Hello all,
Small wall'o'text.
I have been playing 4e for quite a long time (i believe it has been 3 years now, 2 of which as a GM and player), and I like to min/max my characters. Make them beasts. Do what my character is supposed to do, and do it better than anyone else. My GM knows this about me (has been my GM for quite a long time), so he tries to prevent it by focusing on me during combat. I can understand this and I encourage him to do so at later levels, but at low levels most classes are not a threat. I get to enjoy most encounters looking at the floor and praying my allies decide to stabilize the dying. It makes the game feel hopeless because I can’t help but think…what’s the point? I’m just going to get kicked until I stop moving during a fight anyways. One fight I went down and told the healer NOT to heal me because I honestly believed he would hit me again the instant I stood back up and I would go down again.
Thing is, I don’t know if he even focus’ on me on purpose. I think it maybe just a “kill the biggest threat”, and due to past encounters I top the list even though right now I am not the biggest threat. Does anyone have any suggestions for getting him to give me a bit of a break without making him mad? I am enjoying the story but I sit down to play this game, not get knocked out and play my DS until the fight ends.
Another possibility is to save your cash and buy yourself some nice armour to up the AC.
Sadly the save up money isn't much of an option right now. We just hit level 2 and I have about 45g, counting the 25g I had left over from teh 100g he gave us at the start for supplies. Bit short on cash haha
Thanks for the advice. I think the next time I get smacked around I will talk to him. This alst fight went well, even though he sent us into a fight with me not wearing any armor...We had a stealth campaign before the fight and I ddi not want to wear my heavy armor. Took off heavy armor, stealth around, fight right after and I don't have any armor.
Sadly the save up money isn't much of an option right now. We just hit level 2 and I have about 45g, counting the 25g I had left over from teh 100g he gave us at the start for supplies. Bit short on cash haha
Are you playing in a resource-starved campaign setting? That seems a bit low to me. Somebody needs some merc work, I would say.
You flat out said you're building characters that are min/maxed and you try to do better than anyone else. I'd say it's a none too subtle hint from the DM that he's tired of it. Stop building characters that overshadow the others and make a character in line with their level. Don't min/max it just because you can. Odds are, if the DM isn't happy with it, none of the others are.
Or again, talk to the DM and see. It could be just the DM is upset with it, but they could be doing it totally without knowledge. Don't jump to the conclusion that they are out to kill your PC without straight up asking. "You seem to always target me, is there a reason?" "Yes you are a min maxer and I hate you" "Oh ok I won't come anymore" is one conversation that might happen. Another is "Oh no I hadn't noticed it, I'll try to watch for it" "Thanks I'd appreciate it".
Talk to the DM out of game. Tell him that you enjoy the challenges of the encounter, but you feel a bit picked on. If you are the biggest threat, he probably should focus on you for some encounters, but not all monsters are intelligent enough to focus on the big threat, and maybe he could utilize some of those creatures.
I recommend against trying to use in-game reasons why your character shouldn't be targeted.
But I agree about talking to the DM. Recommend that he come to What's A DM To Do? for ideas on how to challenge the characters without killing them. It's possible.
I'll talk to him. See what he thinks. If he wants I will roll a different character that plays different, though there won't be much I can do to start because...again...low level. Won't be too much different unless I change classes.
@WolfLordBran I like to min/max my characters. This one is level 2 and hasn't even had a chance to get any kind of running stride. I know characters can be OP to begin with, but this guy definitely is not. Only good at a few things, and even those he isn't amazing. Just good. I don't particularly like being told "your the one in the wrong", but if it is the case, then I will gladly change the character to be/play different.
Also, I'm a little curious about the makeup of your party. Are the defenders and controllers doing their jobs?
not get knocked out and play my DS until the fight ends.
Wait... did you seriously bring a DS to the table and start playing it during the game?
EDIT: wow, that came out wrong.
At these low of levels, how much min/maxing can you possibly do? It seems to me like way too low of a level to be overshadowing everyone else.Also, I'm a little curious about the makeup of your party. Are the defenders and controllers doing their jobs?
not get knocked out and play my DS until the fight ends.
Wait... did you seriously bring a DS to the table and start playing it during the game?
Exactly. I am not much different than anyone else, so there isn't much I can do.
The groups makeup is as follows: Cavalier defender (me), barbarian, wizard (striker not controller), and shaman (leader). Small group. And I know I am the defender but the focus isn't everything hitting me. It's immobalizing me away from the fight or starting a fight when I don't have any armor.
Actually we play at my apartment (we are all roommates actually), so my DS is a short walk away.
Wait... did you seriously bring a DS to the table and start playing it during the game?
When there's nothing for you to do (and there's no hope for a battle rez), sitting there is friggin' boring as hell. He could've had it in his pocket for all we know...
What I mean is... if you have made multiple characters and they are all the same clone, the DM is probably bored with looking at all those clones.
I have two players with the same style of play. One plays the same big weapon guy with power attack, cleave, combat reflexes... his highest stat on strength, dex next, then con. Same guy. Every. Single. Time. I almost fell asleep thinking about how boring it is to know the same cardboard character is coming my way. I do the same thing as your DM, partly because my brain goes dead when it's his character's turn to act. I send him the bulk of the enemies while I plan the next encounter or mentally compose a list of what I need from the store or maybe contemplate my navel. Pretty much, I let him be as "awesome" as he wants to be by ending each of his attacks by saying something to the effect of "You kill it". He seems to enjoy the fighting aspect of the game. THAT's why I throw a lot of monsters at him... not to kill the character (he'll just make another just like it so that's pointless), but so he can get what he likes out of the game. He has a high character death rate, but it takes him about 2 minutes to remake the guy he's made the same guy so often. Most of those 2 minutes are thinking up a new name. Well, once he added a beard and made him a dwarf, but it was the same guy. Took him almost a full minute to come up with Turdek. Nice name, pal. The Dwarf Gods are offended. He changed it to avoid having a back story that might slow him down. If he were the only player I would never DM again. Or take up something more interesting, like sloth-watching. We're still friends, but we don't think alike in the RPG department, that's for sure. His enthusiasm, coupled with the occasional burst of actual roleplaying keeps me thinking he might just make an actual awesome character one day.
Another player is a little more role-play savvy (well... he makes interesting character concepts that sometimes succeed, sometimes fizzle). He doesn't care how awesome his character is "just as long as it's the awesomest dude in the party". I tell him he IS the awesomest dude in the party (which is true, if only in his own mind). If he were the only player, I would definitely think he has the awesomest dude in the party. Since there are other players, I have to just be glad he isn't playing the same character as the first guy. If so... I guess I'd let them use the same character sheet, since they are the same character and all. It would save paper, any way.
I'm actually more interested in seeing what happens to the pirate character who seduced the ghost of the pharaoh's daughter so he could steal her magic mirror. Or even the halfling alchemist seeking new materials for his research. Or the wizard with plans to create a living wife out of stone. Perhaps I throw a lot of monsters at the cardboard guy so the other players might have a chance if he decides to turn on the party. Bad evil DM meta-game tactic, but if 'average guy with 18 strength' hasn't hacked something in the last 6 seconds he gets antsy. Besides... his character is more easily replaced than theirs... Turdek, Junior? Really? Really?
The first 2 constantly brag about how awesome their characters are compared to everyone else. I don't actually auto-throw the monsters at them, but the other players are a little more careful not to get in situations where they are surrounded by monsters, while the stat machines are wading right into them. No wonder they get surrounded. My only guess is they figure the character they are playing is expendable and if it dies, they can just make another.
I'm not saying ALL their awesome fighter guys are not memorable. One actually had a personality. He survived a lot longer, somehow. Not because I didn't keep throwing monsters at him, but because the other players remembered he was there and actually bothered to help him when he got in trouble instead of just figuring he can handle it all alone. Also because the player actually liked that character (because he had a personality) and thought about what he was doing a little more. That character went on to die as well... there was a mythical beast that required a special material to overcome its damage reduction. He didn't know about that, or care. One of the 'not-so-awesome' players was trying to tell him he could help him fight this beast (he meant by using alchemical methods to prepare his weapon for the fight), but the player laughed and said "You couldn't even beat that ogre, I don't need your help". His overconfidence got him killed. At least it made a better story than most of his character's demise from rushing at everything because it's there.
Try role-playing. It doesn't have to be an emmy-winning performance, but any effort is likely to make the character seem pretty awesome to the DM, the other players, and hopefully you too. I was going to edit this to soften the edges; it's pretty off the cuff... but I got to go. If you can read through the cynicism, there's some okay advice, too... but it may not apply to your situation.
Whoopdy-friggin-doo.
"I cough up blood and moan for help."
Whoopdy-friggin-doo.
Or 'I lie there out cold and utterly insensate'.
Thrill-a-minute.
If you normally play min/maxed characters, and your DM is familiar with you doing so, it could be that you're getting targeted out of habit. Humans are creatures of habit and DMs, contrary to popular belief, are human. You might want to say to your DM, "Dude, you know I'm not playing [insert your last combat powerhouse character] or [the one before that] anymore, right? It'll take a few more levels before you can hit me with everything in the book without killing me."
This is a nicer summary of what I was trying to get across in my meandering post.
If you normally play min/maxed characters, and your DM is familiar with you doing so, it could be that you're getting targeted out of habit. Humans are creatures of habit and DMs, contrary to popular belief, are human. You might want to say to your DM, "Dude, you know I'm not playing [insert your last combat powerhouse character] or [the one before that] anymore, right? It'll take a few more levels before you can hit me with everything in the book without killing me."
This is a nicer summary of what I was trying to get across in my meandering post.
It sucks when the DM targets you. In my 3.5 game, our DM constantly made NPCs with powers and abilities that were immune to my sorcerer's spells. It annoyed me, and struck me as lazy, but it didn't bother me enough to do anything about it.
Min/Maxing is not a sin. It is not the DM's job to "educate" the player into what sort of PCs he wants to see at the table by passive agressive punishments like targetting a well-designed character due to its player having read the rules.
If the DM has a problem with how a player builds his character, the DM can tell the player that he has a problem with how a player builds his character, and then the player can respond, and they can have a conversation about it. If the DM thinks that a player isn't "roleplaying" to the standards they would like to see, they can tell the player this as well. They can have a conversation about it.
To deal with this by trying to kill the offending player's character is obtuse and silly. It is not rocket science, to solve a problem, you need to solve the problem.
For the OP:
Go to the DM, asks why he seems to target you specifically. When the DM refuses to admit it, use your prepared examples.
When the DM finally admits it and tells you that it is because you are a "powergamer/munchkin/bad roleplayer" etc., ask him what he wants from you. Tell him what you want from him.
Have a conversation.
If you normally play min/maxed characters, and your DM is familiar with you doing so, it could be that you're getting targeted out of habit. Humans are creatures of habit and DMs, contrary to popular belief, are human. You might want to say to your DM, "Dude, you know I'm not playing [insert your last combat powerhouse character] or [the one before that] anymore, right? It'll take a few more levels before you can hit me with everything in the book without killing me."
Wait. DM's are...humans? /mindblown
But in responce to everyones input, thanks everyone for posting. I didn't expect this much advice haha. He went out of town yesterday but when he comes back we will sit down and have a talk. See what he thinks.
It sucks when the DM targets you. In my 3.5 game, our DM constantly made NPCs with powers and abilities that were immune to my sorcerer's spells. It annoyed me, and struck me as lazy, but it didn't bother me enough to do anything about it.
Doing this is 100% bad DMing (Yes I'm making a value judgment that types it as low quality DMing, deal with it.) and needs to stop. This is exactly what people are warned away from in the heading in the 3.5 DMG that says, "Don't pre-empt the PCs abilities." There is nothing wrong with doing something like that every once in a while, as it is conceivable that not everything will be so easy to kill. I mean, golems do exist. But this is the kind of thing that no DM should be doing.
Min/Maxing is not a sin.
I just wanted to make sure everyone saw this. Emphasis mine.
It is not the DM's job to "educate" the player into what sort of PCs he wants to see at the table by passive agressive punishments like targetting a well-designed character due to its player having read the rules.
Careful, making sense like that around here is against the rules.
If the DM has a problem with how a player builds his character, the DM can tell the player that he has a problem with how a player builds his character, and then the player can respond, and they can have a conversation about it. If the DM thinks that a player isn't "roleplaying" to the standards they would like to see, they can tell the player this as well. They can have a conversation about it.
To deal with this by trying to kill the offending player's character is obtuse and silly. It is not rocket science, to solve a problem, you need to solve the problem.
For the OP:
Go to the DM, asks why he seems to target you specifically. When the DM refuses to admit it, use your prepared examples.
When the DM finally admits it and tells you that it is because you are a "powergamer/munchkin/bad roleplayer" etc., ask him what he wants from you. Tell him what you want from him.
Have a conversation.
I'm quoting all this because I can't say it better myself.
Min/Maxing is not a sin.
min/maxing is not a sin, but if doing so upsets the balance of the group in a bad way, a DM might not have the skills to handle it. He then resorts to using blunt tools. Yes this is poor DMing, but that doesn't help the player. While the DM should a min/maxing issue it by talking with the player about how this is creating problems on his end, the reverse is also true. If the DM is playing heavy handed to deal with the situation, then the player should handle it by talking to the DM about how he can make a more "balanced" character so the DM does't have to use such poor tactics.
Also, often the DM has in fact tried talking to the player, but has gotten the same result anyways, in which case both are really to blame.
min/maxing is not a sin, but if doing so upsets the balance of the group in a bad way, a DM might not have the skills to handle it. He then resorts to using blunt tools. Yes this is poor DMing, but that doesn't help the player. While the DM should a min/maxing issue it by talking with the player about how this is creating problems on his end, the reverse is also true.
If the DM is playing heavy handed to deal with the situation, then the player should handle it by talking to the DM about how he can make a more "balanced" character so the DM does't have to use such poor tactics.
I already agreed with the above about having a conversation. But if the DM is using those kind of ham-handed tactics, then the onus is on the DM. Expecting the player to be the one to try to solve that shifts the blame. Now, if the DM doesn't understand what he is doing is bad DMing, then one of the players should point that out. I would also like to point out that players and DMs should read a couple sections in the PHB and DMG about respectful play at the table. There is no particular onus on the player for min/maxing and causing problems until the DM tries to work with him and he refuses.
Also, often the DM has in fact tried talking to the player, but has gotten the same result anyways, in which case both are really to blame.
I would say that the player would be to blame in this case, without any onus on the DM. I also haven't seen what you're saying here actually pan out. What I have seen, is that more often than not, when things are talked out away from the table, things improve.
Two times I've done this with great success were a character based on Rapunzel from Tangled, and a character based on Jiminy Cricket and Pinocchio.
However, the reason I put "(usually)" in the first line is because of the dancer I created as my first 4E character. Yes, a dancer. He's the most deadly striker for his level that I've personally seen in 4E - not quite the highest DPR, but incredibly able to get to any target he wants, good with bow and better with blades; and he has defender-level AC.
At these low of levels, how much min/maxing can you possibly do? It seems to me like way too low of a level to be overshadowing everyone else.
You'd be surprised. A 4E Tempest Ranger (Ranger|Tempest Fighter hybrid) built as a striker can really rock at level 1, particularly if Human for the extra feat or any of the races that get a nice mobility boost.
I'm told it gets somewhat less impressive in Paragon...
Granted, the character is potentially overshadowing as much because of how conspicuous his effectiveness is, as because of how effective he is. Knocking down 4 enemies including the boss in 3 rounds is showy. The Invoker using a single spell - and then sitting down to read a book - to make sure the Tempest Ranger doesn't get swarmed in the first two rounds is not nearly as showy, but is quite effective. (And the Tempest Ranger thanked him for it.)
I know it’s POSSIBLE for a low level character to be BS and destroy entire groups of enemies by clever use of skills. This character is just your basic Dragonborn Cavalier, Valor. Nothing all that special except my charisma and dex are a bit higher than normal (16 and 13, respectively) so I can do good "mark" damage and later get feats with heavy blade. Nothing that great at the moment. Far from overshadowing, especially since I am the only defender.
Kind of wish I had chosen a regular paladin, charisma based. Just so I could heal a bit. But I did not because I didn't want to step on our leaders toes at request of the GM.
The fact that your GM also showed a lot of active interest in how the characters interact with each other in terms of threading on each other's toes etc, suggest that there really is a need to have a big OOC discussion about what you want out of the game as a player and what the DM wants out of it in terms of running it.
Also, often the DM has in fact tried talking to the player, but has gotten the same result anyways, in which case both are really to blame.
I would say that the player would be to blame in this case, without any onus on the DM. I also haven't seen what you're saying here actually pan out. What I have seen, is that more often than not, when things are talked out away from the table, things improve.
I may be a bit of a OOC/IC divide fascist here, but I don't think metagaming concerns such as min/maxing, niche-protection, etc. should ever be met with in-game BS. It is just very difficult to do well without coming across as a bit...childish... If you are DMing then you need to get the players on board with your houserules and rulestweaks. If they don't, then one overpowered player is just a symptom of underlying problems.
If you can't play with the players in your group, well then you can't play with them...
Likewise, if you are player and a DM tells you, well in advance about changes he has to the standard rules in his campaign, then that is what you should deal with.
Also, often the DM has in fact tried talking to the player, but has gotten the same result anyways, in which case both are really to blame.
I would say that the player would be to blame in this case, without any onus on the DM. I also haven't seen what you're saying here actually pan out. What I have seen, is that more often than not, when things are talked out away from the table, things improve.
I may be a bit of a OOC/IC divide fascist here, but I don't think metagaming concerns such as min/maxing, niche-protection, etc. should ever be met with in-game BS. It is just very difficult to do well without coming across as a bit...childish... If you are DMing then you need to get the players on board with your houserules and rulestweaks. If they don't, then one overpowered player is just a symptom of underlying problems.
If you can't play with the players in your group, well then you can't play with them...
Likewise, if you are player and a DM tells you, well in advance about changes he has to the standard rules in his campaign, then that is what you should deal with.
true on the childish, generally. Although my general response to overly min/maxing is not much better.
Player: Yes! Finally figured out how to twist that grapple rule into a one-round auto-death for everything by 2nd level!
Me: C'mon, dude.
At these low of levels, how much min/maxing can you possibly do? It seems to me like way too low of a level to be overshadowing everyone else.
You'd be surprised. A 4E Tempest Ranger (Ranger|Tempest Fighter hybrid) built as a striker can really rock at level 1, particularly if Human for the extra feat or any of the races that get a nice mobility boost.
I'm told it gets somewhat less impressive in Paragon...
Granted, the character is potentially overshadowing as much because of how conspicuous his effectiveness is, as because of how effective he is. Knocking down 4 enemies including the boss in 3 rounds is showy. The Invoker using a single spell - and then sitting down to read a book - to make sure the Tempest Ranger doesn't get swarmed in the first two rounds is not nearly as showy, but is quite effective. (And the Tempest Ranger thanked him for it.)
Raging barbarian on a horse with a lance. Come here big monster. Gimme that treasure.
Most of the min/maxing I see is actually better described as cheating on dice rolls...
I've seen FOUR 18's on a single character more times than I can count. Even after I gave them 84 points to distribute, they were still asking to 'roll' the dice.
I may be a bit of a OOC/IC divide fascist here, but I don't think metagaming concerns such as min/maxing, niche-protection, etc. should ever be met with in-game BS. It is just very difficult to do well without coming across as a bit...childish...
This is actually one of those lessons that I learned the hard way that led to a particularly hard crash and burn for one of the groups I ran for in the past.
If you are DMing then you need to get the players on board with your houserules and rulestweaks. If they don't, then one overpowered player is just a symptom of underlying problems.
If you can't play with the players in your group, well then you can't play with them...
Likewise, if you are player and a DM tells you, well in advance about changes he has to the standard rules in his campaign, then that is what you should deal with.
I would put this in my own words but then it would be less perfect.
The a GM perspective, I agree that the best approach is to talk to your players. I tried building battle groups around a single player, not because I didn't like him but because his character was so strong it needed it. It was a mistake. Instead of talking to him I just made the campaign more out of combat based. Group liked the story more than the fights anyways. In retrospect I wish I had just talked to him about the problem.
If he's running a combat-monkey game, then create a combat monkey.
If it's a outdoors, foresty-campaign, then create a skilled elf who's well rounded.
If it's a city campaign, ramp up those social skills.
As a DM, I used to get all pissy when it came to players min-maxing, but then I realized that when all I threw at them was combat encounters and plot-less dungeon crawl scenarios, they were just reacting to what i was handing them.
Now, I kill of the characters with insanity, disease, mutation, and possession and they've realized they've got to make their characters a bit more well-rounded (we're not playing D&D btw, which allows for more types of "injury" than just hp's). Ask your GM to take a look at systems like Smallville, where characters don't only suffer from the endless cycle of hit point loss and maybe he'll be inspired more for your D&D games to give you more plot in the scenarios. It should challenge your player ability a little more, as it appears you've mastered the combat-style campaign.
jh
Like, if you want to be a striker, min/max a Vampire or a Sorcerer (hard mode, Sorcerer cannot be Dragonborn for minor breath cheese). Tell the DM that you like min/maxing your character, but you wanted to take a character that wouldn't outshine everyone when min/maxed.
Or min/max a leader. No one minds a min/maxed leader (because everyone feels they're doing really well)
Min/max a suboptimal class.
Like, if you want to be a striker, min/max a Vampire or a Sorcerer (hard mode, Sorcerer cannot be Dragonborn for minor breath cheese). Tell the DM that you like min/maxing your character, but you wanted to take a character that wouldn't outshine everyone when min/maxed.
Or min/max a leader. No one minds a min/maxed leader (because everyone feels they're doing really well)
Min/Maxed Lazylord is good for this.
Min/max a suboptimal class.
Like, if you want to be a striker, min/max a Vampire or a Sorcerer (hard mode, Sorcerer cannot be Dragonborn for minor breath cheese). Tell the DM that you like min/maxing your character, but you wanted to take a character that wouldn't outshine everyone when min/maxed.
Or min/max a leader. No one minds a min/maxed leader (because everyone feels they're doing really well)
Min/Maxed Lazylord is good for this.
especially if you can convince someone to play your weapon of choice.
I once did a Genasi Vampire... optimized as a leader.
(It's a lousy leader. I think it's quite possibly the worst race/class combination for a leader.)
Min/max a suboptimal class.
Like, if you want to be a striker, min/max a Vampire or a Sorcerer (hard mode, Sorcerer cannot be Dragonborn for minor breath cheese). Tell the DM that you like min/maxing your character, but you wanted to take a character that wouldn't outshine everyone when min/maxed.
Or min/max a leader. No one minds a min/maxed leader (because everyone feels they're doing really well)
As someone who played a Seeker for 4 levels, it does make for an interesting challenge. I could open a can of whoop-a once an encounter to pretty much knock out on enemy. I usually saved it till midfight, or didn't use it all. The rest of the time I was soft control and decent damage.
Given that the OP described his character as superbly min-maxed, then mentioned he was playing a cavelier, something tells me that his perception may not be reality.
This. I've never heard a single person say a good thing let alone that they were OP.
Given that the OP described his character as superbly min-maxed, then mentioned he was playing a cavelier, something tells me that his perception may not be reality.
This. I've never heard a single person say a good thing let alone that they were OP.
Honestly I giggled when I saw this. I think we are using the abbrev OP for too many things.
The OP (Original Post) mentioned he was OPing (Optimizing) a cavalier and his DM thought all his characters were OP (Overpowered).
As a note, JRG meant Original Post.
At least o-assassins, vampires and binders will have a few people that say they are fun. Cavaliers? blech. The DM should have mercy on his soul for picking one.
Honestly I giggled when I saw this. I think we are using the abbrev OP for too many things.
The OP (Original Post) mentioned he was OPing (Optimizing) a cavalier and his DM thought all his characters were OP (Overpowered).
As a note, JRG meant Original Post.
Was it for OP? (Organized Play)
Hello all,
Small wall'o'text.
I have been playing 4e for quite a long time (i believe it has been 3 years now, 2 of which as a GM and player), and I like to min/max my characters. Make them beasts. Do what my character is supposed to do, and do it better than anyone else. My GM knows this about me (has been my GM for quite a long time), so he tries to prevent it by focusing on me during combat. I can understand this and I encourage him to do so at later levels, but at low levels most classes are not a threat. I get to enjoy most encounters looking at the floor and praying my allies decide to stabilize the dying. It makes the game feel hopeless because I can’t help but think…what’s the point? I’m just going to get kicked until I stop moving during a fight anyways. One fight I went down and told the healer NOT to heal me because I honestly believed he would hit me again the instant I stood back up and I would go down again.Thing is, I don’t know if he even focus’ on me on purpose. I think it maybe just a “kill the biggest threat”, and due to past encounters I top the list even though right now I am not the biggest threat. Does anyone have any suggestions for getting him to give me a bit of a break without making him mad? I am enjoying the story but I sit down to play this game, not get knocked out and play my DS until the fight ends.
Have you ever considered, that just maybe, your GM is actually...the Devil?
Honestly I giggled when I saw this. I think we are using the abbrev OP for too many things.
The OP (Original Post) mentioned he was OPing (Optimizing) a cavalier and his DM thought all his characters were OP (Overpowered).
As a note, JRG meant Original Post.
Was it for OP? (Organized Play)
Down with OP. Yeah. You know me.
Given that the OP described his character as superbly min-maxed, then mentioned he was playing a cavelier, something tells me that his perception may not be reality.
Or perhaps the OP's DM's perspective may not be reality...
Honestly I giggled when I saw this. I think we are using the abbrev OP for too many things.
The OP (Original Post) mentioned he was OPing (Optimizing) a cavalier and his DM thought all his characters were OP (Overpowered).
As a note, JRG meant Original Post.
Was it for OP? (Organized Play)
Down with OP. Yeah. You know me.
I wonder what Optimus Prime thinks of this?
Honestly I giggled when I saw this. I think we are using the abbrev OP for too many things.
The OP (Original Post) mentioned he was OPing (Optimizing) a cavalier and his DM thought all his characters were OP (Overpowered).
As a note, JRG meant Original Post.
Was it for OP? (Organized Play)
Down with OP. Yeah. You know me.
I wonder what Optimus Prime thinks of this?
I wager he would OPt out of commenting on the issue.