Pointers to DMs on factors to consider regarding new feats/prestige classes/spells. - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Pointers to DMs on factors to consider regarding new feats/prestige classes/spells.

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
wonlee76
Mar 16, 2005 23:38:10 With each new supplement, there seems to be a few things in the supplement that might raise your eyebrow or is unclear as how certain class abilities may interact with a new feat (or vice versa). I personally enjoy seeing the options that become available with supplemental materials. At the same time I recognize that there are certain things in supplements that could be taken to extremes that would disrupt or ruin a game. Before jumping to conclusions as to whether you should allow new materials into your game you should consider the following factors:

General Considerations:

1) If a player is asking you to allow his character to be permitted to take a prestige class/feat/core class/new spell consider whether this fits into your campaign world. Certain things may not have a good fit into your campaign world and you should simply say no to your player. This doesn’t necessarily go to whether something is overpowered or broken but it has more to deal with the DM being the gatekeeper of his campaign and he doesn’t need to leave the door wide open for anything and everything that is in some new supplement that has been published.

Ex.: Disciple of Dispatar when there is no Dispatar or similar demonic being in your world. Just because a player wants to desperately want to be a Disciple of Dispatar does not mean you should allow it in your game if it doesn't fit into your campaign.

2) If you feel your player could take advantage with a certain feat/power/spell from a supplement don't reflexively say no. Anything you permit a player to take or use from a supplement, your NPCs or monsters should be able to use just as effectively. If you choose to ban something from your game, such a ban should affect all of your NPCs and monsters just as it affects your players.

Ex.: Sudden Metamagic/Empower feats from Complete Arcane come to mind. It doesn’t look so bad that a PC wizard/sorcerer could sudden maximize a spell at level 1 and up once per day. Ask the player how they would like it if similar leveled enemies used this ability as well (presuming that this enemy didn’t have the opportunity to burn up the once a day use of the Sudden Metamagic feat). Someone’s going to die from it at low or mid-levels without the appropriate protections in place. Its not fun for the players to be saving up their savings for a Raise Dead because the Wizard BBEG decided to drop a sudden maximized/empowered fireball on the players during the surprise round. Players might consider being killed in this manner "cheap" just as a DM might feel its a cheap way for players to defeat a monster that they are fighting.

I’ve banned Vow of Poverty from my games as a DM (but other feats from the Book of Exalted Deeds don’t seem to bother me as much since there are equivalent Vile Feats from the Book of Vile Darkness). The simple reason why I don’t allow it is there is no “evil” equivalent to Vow of Poverty. There is also no RP reason why a VoP NPC would be pitted against a VoP PC short of extraordinary circumstances and resulting in one of the two losing exalted status. As such, there is no equal way for me as DM to craft an enemy to fight a VoP character. If I were to ever allow Vow of Poverty in my game, there would have to be an opposing feat that the enemies could have access to with equally effective results. Perhaps a Vow of Greed where all material possessions procured must be sacrificed to their evil god/demon/devil that they worship?

3) Consider using less extreme measures other then a total ban on a class/feat/prestige class/spell. Some published things in a supplement can be unclear, poorly written or as written can result in results that you consider unfair. Instead of banning these items, consider houseruling additional pre-requisites or limitations on the class/spell/feat or placing in RP pre-requisites to get the prestige class/spell/feat. If a player begins to complain about these additional pre-reqs, remind the player that you could simply not allow the feat/spell/prestige class to even be available to the player.

Ex.: Dweomerkeeper's Mantle cannot bypass any expensive material or xp requirement for the spell. The abuse from Wish/Miracle with no xp component can be astronomical.

Requiring PCs to find a mentor who is of the same prestige class they are seeking to enter into. Depending on the prestige class, this may be a very difficult task to meet.

4) If the feat/prestige class/spell is simply too good or works too effectively to the point that all of your intelligent NPCs would use this combination against your players and may raise their ire at you, then banning it from your game would be appropriate.

Ex.: I've read about certain builds or combinations that purportedly could create unlimited sums of money, do an obscene amount of damage in one round, can defeat a god in a blink of an eye... whatever.

If you used the same combination against your players would they feel it would be fair that they used such a combination or build? Why should your players have the "unique" insight to use a class ability/spell/power in a way that makes things too easy for them. Send a couple of Hulking Hurlers against the PCs using the same combination against them.

5) Nothing is really "Overpowered" or "Broken" if the enemies that the PCs fight have equal access to these abilities. This might bring up the interesting situation of a “munchkin” or “cheater” who have perhaps explained to you that a certain spell/class ability works a certain way (which is extremely beneficial to the player’s character). Confronting the player with a NPC of enemy using the same spell/class ability is sure to make the PC cry. A good way to have player’s stay honest with you if they are under threat that the DM can use the same tricks that they are using.

Simply put, if you're allowing certain spells/prestige classes/feats that you think is "overpowered" or "broken" it is most likely because you're not using the same combination against the players. However, when you feel it would be cheap to use these spells/prestige classes/feats against the players, then it might be appropriate to just ban it from your game.

So the general rule of thumb, if the players are allowed to take certain feats, prestige classes, spells or whatever, allow your enemies the same exact benefits and use it against the players. This will diminish something from being “overpowered” or “broken” in your campaign.
#2
the_one_true_shea_dup
May 05, 2005 11:04:10 I used to grumble a bit about "you guys are overpowering my NPCs with all your wacky stuff" but after a while I realized that the real reason the PCs were overpowering my NPCs was because they had more brainpower behind their characters. Players usually help each other make characters, and help each other use their abilities to the best their traits allow. That's a team effort.

NPCs, on the other hand, are only allocated a fraction of the brain power of one person, and even when they are built fine you can often forget key combos and moves amongst the dozens of character's you are controlling. If I had a dollar for every time I looked back at my, now dead NPCs, and thought "Oh! I shoulda, that woulda, uh coulda!" that is the way of these things.
#3
fuzzy_logic
May 08, 2005 22:07:50 I think you err in assuming that nothing is unbalanced if both PCs and NPCs have access to it.

Consider the case of a fictitious base class, the Hackmaster. Hackmasters are by far more powerful than any of the other fighting classes. You allow your PC to play a Hackmaster because you will use NPCs who are also Hackmasters.

Now,

- PC paladins and barbarians feel useless
- NPC warriors must be Hackmasters to keep up
- BBEGs who are non-Hackmaster fighters are laughable
- The impact of other characters is reduced; the Rogue is now even worse at fighting than before, etc.

Similarly, 3.0 haste was too powerful. Certainly, NPCs could use it too, but it meant that every significant encounter must feature hasted enemies, or enemies much higher level than the PCs.
#4
zombiegleemax
May 21, 2005 21:42:53 Fuzzy, I'm pretty sure wonlee suggested banning pretty much anything that would result in that effect. If it feels cheap, then don't allow it.

In fact, there are four DMs in my gaming group, and we almost all play in each other's games (with a few exceptions, just to avoid playing in three games every weekend and running a fourth...that's very taxing!) We all try to look objectively at our own characters and the characters that play in our games. We also have the good fortune to realize that when something is bent, it's correctable by having NPC's model after it. When something is broken, it needs to be cleared out. Very little is broken, because all of us follow the spirit of the game and have fun instead of attempt to overpower, at least so far.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 wonlee76 Mar 16, 2005 23:38:10	With each new supplement, there seems to be a few things in the supplement that might raise your eyebrow or is unclear as how certain class abilities may interact with a new feat (or vice versa). I personally enjoy seeing the options that become available with supplemental materials. At the same time I recognize that there are certain things in supplements that could be taken to extremes that would disrupt or ruin a game. Before jumping to conclusions as to whether you should allow new materials into your game you should consider the following factors: General Considerations: 1) If a player is asking you to allow his character to be permitted to take a prestige class/feat/core class/new spell consider whether this fits into your campaign world. Certain things may not have a good fit into your campaign world and you should simply say no to your player. This doesn’t necessarily go to whether something is overpowered or broken but it has more to deal with the DM being the gatekeeper of his campaign and he doesn’t need to leave the door wide open for anything and everything that is in some new supplement that has been published. Ex.: Disciple of Dispatar when there is no Dispatar or similar demonic being in your world. Just because a player wants to desperately want to be a Disciple of Dispatar does not mean you should allow it in your game if it doesn't fit into your campaign. 2) If you feel your player could take advantage with a certain feat/power/spell from a supplement don't reflexively say no. Anything you permit a player to take or use from a supplement, your NPCs or monsters should be able to use just as effectively. If you choose to ban something from your game, such a ban should affect all of your NPCs and monsters just as it affects your players. Ex.: Sudden Metamagic/Empower feats from Complete Arcane come to mind. It doesn’t look so bad that a PC wizard/sorcerer could sudden maximize a spell at level 1 and up once per day. Ask the player how they would like it if similar leveled enemies used this ability as well (presuming that this enemy didn’t have the opportunity to burn up the once a day use of the Sudden Metamagic feat). Someone’s going to die from it at low or mid-levels without the appropriate protections in place. Its not fun for the players to be saving up their savings for a Raise Dead because the Wizard BBEG decided to drop a sudden maximized/empowered fireball on the players during the surprise round. Players might consider being killed in this manner "cheap" just as a DM might feel its a cheap way for players to defeat a monster that they are fighting. I’ve banned Vow of Poverty from my games as a DM (but other feats from the Book of Exalted Deeds don’t seem to bother me as much since there are equivalent Vile Feats from the Book of Vile Darkness). The simple reason why I don’t allow it is there is no “evil” equivalent to Vow of Poverty. There is also no RP reason why a VoP NPC would be pitted against a VoP PC short of extraordinary circumstances and resulting in one of the two losing exalted status. As such, there is no equal way for me as DM to craft an enemy to fight a VoP character. If I were to ever allow Vow of Poverty in my game, there would have to be an opposing feat that the enemies could have access to with equally effective results. Perhaps a Vow of Greed where all material possessions procured must be sacrificed to their evil god/demon/devil that they worship? 3) Consider using less extreme measures other then a total ban on a class/feat/prestige class/spell. Some published things in a supplement can be unclear, poorly written or as written can result in results that you consider unfair. Instead of banning these items, consider houseruling additional pre-requisites or limitations on the class/spell/feat or placing in RP pre-requisites to get the prestige class/spell/feat. If a player begins to complain about these additional pre-reqs, remind the player that you could simply not allow the feat/spell/prestige class to even be available to the player. Ex.: Dweomerkeeper's Mantle cannot bypass any expensive material or xp requirement for the spell. The abuse from Wish/Miracle with no xp component can be astronomical. Requiring PCs to find a mentor who is of the same prestige class they are seeking to enter into. Depending on the prestige class, this may be a very difficult task to meet. 4) If the feat/prestige class/spell is simply too good or works too effectively to the point that all of your intelligent NPCs would use this combination against your players and may raise their ire at you, then banning it from your game would be appropriate. Ex.: I've read about certain builds or combinations that purportedly could create unlimited sums of money, do an obscene amount of damage in one round, can defeat a god in a blink of an eye... whatever. If you used the same combination against your players would they feel it would be fair that they used such a combination or build? Why should your players have the "unique" insight to use a class ability/spell/power in a way that makes things too easy for them. Send a couple of Hulking Hurlers against the PCs using the same combination against them. 5) Nothing is really "Overpowered" or "Broken" if the enemies that the PCs fight have equal access to these abilities. This might bring up the interesting situation of a “munchkin” or “cheater” who have perhaps explained to you that a certain spell/class ability works a certain way (which is extremely beneficial to the player’s character). Confronting the player with a NPC of enemy using the same spell/class ability is sure to make the PC cry. A good way to have player’s stay honest with you if they are under threat that the DM can use the same tricks that they are using. Simply put, if you're allowing certain spells/prestige classes/feats that you think is "overpowered" or "broken" it is most likely because you're not using the same combination against the players. However, when you feel it would be cheap to use these spells/prestige classes/feats against the players, then it might be appropriate to just ban it from your game. So the general rule of thumb, if the players are allowed to take certain feats, prestige classes, spells or whatever, allow your enemies the same exact benefits and use it against the players. This will diminish something from being “overpowered” or “broken” in your campaign.
#2 the_one_true_shea_dup May 05, 2005 11:04:10	I used to grumble a bit about "you guys are overpowering my NPCs with all your wacky stuff" but after a while I realized that the real reason the PCs were overpowering my NPCs was because they had more brainpower behind their characters. Players usually help each other make characters, and help each other use their abilities to the best their traits allow. That's a team effort. NPCs, on the other hand, are only allocated a fraction of the brain power of one person, and even when they are built fine you can often forget key combos and moves amongst the dozens of character's you are controlling. If I had a dollar for every time I looked back at my, now dead NPCs, and thought "Oh! I shoulda, that woulda, uh coulda!" that is the way of these things.
#3 fuzzy_logic May 08, 2005 22:07:50	I think you err in assuming that nothing is unbalanced if both PCs and NPCs have access to it. Consider the case of a fictitious base class, the Hackmaster. Hackmasters are by far more powerful than any of the other fighting classes. You allow your PC to play a Hackmaster because you will use NPCs who are also Hackmasters. Now, - PC paladins and barbarians feel useless - NPC warriors must be Hackmasters to keep up - BBEGs who are non-Hackmaster fighters are laughable - The impact of other characters is reduced; the Rogue is now even worse at fighting than before, etc. Similarly, 3.0 haste was too powerful. Certainly, NPCs could use it too, but it meant that every significant encounter must feature hasted enemies, or enemies much higher level than the PCs.
#4 zombiegleemax May 21, 2005 21:42:53	Fuzzy, I'm pretty sure wonlee suggested banning pretty much anything that would result in that effect. If it feels cheap, then don't allow it. In fact, there are four DMs in my gaming group, and we almost all play in each other's games (with a few exceptions, just to avoid playing in three games every weekend and running a fourth...that's very taxing!) We all try to look objectively at our own characters and the characters that play in our games. We also have the good fortune to realize that when something is bent, it's correctable by having NPC's model after it. When something is broken, it needs to be cleared out. Very little is broken, because all of us follow the spirit of the game and have fun instead of attempt to overpower, at least so far.