The first effect is quite obvious, the second effect is harder to prove, but is based on the fact that new supplements receive less playtesting than the core rules.
Now, I am not claiming that core rules (PHB) characters are equal in power, but I do claim that they were balanced in the terms of characters getting their share of adventure. For example, rogue can not match barbarian in fighting prowess, but in turn he may be better scout and do his part with locks and traps. Likewise, cleric does his small part of combat, and can heal the party afterwards, or perform other necessary miracles.
New characters, with combination of character class, race and feats, make existing PHB classes obsolete both in terms of power adventure participation, and this is what I call power inflation.
For example, mystic theurge can fill both the part of a wizard and a cleric. Supplements offer feats than allows her to combine her caster levels, which is the only major drawback. Now, in effect, the character fills 2 roles, and is arguably more powerful, in lv20m, than either lv20 wizard or a lv20 sorcerer.
Solution:
Cheese points. After each adventure is character is awarded cheese points. For example, warrior who was tough enough to simply walk into a trap to deactivate it, making the rogue obsolete, earns cheese points. Caster who outperforms warriors in melee earns cheese points. Warrior who makes 3* more damage than the rest of the warriors together, earns cheese points.
Cheese points are awarded in each adventure. When character with most cheese points levels up, the character is downgraded, by making the level an LA (level-adjustment) level without any benefits, or by downgrading spells/feats/HP or special abilities gained from the level.
Usually, when penalized, the first argument every player states is 'The character would be more powerful if I had chosen these options'. Then he states that the player X’s character Y will be more powerful when he gains ability Z. Or that it is already better in some way. Have no mercy, perhaps it is player X’s turn next time.
If this proves ineffective or the player proves uncooperative, (starts crying), the character will finally encounter Cheesus, who is an invincible monster, and who will take the character to inactivity by one way or the other.
Afterwards, other players can enjoy their -normal- characters again, and GM can make balanced encounters, where everyone can have his share of the action.
You have a character that's imbalanced and made by PHB rules? That's no problem, who said the core rules are perfect? They are only little better playtested than the supplements. Reward everyone cheese points equally, without discrimination of race, gender, religion, age or class.
Perhaps you don’t recognize the problem? Perhaps you feel that upgrading everyone else is a better solution? Perhaps your players are all maximizing D&D scholars and you are in two camps with the GM in other and players in the other, where GM’s only duty is to make bigger monsters? Well, there are all kinds of playing groups and all kinds of players and game masters. After a little experimentation, this is the system we are currently using, in the group I am part of, as a GM.
Finally, from Wizards, I expect better balanced products, so that I would not have to do this extra work rewarding cheese-points. Also, an all encompassing public domain errata on most flawed products, and a public domain guide on general balancing would be nice.
And frankly it seems heavy handed, not to mention prone to disagreement. So the caster is fighting better than the warrior, eh? Maybe because the caster is a Cleric of War and the warrior is a Fighter with randomly chosen feats that tries to use a stale loaf of bread as his primary weapon. Admittedly, this is an extreme example, but the point remains that a perfectly normal, non-cheesy character, can still be stronger than another character.
And as for your trap example, being tough is what warriors do. If they aren't tough enough to survive a trap, they won't survive long, because sometimes the Rogue rolls poorly on their Search roll and the trap goes off anyway.
Also, I foresee that implementation of this system will lead to most of the characters refusing to help in combat, because they don't want cheese points. I can see it now:
Warrior: Wizard! This demon is tearing through our lines! Disintegrate it!
Wizard: Hmm, Disintegrate does a lot of damage, I'd better not risk it. I'll just cast Wall of Force.
Warrior: Good idea, you can trap the demon behind it!
Wizard: What?! No! That might get me cheese points. I'll just put it in front of myself and watch the battle.
Warrior: *dies*
Wizard: Well, I guess he'll have to be Resurrected.
Cleric: Heck no! I got 5 cheese points the last time I cast that powerful a spell. He'll just have to deal with his own problems.
The cheese point idea actually will likely work in reverse, it will encourage people to make characters as ineffective as possible to avoid gaining these cheese points. You idea of a fighter that is tough enough to survive a trap, some traps a fighter can walk through with no issue depending on race/class combos because the trap is fort based or deals comparatively little damage.
Also, I assume that the DM gets cheese points each time he brings out something under CRd from the various supplemental materials and each time he does then said DM gives each players a free feat?
Honestly most of the material isn't too bad, the spells overall aren't even that overbearing. The issues come in mostly from things like divine metamagic and a few of the big issues. The big ones are easy to fix, but most of the other 'cheese' usually only stymies DMs that are either not good on their feet or don't know the material well enough to allow it in the first place.
Moreover, how does your system deal with staggered power levels? For instance, take the party wizard that took Extra Spell (Desecrate) as his 6th-level feat last level, is playing a variant Necromancer from UH, has been obsessively saving corpses and hoarding onyx since his first kill, and just hit level 7? This player now knows that he will overshadow the rest of the party; an excellent solution to your problem would be for the player to start crafting items of Undead Lieutenant and handing them out like candy to the party (knowing that the dread monster that took his companion the half-ogre chain-tripper may well be coming for him.)
What does this 'rule' do to improve gameplay that simply telling the offending players 'I am incapable of challenging your character and providing a reasonable environment for the others. Let us reason together and see if there are some aspects of your character that may be altered.' wouldn't?
I have bought quite a few supplements over the years, including all Complete Books (Except Complete Psionic), the PHB II, Races of Faerun, Expanded Psionic Handbook, etc, etc. and my players have used it extensively. We have had Frenzied Berserkers, 9th lvl spell-casting bards, archmages, Elocators and many more characters, but I have not ever heard someone complain that they weren't getting their share of the adventure. Actually, in my current party the important role of 'main damage dealer' was vacant till the last moment.
Cheese points are the most cheesy solution to any problem you encounter I have ever heard, especially Cheesus. I am NOT going to penalise my wizard from roping creature X in a situation Y where it couldn't defend itself before killing it by slowly hitting it with his fist. Or the Fighter with 1 rank in UMD for using a wand for the whole encounter.
Then what do I put forward as a solution:
1 - Check your team before you start. There are so many ways to make a party that fills all niches in such a way that everyone's useful in one way or the other.
2 - If players don't want to form a team, they will lack in a single area, take that and show them what they have been missing!! A mystic thuerge for example looses both caster levels in cleric and wizard, has d4 hit points and can't wear armor. He has access to the most powerful protection, but that's not something that cannot be solved by the right application of magic and anti-magic. And since the poor guy can only cast 1 spell around, he can't 'Heal' himself and cast fireball in the same round (OOPS!)
3 - Tailor your encounters right!! Don't put dumb ogres with spot and listen at -40 against a character that would make a gestalt Fighter/Rogue pale in comparison. Have them be supported by a creature with the smell to sniff out the guy. Someone able to make Orcus like him and convert to LG? Don't give him the opportunity to get his Diplomacy off, etc, etc, etc.
4 - DON'T PUNISH THEM REGARDLESS!!! Let them take the spotlight from time to time. You are battering them down and down at this moment at a rate that no-one is willing to even TRY the other classes! What did you buy them for then? If you shy away from characters that can cover 2 niches, why did you buy the book in the first place? And all those characters loose out in a different niche, usually filled by either of the classes it is combines (for example, the Duskblade looses the general purpose spells of the wizard and the figher's feats). So in stead of a fighter and a wizard, you will need a duskblade and a bard, to just give a random example, or instead of a wizard and a cleric, you need two mystic thuerges (one for healing and one for attacking).
Example:
Normal party - Wizard, Fighter, Cleric and Rogue
New party - Mystic Thuerge, Bard, Duskblade and Beguiler
While you say you have something like:
Normal party - Wizard, Fighter, Cleric and Rogue
Your party - Mystic Thuerge, Wizard, Cleric and Fighter
Where it is clear, the Mystic Thuerge would excel in flexibility compared to the Cleric and Wizard.
Lastly, let me say that if you really want to 'roleplay' the situation to what you want, ensure that the characters are placed in a very disadvantageous position during situations where he/she is goot at. Think ahead and this could be done completely reasonable and without player complains.
Cheese is for sandwiches, not for PCs.
Also, the idea of giving a fighter cheese points for taking a blow from a trap instead of the rogue deactivating it seems pretty silly to me. How is that cheesy, or how does it make the rogue obsolete? It surely doesn't... it's just an alternative way of dealing with one situation.
Also, how the hell do you consider an invincible monster named Cheezus dealing with these things through roleplay? How are these cheese points dealing with it through roleplay?
Case in point:
The group where I act as player is currently playing through the Shackled City campaign. We have a party of six, and I am the player who most heavily optimizes his characters. My character (at least, until he heroically sacrificed himself in order to save the other five in the last adventure and was completely incinerated) was a Tripmachine/Attack of Opportunity monster-style monk. The other two fighter-types (a barbarian and a weapon master) were literally incapable of beating him in a straight-up one-on-one fight (we ran some arena combats outside the campaign, just for bragging rights). He consistently did more damage than they over the course of an encounter, often more than both together. He had great saves, AC, attack bonus, everything.
Under your proposed system, a DM would smack him with cheese points and leave him unable to advance for level upon level. For what crime? Being very good at something?
My DM, on the other hand, put us into situations where my tactics would have to be adjusted. Huge fire elementals cannot be tripped by a medium sized character, nor is it wise to strike them with one's fists. I was forced to completely alter my strategy, and the other fighters had their time to shine. There is no strategy without its counter. Don't be so cowed by your players' optimization skilz that you do not analyze it for its weakness and exploit it.
The DM's best friend is the fact that monsters can gain class levels. If a player unleashes a truly abusive tactic that you can't counter no matter what, shrug your shoulders and then sic a monster that does the exact same thing on him. They'll learn their lesson soon enough: It's fun to be powerful, but being God is no fun for anybody.
One of the funnier moments I've ever had as a DM was when a player announced his intention to play a Divine Minion Kobold in a Realms campaign. I, of course, had a feeling as to where this was going, and smiled to myself. Over the course of the next few sessions, the party reached level 5, whereupon the player triumphantly began to use the Sarrukh Manipulate Form cycle to pump his abilities up to an arbitrarily large number while the rest of the party watched in awe. I nodded my head through Strength and Dexterity, but just as he started on Constitution I interrupted him.
"Suddenly, before your feet, lightning strikes. You see in front of you a kobold with an irritated expression on his face and two golden 'P's embroidered on his robe. The last thing you see is him waving his hand before your spirit is snuffed out." I turn to the other players. "The kobold looks at you as [Party-member] vanishes from existence and says, 'Let that be a lesson to all who would seek to gain my power,' and then disappears."
An in-game solution to imbalance, IMO, is always preferable to an out-of-game one.
If you can't balance a game for characters, Don't DM, My players have pulled some real cheese while I’ve DM'd on many occasions. What am I gonna do, I allowed it, so I shrug my shoulders and try to figure out ways to counter while still allowing them the sense of power they want.
Really, if it is that big of a problem for you or any DM, quit DMing or only allow PHB. That will solve 99.9% of the problem. I might have come off sounding a little harsh, but I read these boards and I hear people continue to complain and there are always two simple ways to fix it.
1. Don’t allow it.
2. Learn to roll DM Dice in secret and add whatever modifiers you want to it. The players will never know.
First of all, you are pinning characters into very limited roles. What about multi-classes? Or classes not of the main four (fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard)?
Now there are powerful combinations out there, these will have glaring weaknesses you can exploit. I don't have all the supplements so I won't know the truly harsh combinations, but players are assumed to optimise when designing their characters. Or at least optimise within concept.
Your example, mystic theurge, arguably more powerful than a single class character. His strength is versatility as a spellcaster. The class does exactly what it is supposed to. I fail to see your point.
Solution:
Cheese points. After each adventure is character is awarded cheese points. For example, warrior who was tough enough to simply walk into a trap to deactivate it, making the rogue obsolete, earns cheese points. Caster who outperforms warriors in melee earns cheese points. Warrior who makes 3* more damage than the rest of the warriors together, earns cheese points.
Cheese points are awarded in each adventure. When character with most cheese points levels up, the character is downgraded, by making the level an LA (level-adjustment) level without any benefits, or by downgrading spells/feats/HP or special abilities gained from the level.
So to rephrase it, every time one character shines or distinguishes himself, punish him. Any time a character uses his class abilities to solve a problem not typical of his class, punish him.
Warriors walking through traps implies that the trap was judged minor enough to be an acceptable risk. A paladin who draws attacks which require saving throws is making the most of his divine grace. If said paladin was protecting others in the process then I would give an Xp award to the paladin.
Casters who outperform warriors in melee, well I assume you are outlawing all buffing spells. Because a tanked up cleric WILL be downright scary in melee, and Tenser's Transformation was literally designed to do this.
Warriors who outperform the others in damage wise are either lucky or focus on damage output. The fighter with power attack, great cleave and a greatsword WILL do more damage than the fighter with expertise, dodge, shield focus and a longsword. Plain fact, different fighters can focus on different styles.
Cheese points simply nerf a character. Unfair. If balance is an issue, you simply talk to the player with your concerns and negotiate some modifications that both sides find acceptable. Work WITH your players, not AGAINST them.
If this proves ineffective or the player proves uncooperative, (starts crying), the character will finally encounter Cheesus, who is an invincible monster, and who will take the character to inactivity by one way or the other.
You mean to tell me you INTENTIONALLY kill off people's characters if you cannot weaken them to mediocrity?
Perhaps you don’t recognize the problem? Perhaps you feel that upgrading everyone else is a better solution? Perhaps your players are all maximizing D&D scholars and you are in two camps with the GM in other and players in the other, where GM’s only duty is to make bigger monsters? Well, there are all kinds of playing groups and all kinds of players and game masters. After a little experimentation, this is the system we are currently using, in the group I am part of, as a GM.
Having read your thread, I see the following effects from your system.
1 - resentment in anyone who is nerfed.
2 - weaker than average characters.
3 - discouraged creativity in character design and in use of abilities, because an unconventional use of an ability earns cheese points.
4 - class bias, since you listed 2 ways for warriors to gain cheese points, none for rogues. And what of rangers? or paladins? or multi-purpose classes?
5 - limiting fun, because spectacular deeds on the PCs part results in punishment and is therefore discouraged.
Any problems such as you describe don't need a system, they need maturity from both DMs and players.
What I especially dislike is that you're mostly using this as a form of niche protection (the "niche" concept is kinda dumb and pretty limiting in the first place). Seems like the main thing you'll accomplish will be that characters will continue to have amazingly uber powers but will hold them back and sit it out when doing things that are not "their role".
The suggestions put forth in the original post have nothing to do with roleplay, they run counter to the very idea of roleplay and are strictly metagame abuse of Rule 0. That said, I do think reining in exceptionally powerful characters via roleplay-appropriate means is entirely possible, and I don't mean asking them nicely.
It is the powerful individuals that people talk about. It is the capable men and women that develop reputations for dependability. It is the exceptional heroes that villains learn to fear -- and take precautions against. Realistic enemies are the key. When the lich sets the last stage of his decades-long scheme into motion, who is it more reasonable for him to prepare specific countermeasures for: Robert the Ordinary, the determined but mundane Fighter 14 that thumps away steadily for 15-20 damage a pop and never uses any special maneuvers; or Gareth the Blazing Skyflame, specialized Cleric 5/Master of Radiance 5/Radiant Servant of Pelor 4 known continent-wide for terminating undead with a blitzkrieg of light, positive energy, and extreme prejudice? I say the lich probably hasn't even heard of Robert, but he'll be very interested in the rumors and legends of Gareth, and invest a sizable chunk of his resources into ensuring Gareth hits the ground dead before he gets five paces in from the crypt door. Not that it'll work, mind you, Gareth is quite strong in these situations, but it should certainly slow him down and force him to expend more of his own resources than he'd like to.
I ask you, is it not more appropriate - from both roleplay and sportsmanship perspectives - to tailor intelligent resistance levels toward individual characters, based on the strength of their legend and the greatness of deeds they've performed; rather than slap them in the face with a clunky metagame punishment, and autokill them if they cry foul?
I hope you continue to write in spite of the comments you undoubtedly received and will continue to receive. I also hope your next attempt is more successful.
Everything else I can think to say has already been said.
What about the Cleric who dispenses justice with their hammer?
What about the Wizard who "does the rogue's job" by casting knock?
What about the two-weapon fighting "blademaster" rogue who wants to hand out a ton of sneak attack damage?
Characters can only reach your proposed obsolescence if they're truly one dimensional in role.
Is the cleric mentioned above merely a healbot with some conversation skills?
Is the Wizard mentioned above mobile artillery and nothing more?
Is the rogue mentioned above solely a locksmith and saboteur?
No. They may be these things, but they are almost certainly more, in addition. It is my opinion that Cheese Points reduce the potential for roleplay by forcing players to simply do one thing, and one thing only, lest the usurp another character's 'role'.
Got a real tank? Take him on a sailing voyage. Armor is an express train to the bottom.
Got a wise-acre spell caster? Hey, what happens to a spellbook when he gets hit with a fireball? What happens if the next 5 small villages have no spell components available to refill a pouch?
God forbid it if the Barbarian was better at smashing than the fighter.
God forbid it if the Cleric disable a trap (detect snares/pit)
God forbid it if the Bard used Fireball (UMD)
If you want to pigeonhole people into the basic roles, that's fine, there is a houserule for that:
Core-only (unless approved), no multi-class for the first 5 levels.
But seriously, nerfing a player for being good at something? Is buying/using potions stepping on the cleric's feet? Is attacking something stepping on the Fighter's feet?
A friend of mine seriously enjoys making one-trick-pony characters. We tolerate it because it is fun to watch his character die a horrible death (not via Cheese-Monster). The AoO machine he made died on the Plane of Earth (almost nothing is tripable). I have no doubt that the Charging Barbarian with suffer a similar fate once it also becomes too specialized.
Specialized characters do one thing well. Generalized characters do many things well.
You are punishing the specialized character for being good at one thing. You are punishing generalized characters for being good at something that someone else is good at.
Also I enjoyed it when my players found new ways of doing things. I once made this magic weapon thinking it a simple thing and a player turned it into the highest weapon damage output I have seen or conceived, even though he was only tenth level. I easily countered it though with energy immunity to a single element (from an appropriate CR dragon or fiend maybe, can’t remember) and a small damage reduction that was not magic (3/good or some such thing).
I admit I wasn't a good DM and the game was slanted sometimes, but we still found ways of having fun.
Got back to Waterdeep to learn it would cost 28,000gp to have my character restored to his true age. (This was apparently due to my character being corrupted although the dm didn't answer my question as to whether Helm turned away arcane spellcasters as he was referring to a book that only stated it was common for Cleric's of Helm to multiclass as sorcerers...) A year of game time later when our group returned to Waterdeep after a trip through Hell, I was told it wasn't available after obtaining a Ring of Wizardry (Type I) and sufficient monies to cover the cost.
The character was subsequently assassinated and I was offered the assassin to run however I decided to give the club a miss for a while. I returned after almost a month or so after they raised my character only to realise I just didn't find it fun anymore.
I believe the short version is that sooner or later the players of this DM's campaign are going to find something better to do and I hope they won't let this spoil their enjoyment of the game.
Suddenly CODzilla begins eating your encounters, the druid's player sits down with MM 1-4 and leafs through each page in search of possibilities, and party members stop any quarrelling as they become a finely honed team.
Go on. Throw Cheesus in there. Now you're going to see Hulking Hurlers and other selections from the CharOp 'broken' section, up to and including Pun Pun.
The DM can always say some evil god tracks the party down and kills them all. But he's going to look really silly when he does that, and a good party can damn near force that level of overkill in order to finish them off.
This way you can get rid of some of the nastier things, like that say divine metamagic with 1-day long buff spells, or anything else really. Also if there is a real difference in power level, help the lower powered characters keep up in terms of teaching them how to make a decent character. Give them a freebie or two if they REALLY need it, and allow them to re-vamp their character from the ground up if they want to. Just don't do too much of this or else the guys who like to optimize will get ticked off.
Now beyond that, say if you have an ongoing campaign and you don't want to modify a bunch of stuff that already exists in your campaign, or don't really believe that a specific rule is overpowered, but the way a character is using it is, or just feel like trying an exercise in flexible and fun DMing, modify the challenge.
You should always be thinking about what types of challenges you're throwing at your PCs, regardless of weather your PCs are overpowered or not. For instance, if the party's cleric is buffing himself up to outshine the party warrior, throw some enemies with dispel magic at the party, or ones that get bonuses against divine spellcasters.
If the party rogue is outfighting the fighter, bring in undead, constructs, or enemies with uncanny dodge. The fighter walking though traps and absorbing damage? Have the trap effect be enough damage to make him think otherwise, or have it do more than deal damage. Save or die type things, pit traps/imprisonment traps, diseases, high DC poisons, mind influencing effects that last many hours or even a few days, or anything combined with monsters.
You’re a DM, use your imagination. If the fighter just absorbed the 50 point fire damage spell and the cleric just patched him up no problem, how about throw multiple baddies in there with high damage weapons...see if the fighter will be wanting those extra 50 HP when he has multiple high damage attacks coming his way before the cleric comes in with the bandaids. Similarly if he can absorb the 5d6 damage from the pit track and then the wizard can cast fly on him to get him up throw some bad guys in to make it more interesting, attacking both the fighter and the rest of the party. Should the wizard deal with badguys attacking them or help the fighter? What if the fighter is dealing with something like a shadow that’s incorporeal has draining powers?
Don't baby your party. If they use smart and strategic combinations, so should you. It forces them to work together as a party out of necessity rather than some stupid metagame house rule you made up, and in the end it feels like more of a challenge for them, and thus more of an accomplishment.
If this isn't a joke, then I agree with everyone else that this is a terrible idea.
Well being that this is Regdar's Repository I would assume that it, indeed, is not a joke.
I too, find this totally unrealistic, and it also lacks the "through roleplay" element that the title suggests. It does nothing but promote you to sit in a corner and cry. Oops, damn I crit, now I have cheese points. I take it by the quote,
Warrior who makes 3* more damage than the rest of the warriors together, earns cheese points,
that this may be an attempt to punish people who take the spotlight excessively over others.
Aside from it being a poor way to deal with it (speak to the player, or speak to the other players who have really poor characters) it assures that someone will be nerfed. Yep. It assures it, once someone gains a cheese point, every time someone levels up, someone has to take the "cheese hit."
Of all the Regdar's posts, I feel this is the lowest quality one I've ever read.
DC