my players every single encounter. I think a lot of DM's might feel this way too. It's hard enough to come up with an encounter that is challenging, not boring, creates uncertainty (which may be needed with a overconfident group), exciting, yet not a complete total party wipe, etc. This is a tough thing to do. Plus, groups with powerful characters can sometimes be cocky, and therefore robbing, or at the least, hindering the DM's ability to inject suspense and uncertainty in the scenario. This is not something any DM likes to see, and you can usually expect a "humbling" experience for the PC's to occur in short time. ;) So, as you can see it can challenge a DM greatly, and if the DM isn't up to the task it can really hurt the overall enjoyment of the game, possibly ruin an adventure. Having said that, players that challenge the DM, and vice versa, raises everyone's game significantly. It's frustrating, but also very rewarding. The players learn more about the game and so does the DM, and everyone gets better for it. So for all you DM's out there who really do hate powerful characters, I urge you to rise to the occasion, find those weaknesses (every character will have one) and exploit them if need be. DM's and players have a very synergistic relationship, the challenges ebb and flow from both sides of the table.
SokenzanMarauder 10-03-07, 01:10 AM	I don't see much difference. Why can't players take new feats for their characters? Why is it the same combination of spells? I've actually thought about banning certain combinations because they are so abused. Having a good character is one thing. Thumbing through the rules to create the most powerful character without any regard to role playing or character developement is another. If wanting to have my players (or other players when I'm playing) to role play and develope CHARACTER makes me an elitist, then I guess I'm guilty. I've been playing since the early 80s. There was a time when I had a similar mindset to what I find on these boards. I understand how much fun it can be to be super human(oid). However, I have discovered how much fun the game can be without worrying about having the perfect stats, skills, feats, or whatever. I can't remember if you're committing the Stormwind fallacy or the Oberoni fallacy. Just because someone has good characters doesn't mean that they don't roleplay. Further, you're dealing with powergamers. Optimizers create powerful characters, yes, but they DON'T create these 'super humanoids' that you're referring to, they simply make a character that doesn't suck. Big difference. -Gene
Sunic_Flames 10-03-07, 08:10 AM	Self preservation, and "OMG PIMPD OWT BILDZ" are 2 very different things. Again, I'm not against powerful characters, but lets not confuse self preservation, which a simple lvl 20 fighter could do, with imploding internal organs with a thought, like pun-pun. (The hyperbole and misrepresentation of the optimization community has been noted.) I figured that kinda went without saying. Though you'd be surprised just how few can actually take it to that level. Charger guy: :fight!: MY DAMAGE LEVEL IS OVER 9,000!!! DM: :teach: ...The dragon has wings... Charger guy: :OMG! *goes berserk and implodes* Ddraiglais: All the PCs won and all their opponents lost because the PCs accomplished their goals and their opposition failed to stop them because they were killed/subdued/went around... I said circumvent to leave it open. It could be a combat challenge, could be a trap, could be 'convince the tyrant king to not hang you upside down for a year'... Also even if you don't consider achieving a goal victory because you have more, eventually you will run out at which point if you're still on the same track it's a case of happily ever after. :P
Magrus 10-03-07, 08:18 AM	As a DM, I have to say one thing. If I had a player who spent all of their free time making the most uber build they could find to thrash anything that came near it, that's fine. However, I have to work to set up a game. If this players character destroys something that I spent hours putting together that should have taken an hour to play out in game? That's a problem. Why is that a problem? Chances are that will happen regularly, as it isn't simply a lucky roll and getting a critical confirm. It is the standard tactic and result of said uber character. If I plot out a 4 hour session, half of which involve 2 combats for an hour long, give or take 15 minutes on either side I plan on that half hour give or take based on rolls and luck. Dropping that 2 hour time block down to 10 minutes ruins my session and hard work. Not everyone has all day to think of new ways to twist rules into making a powerful character. Not to mention, making a character is child's play compared to running a game. Which means, I ask the player to tone it down a bit, and if he doesn't, I break his character. Because, realistically, I run the game, and when the other players wonder why the game got short, I can point and say "It's his fault. I don't have an extra 10 hours a week to plot out specific encounters that are made to challenge him and his uber character, I made it to challenge a standard group. He's ruining your encounters with his character, and frankly, I don't have the time to bump up my enemies to the level he wants to game at."
Ddraiglais 10-03-07, 09:27 AM	I can't remember if you're committing the Stormwind fallacy or the Oberoni fallacy. Just because someone has good characters doesn't mean that they don't roleplay. Further, you're dealing with powergamers. Optimizers create powerful characters, yes, but they DON'T create these 'super humanoids' that you're referring to, they simply make a character that doesn't suck. Big difference. -Gene I don't equate all powerful characters with people who don't roleplay. However, quite a few uber powerful characters don't. I am thinking about starting a game. There are a couple of guys that are on the fence. They think and come up with ways around problems. However they don't really roleplay. They'll talk to a NPC that I made and say "I'm talking to the dwarven cleric guy" or something like that. I'm thinking about making a character or two that will get extremely offended by that. Maybe that will help them learn their lesson. I'm in a game right now. I am the only one that talks directly to the NPCs. I'm the only one that talks in first person. I am the only one that is trying to immerse myself in the game beyond the stats. Like I said before, it's frustrating as a player. It's easily fixed as a DM. I am in no way advocating taking a character that sucks (although that can be fun too). I am advocating taking other options than the same build over and over. I am also advocating role playing. How hard is it to talk go Thorgrim instead of "the Dwarven cleric dude"? It's the little things that make the game more enjoyable to me as a player.
SokenzanMarauder 10-03-07, 01:54 PM	I don't equate all powerful characters with people who don't roleplay. However, quite a few uber powerful characters don't. I am thinking about starting a game. There are a couple of guys that are on the fence. They think and come up with ways around problems. However they don't really roleplay. They'll talk to a NPC that I made and say "I'm talking to the dwarven cleric guy" or something like that. I'm thinking about making a character or two that will get extremely offended by that. Maybe that will help them learn their lesson. I'm in a game right now. I am the only one that talks directly to the NPCs. I'm the only one that talks in first person. I am the only one that is trying to immerse myself in the game beyond the stats. Like I said before, it's frustrating as a player. It's easily fixed as a DM. Perfectly understandable, however, now more than ever D&D is a game that promotes system mastery (I absolutely hate this, mind you) and mastery of the system sometimes leads to what you're describing. It sucks, I know, but it happens. Concerning speaking in first person, I don't (and I personally see no reason to jump on players because they don't either, but whatever); it's a conscious choice on my part, though, I do it so that players know when I'm speaking in-character and when I'm speaking out-of-character and I don't think it detracts from the experience in the least. I am in no way advocating taking a character that sucks (although that can be fun too). I'm not going to disagree with you on this, however, I will say that I don't see how playing a character that 'sucks' could be fun except in an incredibly RP heavy campaign. I am advocating taking other options than the same build over and over. I am also advocating role playing. How hard is it to talk go Thorgrim instead of "the Dwarven cleric dude"? It's the little things that make the game more enjoyable to me as a player. I think I better see where you stand now. I agree that players taking the same build over and over is incredibly frustrating (especially if it's a build found on the CharOp forums) and detracts from the overall fun for everyone (except possibly said character). As for the 'I'm talking to the Dwarven Cleric' that's something I'd do; however, I'd do that simply because I find it very difficult to remember names, and if every NPC I meet has a name there's no way I'll remember them all. Sure, I may remember the important ones (say the Dwarven Cleric was a main-plot character, in that case I'd likely refer to him by names) but if he was just a random Dwarven Cleric I'd likely just refer to him as 'the priest' or something similar. -Gene
MrCustomer 10-03-07, 02:41 PM	As a DM, I have to say one thing. If I had a player who spent all of their free time making the most uber build they could find to thrash anything that came near it, that's fine. However, I have to work to set up a game. If this players character destroys something that I spent hours putting together that should have taken an hour to play out in game? That's a problem. This is exactly it. You can say there is nothing wrong with a character that is good rather then one that sucks, but "good" and "sucks" are relative to the invironment. Ultimately the DM has to challenge the PCs, this means brings in equivilent fighting poer against then in any encounter. So is your PC "good"? No he isn't, his power is relative to the enemy, and because I've had to make sure then enemy is appropriately armed, skilled and has class levels to make him a chalenge to the PC it turns out that his "good" PC actually does suck. Why? because relative to the challenge the DM brings to the table, he is still the same power as he would have been if he had a PC that "sucks" The encounters are still the same power level as his PC. His XP is the same, his risks are the same and his reward is the same. The difference however is that to have a "good" character he choose certain feat combinations that gave him focused abilities, by doing so he has limited himself. Instead he could have chosen a wider variety of feats and thus had more options. "Good" character faces a tougher encounter and has only one or two options. "Sucks" character faces an average encounter and has a slew of different things he can do. Mystic Theurg is a good example. People immediately will say you chould go straight Cleric, or straight Wizard, and argue if wizard or sorceror is better. Mystic theurg has less powerful spells. But power is relative to the encounter the Dm creates based on your parties characters. Having a pure, focused caster means encounters that can soak up those heavy high level spells. The Mystic Theurg faces encounters where he has plenty of power, but alot more options. It's not only easier to make challenging content with less powerfull PCs but the DM can make more interesting encounters since the enemy can be less focused on simply being able to combat the awesome PCs.
Nephlite 10-03-07, 08:10 PM	Mystic Theurg is a good example. People immediately will say you chould go straight Cleric, or straight Wizard, and argue if wizard or sorceror is better. Mystic theurg has less powerful spells. But power is relative to the encounter the Dm creates based on your parties characters. Having a pure, focused caster means encounters that can soak up those heavy high level spells. The Mystic Theurg faces encounters where he has plenty of power, but alot more options. Um, you mean: The Mystic Theurg faces encounters where he has some power, but alot more options. Mystic do not have Plenty.
dndfencer 10-08-07, 11:19 AM	Mr customer. Having builds that specialise in one or two tactics is smart. Especially if they are tactics that are general enough to work in many different situations, or situations that the character can create. For example, having a rogue that specialises in going invisible, getting the drop on someone, then having a high enough init to go first (while everyone is still flat footed), is smart if the rogue has some way of becoming invisible. Also, if there is a fighter in the party this rogue could use the flanking tactic. This is smart because it is a very effective damage dealing tactic in a situation that the rogue should almost always be able to create. Specialising in a very specific tactic (like 15 ft reach and AoO cheese) is probably not that bright because not every opponent will charge you, you won't always be able to retreat, and bigger monsters won't be effected by this tactic. But, if a very specific tactic only requires one feat, or less, and the player keeps using it then the DM should think of how to counter it because the player is just being smart. An example of this would be AoO cheese and a DM who only puts his players up against humanoids. Basically, what I'm saying is that before a DM rails at something for being overpowered, or for a combo being overpowered, he should think about how to counter it. With the rogue, throw in some non-humanoids (he'll have to spend a feat and a couple d6 sneak attack to deal a decent amount of damage) or with AoO throw in some creatures with really long reach. Not that a DM should have to tailor every encounter to the parties weaknesses, but doing that is a good idea sometimes. Also, the DM could give the parties encounters higher than their level but make the NPCs play to their strengths. I really don't think there is anything wrong with min/maxing and specialising, it is smart not cheap
Vanraya 10-08-07, 02:50 PM	Basically, what I'm saying is that before a DM rails at something for being overpowered, or for a combo being overpowered, he should think about how to counter it. With the rogue, throw in some non-humanoids (he'll have to spend a feat and a couple d6 sneak attack to deal a decent amount of damage) or with AoO throw in some creatures with really long reach. Not that a DM should have to tailor every encounter to the parties weaknesses, but doing that is a good idea sometimes. Also, the DM could give the parties encounters higher than their level but make the NPCs play to their strengths. I really don't think there is anything wrong with min/maxing and specialising, it is smart not cheap As a DM, I dont think I should have to alter my encounters to counter 1 players overpowered abilities. It takes away from my fun and the story I want to present if I have to throw an incoporial or huge creature every 4th encounter to make the munchkin sweat. At that point, I no longer dictate the pace or what I feel makes a good thematic encounter, the player does. Not to mention, the player himself is going to get miffed if he feels he's being singled out, and he should. It's not fair to either side for one player to get all the attention (and bad attention at that.) If all my players want to optimize, fine, I can definately play that game. But, for me, it's all or nothing, I'm not going to jack up the CR and risk killing players all because one player is so much more powerful.