We have a player that's very good at min/maxing. As we get to higher levels he tends to get way ahead of the party. At level 15 he can now basically handle nearly any published monster.
We played to level 20 before, and things to tend to get out of whack, but at that level his character became unstoppable. This time he's gotten even better at it, and already at level 15 it's a real problem.
We've got a new player (which is good), but he's proving quite the min/maxing apprentice, so this is doubling our problem.
There are three problems:
- It gets almost impossible for the DM to make something that's a challenge.
- Things that challenge de min/maxxer are almost sure to kill the rest of the party.
- There is somewhat of an arms race by the other players to try and stay relevant.
We rotate DM's so it's really a group issue. We're openly discussing how to continue, but maybe people here have found good solutions in the past.
There isn't a single of his abilities that's over powered, he's just very skilled at finding the best combinations. He's very good at Magic the Gathering as well because of that. But there isn't a single thing that I can point at and say that's the problem.
His current character has everything based on charisma (which I think he's got to 44). I think it's Bard/Druid/Mystic Wanderer/Green Whisperer/Arcane Hierophant. He's constantly buffing himself with all kinds of long duration buffs. He usually has more than 20 active. He's got so much dispelling protection that he's basically immune, except to antimagic and dead magic.
He likes playing this way and in general is someone I like having in the group. He's just so good at this that it eclipses the rest of the party and breaks what the mechanics of the game can handle.
We already have some houserules, but that's just a new set of constraints for him to min/max around.
We could limit the sources available, but that would hamper the other players maybe even more, he would probably just come up with something Druid, Cleric or Wizard based.
To a certain extent this is a problem of any higher level DnD 3.5 game, but he easily eclipses Tier 1 classes, like our Druid and Wizard. Our entire party is quite powerful lot's of Tier 1 and Tier 2 classes so general advice on how to keep higher level play working with a powerful group of characters is also welcome.
Has anyone ever come up with a houserule that somehow adjusts difficulty on a per player basis, or something like that?
Anyway, yeah..... We have a guy in our group that's way more knowledgeable than the rest of us.... It hinders a little, but sorry, not to the extent it sounds like you're dealing with.
At least he sounds like a good guy and not a tool......
Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance!
If he is, you could ask the "min/maxer" for his help on bringing the rest of the party up to a more effective mechanical level. This would put the characters on more equal footing (as much as 3.5 will allow, anyway) and then the DM can up the ante on the encounters. This "min/maxer" may also have ideas on how to adjust encounters. To offset any mistakes in scaling, the DM can make the encounters less about one side killing the other and more about each side attaining particular primary goals. In doing so, he can screw up on the difficulty rating and not worry about it. That's good advice in any event, but doubly so while adjusting to changes in the game's power level.
If the group resists that sort of change (and this is a time to be honest about why), then you can ask him to tone it down. He may agree that things have gotten too easy or he doesn't like watching his companions sit on their duffs, bored, while he does the heavy-lifting. If he doesn't want to do it, any kind of house rule to limit his power level may be seen as punitive.
Compromise is necessary here, though if I were you guys, I would try to learn how to "min/max" myself than try to limit a fellow player's ingenuity. It's an opportunity for everyone to learn something new, and that's a good thing in my book.
Alternatively, if he likes min-maxing to the extremes that much, you could suggest that he min-maxes something that's inherently less powerful or spotlight-stealing. You could present it as a challenge to his min-maxing skills. How well could he min-max a single-classed dragon shaman? Or a build dedicated to buffing allies. Or a monk. Or a build limited to a smaller selection of books. Ect, and so on.
First, make sure he's actually following the rules.
He is following the rules. I can even create his character in PCGen quite easily and the numbers do add up. He's got a very good memory and knows nearly all of DnD 3.5 by heart. He's a walking Rules Compendium, Spell Compendium and all Monster Manuals in one.
The problem is that the rules were never meant for the kind of things he uses them for. His current character is CHA based. He found everything he can from the books that was supposed to buff Bard and then combines it with the easy to abuse Polymorph. Our houseruling is about Polymorph, very much restricting the use of items, so he just went with buffs instead.
But he has had a Diplomacy optimized character and a Charge based character before.
He's just very good at using the weak spots in the game rules.
If he is, you could ask the "min/maxer" for his help on bringing the rest of the party up to a more effective mechanical level. This would put the characters on more equal footing (as much as 3.5 will allow, anyway) and then the DM can up the ante on the encounters.
He did that for the new player we got and it ended up being the second character to break the game.
The problem is that there is a limit to how far the DM can up the ante and keep things working. The line between not a challenge and total party kill becomes too narrow. And we're running into the point that only greater gods would still be a challenge. It's just just becoming incredulous. There are only so many times that you can kill the whole pantheon.
The main danger right now is from abilities that work on the number of HD and allow no safe, like Epic Spellcasters using Blasphemy.
This "min/maxer" may also have ideas on how to adjust encounters. To offset any mistakes in scaling, the DM can make the encounters less about one side killing the other and more about each side attaining particular primary goals. In doing so, he can screw up on the difficulty rating and not worry about it. That's good advice in any event, but doubly so while adjusting to changes in the game's power level.
There might be some idea in here.
If the group resists that sort of change (and this is a time to be honest about why), then you can ask him to tone it down. He may agree that things have gotten too easy or he doesn't like watching his companions sit on their duffs, bored, while he does the heavy-lifting. If he doesn't want to do it, any kind of house rule to limit his power level may be seen as punitive.
Yes we don't want to introduce rules that feel punitive. That's why I came here to see if people knew any other options.
Compromise is necessary here, though if I were you guys, I would try to learn how to "min/max" myself than try to limit a fellow player's ingenuity. It's an opportunity for everyone to learn something new, and that's a good thing in my book.
The main difference is that he starts from a mechanically strong concept and then figures out a character around that, while the others start with a character concept and then try to make it work mechanically. He's just got a big head start mechanically.
And the rest of the party has been taking advice from him, they are behind on the power curve, but would also be breaking the game in a few levels.
Have you tried asking him to tone it down a little? It couldn't hurt. He should at least be willing to make an attempt to comprise for the fun of the group.
I posted this message because it's exactly the discussion we're having right now, and I wanted to pick the brains of the community for solutions.
Alternatively, if he likes min-maxing to the extremes that much, you could suggest that he min-maxes something that's inherently less powerful or spotlight-stealing. You could present it as a challenge to his min-maxing skills. How well could he min-max a single-classed dragon shaman? Or a build dedicated to buffing allies. Or a monk.
He would never play a monk. We talked about it. In general he starts looking almost nausiated when discussing any option that's mechanically suboptimal. Mentioning monk makes him shiver and almost puke. It's actually funny to watch. The weakest character he's played was a Warlock and that was when we challenged him to play a really weak character. He obviously enjoys himself more if he plays a mechanically stronger character.
Or a build limited to a smaller selection of books. Ect, and so on.
We found that this limits the other players much more than it limits him. It does bring down the overall power level a bit. The PHB has the Druid, Cleric and Wizard, he doesn't need much more than that.
He's very good at optimizing the mechanics of this game (and others) to his advantage. His main weakness is that he starts from the mechanics and then builds a character around that, leading to sometimes somewhat convoluted backgrounds and role-play problems. But he's getting better at that too, and it's not really any worse than the other players.
1. His character is much more powerful than the rest of the characters, thereby making it hard for the DM to create an appropriate challenge.
2. He is creating an arms race between himself, the DM and the rest of the group because the game is no fun if your character is never threatened.
There are two things your group can do.
First, like was suggested above, ask him to tone it down and/or find a niche to optimize (like a normally subpar class).
EDIT: but I see that the very thought makes him physically ill
Second, the DM can let the players participate in coming up with the story and the encounters, emphasizing that they need to be interesting. For a short primer on this, read the link in iserith's signature on Collaborative Roleplay (three posts up). When done correctly, this will lead to a story and encounters that are challenging for everyone (since everyone knows their own strengths and weaknesses best). And you get the side benefit of taking away some of the failure mitigation.
Just ask the players to emphasize on the challenge and the danger, and make sure the player separates his role as a storyteller from his role as a player.
I recommend finding out what the player thinks will happen, or what it means, if his character is "sub-optimal." Is he worried that the character will die? That the game will bog down in boring failure? That he will be blamed for not carrying his weight? That he just won't be praised for carrying more than his weight? All of those issues can be addressed, though some aren't things that players can do unilaterally, without the DM making changes.
If the player is not responsive to conversation and no compromise can be reached on power level (I don't recommend everyone optimizing to his level, if the DM already can't cope with him), then I would say that the group is just not a good one and you should leave.
He did that for the new player we got and it ended up being the second character to break the game.
The problem is that there is a limit to how far the DM can up the ante and keep things working. The line between not a challenge and total party kill becomes too narrow. And we're running into the point that only greater gods would still be a challenge. It's just just becoming incredulous. There are only so many times that you can kill the whole pantheon.
I ran 3.X for 8 years before 4e came out and all of the PCs were heavy optimizers. I was still able to challenge them and one of them in particular could summon a ridiculous number of undead creatures. It can be done and it needn't be a matter of killing gods and such. If I could remember how I did that mechanically (haven't touched the game since 4e came out), I'd give you some tips, but then that would be DM advice anyway.
He's very good at optimizing the mechanics of this game (and others) to his advantage. His main weakness is that he starts from the mechanics and then builds a character around that, leading to sometimes somewhat convoluted backgrounds and role-play problems. But he's getting better at that too, and it's not really any worse than the other players.
Here's where I see the real problem: It sounds like there is an objection on its face to optimization, period. Maybe even that old "roleplayer vs. rollplayer" canard. That's a problem of perception and something you can control and change about yourself, if you want. It really does look like there's a "min/maxers are bad" objection here since you refer to the way he builds his concepts as a "weakness."
I'm not sure that's what's happening here, though I get the impression that the non-optimizers would happy with their ability to beat challenges, without the optimizer, which implies that the optimizer is stepping on their toes. This may be an intractable conflict. A conversation should reveal whether it is or not.
If the DM is receptive for ideas of non-traditional (except for every action movie ever made) encounters that can be challenging but not a complete party-wipe, have them ask about it on the What's a DM to Do? forum.
"Rollplayer vs. roleplayer" is a canard, yes, except when what the "roleplayer" really wants is to play the role of a member of a group that finds itself challenged by desperate odds. That's difficult to arrange via one's own character decisions, so such a player must bring everyone's playstyle around to accommodate that.
I'm not sure that's what's happening here, though I get the impression that the non-optimizers would happy with their ability to beat challenges, without the optimizer, which implies that the optimizer is stepping on their toes.
That it's a difference in game expectations is true, as is the fact that a conversation is required. But I detect an undertone here of intolerance to system mastery in general. The system itself has much to do with the inherent problems, naturally, as the OP has indicated. Still, there are those who look upon "min/maxers" (and use of that term in particular is often indicative of this mindset) as somehow not as "good" as those who don't "min/max." This is something people of that mindset - if this is indeed at play here - can change since it is something about themselves they can control.
Still, there are those who look upon "min/maxers" (and use of that term in particular is often indicative of this mindset) as somehow not as "good" as those who don't "min/max." This is something people of that mindset - if this is indeed at play here - can change since it is something about themselves they can control.
Yes, I can understand that mindset, and can admit to holding it myself. Even though it takes system mastery to optimize, optimizing seems like playing on Easy mode.
Edit: there's nothing wrong with playing on Easy mode, especially if one just wants to get through the game and see how certain things work. But it's a problem if doing so eliminates the challenge that others are seeking. And the challenge they're seeking is a problem if it eliminates the chance to get through the game and see how certain things work.
The main problem we're having is that this guy is really good at it and as a result breaks the game. It's mainly a complaint about the game not being robust enough to handle this.
So I'm looking for houserules and other suggestions to make DnD 3.5 playable with min/maxxing.
To give you an idea: at level 16 he's got around 250 HP, AC around 90+, touch AC 60+, saves in the low to mid 30's, around 40 attack bonus, and regularly does 200+ damage. He can't be dispelled with Greater Dispel Magic and has lot's of other defenses.
The charger he helped build often does nearly 300 damage, knocks things back 60+ feet, makes them prone and stuns them. He just killed Orcus in two rounds.
And then we still have a Druid, Wizard, Ranger, Master of Many Forms.
I don't have up-to-date character sheets or I would give exact stats, but this is the general idea.
Anything below CR 25 can be dead in a single round. Only powerful spellcasters can be a problem, if they use things without a save or touch attack or target the weaker party members.
Several ideas have bounced around already. From having the entire party basically play permanently with neative levels, or making no bonuses stack any more, or banning polymorph or transmutation in general. Drastic things.
Basically we otherwise roll new characters and start at level 1 again, but level 16 feels a bit early for that. We shouldn't have broken the game yet nd high levels are fun because you have more options and versatility.
Basically we otherwise roll new characters and start at level 1 again, but level 16 feels a bit early for that. We shouldn't have broken the game yet nd high levels are fun because you have more options and versatility.
If you've gotten to that point then it's obviously not too early for it.
The main problem we're having is that this guy is really good at it and as a result breaks the game. It's mainly a complaint about the game not being robust enough to handle this.
So I'm looking for houserules and other suggestions to make DnD 3.5 playable with min/maxxing.
Send your DM to the What's a DM to Do forum. There's nothing a player can do to deal with issues caused by optimization.
(Well, they can optimize themselves, but that's just lets them join in with the breakage of the game.)
So I'm looking for houserules and other suggestions to make DnD 3.5 playable with min/maxxing.
Ban the cleric, druid and wizard (and psion and artificer if available).
Go through the spell list and take out every save-or-die and plot-breaking spell. Polymorph counts.
That's a start.
The main problem we're having is that this guy is really good at it and as a result breaks the game. It's mainly a complaint about the game not being robust enough to handle this.
So I'm looking for houserules and other suggestions to make DnD 3.5 playable with min/maxxing.
Send your DM to the What's a DM to Do forum. There's nothing a player can do to deal with issues caused by optimization.
(Well, they can optimize themselves, but that's just lets them join in with the breakage of the game.)
We have rotating DMs. I was the DM when the party killed Orcus and now the new DM has basically started the discussion if we should even continue as things are getting quite broken.
So I'm looking for houserules and other suggestions to make DnD 3.5 playable with min/maxxing.
Ban the cleric, druid and wizard (and psion and artificer if available).
Go through the spell list and take out every save-or-die and plot-breaking spell. Polymorph counts.
That's a start.
I don't think that solves anything. This guy has made other characters before that didn't touch any of those things. One was a diplomacy optimized paladin/marshall/evangelist the other was a Barbarian/Fighter/Totemist/stoneblessed/battlerager/deepwarden/tribal protector/rogue.
I need a more general way to nerf min/maxing instead of creating a patchwork of houserules. One of the things I suggested to the group is to completely get rid of stacking.
We have rotating DMs. I was the DM when the party killed Orcus and now the new DM has basically started the discussion if we should even continue as things are getting quite broken.
Then you sould all go the other forum. This is not a player issue, really.
We have rotating DMs. I was the DM when the party killed Orcus and now the new DM has basically started the discussion if we should even continue as things are getting quite broken.
Then you sould all go the other forum. This is not a player issue, really.
It's a bit of lot's of things. It's about how we should handle this as a group, what a DM can do with it, a rules discussion and it's related to a previous edition.
As we as the players are trying to come up with solutions by discussing this together, I thought the most appropriate place to post it would be here, but other subforums were definitely an option as well. and the other players are aware of this thread. I don't think they have accounts though.
I think it should be obvious by now from past postsers; but there are in my mind two types of players, and they just don't mesh WELL; they do mesh and many, many a table has been comprised of Rollplayers and Roleplayers, but It alaways seems to make it a pain for the DM, as well it makes tension in the party.
Sadly nothing can really be done without "ruining" one persons time; you can have the Rollplayer do more RP but then they won't enjoy it, and Roleplayers just not intrested enough to min/max their games.
One solution is have the Min/Max player create everyones sheet (ppl tell him what they want to play (race/class and he makes the best option) but something about this leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Sry no better advice, but seems like your group has fallen into a common issue with all games of the DnD class.
Sadly nothing can really be done without "ruining" one persons time; you can have the Rollplayer do more RP but then they won't enjoy it, and Roleplayers just not intrested enough to min/max their games.
It's not a combat vs. non-combat issue. Non-optimizers can enjoy combat, but they might enjoy combat that isn't a cinch. Optimizers feel like it's boring and a sign of foolishness to leave oneself open to failure, and so they make sure they can succeed by the widest possible margin. This can be handled, though conversation, and a re-examination of what success and failure mean.
Gamers should never assume that the rules of the game will be enough to make the game fun, especially when others are involved. Compromise and judgment will always be involved.
I for one am on the side or Roleplayers; I find Min/Max players a pain, We have one at our table currently and it shows; he is killing 3 out of 6 monsters in an encounter (stealth/archer/rouge), but I can see his face light up each time he rolls his dice;
Isn't he roleplaying his character - a skilled combatant in the context of a fantasy world - in combat situations? If you've built your character to be a killing machine and you kill half the monsters in the scene, then you're playing your role pretty well, I'd say.
Why do you find him a pain, if you're "on the side of roleplayers?"
on the flip side he is often distracted during non-combat situations and dosn't seem to get the joy out of it that the rest of the party does (not only a 4 man party)
Perhaps because the scenes without combat don't have the same stakes for his character, or even very interesting stakes at all which bores the player. (The latter is a DM failure. Even a "talking" scene should have some compelling question to be answered.) That doesn't make him any less of a roleplayer.
I think it should be obvious by now from past postsers; but there are in my mind two types of players, and they just don't mesh WELL; they do mesh and many, many a table has been comprised of Rollplayers and Roleplayers, but It alaways seems to make it a pain for the DM, as well it makes tension in the party.
I disagree. That's a false division imposed upon the hobby by some people in it. It should end. It helps nobody to make that distinction.
Sadly nothing can really be done without "ruining" one persons time; you can have the Rollplayer do more RP but then they won't enjoy it, and Roleplayers just not intrested enough to min/max their games.
One solution is have the Min/Max player create everyones sheet (ppl tell him what they want to play (race/class and he makes the best option) but something about this leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Sry no better advice, but seems like your group has fallen into a common issue with all games of the DnD class.
Since in-character interaction - which I assume is what you're talking about when you're referring to "roleplaying" - is divorced from most mechanics, then it's a very simple matter to change your mechanics to suit the needs of others while keeping your character's personality or the like intact. It would simply require the people who call themselves "roleplayers" and refer to everyone else as "rollplayers" to get over their visceral objections to system mastery.
1. I encourage players to create their characters with one sub-10 ability score. I find that this encourages role-playing. I do not require it, but I do highly recommend it from my players. My reason behind it is that heroes of myth, legend, and history, and even fiction invariably have a flaw of some sort. As player characters are at least somewhat intended to emulate those heroes of time, (to me) it makes sense that they should have a flaw as well.
2. I impose maximum ability score limits, at character generation: either two 18s or one 19 AFTER racial modifiers. I have adjusted these limits over the years and have found that these are the sweet spot where low level characters can excel in what they are best at, but still be challenged by level appropriate CRs. And as they level up, magic items that increase ability scores do not send them into the stratosphere.
A third house rule I have is a limit on what magic items are readily available for purchase. My limit is 8000 gold (source book value). If a player wants an item that costs more than that, then they can still get it, but maybe they have to go to a specific city in a specific kingdom to a specific merchant who may or may not have it, but they know where to get it (AKA plot hook
). Again, my players are usually OK with this limitation.Getting to the OP's quandary...These house rules will not help in your current campaign, but maybe when you start anew you could try them and see if they help. But they do somewhat depend on what level of point buy your group uses. Or do you roll dice?
1. I encourage players to create their characters with one sub-10 ability score. I find that this encourages role-playing. I do not require it, but I do highly recommend it from my players. My reason behind it is that heroes of myth, legend, and history, and even fiction invariably have a flaw of some sort. As player characters are at least somewhat intended to emulate those heroes of time, (to me) it makes sense that they should have a flaw as well.
Low ability scores are easy enough to get around, and it's questionable to require someone to roleplay low Intelligence as a dullard, when someone else is not hindered in the slightest by low Strength.
But you get to a key point about one type of roleplaying: Failure and getting into trouble are interesting. Modern story games are built entirely around this concept, and in those games one can't optimize without one's character suffering downsides during play. But in typical D&D style play, weaknesses are expected to be minimized and downplayed and, say, picking on the low-Int fighter is somewhat poor form. Challenging combat is expected, but if players feel challenged they often feel like they've made a mistake and will try not to make that same mistake again. If a player doesn't feel good about a high chance of failure, they will avoid it and there's no in-game downside for that.
There are two house rules I use to try to limit min/maxing from the start (and my players always seem to buy into them):
1. I encourage players to create their characters with one sub-10 ability score. I find that this encourages role-playing. I do not require it, but I do highly recommend it from my players. My reason behind it is that heroes of myth, legend, and history, and even fiction invariably have a flaw of some sort. As player characters are at least somewhat intended to emulate those heroes of time, (to me) it makes sense that they should have a flaw as well.
2. I impose maximum ability score limits, at character generation: either two 18s or one 19 AFTER racial modifiers. I have adjusted these limits over the years and have found that these are the sweet spot where low level characters can excel in what they are best at, but still be challenged by level appropriate CRs.
Getting to the OP's quandary...These house rules will not help in your current campaign, but maybe when you start anew you could try them and see if they help. But they do somewhat depend on what level of point buy your group uses. Or do you roll dice?
Well if you're talking about 4E these houserules are not actually houserules.
1. Starting with a score under 10 is completely legal in 4e, to a maximum of 1 ability score under 10. This is actually standard optimization since all builds will have at least one dead score (meaning it is completely useless to the build).
2. It's impossible to get ability scores higher than 18/18 or one score of 20 if you don't roll for stats in 4E after racial bonuses, maybe 21 or one at 19 but I've never bothered. There's just not enough points. So again, not so much a houserule as just the standard. In fact having two scores at 18 and one at say 13 or having the remaining points spread out is the most recommended way to spread out your points. Having a 20 and remaining points to cover feat requirements for example is also highly recommended for builds that don't have a secondary primary or a high secondary (wizards, most rogues, etc).
So for all intensive purposes if you've been playing 4E, you've been playing by the standard / actual rules but more importantly, you've been giving a player wanting to optimize pretty much what they would want in the first place.
I need a more general way to nerf min/maxing instead of creating a patchwork of houserules. One of the things I suggested to the group is to completely get rid of stacking.
What will that solve? The optimizer (I loathe the term min/maxer) probably won't like his characters being nerfed, so this just creates tension. He will likely find a way around it anyway, so in a few weeks you're back where you started. Again, creating an arms race.
This is not a problem you can solve by changing the rules. I'd try to either
a) come to a compromise between the optimizers and non-optimizers
b) make the DM step up his game. You can create more difficult encounters by using multiple waves of enemies, using effects that specifically target the optimizer's weaknesses, introducing alternate goals, etc.
c) include the optimizer and the other players in coming up with challenging encounters. But I already said that in my earlier post.
@iserith
I don’t think participating in combat is considered role-playing, as much as it is playing a part of the game. He isn’t narrating his moves or actions, just saying which power he will use then rolls. I understand this can get into a grey area, since I to have a warrior in another game and I understand the he is combat prone.
I find it a pain, because he hasn’t invested into his character very much beyond the mechanics of it, his back-story is just a few lines, and his general In Character interaction with the rest of the party is limited to say. He basically is a wall flower in any scene but combat, when he comes alive (but not to get into his character, but so he can NOVA roll)
I disagree that it’s a false division; I have talked to him outside the game (friendly since I do consider him a friend even though he irks me at the table) and he even said himself he is more interested in the combat and tactics aspect of the game then he is in Role-playing a fantasy setting (note he is the kinda gamer that loves Turn based strategy games and WH40k)
Saying that everyone is a Role-player is just wrong, he is a Roll-player, he knows it and I know it. That being said I still believe you can have a fun game with both types of players, it just makes things abit touch and go.
After the talk he said he understands my concerns and said he is going to try to speak in character more and get involved in social scenes, after talking with our DM the DM said he is going to try to work more Skill Challenges into non-combat that he can participate as well. On the flip side he has offered to help work with the rest of the parties character sheets so the DM can more freely drop some bigger baddies.
I think it’s a spectrum, much like politics, there IS a Left and a Right (Roleplayer and Rollplayer), and not everyone is at the far end of the spectrum, most are somewhere in the middle; my table just happens to have two people are both the far ends of opposite sides.
I am just pointing out that he has a tendency to play more Tactics based games outside of DnD because that’s what he enjoys, I’m not saying that WH40k players are automatically Rollplayers; but I thinkyou see it a lot because WH40k and games like it have a tendency to draw players who are tactics/combat oriented (Since that’s the theme of the game) I know that’s a huge stereotype but that’s how it is.
Note: I have played WH40K as well and enjoyed it a lot
There are two house rules I use to try to limit min/maxing from the start (and my players always seem to buy into them):
1. I encourage players to create their characters with one sub-10 ability score. I find that this encourages role-playing. I do not require it, but I do highly recommend it from my players. My reason behind it is that heroes of myth, legend, and history, and even fiction invariably have a flaw of some sort. As player characters are at least somewhat intended to emulate those heroes of time, (to me) it makes sense that they should have a flaw as well.
2. I impose maximum ability score limits, at character generation: either two 18s or one 19 AFTER racial modifiers. I have adjusted these limits over the years and have found that these are the sweet spot where low level characters can excel in what they are best at, but still be challenged by level appropriate CRs.
Getting to the OP's quandary...These house rules will not help in your current campaign, but maybe when you start anew you could try them and see if they help. But they do somewhat depend on what level of point buy your group uses. Or do you roll dice?
Well if you're talking about 4E these houserules are not actually houserules.
1. Starting with a score under 10 is completely legal in 4e, to a maximum of 1 ability score under 10. This is actually standard optimization since all builds will have at least one dead score (meaning it is completely useless to the build).
2. It's impossible to get ability scores higher than 18/18 or one score of 20 if you don't roll for stats in 4E after racial bonuses, maybe 21 or one at 19 but I've never bothered. There's just not enough points. So again, not so much a houserule as just the standard. In fact having two scores at 18 and one at say 13 or having the remaining points spread out is the most recommended way to spread out your points. Having a 20 and remaining points to cover feat requirements for example is also highly recommended for builds that don't have a secondary primary or a high secondary (wizards, most rogues, etc).
So for all intensive purposes if you've been playing 4E, you've been playing by the standard / actual rules but more importantly, you've been giving a player wanting to optimize pretty much what they would want in the first place.
I run 3.5e and the OP is doing the same:
This is about a DnD 3.5 game, but the issue is generic
I don’t think participating in combat is considered role-playing, as much as it is playing a part of the game.
Any time you as a player would make a decision that your character would also make, whether that's talking to the king, bantering with your companions in the tavern, or swinging a sword to take the head off an orc, you are roleplaying.
He isn’t narrating his moves or actions, just saying which power he will use then rolls. I understand this can get into a grey area, since I to have a warrior in another game and I understand the he is combat prone.
This is a type of roleplaying - first or third-person narration. That he isn't doing it doesn't mean he's not roleplaying in other ways.
I find it a pain, because he hasn’t invested into his character very much beyond the mechanics of it, his back-story is just a few lines, and his general In Character interaction with the rest of the party is limited to say. He basically is a wall flower in any scene but combat, when he comes alive (but not to get into his character, but so he can NOVA roll)
Again, this doesn't make him any less of a roleplayer. In-character interaction is a form of roleplaying. It's more accurate and less divisive to say that you prefer your players to engage in more in-character interaction than to put them into camps of "roleplayer" and "rollplayer." It's pejorative in many ways.
Backstories are overrated anyway. The DM is often better bringing out those details during play through leading questions. Said questions can also encourage character investment. Give me 20 minutes at the start of the session with any group and we'll turn a collection of stats into a viable party with a history, goals, and drama.
I disagree that it’s a false division; I have talked to him outside the game (friendly since I do consider him a friend even though he irks me at the table) and he even said himself he is more interested in the combat and tactics aspect of the game then he is in Role-playing a fantasy setting (note he is the kinda gamer that loves Turn based strategy games and WH40k)
Your assertion about "roleplaying and rollplaying" is so common that it's not a surprise to me that even he has bought into that false division. He's roleplaying. He's just not roleplaying as much in certain ways that you prefer.
Saying that everyone is a Role-player is just wrong, he is a Roll-player, he knows it and I know it. That being said I still believe you can have a fun game with both types of players, it just makes things abit touch and go.
Not everyone is a roleplayer. I defined roleplaying above. If you're not making decisions your character would also make, then you're not roleplaying. A player that sees to it his fighter swings a sword to kill half the enemies in the scene is playing his role well and is therefore roleplaying. If he doesn't narrate it well or engage in in-character interaction has nothing to do with whether he's roleplaying.
After the talk he said he understands my concerns and said he is going to try to speak in character more and get involved in social scenes, after talking with our DM the DM said he is going to try to work more Skill Challenges into non-combat that he can participate as well. On the flip side he has offered to help work with the rest of the parties character sheets so the DM can more freely drop some bigger baddies.
It's good that you had a talk and that he's willing to try the forms of roleplaying you're interested in. It's also good that the rest of the group is willing to accept his help in becoming more well-rounded players, too.
I think it’s a spectrum, much like politics, there IS a Left and a Right (Roleplayer and Rollplayer), and not everyone is at the far end of the spectrum, most are somewhere in the middle; my table just happens to have two people are both the far ends of opposite sides.
I disagree. There are simply roleplayers with interests in the various forms of roleplaying. We can stop with the "roleplayers and rollplayers" thing. It's catchy, but dead wrong.
So for all intensive purposes if you've been playing 4E, you've been playing by the standard / actual rules
"intents and purposes", not "intensive purposes" - and, as the OP says and that guy's point 2 make clear, they're playing D20.
As much as people complain about the railroading, this player's characters might die of old age standing in the same spot if the occasional train didn't come along and push him down a track. If he could fight off the occasional giant spider using him as an anchor for his webs, he'd be content. But we prefer not to split the party if we can help it. Once per session he says or does something interesting, so the rest of the party throws him in the caboose and drops him off when we reach Combat-town.
Out of game he's an actual person. I actually like the guy. And he has fun with his PX.
All the above joking aside.. what does the poor DM do?
---
Iserith: Give me 20 minutes at the start of the session with any group and we'll turn a collection of stats into a viable party with a history, goals, and drama.
Unfortunately, this type of player will quickly render all that cool stuff null and void as soon as he starts playing the character. I stopped wasting my time on back stories for this player's characters except to ask.. what is this guys name and where is he from? Something about an orphanage. What's being described is only role-playing if 'cardboard' is a role.
---
So.. what does the DM do? Some options; I place no value judgments on these...just a brainstorm.
1) Throw him a bone. He likes combat. Give him combat. I'm sure he's killed somebody's brother or something. A brief 1-on-1 duel situation will give him something to gnaw on while the PC's are choosing spells, buying equipment, updating their character sheets, discussing the party's next plan of action, goals, etc. and the other necesseties of the game. He should matter, but face it.. probably don't care; just wants to see if he can top his high score.
2) Don't feel the need to give him uber-powerful challenges. It's domination he wants. Throw peons at the party. Do it in sufficient numbers that EVERYBODY gets to kick some arse. He just wants a big number. He has a fascination with numbers. NOVA! Let him use that combat reflexes and great cleave and shoot for most kills with a single attack. It's a video game if he likes it that way. Don't worry that the combat is quick and dirty and easy. The enemy can always send something more challenging in the future.
3) Boost up the role-playing. Have NPC's address him directly when appropriate. He may not step up from cardboard, but at least you gave him the chance to be a star... he just blew it.. Chances are he'll do exactly as you suspect... he'll play the role of cardboard. It's not a very challenging role.
4) Ignore it and see if it goes away.
5) Have an out-of-game discussion about how boring his characters are. As if he doesn't know or cares.
6) Let him meet his match. There's always someone better, so they say. Let him meet that guy. Oh. I know.. you're picking on him. Dude.. he only knows the numbers. That guy can be your basic 1st level fighter with a net. A ninja that has been paid to assassinate him, throws a shuriken with a minor poison and then runs away. His synapses might eventually fire and wonder who is trying to assassinate him. Don't worry if it don't (it won't).... the rest of the party will have a great time trying to figure out the mystery while he's chasing ninjas everywhere. Dangle the carrot a couple of times, even giving him a chance to kill increasingly awesome ninjas. The rest of the players will probably be more interested in finding out who sent the ninjas than he will, ironically. But he will keep killing the only people who give him a chance to succeed... the ninjas themselves. Revel in the chaos of being an evil DM.
If you're a player and this is your travelling companion... calculate his carrying capacity and use him to haul treasure. Trick him into opening doors that you know are trapped but doubt you can remove the traps on. Don't worry. He's probably a hit-point cow. Milk it. Ask how much he weighs and use him for a counter-weight. Let him be your meat-shield. If his character dies, don't worry. He's replacable. You're not, because you're the main character.
Like I said, just a brainstorm.
Min/Maxing for combat can also be helped if the DM arranges encounters to also favour different ways to win, with a wider variety of tactics and siuations being faced the Min/maxers will need to broaden out and balance their characters better. Make clever actions, fast thinking, different skills and RP mean more in a fight, and create situations where there is opportunities that may require a broader skill set.
Yep!
So for all intensive purposes if you've been playing 4E, you've been playing by the standard / actual rules
"intents and purposes", not "intensive purposes" - and, as the OP says and that guy's point 2 make clear, they're playing D20.
yep, oops
I find it confusing sometimes because people post both 4E and other edition stuff in the same forum. ;)
But to be more on target, my only question is how does one achieve an AC of 90 in 3.x?
I remember reading somewhere that the max was about 70, and that required some pretty liberal use of the rules, party support and left you pretty much worthless at everything else.
Again, it's been a few years since i've played 3.5, but iirc, an ac of around 30-40 was pretty typical for most pc's in the mid teens. But really, 90?
I know you said everything adds up, i'm just can't imagine sure how...
4e is also d20.
No, 4E uses 20-sided dice. As do AD&D2, AD&D, D&D, and several other non-D&D games. However, none of those systems use the mechanics named "D20 System".
But to be more on target, my only question is how does one achieve an AC of 90 in 3.x?
Use one of the many infinitely-stacking stat boost combos, and then stop at 90 because you don't feel like going higher.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
Limit number of prestige classes and multiclassing. A lot of what breaks in 3.5 is allowing unlimited dipping. If you limit it to 3, it stops the overclocked synergy problems. Once someone finishes out an entire prestige class, it no longer counts towards the limit.
Buff spells. I'd institute the 4e rule - basically, 'powers' last 5 minutes or until the end of the encounter(whichever comes first) unless they specifically last a day(and not a day because they last 24+ hours)
-------------
To a large extent, this affects nothing in the base game. There's still plenty of room to optimize, so the min/maxxer can be happy trying to do stronger mechanical choices. The change is reasonably straightforward - don't expect a buff spell to last past the combat it was cast in, don't take more than a total of 3 classes and prestige classes.
4e is also d20.
No, 4E uses 20-sided dice. As do AD&D2, AD&D, D&D, and several other non-D&D games. However, none of those systems use the mechanics named "D20 System".
"The d20 System" is essentially a marketing and copyright tool created by wotc to 'brand' their ogl and allow for 3rd party publisherings.
At it's actual core, the d20 system mechanic means you roll a d20, add modifers and compare it to a ac/dc/save/whatever. Also, rolling higher is always better than rolling lower. And this system is very much used in 4e.
And yes, it differs from the mechanics of previous editions (thac0, sometimes rolling low is good...). But i digress...
Use one of the many infinitely-stacking stat boost combos, and then stop at 90 because you don't feel like going higher
Yes, that is possible, but from the OP's description, it didn't sound (to me) like that player was expoliting infinite combos.
We are indeed considering moving to a different game system. What we like about 3.5 is that because it has had a long successful run, there is so much material and there are so many options. This is also a leading cause of the optimization problem, as with so many options there are very powerful combinations to be made that the designers didn't envision.
Our main optimizer thinks it's not a solution though. He says that he probably needs a few weeks to get familiar with the new game system and then can probably break that as well. We have played 1st, 2nd, 4th, DnD Next, Gamma world and Mutants and Masterminds. Only Gamma World seems to be largely unbreakable as that mainly randomizes everything, giving the players little choice.
I have read all posts and will adress a few in particular but I value all contributions. Thank you.
There are two house rules I use to try to limit min/maxing from the start (and my players always seem to buy into them):
1. I encourage players to create their characters with one sub-10 ability score. I find that this encourages role-playing. I do not require it, but I do highly recommend it from my players. My reason behind it is that heroes of myth, legend, and history, and even fiction invariably have a flaw of some sort. As player characters are at least somewhat intended to emulate those heroes of time, (to me) it makes sense that they should have a flaw as well.
A well optimized character will have a dump stat, if not several. This doesn't help at all in preventing min/maxing.
2. I impose maximum ability score limits, at character generation: either two 18s or one 19 AFTER racial modifiers. I have adjusted these limits over the years and have found that these are the sweet spot where low level characters can excel in what they are best at, but still be challenged by level appropriate CRs. And as they level up, magic items that increase ability scores do not send them into the stratosphere.
This guy's basic stats are 10/10/14/14/16 and he's a human. The problem is that he can boost his CHA to over 40 from that starting 16, which is very much the stratophere, only one statted entity in all the books I have has a higher CHA, and that's Sune, FR's godess of beauty.
A third house rule I have is a limit on what magic items are readily available for purchase. My limit is 8000 gold (source book value). If a player wants an item that costs more than that, then they can still get it, but maybe they have to go to a specific city in a specific kingdom to a specific merchant who may or may not have it, but they know where to get it (AKA plot hook ). Again, my players are usually OK with this limitation.
8000 sounds like a really low limit in a high level campaign, where you have 300.000 or more. It also sounds like something that would nerf classes like fighters much more than spell casters. In general I don't see how this helps. The previous character that broke our high level game was fighter/barbarian based and needed lot's of good items to do it, the current character is mainly spell and buff based. His moniker is the "Loincloth warrior" as he hardly has any gear he wears.
Getting to the OP's quandary...These house rules will not help in your current campaign, but maybe when you start anew you could try them and see if they help. But they do somewhat depend on what level of point buy your group uses. Or do you roll dice?
We've used 25 and 32 point buy in the past. But the initial scores matter little to a good optimizer, they're much more help to the less optimized characters in the party. We are considering starting again at level 1, but we want to prevent the game blowing up again when we reach level 12-14.
But to be more on target, my only question is how does one achieve an AC of 90 in 3.x?
I remember reading somewhere that the max was about 70, and that required some pretty liberal use of the rules, party support and left you pretty much worthless at everything else.
Again, it's been a few years since i've played 3.5, but iirc, an ac of around 30-40 was pretty typical for most pc's in the mid teens. But really, 90?
I know you said everything adds up, i'm just can't imagine sure how...
Behold the awesomeness of a real optimizer. He's good and a sight to behold when he applies his trade. This is what I know:
He gets his CHA bonus (+17) to AC several times: From Ascetic Mage feat, from Glory of the Divine from the Mystic Wanderer PrC, from Siren's Grace spell in Spell Compendium, Greater Mage Armor, up to 7 from Dex, 24-30 from Natural Armor (through polymorph, either Thrym Hound (MM5) or Octopus Tree (FF)), +5 from Barkskin, +4 from Halo of Sand. = 10+17+17+17+6+1+30+5+4= 107, assuming 12 Dex in Thrym Hound form, if I didn't make any mistakes.
I think he's got some Dex buffs though, but usually uses the Octopus Tree and doesn't always have everything active as sometimes we can't buff before combat, but usually it's at least 90+.
Stoneskin, Heart of Earth and other spells mitigate some of the damage that does come through.
I like the guy and he's got an awesome grasp of DnD 3.5 material, knows most of it by heart. I enjoy seeing what he comes up with as it boggles my mind how he finds these combinations. The only problem we're having is that applying this level of optimization skill utterly breaks the game.
I'd probably do the following in 3.5 - both of these options happened in 4e for precisely the reasons you're having problems:
Limit number of prestige classes and multiclassing. A lot of what breaks in 3.5 is allowing unlimited dipping. If you limit it to 3, it stops the overclocked synergy problems. Once someone finishes out an entire prestige class, it no longer counts towards the limit.
We discussed this. Either limiting the number of classes, or requiring you to finish any PrC you pick. The reasoning against it, to which I also see some merit, is that a lot of PrCs are just not worth it with this requirement and you basically write off a large part of the published material. There is a lot of poorly designed material in the published work, that's just not worth it with such a rule. In the mean time it doesn't prevent some of the bigger power options. Even just straight Druid with the right feats, items and spell selection is going to break the game. No multiclassing of any form needed.
Buff spells. I'd institute the 4e rule - basically, 'powers' last 5 minutes or until the end of the encounter(whichever comes first) unless they specifically last a day(and not a day because they last 24+ hours)
Interesting idea. how do you handle out of combat use of powers? For example polymorphing into a goblin to spy on the goblin tribe you just discovered. Limiting that to 5 minutes as well? The same could be said for lot's of divination and other out of combat abilities.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
To a large extent, this affects nothing in the base game. There's still plenty of room to optimize, so the min/maxxer can be happy trying to do stronger mechanical choices. The change is reasonably straightforward - don't expect a buff spell to last past the combat it was cast in, don't take more than a total of 3 classes and prestige classes.
I will discuss your last idea with the group, but the first two seem rather ineffective for the problem we're facing.
4e is also d20.
No, 4E uses 20-sided dice. As do AD&D2, AD&D, D&D, and several other non-D&D games. However, none of those systems use the mechanics named "D20 System".But to be more on target, my only question is how does one achieve an AC of 90 in 3.x?
Use one of the many infinitely-stacking stat boost combos, and then stop at 90 because you don't feel like going higher.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
4e really still is built on the d20 system. The core isn't that different from other d20 games. It's just d20 vs. target number for basically everything but damage.
Mutants and Masterminds hardly resembles other d20 games, but it is still d20.
I think what you're simply referring to is OGL.
Our main optimizer thinks it's not a solution though. He says that he probably needs a few weeks to get familiar with the new game system and then can probably break that as well.
First: It Depends. "Broken" is a relative term. While you can be highly effective in D&D4, there are very few outright "broken" combinations left - and if your optimiser makes anything except a Striker, then even the most effective combos are usually pretty fun for everyone else to have around. He makes The Most Awesomest Leader Ever? Awesome! Through the power of his min-maxing he's acting as a force multiplier and he's making the *whole team* better.
In other systems, "broken" isn't really possible. There's no such thing as a truly untouchable or nigh-omnipotent PC in Savage Worlds or GURPS, although GURPS does make it easy for one player to make the other players miserable by outshining them completely. Some systems make "broken" literally impossible.
Second: Has he considered *not* trying to break things? Sheesh.
We have played 1st, 2nd, 4th, DnD Next, Gamma world and Mutants and Masterminds. Only Gamma World seems to be largely unbreakable as that mainly randomizes everything, giving the players little choice.
D&D4 isn't too bad, post-errata. But all the rest of those are basically the same system, with the same flawed core mechanics, and the same flawed build system.
When I suggest "try something different" I mean an actual DIFFERENT SYSTEM, not a retread or copy or different version of the same system, and D&D 1,2,3,5, and M&M (and all D20 games) are all basically the same system with the same problems.
I'd say, try something that's ACTUALLY different.
This guy's basic stats are 10/10/14/14/16 and he's a human. The problem is that he can boost his CHA to over 40 from that starting 16, which is very much the stratophere, only one statted entity in all the books I have has a higher CHA, and that's Sune, FR's godess of beauty.
Have you considered limiting source material? I can only think of two systems I've EVER seen where "use every supplement" results in things that aren't insanity, and D20 is neither of them...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
I'd probably do the following in 3.5 - both of these options happened in 4e for precisely the reasons you're having problems:
Limit number of prestige classes and multiclassing. A lot of what breaks in 3.5 is allowing unlimited dipping. If you limit it to 3, it stops the overclocked synergy problems. Once someone finishes out an entire prestige class, it no longer counts towards the limit.
We discussed this. Either limiting the number of classes, or requiring you to finish any PrC you pick. The reasoning against it, to which I also see some merit, is that a lot of PrCs are just not worth it with this requirement and you basically write off a large part of the published material.
Yes, but what happens *now* is that you dip one level deep into a front-loaded class and then trash it, never to return.
In the mean time it doesn't prevent some of the bigger power options. Even just straight Druid with the right feats, items and spell selection is going to break the game. No multiclassing of any form needed.
True, but part of that is that the inherently impossible-to-balance nature of Quadratic Wizards, combined with the old not-a-joke joke about how the Druid has individual class features more powerful than several other entire classes. Because it's badly written.
Still, cutting down on the available poorly-written Feats and ill-considered spells available can only help.
Buff spells. I'd institute the 4e rule - basically, 'powers' last 5 minutes or until the end of the encounter(whichever comes first) unless they specifically last a day(and not a day because they last 24+ hours)
Interesting idea. how do you handle out of combat use of powers? For example polymorphing into a goblin to spy on the goblin tribe you just discovered. Limiting that to 5 minutes as well? The same could be said for lot's of divination and other out of combat abilities.
In 4E, your disguise spell might:
1) Only last 5 minutes, better use it carefully
2) Only last 5 minutes, but be renewable as long as you obey some restrictions
3) Be a Ritual, which takes way longer to cast but might last longer
4) not be possible. I guess you need someone with good Sneak and Bluff skills if you want to do a lot of Sneaking and Bluffing, instead of just having a spellcaster who does EVERYTHING better than the specialists.
Divinations are almost all Rituals. Rituals have a long casting time - like, a REALLY FAST one might take five minutes - and they all have a spell component requirement, but you don't have to prepare them in advance. You just decide "Hey, I want to create a Magic Circle", yank out your reagents, and spend 1 minute per square inscribing the circle, then an hour casting (using up the components), then roll Arcana, and poof: A relatively-impassible barrier against creatures of X Type.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
Our main optimizer thinks it's not a solution though. He says that he probably needs a few weeks to get familiar with the new game system and then can probably break that as well.
First: It Depends. "Broken" is a relative term. While you can be highly effective in D&D4, there are very few outright "broken" combinations left - and if your optimiser makes anything except a Striker, then even the most effective combos are usually pretty fun for everyone else to have around. He makes The Most Awesomest Leader Ever? Awesome! Through the power of his min-maxing he's acting as a force multiplier and he's making the *whole team* better.
I think we will look at 4e again, we only tried it when it just came out. It had very few options available then, not even a Druid, which I would have liked to play but only came in one of the later PHBs I think.
In other systems, "broken" isn't really possible. There's no such thing as a truly untouchable or nigh-omnipotent PC in Savage Worlds or GURPS, although GURPS does make it easy for one player to make the other players miserable by outshining them completely. Some systems make "broken" literally impossible.
I'm open to suggestions. Two of our guys really like the vancian caster system and having dozens if not a hunderd spell slots or more to prepare. M&M, GW and 4e were to limited to their taste, at least when we tried it. Another game that has that level of complexity in choosing your tactical options I would lik to hear about. It doesn't has to be swords and sorcery, just a lot of mechanical complexity.
Second: Has he considered *not* trying to break things? Sheesh.
This came up in the discussion. He sees being powerful as a reward for investing time in learning the game and building a character. Without it he doesn't see the point of making a character. In a way he does want to beat the game.
We have played 1st, 2nd, 4th, DnD Next, Gamma world and Mutants and Masterminds. Only Gamma World seems to be largely unbreakable as that mainly randomizes everything, giving the players little choice.
D&D4 isn't too bad, post-errata. But all the rest of those are basically the same system, with the same flawed core mechanics, and the same flawed build system.
When I suggest "try something different" I mean an actual DIFFERENT SYSTEM, not a retread or copy or different version of the same system, and D&D 1,2,3,5, and M&M (and all D20 games) are all basically the same system with the same problems.
I'd say, try something that's ACTUALLY different.
I'm open to suggestions. It might be the best solution.
This guy's basic stats are 10/10/14/14/16 and he's a human. The problem is that he can boost his CHA to over 40 from that starting 16, which is very much the stratophere, only one statted entity in all the books I have has a higher CHA, and that's Sune, FR's godess of beauty.
Have you considered limiting source material? I can only think of two systems I've EVER seen where "use every supplement" results in things that aren't insanity, and D20 is neither of them....
We have tried running with using only core, or just core and one other book per character. It helps lower the peak of what can be achived but also limits everyone else. It also removes a lot of the reasons to play 3.5, which is the width of material available. It ends up leading to a lot of arguments in our group about what should and shouldn't be allowed. Some books really help certain classes a lot more than others, so what you allow has a big impact on balance.
It very easily leads to a gliding scale where a player just wants one PrC, feat, spell or item from a book you left out, which by itself isn't overpowered. Especially if that player is currently struggling to keep up playing a Paladin, Monk, Bard or other lower Tier class. With the Wizard using Pearls of Power, it gets real hard to argue against the Bard using Memento Magica.
We have tried it, but it continuously leads to discussion on what to allow and what not.
I'd probably do the following in 3.5 - both of these options happened in 4e for precisely the reasons you're having problems:
Limit number of prestige classes and multiclassing. A lot of what breaks in 3.5 is allowing unlimited dipping. If you limit it to 3, it stops the overclocked synergy problems. Once someone finishes out an entire prestige class, it no longer counts towards the limit.
We discussed this. Either limiting the number of classes, or requiring you to finish any PrC you pick. The reasoning against it, to which I also see some merit, is that a lot of PrCs are just not worth it with this requirement and you basically write off a large part of the published material.
Yes, but what happens *now* is that you dip one level deep into a front-loaded class and then trash it, never to return.
I agree this is part of the problem. I'm just not sure if what you propose is the right solution.
In the mean time it doesn't prevent some of the bigger power options. Even just straight Druid with the right feats, items and spell selection is going to break the game. No multiclassing of any form needed.
True, but part of that is that the inherently impossible-to-balance nature of Quadratic Wizards, combined with the old not-a-joke joke about how the Druid has individual class features more powerful than several other entire classes. Because it's badly written.
Still, cutting down on the available poorly-written Feats and ill-considered spells available can only help.
I'm afraid that an approach like that will just lead us to a loop where the optimizer makes a new character, we ban the tricks he uses, and then he makes another using different tricks. It would feel ike beating him down everytime, penalizing him and specifically him for being good at the game.
It would also create the headace of his characters leaving the party/dying and new characters entering, while we like having a stable party because it creates a much more coherent story to roleplay and for the DM to set in the world.
It would not be fun for him either as he really invests a lot of time and creates good characters not just mechanically but also story wise. It's fun to develop characters together over many levels.
Buff spells. I'd institute the 4e rule - basically, 'powers' last 5 minutes or until the end of the encounter(whichever comes first) unless they specifically last a day(and not a day because they last 24+ hours)
Interesting idea. how do you handle out of combat use of powers? For example polymorphing into a goblin to spy on the goblin tribe you just discovered. Limiting that to 5 minutes as well? The same could be said for lot's of divination and other out of combat abilities.
In 4E, your disguise spell might:
1) Only last 5 minutes, better use it carefully
2) Only last 5 minutes, but be renewable as long as you obey some restrictions
3) Be a Ritual, which takes way longer to cast but might last longer
4) not be possible. I guess you need someone with good Sneak and Bluff skills if you want to do a lot of Sneaking and Bluffing, instead of just having a spellcaster who does EVERYTHING better than the specialists.
Divinations are almost all Rituals. Rituals have a long casting time - like, a REALLY FAST one might take five minutes - and they all have a spell component requirement, but you don't have to prepare them in advance. You just decide "Hey, I want to create a Magic Circle", yank out your reagents, and spend 1 minute per square inscribing the circle, then an hour casting (using up the components), then roll Arcana, and poof: A relatively-impassible barrier against creatures of X Type.
Maybe it would then be better to just move to 4e.
ad 1,2) mght work, but would require looking at each spell and ability in the books and deciding what can be done with it.
ad 3) Quite a few spells in 3.5 already have longer casting times, especially the divination spells usually take 10 minutes or an hour. In essence they work a lot like rituals.
ad 4) I find that in a lot of cases the specialists are poorly designed in DnD, not just 3.5 and actually very limited in what they can do. Often a thief/rogue/bard would not be able to fill that hole. No matter how high a halfling's disguise skill, he's never going to look like a Hill Giant. Giving the rogue/thief/bard access to spells or magic items solves this, but it will often be the wizard casting or creating those. In a team the rogue will be polymorphed by the wizard because he's got the higher bluff and disguise skills.
By the sound of it, our options are either trying severly limiting the allowed books again, trying 4e or something completely different like GURPS, or figuring out a lot of targetted nerfs to try and fix everything that's broken with 3.5, something like what Pathfinder tried, with only limited success.
but please keep the suggestions coming, I already got some interesting ideas from this thread and some from my group are likely to read it as well.
But to be more on target, my only question is how does one achieve an AC of 90 in 3.x?
I remember reading somewhere that the max was about 70, and that required some pretty liberal use of the rules, party support and left you pretty much worthless at everything else.
Again, it's been a few years since i've played 3.5, but iirc, an ac of around 30-40 was pretty typical for most pc's in the mid teens. But really, 90?
I know you said everything adds up, i'm just can't imagine sure how...
Behold the awesomeness of a real optimizer. He's good and a sight to behold when he applies his trade. This is what I know:
He gets his CHA bonus (+17) to AC several times: From Ascetic Mage feat, from Glory of the Divine from the Mystic Wanderer PrC, from Siren's Grace spell in Spell Compendium, Greater Mage Armor, up to 7 from Dex, 24-30 from Natural Armor (through polymorph, either Thrym Hound (MM5) or Octopus Tree (FF)), +5 from Barkskin, +4 from Halo of Sand. = 10+17+17+17+6+1+30+5+4= 107, assuming 12 Dex in Thrym Hound form, if I didn't make any mistakes.
I think he's got some Dex buffs though, but usually uses the Octopus Tree and doesn't always have everything active as sometimes we can't buff before combat, but usually it's at least 90+.
Stoneskin, Heart of Earth and other spells mitigate some of the damage that does come through.
I like the guy and he's got an awesome grasp of DnD 3.5 material, knows most of it by heart. I enjoy seeing what he comes up with as it boggles my mind how he finds these combinations. The only problem we're having is that applying this level of optimization skill utterly breaks the game.
I'm going to double check this tonight when i have more time, but for now, i can already see problems.
First, Ascetic mage does not add AC = to the spell levl lyou sac, but if you sac a 7th level spell, the most you'd get is +2 ac.
Which means that he won't be gaining 17 ac, it means he gains +2.
+17? That's a Cha of 44. Again, without infinate boosts...
Let's assume a starting dex of 20, boosted 4 times gives 24. Add 6 from enh bonus. Now it's 30. Add some more for wish or similar shananigan's. Let's say 36 now. Higher is possible, but unlikely without a big LA.
That's a +13 bonus.
Now, you've also said he can get his cha over 40, which implies it takes some hoops for him to jump through to get there.
I want to know how he does it as a Sorc14/Monk2
So from what you've told me i can already invalidate at least 15 from your total, but realisitically 20-25 or more.
I'll bet if i had the full build i could find more flaws with it.
Our main optimizer thinks it's not a solution though. He says that he probably needs a few weeks to get familiar with the new game system and then can probably break that as well.
First: It Depends. "Broken" is a relative term. While you can be highly effective in D&D4, there are very few outright "broken" combinations left - and if your optimiser makes anything except a Striker, then even the most effective combos are usually pretty fun for everyone else to have around. He makes The Most Awesomest Leader Ever? Awesome! Through the power of his min-maxing he's acting as a force multiplier and he's making the *whole team* better.
I think we will look at 4e again, we only tried it when it just came out. It had very few options available then, not even a Druid, which I would have liked to play but only came in one of the later PHBs I think.
Druid is from PHB2. And yes: In current 4E, "broken" is mostly an academic concern. There's still a ton of things that are good, and a bunch of Striker things that are very good, but if your min-maxer sticks to "not a Striker, and not competing with someone else in the same space" he probably won't have the same kind of "he's making the game suck" effect.
In other systems, "broken" isn't really possible. There's no such thing as a truly untouchable or nigh-omnipotent PC in Savage Worlds or GURPS, although GURPS does make it easy for one player to make the other players miserable by outshining them completely. Some systems make "broken" literally impossible.
I'm open to suggestions. Two of our guys really like the vancian caster system and having dozens if not a hunderd spell slots or more to prepare. M&M, GW and 4e were to limited to their taste, at least when we tried it. Another game that has that level of complexity in choosing your tactical options I would lik to hear about. It doesn't has to be swords and sorcery, just a lot of mechanical complexity.
GURPS doesn't do "slots", but the magic system has something like 900 different spells to learn with different numbers and skills and things. It's pretty much my go-to recommendation for "you want mechanical complexity?"
I'm personally not a fan, but I disagree politely (and play L4D!) with a number of huge fans and writers for the system, and our fundamental disconnect is "I don't want to have to care" while "they care".
However, if you want "non-broken", don't let your problem player make a wizard in GURPS. Even the GURPS line editor admits that GURPS magic is broken as heck.
Savage Worlds has a much simpler character creation, doesn't have the same kind of broken options available, and tactical complexity that comes more from emergent properties of a simple rule set and less from rules for every occasion. I prefer it, but you might not. If you want to check it out, I suggest you grab some Deadlands Reloaded material and run it: The system truly shines through the Wild West With Zombies genre.
Second: Has he considered *not* trying to break things? Sheesh.
This came up in the discussion. He sees being powerful as a reward for investing time in learning the game and building a character. Without it he doesn't see the point of making a character. In a way he does want to beat the game.
While that's fair, has he considered that
#1: He could make an awesome character without overshadowing his friends
#2: By overshadowing his friends he makes them not want to play with him
#3: If they choose not to play with him because he "can't" not abuse rules loopholes, he doesn't play at all.
And, have you considered telling him that:
#1: yes, the system has holes, and you're aware it has holes, and you're trying to have a fun game in spite of that - so please STOP ABUSING THE HOLES because if you don't abuse the holes, it's fun, and if you do abuse the holes, it's not fun.
#2: if you run for one more loophole you're gone, you're banned. You know they exist, I know they exist, WE ALL know they exist - and yet, the rest of us aren't exploiting them, and we're having fun with the rules as the writers intended them to work. Yes, that combo makes you immortal/unstoppable/both, we get it - but you using that makes the game not fun for us. So we're going to play WITHOUT YOU, because you can't seem to grasp that you're making the game LESS FUN FOR US.
I'm open to suggestions. It might be the best solution.
Or, "not playing with the player who actively makes the game not fun". That's a better solution, in general.
But! I love Savage Worlds, and it's various settings, and it's highly resistant to cheese. I refuse to play GURPS because I don't like it, but it's mechanically dense and rewards system mastery and *still* doesn't ever let you be truly immortal. I'm half tempted to suggest World Of Synnibar, because yes it's completely insanely broken from start to finish but *that is the point* and nothing in that game is so broken that some other broken thing can't challenge it.
Have you considered limiting source material? I can only think of two systems I've EVER seen where "use every supplement" results in things that aren't insanity, and D20 is neither of them....
We have tried running with using only core, or just core and one other book per character. It helps lower the peak of what can be achived but also limits everyone else. It also removes a lot of the reasons to play 3.5, which is the width of material available. It ends up leading to a lot of arguments in our group about what should and shouldn't be allowed. Some books really help certain classes a lot more than others, so what you allow has a big impact on balance.
And, the fact that a couple of the D20 core classes are insanely broken just leads to players making grudge-PCs. It's entirely possible to break the system outright using only the first core books, because the writers were incompetent.
When I suggest limiting source material, I don't just mean "allow book X, deny book Y". I mean "Allow this specific content of book X, deny that specific content of book X".
I mean, vet the content for broken combos and remove them. If a class feature is more powerful than any two other whole classes? Remove the feature. That's an un-feature. That class no longer gets that feature.
I'm talking about taking a knife to the allowed options and slicing out the broken ones.
It very easily leads to a gliding scale where a player just wants one PrC, feat, spell or item from a book you left out, which by itself isn't overpowered. Especially if that player is currently struggling to keep up playing a Paladin, Monk, Bard or other lower Tier class. With the Wizard using Pearls of Power, it gets real hard to argue against the Bard using Memento Magica.
We have tried it, but it continuously leads to discussion on what to allow and what not.
See also: Don't allow books, allow "specific feats or spells or options"
Yes, but what happens *now* is that you dip one level deep into a front-loaded class and then trash it, never to return.
I agree this is part of the problem. I'm just not sure if what you propose is the right solution.
Notably, I didn't propose the solution in question. My personal solution would be to ban poorly-written front-loaded classes, and the result of THAT is "Well, then, if you're banning most of the material, why are we playing D20?"
And that's a fair question! My solution to restoring balance is to eliminate unbalanced options, which means eliminating MOST OF the options, which kinda defeats using D20 in the first place. I get that - but my personal experience has been that playing unfiltered D20 sucks more than playing filtered D20. My personal experience has ALSO been that I really don't like D20. It's not a system that works for me.
Having said that, I still think that in your situation, saying "No" to specific broken things as you find them is a valid option, and a BETTER option than not saying no.
I'm afraid that an approach like that will just lead us to a loop where the optimizer makes a new character, we ban the tricks he uses, and then he makes another using different tricks. It would feel ike beating him down everytime, penalizing him and specifically him for being good at the game.
The problem is, he's not "good at the game". This isn't a computer RPG with machine opponents.
The problem is, as part of a social activity, he's making it less fun for the other participants, to the point where they don't want to play with him because playing WITH him is less fun than playing WITHOUT him.
Imagine a poker game, where you have 4 players who are there for the company and the fun and they've tossed in their $5 to the pot and are willing to laugh it off. And player #5 is Serious Business, he demands that all table talk stop, he is offended and angry if a mistake is made, and he treats *his* $5 investment as life or death. And sure, he's a better player: He knows all the odds and he's searching for tells and he wins *almost every time*, because he cares more, but in the process he's a dick.
How often do you think #5 gets invited back to the group poker game?
It would also create the headace of his characters leaving the party/dying and new characters entering, while we like having a stable party because it creates a much more coherent story to roleplay and for the DM to set in the world.
Uh, wait. Why would "No, that combo doesn't exist because I say so, stop abusing it" make his characters LEAVE?
Divorce characters from mechanics. Abort "abusive loophole is my character" concepts before play. The same personality and background can produce many mechanical reflections - and if it turns out he "slipped past" an abusive rules loophole, warn him that the next time he abuses a loophole he's gone and no longer playing in this campaign, and have him rebuild the same character without it.
Even as a different class and different build and different stats, there's no reason for his CHARACTER to leave when you banned his BUILD for cheese.
Maybe it would then be better to just move to 4e.
I generally recommend it, but, again, I'm biased. I'm an old-school Getting My Dunge On nerd, and I've been playing since the early 80s, and my considered conclusion is that old-school old-style games had NO IDEA what they were doing. I find D&D4 to be the best "team-based tactical minis high fantasy wargame with as much RPG as you feel like wrapping around that" ever, but it's a crap system if that's not what you're looking for.
ad 4) I find that in a lot of cases the specialists are poorly designed in DnD, not just 3.5 and actually very limited in what they can do. Often a thief/rogue/bard would not be able to fill that hole. No matter how high a halfling's disguise skill, he's never going to look like a Hill Giant. Giving the rogue/thief/bard access to spells or magic items solves this, but it will often be the wizard casting or creating those. In a team the rogue will be polymorphed by the wizard because he's got the higher bluff and disguise skills.
All of which makes the real solution to the problem "The Wizard Did It", again. Which is to say, it doesn't actually fix the mechanical problem of Spellcaster Is King.
Whereas sure, the halfling can't PASS as a Hill Giant, but his high Stealth means he can hide in places the Hill Giants assume "nobody could hide there". And his huge Bluff score means he could imitate the voice of a giant who isn't in view. Sure, he can't "pretend to be a Hill Giant attending the meeting" but he can damn well hide under the table and listen in and maybe contribute a suggestion in a convincing voice. And as long as it doesn't prompt a "wait, who said that?" he's probably getting an answer.
By the sound of it, our options are either trying severly limiting the allowed books again, trying 4e or something completely different like GURPS, or figuring out a lot of targetted nerfs to try and fix everything that's broken with 3.5, something like what Pathfinder tried, with only limited success.
Your current problem is "a twink has totally twinked a system that allows twinkery".
Your solutions are:
1) Tell him to stop it.
2) Stop playing with him.
3) Switch to a system where that doesn't work, or doesn't work as well
I'll bet if i had the full build i could find more flaws with it.
I am, for the record, totally down with the idea that "he's cheating, because that seems insane even for D20". I just don't know enough about D20 to say for sure that any specific thing is wrong.
I think we will look at 4e again, we only tried it when it just came out. It had very few options available then, not even a Druid, which I would have liked to play but only came in one of the later PHBs I think.
4e, in general, seems to have a pretty good balance of crunch - you can definitely do some completely unbalanced things, but most of those are reasonably obvious in advance.
I'd probably do the following in 3.5 - both of these options happened in 4e for precisely the reasons you're having problems:
Limit number of prestige classes and multiclassing. A lot of what breaks in 3.5 is allowing unlimited dipping. If you limit it to 3, it stops the overclocked synergy problems. Once someone finishes out an entire prestige class, it no longer counts towards the limit.
We discussed this. Either limiting the number of classes, or requiring you to finish any PrC you pick. The reasoning against it, to which I also see some merit, is that a lot of PrCs are just not worth it with this requirement and you basically write off a large part of the published material.
Correct. But at the same time, allowing dips does roughly the same thing - people don't go all 10 levels in a PrC because they get bigger benefits from 3-5 different PrCs. The big deal about this change is that it is relatively straightforward and easy to implement without trashing the system.
In the mean time it doesn't prevent some of the bigger power options. Even just straight Druid with the right feats, items and spell selection is going to break the game. No multiclassing of any form needed.
That's what part 2 is for - no super-long lasting 'powers' really crimps the Druid's style. Where Wildshape is considered a 'power'. There's definitely tricks that the Druid can do, but...
This is a good thing, too. The optimizer feels like he can 'win' at optimizing, without necessarily resulting in the death of all the Greater Gods.
Buff spells. I'd institute the 4e rule - basically, 'powers' last 5 minutes or until the end of the encounter(whichever comes first) unless they specifically last a day(and not a day because they last 24+ hours)
Interesting idea. how do you handle out of combat use of powers? For example polymorphing into a goblin to spy on the goblin tribe you just discovered. Limiting that to 5 minutes as well? The same could be said for lot's of divination and other out of combat abilities.
Nothing preventing Hat of Disguise or Bluff/Disguise into say a Hobgoblin from solving that Goblin problem.
The point of the two changes is threefold:
There's still plenty of room for optimizing. Tons. The optimizer can feel rewarded for his system mastery without single-handedly destroying the game. In fact, there's all this optimizing potential that he can spend time trying to figure out. The results can't be any worse than currently.
There is a lot more value to skill monkeys. When you can't use a spell to resolve every non-combat situation, you don't use spells to resolve every non-combat situation
The DM's life is a lot easier because the disparity isn't so great and the combats are more challenging. As an easy example, it is going to be difficult to get completely ridiculous saving throws without cutting off other optimization routes.
I find D&D4 to be the best "team-based tactical minis high fantasy wargame with as much RPG as you feel like wrapping around that" ever, but it's a crap system if that's not what you're looking for.
This quote is made of pure win.
I am, for the record, totally down with the idea that "he's cheating, because that seems insane even for D20". I just don't know enough about D20 to say for sure that any specific thing is wrong.
I'd need the full build to really be sure, but yeah, i'm still going with it's not really possible.
I find D&D4 to be the best "team-based tactical minis high fantasy wargame with as much RPG as you feel like wrapping around that" ever, but it's a crap system if that's not what you're looking for.
This quote is made of pure win.I am, for the record, totally down with the idea that "he's cheating, because that seems insane even for D20". I just don't know enough about D20 to say for sure that any specific thing is wrong.
I'd need the full build to really be sure, but yeah, i'm still going with it's not really possible.
There are a few Bite of X Spells in Spell Compendium which give massively unbalanced bonuses and I remember that there was some way of making them last all day long and stacking them. One of them might give a weird bonus to Charisma.
I'm going to double check this tonight when i have more time, but for now, i can already see problems.
First, Ascetic mage does not add AC = to the spell levl lyou sac, but if you sac a 7th level spell, the most you'd get is +2 ac.
Which means that he won't be gaining 17 ac, it means he gains +2.
As far as I know, he only uses this part of the feat: "If you would normally be allowed to add your Wisdom bonus to AC (such as for a unarmored, unencumbered monk), you instead add your Charisma bonus (if any) to your AC." and he wears a Monk's belt to qualify for this. We did discuss this at the time he took this feat, as it is a cheesy way to interpret the rules. But this was many levels ago, when his Cha was much lower so we didn't see the problem.
+17? That's a Cha of 44. Again, without infinate boosts...
He boosts it in a similar way to his AC, I don't have an up-to-date character sheet so I don't know all the details as well as for AC. Maybe 44 isn't correct, but it's definitely over 40.
The problem is that there isn't a single thing that makes it overpowered, it's the stacking of a lot of effects that puts the total completely out of whack. He gets the biggest buff from (Draconic) Polymorph, but that's not the reason for his high Cha. The real problem is that things just stack too well.
I will see if I can get him to post his full character build here.
Let's assume a starting dex of 20, boosted 4 times gives 24. Add 6 from enh bonus. Now it's 30. Add some more for wish or similar shananigan's. Let's say 36 now. Higher is possible, but unlikely without a big LA.
That's a +13 bonus.
I'm not sure what Dex has to do with it, I only used Dex 12 (+1) from Thrymhound in my example. I think the Octopus Tree has lower Dex, probably 8 (-1) or so.
Now, you've also said he can get his cha over 40, which implies it takes some hoops for him to jump through to get there.
I want to know how he does it as a Sorc14/Monk2
So from what you've told me i can already invalidate at least 15 from your total, but realisitically 20-25 or more.
I'll bet if i had the full build i could find more flaws with it.
We discussed things like the Ascetic Mage in detail and we could find no flaw with it within the rules as written. It's clear that results like this aren't rules as intended, but how to fix it isn't obvious to me.
The Ascetic Mage trick is very core to his build, his character walks around like an Adonis, only wearing the minimum in clothing and certainly no armor. Think body builder or He-man. It leads to interesting roleplay when he enters a town and immediately attracks a flow of fawning girls. Unless he's invisible or flying, there are constantly people trying to get his attention. Dryads and sprites in the forest, etc.
We don't roleplay it all the time, but it gives a lot of fun.
We can discuss this specific build in detail, and might find a few flaws with it although we tried and didn't find any. I'm not sure if that helps much as I think the core problem is that it's too easy to break the game though optimization.
I don't want this thread to become a discussion of this specific 3.5 build. It's not his first optimized character and it will not be his last. I want to focus on how to change things so optimizing has less impact. Maybe this means going to a different system.
While that's fair, has he considered that
#1: He could make an awesome character without overshadowing his friends
#2: By overshadowing his friends he makes them not want to play with him
#3: If they choose not to play with him because he "can't" not abuse rules loopholes, he doesn't play at all.
And, have you considered telling him that:
#1: yes, the system has holes, and you're aware it has holes, and you're trying to have a fun game in spite of that - so please STOP ABUSING THE HOLES because if you don't abuse the holes, it's fun, and if you do abuse the holes, it's not fun.
#2: if you run for one more loophole you're gone, you're banned. You know they exist, I know they exist, WE ALL know they exist - and yet, the rest of us aren't exploiting them, and we're having fun with the rules as the writers intended them to work. Yes, that combo makes you immortal/unstoppable/both, we get it - but you using that makes the game not fun for us. So we're going to play WITHOUT YOU, because you can't seem to grasp that you're making the game LESS FUN FOR US.
To a certain extent we don't mind if he's stronger than the rest. The druid, wizard and super-charger do keep up enough to be relevant, the Master of Many Forms (me) doesn't care so much for combat, it's the Ranger that has the biggest problems being overshadowed.
Our real problem is that the game mechanics just break down with numbers like this. CR has become meaningless. Really only high level spellcasters can be any kind of threat, if they're lucky. A monster like the Tarrasque is only a minor bump in the road.
Uh, wait. Why would "No, that combo doesn't exist because I say so, stop abusing it" make his characters LEAVE?
Divorce characters from mechanics. Abort "abusive loophole is my character" concepts before play. The same personality and background can produce many mechanical reflections - and if it turns out he "slipped past" an abusive rules loophole, warn him that the next time he abuses a loophole he's gone and no longer playing in this campaign, and have him rebuild the same character without it.
Even as a different class and different build and different stats, there's no reason for his CHARACTER to leave when you banned his BUILD for cheese.
We would have to ban so much to bring this character back to manageable levels that what remains would really not be the same character.
His first character was a diplomacy focussed paladin/evangelist/bard that abused the broken Diplomacy mechanic. We banned diplomacy and he agreed. The character got retired after that, as it was rather useless without the diplomacy. If your whole character is about converting bad guys to your faith then no longer being able to do that kind of breaks the whole concept.
It would be the same as having a Master of Many Forms and banning Wildshape and Polymorph. You're basically left with a high level Commoner.
I assume we're ignoring the answer where we play an edition that doesn't go out of its way to enable sociopaths who use DnD for the sake of public ego masturbation? And also the one where we stop associating with that sort of person because they are awful human beings?
I don't like the last bit of your statement. The accusation of sociopath and awful human being might be justified if the optimizers in the group didn't see the problem and weren't actively involved in the discussion to find a solution. We all see the problem, we are having difficulty in finding a good wat to define "too much optimizing". Each of the tricks by themselves aren't OP and are often needed to make other character builds viable. It's when you stack it all together in an optimum way that the game just breaks.
But yes we're seriously considering dropping DnD 3.5 because it just seems broken beyond repair.
Well, the next-best answer's to run a game where you're only allowed Tome of Battle and half-caster classes, because that's the closest thing you're going to find to a quick patch.
That is something we also might consider. We were discussing the option to remove all Tier 1 and Tier 2 classes.
As with any group there are different reasons why our members play and enjoy the game. We currenly haven't found a good solution yet that makes everyone happy.
As far as I know, he only uses this part of the feat: "If you would normally be allowed to add your Wisdom bonus to AC (such as for a unarmored, unencumbered monk), you instead add your Charisma bonus (if any) to your AC." and he wears a Monk's belt to qualify for this. We did discuss this at the time he took this feat, as it is a cheesy way to interpret the rules. But this was many levels ago, when his Cha was much lower so we didn't see the problem.
So what you're saying is, he cheats. He takes Feats he doesn't qualify for, then stacks things that don't stack.
Tell him to stop cheating, or throw him out.
As far as I know, he only uses this part of the feat: "If you would normally be allowed to add your Wisdom bonus to AC (such as for a unarmored, unencumbered monk), you instead add your Charisma bonus (if any) to your AC." and he wears a Monk's belt to qualify for this. We did discuss this at the time he took this feat, as it is a cheesy way to interpret the rules. But this was many levels ago, when his Cha was much lower so we didn't see the problem.
So what you're saying is, he cheats. He takes Feats he doesn't qualify for, then stacks things that don't stack.
And ... we have a winner.
And re: 4e broken combos, my experience is that they're really only possible with either PCs making their own magic items or certain elements from Dragon or Dungeon magazine. Which is why the only houserule we ever play with is that game elements from Dungeon or Dragon magazines can only be taken with DM approval. As for creation of magic items, they fixed that around the time Essentials happened by restricting creation of magic items to Common items, and if you use the recommended wealth amounts per level, PCs wouldn't be able to create tons of powerful magic items anyway.
Also, what iserith said. I've witnessed a true table flipping moment from a spurned munchkin. It was shameful.
Be diplomatic at least. You don't want to be on his "list" when he finally snaps. Yes, it's that crazy to cheat at a non-competitive game.
I dunno, if he snaps, you can have him arrested, and then you REALLY won't have to worry about him.
The fix lies with the DM. A significant portion of the responsibility for the issue lies with the DM. If you tell the players that they have access to the kitchen sink you have only yourself to blame for uncontrolled consequences. The most basic fix is to EXERT CONTROL. If it is a problem that two powers stack effects then rule that they don't stack. If a class ability is broken disallow the class or revise the ability. This is basic DMing. It's not just your right to make such changes it's your job, and still would be whether you have a player who is intentionally trying to abuse or break the system or some combination is simply accidentally discovered and becomes an issue.
Now this is not ONLY the DM's fault. Players who continue to push the system to the breaking point when the DM asks them not to should be requested to find another game. There is nothing wrong with system mastery in and of itself. Some amount is to be expected and even necessary. It isn't very relevant that I believe it to have been bad design to base an entire game system on principles of system mastery without also ensuring that the results for the game system do not then require arbitrary rulings by a DM to be kept in check. What is relevant is when players DO continue to push the envelope and knowingly cause the DM unnecessary stress and frustration in addition to the disruption of the game for all the other players. Whose fault is that? "I can't help myself," is not then an excuse - it is an explanation for why you need to leave the group.
Clearly there are issues at work here but I don't see this as rocket science or brain surgery. The solutions are pretty simple. As DM, GIVE YOURSELF PERMISSION to rewrite and revise the rules. You always had it anyway but clearly SOMEONE convinced you otherwise. Maybe it was WotC, maybe it was just you. As a player, if you are openly admitting that your min/maxing activities are an issue with the others at your game table then, W... T... F...? Control yourself, or exercise the basic courtesy of removing yourself from the game before you have to be kicked out to preserve the enjoyment for everyone else. Hell, contribute to the solution actively - as you min/max your way through various sources TELL the DM which combinations are going to be a problem. Suggest solutions to your DM rather than watch him scramble and squirm to FIGHT YOU OVER IT. It isn't as if YOU can't see it. Indulging your own play style to the acknowledged detriment of the enjoyment of others at the table, including the DM, is your fault. Play along or go play somewhere else.
Halo of Sand and Sirine's Song don't stack. (deflection boni)
Ah. That explains why he usually gives Halo of Sand to another party member.
Please note that what I've written are the numbers as I understand them based on a character sheet I have of him from a couple of levels ago. He usually ends up with an AC in the nineties, so my numbers are probably somewhat off.
I'm not a big rules master so I don't always follow what's going on. Two of the other players do have a good grasp of the rules as well.
We have gone over every trick he uses a while ago and then it all seemed to add up.
There is no rule that says that you have to allow all published materials as valid in your game. There is no rule that says if you allow one supplemental book of rules that you have to allow another. There is no rule that says if you allow one rule out of one book that you must allow ALL rules out of that book. There is no rule that says all rules taken from whatever source cannot be altered by the DM to fit his campaign. There is nothing that says that if a player is otherwise legitimately creating characters which cause the DM undue disruption or frustration in dealing with that the DM's only recourse is some formal errata or official procedure to effect the desired correction.
There aren't rules from WotC, but instead there are houserules for these kinds of things.
We have played with different versions of houserules on what to allow and what not, even down to only allowing core. We might go and try that again. It does make it easier to control things, but it also leads to a more bland game because of the 4 feet of 3.5 books, you only allow a tiny fraction.
It also creates new balance problems and continuous discussion. The Paladin would like some stuff from Complete Champion, the Bard would like some stuff from Complete Scoundrel, the Monk wants something from Complete Warrior. None of this seems overpowered, until the Wizard or Druid finds a way to use it as well.
What we're discussing now is to just not allow any of the Tier 1 or 2 classes. No Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, Erudite, Sorcerer, Favoured Soul, Psion, Binder. And no powerful PrCs either, like Sublime Chord, Planar Sheperd, Incantrix, etc.
The whole party agrees that we need to nerf our game if we want to continue with 3.5 in any form. We already tried several things in the past. I came here to pick the brains of the community to see if anyone had come up with ideas that we hadn't tought about yet.
We might just give up on DnD 3.5
Take the build to the Previous Edition Optimization forum. They'll be able to dissect it in ways we can't.
I might, when I get an updated character sheet from him, or he might post it himself.
The problem however isn't just this build. Then we could just outlaw some specific tricks and continue.
The problem is that any optimized build quickly gets too powerful. Even our straight lvl 16 Druid.
We also have a Charge focussed build who regularly does almost 300 damage. Something with Dungeon Crasher, Improved Bull Rush, Shock Trooper, Mountain Rage, Knockback, Rampaging Bull Rush, Power Attack and some other things stacking.
We have at least 3 characters in the party who are close to breaking the game, not just this build, and that's only because the Wizard is bad at optimizing and much less effective.
As far as I know, he only uses this part of the feat: "If you would normally be allowed to add your Wisdom bonus to AC (such as for a unarmored, unencumbered monk), you instead add your Charisma bonus (if any) to your AC." and he wears a Monk's belt to qualify for this. We did discuss this at the time he took this feat, as it is a cheesy way to interpret the rules. But this was many levels ago, when his Cha was much lower so we didn't see the problem.
So what you're saying is, he cheats. He takes Feats he doesn't qualify for, then stacks things that don't stack.
I don't understand. The feat has as prerequisites that you can cast 2nd level arcane spells, and have Improved Unarmed Strike. He has both.
The feat has a number of benefits. Some of those he can't use because you have to be a Monk or Sorcerer. But I don't see why he couldn't use the trick he does according to the rules as written. It's not the rules as intended that's for sure as it's targetted at sorcerer/monk multiclass characters.
When he took the feat we discussed it, and with a much lower Cha at the time it didn't seem a problem. but even if we ban this feat he would have an incredibly high AC. We would also have to ban Mystic Wanderer, Polymorph, and some more things.
It's stacking all these things together that creates the problem in my view. The problem is that people can compile lists like this "X stat to Y bonus":
www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t...
I'd recommend planning on campaigns that end at lvl 8 or so. Normally I'd say lvl 12, but this problem guy sounds like even that might be too much. So just throw out the broken levels of the game all together.
This is one of the other solutions we're discussing. To only play to level 10. Maybe it should indeed be even lower.
As far as I know, he only uses this part of the feat: "If you would normally be allowed to add your Wisdom bonus to AC (such as for a unarmored, unencumbered monk), you instead add your Charisma bonus (if any) to your AC." and he wears a Monk's belt to qualify for this. We did discuss this at the time he took this feat, as it is a cheesy way to interpret the rules. But this was many levels ago, when his Cha was much lower so we didn't see the problem.
So what you're saying is, he cheats. He takes Feats he doesn't qualify for, then stacks things that don't stack.
I don't understand. The feat has as prerequisites that you can cast 2nd level arcane spells, and have Improved Unarmed Strike. He has both.
And then he's adding Charisma to AC instead of Wisdom, when he can't do that.
He's cheating.
even if we ban this feat he would have an incredibly high AC.
Because he's cheating with other things, too, yes. We understand that.
The problem isn't "this feat", it's that we've caught him cheating, twice, just from your half-descriptions. And since he's getting results that match those a cheater would get, and we've caught him cheating twice already, I feel confident that a good analysis would show he's cheating in other places, too.
He's still probably broken-as-hell, because that's just how D20 rolls, but he's not just "munchkin grabs things never intended to work together", he's "cheater using things that don't work together."
As far as I know, he only uses this part of the feat: "If you would normally be allowed to add your Wisdom bonus to AC (such as for a unarmored, unencumbered monk), you instead add your Charisma bonus (if any) to your AC." and he wears a Monk's belt to qualify for this. We did discuss this at the time he took this feat, as it is a cheesy way to interpret the rules. But this was many levels ago, when his Cha was much lower so we didn't see the problem.
So what you're saying is, he cheats. He takes Feats he doesn't qualify for, then stacks things that don't stack.
I don't understand. The feat has as prerequisites that you can cast 2nd level arcane spells, and have Improved Unarmed Strike. He has both.
And then he's adding Charisma to AC instead of Wisdom, when he can't do that.
He's cheating.
I still don't get it. We went over this when he took the feat. The Monk's Belt allows him to add his Wisdom bonus to AC as if he were a level 5 monk. Then the feat allows him to add his charisma bonus instead.
It's very cheesy and probably something we should get rid of if we continue, but it's only this level that he's ben able to boost his CHA into the stratophere. Before he only had a Cha bonus of 7 or 8 and the results were much lower although already bordering on game breaking.
Everytime we level up, we scrutinize what people took for new feats, items and spells and outlaw options that seem overpowered at the time. It's just that now we have one new player (the ubercharger) who basically got to make an optimized character from scratch, the always powerful druid, and all the small things that our established optimizer did over the last 8 levels finally add up to something crazy.
The result is that 3 characters out of 6 break the game even before anyone get's level 9 spells.
] I still don't get it. We went over this when he took the feat. The Monk's Belt allows him to add his Wisdom bonus to AC as if he were a level 5 monk. Then the feat allows him to add his charisma bonus instead.
It's very cheesy and probably something we should get rid of if we continue, but it's only this level that he's ben able to boost his CHA into the stratophere. Before he only had a Cha bonus of 7 or 8 and the results were much lower although already bordering on game breaking.
"If you would normally be allowed to add your Wisdom bonus to AC".
He's not normally allowed to. He only gets to because of a temporary magic item effect. And he has to have known this was cheating, because he asked you to ignore that he was cheating. You agreed to ignore his cheating, but that doesn't mean it isn't cheating.
Want to bet *most* of his other gamebreaking stacking things are similar? I'll take that.
] I still don't get it. We went over this when he took the feat. The Monk's Belt allows him to add his Wisdom bonus to AC as if he were a level 5 monk. Then the feat allows him to add his charisma bonus instead.
It's very cheesy and probably something we should get rid of if we continue, but it's only this level that he's ben able to boost his CHA into the stratophere. Before he only had a Cha bonus of 7 or 8 and the results were much lower although already bordering on game breaking.
"If you would normally be allowed to add your Wisdom bonus to AC".
He's not normally allowed to. He only gets to because of a temporary magic item effect. And he has to have known this was cheating, because he asked you to ignore that he was cheating. You agreed to ignore his cheating, but that doesn't mean it isn't cheating.
Want to bet *most* of his other gamebreaking stacking things are similar? I'll take that.
We have discussed if items can allow you to qualify for something.
It's a topic that doesn't have a clear answer, although at least some of the DnD authors seem to have thought you can. I found this here: www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.ph...
There is reason to believe that items let you qualify. From Complete Warrior:
Meeting Prestige Class Requirements
It's possible for a character to take levels in a prestige class and later be in a position where the character no longer qualifies to be a member of the class. An alignment change, levels lost because of character death, or the loss of a magic item that granted an important ability are examples of events that can make a character ineligible to advance farther in a prestige class.
Emphasis mine - if losing an item can cause you to no longer qualify, it stands to reason that items can be used to qualify to begin with, otherwise there'd be no reason to state that condition.
One of our houserules is that you can't qualify for a PrC with an item, no matter what the texts say. Maybe we need to extend that to feats as well.
The general problem with DnD, and 3.5 in particular, is that you end up with disucssions like this all the time. Often even the developers don't agree. I've had direct fully contradictory answers from people like Andy Collins, Skip Williams, Jesse Decker and Ed Spark.
A lot of these things are just unclear and you need to make a houserule. The problem with having a good optimizer is that they then find the loopholes in the houserules as well but you don't want to make the houserules a moving target for everyone.
Edit: let me qualify that: Our houserule is that you can't use an item to fullfill prerequisites, but that an item or spell can help you to fullfill conditions.
Maybe a more stringent set of houserules will work, maybe 3.5 is just broken beyond repair. (That seems to be the conclusion in our group so far, as even Pathfinder couldn't really fix it).
I just wanted to get input from the community on what you have found to work in your group.
The reason I'm posting this is because our current housrules are clearly not sufficient to prevent this cheese.
Maybe a more stringent set of houserules will work, maybe 3.5 is just broken beyond repair. (That seems to be the conclusion in our group so far, as even Pathfinder couldn't really fix it).
I just wanted to get input from the community on what you have found to work in your group.
D20 is broken beyond repair, and only playable with a group pact to *not break it*.
The reason I'm posting this is because our current housrules are clearly not sufficient to prevent this cheese.
Maybe a more stringent set of houserules will work, maybe 3.5 is just broken beyond repair. (That seems to be the conclusion in our group so far, as even Pathfinder couldn't really fix it).
I just wanted to get input from the community on what you have found to work in your group.
D20 is broken beyond repair, and only playable with a group pact to *not break it*.
That's my conclusion as well. I think this thread is done.
I have asked a new question in the previous editions optimizer forum: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
I'm asking the optimizers themselves if they can come up with a set of houserules for 3.5 that would optimize against optimization. If that doesn't give any interesting answers I'm just going to give up on DnD 3.5 above level 10.
In our group it's too hard to get an agreement on what is broken and what not. Half the group really enjoys the optimization the other half doesn't care until the game breaks in their view.
But the issue isn't that 3.x is completely broken by itself (although certain supplements/combos can make it so), the specific issue here is cheating.
I recently went rhough something like this a few months ago where someone claimed to be getting 300+ dmg a round with magic missile. I challenged and he presented his char sheet. Once we removed the improper stacking, 'corrected a multipilcation error' and had to remove a few metamagic feats because they brought the spell level to 11 (literally), he was getting closer to 40-50 dmg a round.
You said you have a build from a few levels ago? Post it. We can atleast look at that and determine what's wrong in THAT build.
Yes, i'm sure it's only gotten worse since then...
But as i mentioned yesterday, and as others have pointed out since then, there are at least 2 things wrong with the current way things are stacked, i'd be interested in seeing what his ac/stats really are.
But the issue isn't that 3.x is completely broken by itself.
Yes, yes it is. One of the most broken things in the game is a straight PHB-only druid. The 'core' was completely imbalanced from the get-go.
I meant the specific issue in this thread. The player in question isn't playing a t1 class, but is cheating to achieve rediculus results.
Personally though, this sounds like him not nessiarily understanding, or exploiting your lack of understanding on how the game works. As a DM or player it is your duty to make sure that it is done legally. For example the enhancement of an magical item is never considered part of his basic abilitys. So if an amulet granted, say, Dominate once per day, you couldn't use a meta magic feat to alter it because it's not your spell. It's the amulet's spell. If an ability grants a + to any given stat, it's only logical to assume that your basic abilitys only gain the enhancement from having it, rather then gaining extra con or skill points on a level up. Hence it is highly recommended that you ask for his character sheet, read through and recommend that he helps you out on while this works. The only answer to rules that blurr the rules is to clarify the rules, one way or another.
And a few adjustments have been made in my group. For example fighters get a feat every level, instead of every other level. Though for most part DM says so, and common trust between each of the players and the DM is the most essential compoment of any campiagn. You need to make sure that common trust is established and that he plays by the rules as writen, or as the DM states. There is no room for inteperation as theres plenty of room within the system to be powerful without resorting to dirty cheating..
Let me summarize. We can even ignore the allegations of cheating/willfully misinterpreting rules.
Players is a Mix-Maxer Power Gamer. Everything is okay until you hit around level 10 or so and it's just downhill from there. The Game is broken. The other players are not having as much fun as they could be having because of the mix-maxer breaking the game.
First off, the mix-maxer is extremely selfish. His selfish "need" to min-max is ruining the game for other players, yourself included. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be a post asking for help. D&D is a social game. If this player is using it to boost his own ego at the cost of everyone's enjoyment, he is being a bad player.
I refer you now to Wheaton's Law. He is violating this tremendously. He is being incredibly selfish.
His argument that it is a reward for his system mastery (cheating allegations aside) is trash. His argument that min-maxing is the only way for him to have fun is trash. He is ruining the enjoyment of those at the table for his own personal enjoyment.
You seriously need to sit down as a group and call him on this. He is ruining the game for everyone. That is just uncool. Honestly, the fact that he is "working with you" on this seems half-hearted. If he was really working with you and the group he wouldn't! min-max or power game. End of story.
tl;dr Your player is selfish and is ruining the game because of it. He is in direct violation of Wheaton's Law and is violating the implied social contract of a social game. He isn't actually working with the group, if he was, he wouldn't min-max.
Talk to him. Call him on this. If he is unwilling to change, boot him. His behavior is unacceptable.
Those who say that I'm ruining the game because I'm optimizing might have a point, especially during the last few levels as the power of this particular caster has been growing far too quickly, something which is however inherrent about tier 1 and 2 casters, is this case we're talking about a sublime chord / druid double progression, (just reached level 7 spells at level 16), so you can get the picture (a lot of buffing power in there).
I also dont agree with the OP that I first find some powerfull mechanic, and then design a character around it, I often get inspired by particular prestige classesor particular character options mostly for flavor reasons. My first character was for example an evangelist diplomancer. It was fun for a short while, but it quickly became apparent that this character was too limited in what it could do, and too powerfull in what it did. As such, we discussed with the group what was missing at the moment, and replaced him with a melee guy. I subsequently got inspired by one of our former group members to create a "hulk" type character, and the perfect match for this was a wild dwarf (small) with goliath stoneblessed levels, so that when he raged he became large (using a goliath substitution level at level 6). A lot of dipping was involved here for sure (the rest of the party was full of casters), and the OP stated that this guy was also quite a problem. I can however say he pales in comparison with my current character. The most cheesy thing involved might have been the valorous enchantment on his weapon causing double weapon on a charge (no pounce involved). My third character in this group was a pure warlock, inspired on a warlock I played like 7 years ago in a short campaign. The only thing that was optimised about this character was that he was good at stealth and that he worked the action economy by using an improved familiar. He had a penchant for burning things (name: Pyrolos), especially monsters wearing nothing in terms of armor except a loincloth (which apparently also burn very well). His hobby, of burning loincloth inspired my next character (as my warlock got fingered to death), Fabio, the loincloth warrior (high charisma build, wearing almost nothing).
Some of you might btw wondering high I can boost my charisma to 40 (it is 40, not 44). In addition to 16 +4 from startin stats and levels I have Spell Focus Transmutation and the feat "Ability Enhancer" from "Dragon Compendium" which enhances each transmutation spell that increases ability scores by +2. I use 2 Transmutation spells which boost Charisma: Inner Beauty (+4 sacred bonus to Dexterity and Charisma) and Nixie's Grace (+8 enhancement bonus to charisma, and other stuff). These spells effectively enhance charisma by +6 and +10 because of these feats. I furthermore have Snowsong from Frosburn which gives a +4 morale bonus to Charisma. 16+4+6+10+4=40. By spending an enormous amoung of cash on rods of extend, beads of karma, spellcaster raising items and spells (and practiced spellcaster feats), at level 16 I've been able to keep my charisma at 40 the whole day using 3 separate rounds of buffing. My Charisma could have easily been a bit higher (an age category, and spending more starting points in charisma) but this interfered with the idea I had of Fabio the loincloth warrior actually being handsome (14 constitution is rather useless when using polymorph or wildshape, at least the in the houserules we use, but with a bit of con you're not going to last long in the bedchamber, and having like 8 strength or 8 dexterity also did not fit the image, as you'd be a weak or clumsy fancy boy).
Now on how to fix this: I'm actually planning on possibly retiring Fabio in some fashoin (as I'll be dm-ing next campaign) and for my next character I'm subsequently not going to touch things like sublime chord or and start of with something tier 3 or lower (and build from there once I get an idea (the people in my group suggested a drunken master bear warrior for some reason... :-S).
Still, this does not fix dnd at high level in any case as we've still got a full druid in the party and a real charger build, but I think that if we ban at least some of the worst contenders (certain spells, and perhaps a few items) we'll get by reasonably till level 20 till we start over at level 1.
Those who say that I'm ruining the game because I'm optimizing might have a point, especially during the last few levels as the power of this particular caster has been growing far too quickly, something which is however inherrent about tier 1 and 2 casters, is this case we're talking about a sublime chord / druid double progression, (just reached level 7 spells at level 16), so you can get the picture (a lot of buffing power in there).
Well done, and kudos to you for admitting it.
Now on how to fix this: I'm actually planning on possibly retiring Fabio in some fashoin (as I'll be dm-ing next campaign) and for my next character I'm subsequently not going to touch things like sublime chord or and start of with something tier 3 or lower (and build from there once I get an idea (the people in my group suggested a drunken master bear warrior for some reason... :-S).
Again, well done. Try not to ruin your own enjoyment of the game though.
Still, this does not fix dnd at high level in any case as we've still got a full druid in the party and a real charger build, but I think that if we ban at least some of the worst contenders (certain spells, and perhaps a few items) we'll get by reasonably till level 20 till we start over at level 1.
That's true for every edition of the game, and a good reason for most groups to start over after a certain level of brokenness has been reached.
Well, as a lot of this is all about me, let me first say that a few of you who immediatly call somebody a cheater should be more familiar with the rules before doing so. The original poster has however misrepresented my stats a bit however, as I'm really not running around with 90 AC all the time. I can reach this with my most defensive polymorph shape, in combination with short-term buffs, but that's the exception (and something which is pretty useless to do). My Touch AC also certainly is not around 60 (unless I'd pick some extremely high dexterity shape, and use short-term deflection buffs). Saves are furthermore also not around 30 (except will save), more like slightly below 20 when fully buffed with long term spells (though polymorph or wild shape can get them mid 20).
...
Some of you might btw wondering high I can boost my charisma to 40 (it is 40, not 44). In addition to 16 +4 from startin stats and levels I have Spell Focus Transmutation and the feat "Ability Enhancer" from "Dragon Compendium" which enhances each transmutation spell that increases ability scores by +2. I use 2 Transmutation spells which boost Charisma: Inner Beauty (+4 sacred bonus to Dexterity and Charisma) and Nixie's Grace (+8 enhancement bonus to charisma, and other stuff). These spells effectively enhance charisma by +6 and +10 because of these feats. I furthermore have Snowsong from Frosburn which gives a +4 morale bonus to Charisma. 16+4+6+10+4=40. By spending an enormous amoung of cash on rods of extend, beads of karma, spellcaster raising items and spells (and practiced spellcaster feats), at level 16 I've been able to keep my charisma at 40 the whole day using 3 separate rounds of buffing. My Charisma could have easily been a bit higher (an age category, and spending more starting points in charisma) but this interfered with the idea I had of Fabio the loincloth warrior actually being handsome (14 constitution is rather useless when using polymorph or wildshape, at least the in the houserules we use, but with a bit of con you're not going to last long in the bedchamber, and having like 8 strength or 8 dexterity also did not fit the image, as you'd be a weak or clumsy fancy boy).
First bolded line:
I'm one of the accusers, I have 3.5 system mastery, and i understand that you have be misrepresented.
But until i see a full build and confirm every last detail for myself, i stand by the statement that you are either cheating or have botched your math somewhere. Of course the 3rd option is you have bonus feats/gear granted by the DM (Monty Haul style), in which case you aren't cheating and it's the dm's fault...
Very possible since you have already mentioned that you guys have houseruled Wildshape (second bolded line).
Getting to 40 cha is high but reasonable as i even mentioned. You've proven you can get there and keep it sustained. Good job and thanks.
But, I'm still waiting for a detailed description of what your typical AC actually is, how you got there, and most importantly how long you can sustain it.
This shape + these five buffs + this other thing and it lasts for 16 rounds. That sort of thing.
But it's probably moot since you guys clearly aren't following raw anymore.
Charisma is 40, which is a +15 modifier. Mystic Wanderer (Magic of Faerun) gives a sacred bonus to AC if you're unarmored. Ascetic Mage states: if you would normally be allowed to add your wisdom modifier to your AC (such as for an unarmored, unencumbered monk) you instead add your charisma bonus (if any) to your AC instead. Monks belt on the other hand gives you the AC of a level 5 monk if you do not have any monk levels (with all the restrictions normally applied to monk AC). Normally, you could use a wilding clasp to continue using the belt while polymorphed (costs only 4000 gp), but our group has banned wilding clasps and instead uses the houserule that an item can be made "wilding" for twice the cost (effectively the price of making an item slotless), so the belt instead costs 26000 GP. Third, if I cast the spell Sirene's Grace (Spell Compendium) I can add my charisma to my AC as a deflection modifier. So, from Charisma only I can have an AC of 10+2*15 (Mystic Wanderer + Sirene's Grace) +16 (Monk AC as a level 5 monk)= 56.
Next lets apply polymorph. The most defensive shape I've found in the books is in Monster Manual 5, the Thrym Hound, a 13 HD monster which has a natural AC of +30. Add the simple spell "Barkskin" to this and you've got 35 Natural AC. The Thrym Hound is Huge (-2 AC) and has 12 Dexterity. From spells I get an +8 Enhancement bonus to dexterity (Nixie's Grace + the Ability enhancer feat) and another +6 sacred bonus to AC (Inner Beauty + the Ability enhancer feat). This together with charisma makes the AC: 56+35-2+8 = 87.
Next up I cast "Snowsong" from frostburn which gives a +4 insight bonus to AC and Greater Mage Armor for a simple +6 armor bonus. This then gets up to a grand total of 97 AC. Getting AC even higher is not very hard, but is rather pointless.
Concerning how long I can sustain it: Except for polymorph and Sirene's Grace all my buffing spells mentioned last 10 minutes/level (or longer). Which when extended (Using a lot of Extend rods) when combined with a very high caster level. For this I use beads of karma (+4), a ring of arcane might (+1, arcane only), Create magic tattoo (+1), Hymn of Praise (+2), and Harmonic Chorus (+2) which I let my Familiar to cast on me using the spell "Imbue familiar with spell-like ability". With Practiced spellcaster (twice, both for arcane and divine) I then have a caster level of 16 + 4 + (1/0) + 1 +2 + 2 = 26/25 (arcane/divine). My charisma buffing spells are all arcane. Using a rod of extend my 10 minut/level buffs then last: 520/60 = 8 hours and 40 minutes. For gaining bonus spell from a high Charisma from spells I need 8 hours of rest and 15 minutes of meditation, as such I can keep my Charisma at 40 for 24 hours and 40 minutes (as I currently only have 2 beads of karma, though I could buy another one (as I still have some cash left) so that I'd be able to keep it up for 26 hours per day (using 3 separate buff rounds). I mostly don't bother with Nixie's Grace (deflection bonus to AC, rounds per level, which in combat is only 18 rounds) and only use polymorph to change into something which has a little more offensive value than a Thrym Hound.
I'd recommend planning on campaigns that end at lvl 8 or so. Normally I'd say lvl 12, but this problem guy sounds like even that might be too much. So just throw out the broken levels of the game all together.
This is one of the other solutions we're discussing. To only play to level 10. Maybe it should indeed be even lower.
E6 holds a LOT of appeal...
Well, lets make a simple calculation:
Charisma is 40, which is a +15 modifier. Mystic Wanderer (Magic of Faerun) gives a sacred bonus to AC if you're unarmored. Ascetic Mage states: if you would normally be allowed to add your wisdom modifier to your AC (such as for an unarmored, unencumbered monk) you instead add your charisma bonus (if any) to your AC instead. Monks belt on the other hand gives you the AC of a level 5 monk if you do not have any monk levels (with all the restrictions normally applied to monk AC). Normally, you could use a wilding clasp to continue using the belt while polymorphed (costs only 4000 gp), but our group has banned wilding clasps and instead uses the houserule that an item can be made "wilding" for twice the cost (effectively the price of making an item slotless), so the belt instead costs 26000 GP. Third, if I cast the spell Sirene's Grace (Spell Compendium) I can add my charisma to my AC as a deflection modifier. So, from Charisma only I can have an AC of 10+2*15 (Mystic Wanderer + Sirene's Grace) +16 (Monk AC as a level 5 monk)= 56.
Next lets apply polymorph. The most defensive shape I've found in the books is in Monster Manual 5, the Thrym Hound, a 13 HD monster which has a natural AC of +30. Add the simple spell "Barkskin" to this and you've got 35 Natural AC. The Thrym Hound is Huge (-2 AC) and has 12 Dexterity. From spells I get an +8 Enhancement bonus to dexterity (Nixie's Grace + the Ability enhancer feat) and another +6 sacred bonus to AC (Inner Beauty + the Ability enhancer feat). This together with charisma makes the AC: 56+35-2+8 = 87.
Next up I cast "Snowsong" from frostburn which gives a +4 insight bonus to AC and Greater Mage Armor for a simple +6 armor bonus. This then gets up to a grand total of 97 AC. Getting AC even higher is not very hard, but is rather pointless.
Concerning how long I can sustain it: Except for polymorph and Sirene's Grace all my buffing spells mentioned last 10 minutes/level (or longer). Which when extended (Using a lot of Extend rods) when combined with a very high caster level. For this I use beads of karma (+4), a ring of arcane might (+1, arcane only), Create magic tattoo (+1), Hymn of Praise (+2), and Harmonic Chorus (+2) which I let my Familiar to cast on me using the spell "Imbue familiar with spell-like ability". With Practiced spellcaster (twice, both for arcane and divine) I then have a caster level of 16 + 4 + (1/0) + 1 +2 + 2 = 26/25 (arcane/divine). My charisma buffing spells are all arcane. Using a rod of extend my 10 minut/level buffs then last: 520/60 = 8 hours and 40 minutes. For gaining bonus spell from a high Charisma from spells I need 8 hours of rest and 15 minutes of meditation, as such I can keep my Charisma at 40 for 24 hours and 40 minutes (as I currently only have 2 beads of karma, though I could buy another one (as I still have some cash left) so that I'd be able to keep it up for 26 hours per day (using 3 separate buff rounds). I mostly don't bother with Nixie's Grace (deflection bonus to AC, rounds per level, which in combat is only 18 rounds) and only use polymorph to change into something which has a little more offensive value than a Thrym Hound.
Thank you for posting this, MenhirRocksolid.
This guy is indeed the person in my group who does the most optimization.
As I said I didn't have all the numbers completely and his math does get hard to follow for me because of all the stuff that he does.
However I di think this is all following the rules-as-written, if maybe not as intended, except for our houserule on using items in wildshape/polymorph. The main reason why we deviated from the rules there, is that it's a costant headace to determine what items can be used in which shapes and the wilding clasp is a flat number, while we preferred a cost that scaled with the value of the item and thus level.
Again I want to stress that my initial reason for posting wasn't this specific character build. Our Fighter/charger and Druid and the wild dwarf goliath before them were also quite easily able to break the game. I was hoping people had experience with how to avoid that.
Now the easy answer is "well then don't break the game", but that's hard to quantify. What's broken for one person might be fine for another. The whole group does agree that something needs to be done, including MenhirRocksolid, but te discussion is ongoing on what. In the long term we're probably moving to DnD Next or try E6.
We'd prefer to come up with some houserules that would make it harder to break the game, instead of having to retire characters. By starting this thread I hoped to get some inspiration. I appreaciate the replies I got, but most of them were along the lines of solutions we had already been discussing ourselves. In the end DnD 3.5 is just to easy to break unless you remove a large part of the material.
The discussion was enlightening though.
Edit: I hate this editor. There doesn't seem to be a way to fix the MenhirRocksolid's name.
Well, lets make a simple calculation:
Charisma is 40, which is a +15 modifier. Mystic Wanderer (Magic of Faerun) gives a sacred bonus to AC if you're unarmored. Ascetic Mage states: if you would normally be allowed to add your wisdom modifier to your AC (such as for an unarmored, unencumbered monk) you instead add your charisma bonus (if any) to your AC instead. Monks belt on the other hand gives you the AC of a level 5 monk if you do not have any monk levels (with all the restrictions normally applied to monk AC). Normally, you could use a wilding clasp to continue using the belt while polymorphed (costs only 4000 gp), but our group has banned wilding clasps and instead uses the houserule that an item can be made "wilding" for twice the cost (effectively the price of making an item slotless), so the belt instead costs 26000 GP. Third, if I cast the spell Sirene's Grace (Spell Compendium) I can add my charisma to my AC as a deflection modifier. So, from Charisma only I can have an AC of 10+2*15 (Mystic Wanderer + Sirene's Grace) +16 (Monk AC as a level 5 monk)= 56.
Next lets apply polymorph. The most defensive shape I've found in the books is in Monster Manual 5, the Thrym Hound, a 13 HD monster which has a natural AC of +30. Add the simple spell "Barkskin" to this and you've got 35 Natural AC. The Thrym Hound is Huge (-2 AC) and has 12 Dexterity. From spells I get an +8 Enhancement bonus to dexterity (Nixie's Grace + the Ability enhancer feat) and another +6 sacred bonus to AC (Inner Beauty + the Ability enhancer feat). This together with charisma makes the AC: 56+35-2+8 = 87.
Next up I cast "Snowsong" from frostburn which gives a +4 insight bonus to AC and Greater Mage Armor for a simple +6 armor bonus. This then gets up to a grand total of 97 AC. Getting AC even higher is not very hard, but is rather pointless.
Concerning how long I can sustain it: Except for polymorph and Sirene's Grace all my buffing spells mentioned last 10 minutes/level (or longer). Which when extended (Using a lot of Extend rods) when combined with a very high caster level. For this I use beads of karma (+4), a ring of arcane might (+1, arcane only), Create magic tattoo (+1), Hymn of Praise (+2), and Harmonic Chorus (+2) which I let my Familiar to cast on me using the spell "Imbue familiar with spell-like ability". With Practiced spellcaster (twice, both for arcane and divine) I then have a caster level of 16 + 4 + (1/0) + 1 +2 + 2 = 26/25 (arcane/divine). My charisma buffing spells are all arcane. Using a rod of extend my 10 minut/level buffs then last: 520/60 = 8 hours and 40 minutes. For gaining bonus spell from a high Charisma from spells I need 8 hours of rest and 15 minutes of meditation, as such I can keep my Charisma at 40 for 24 hours and 40 minutes (as I currently only have 2 beads of karma, though I could buy another one (as I still have some cash left) so that I'd be able to keep it up for 26 hours per day (using 3 separate buff rounds). I mostly don't bother with Nixie's Grace (deflection bonus to AC, rounds per level, which in combat is only 18 rounds) and only use polymorph to change into something which has a little more offensive value than a Thrym Hound.
I feel like this is an Ode entitled "Why I play 4e".
I feel like this is an Ode entitled "Why I play 4e".
Lol. Good point.
- Yes I did Laugh Out Loud.
How's the ol' reflex save? Got shield spell running? There's always a weak point... worst case scenerio a hard core grappler and a buddy with antimagic field.
Antimagic field works wonders. But that's about the only thing we found that works really well on this guy.
Reflex save, I don't know, it was 21 three levels ago and he does have a ring of evasion.
He can be grappled. We just fought a Gargantuan Fiendish Red Dragon that could grapple this character in our last session. Chewed on him for a while, discovered that was futile, gave up and started attacking other party members (mainly me as I have a more reasonable 30ish AC). In the end the dragon got away before we killed it, as it was the 5th encounter of the day, we were running a bit low on resources, had a few megative levels and had our highest damage dealing party member missing (the charger build).
Things like Blasphemy also work as they're based of HD, we fought a Pit Fiend earlier during the day and it was reasonably effective.
The Sorcerer we fought also had an effective Energy Drain. We got 8 and 6 negative levels before we killed her.
So things that allow no save, antimagic, and stuff that depends on HD does work. Grapple works if we're low on resources and have negative levels, I'm not sure it would have worked otherwise and even now it was largely ineffective.
I feel like this is an Ode entitled "Why I play 4e".
Lol. Good point.
- Yes I did Laugh Out Loud.
The 4e comment was too easy to mock. Instead I'll remark on Menhir's post.
Menhir missed the point with his 'simple' calculation.
Here's how you counter that awesome AC...
1. Make mud.
2. Coup de grace the polymorphed dog while he's playing in the mud, using a touch spell or ray, ignoring his terrasque-like armor, deflection bonuses, charisma, dex, monk bonuses. His AC will be... let's see... 10 - 2 for size, dex considered as 0 while helpless is - -5 for a grand AC of ONE.
3. If you don't think you can hit that AC1, fear not... you get a +4 bonus because he's prone. Can your first level character do hit AC 1. Prolly.
I know, I know... he's all muddy and he has concealment. Cast true strike and ignore all that, or just take your chances. C'mon, you're only 1st level, but you want some experience, don't ya?
If you think you can't trick a min/maxer into having his character falling in the mud, you've never played with one. Just tell him he gets a +1 on something.
I feel like this is an Ode entitled "Why I play 4e".
Lol. Good point.
- Yes I did Laugh Out Loud.
4 PCs who know squat about the "wishlist", or tactics, and pick all feats with skills material.
1 PC who googles "mellored" ahead of time, and presents said build, whistling in pure sheepish cherubic innocence.
Same result as this 3.5ish stuff.
I feel like this is an Ode entitled "Why I play 4e".
Lol. Good point.
- Yes I did Laugh Out Loud.
The 4e comment was too easy to mock. Instead I'll remark on Menhir's post.
I wan't mocking it. I genuinly thought is was funny.
I'm not interested in an editions war - at least not based on the mechanics of the game.
I would have found it just as funny if Matyr had called MenhirRockSolid's post "An Ode to the complexity of 3.5". Apparently he prefers the 4E mechanics. Personally I don't care so much for mechanics, I don't have a real preference. I just found the comparison between Menhir's post and an Ode to be funny.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Menhir missed the point with his 'simple' calculation.
Here's how you counter that awesome AC...
1. Make mud.
2. Coup de grace the polymorphed dog while he's playing in the mud, using a touch spell or ray, ignoring his terrasque-like armor, deflection bonuses, charisma, dex, monk bonuses. His AC will be... let's see... 10 - 2 for size, dex considered as 0 while helpless is - -5 for a grand AC of ONE.
3. If you don't think you can hit that AC1, fear not... you get a +4 bonus because he's prone. Can your first level character do hit AC 1. Prolly.
I know, I know... he's all muddy and he has concealment. Cast true strike and ignore all that, or just take your chances. C'mon, you're only 1st level, but you want some experience, don't ya?
If you think you can't trick a min/maxer into having his character falling in the mud, you've never played with one. Just tell him he gets a +1 on something.
Oh but he would first activate his Heart of Water as a Swift action, giving him Freedom of Movement and ignoring any penalty that the mud might cause, except maybe stripping him of invisibility like effects. He would still have an AC of 97 and a touch AC more than half of that.
I don't think tricks like that are going to work. To a certain extent this guy plays the game like Neo in the Matrix, he "sees" the numbers and immidiately understands the mechanical implications of most actions, at least much better than I do.
I usually just do things in the game because they're cool or funny or unusual. I care not so much for the mechanics. In the contrairy, I dislike it if the mechanics make me not do something I think would be interesting. I don't care if it's effective or the optimal thing to do. I really like to play Mutants and Masterminds because of that.
Menhir missed the point with his 'simple' calculation.
Here's how you counter that awesome AC...
So, after you've gotten petty revenge by killing another player's character, how do you go about actually fixing anything?
ISERITH: Optimization only covers a small range of problems and challenges in the context of the game. If a given game only presents those problems and challenges (kill-em-all combat, for example), then optimization will have a larger impact on the game's outcomes.
ME: True that.
I think that the issue isn't so much the min/max in and of itself it's that there seems to be a relationship between folks who seem to solely focus on min/maxing and their (to me) terrible 'role-playing'...um.. 'style', which involves attempting to kill everything that moves (beginning with their entire clan if they actually have a character background).
---
DM (Running a LOTR campaign): There is a knock on your little round green door in the wee hours of the night. When you open it, a dwarf shoulders in and begins eating your 'twelvsies', your midnite snack.
PLAYER (Playing Bilgo Bagginator, halfling barbarian): Use the ONE RING to turn invisible, and barbarian rage as a free action, power attacking, the penalty being offset by size modifier and invisibility... using an over-sized greatsword for maximum carnage-damage. If he's still alive, I'll go outside and use handle animal to push my wardogs inside to attack the dwarf. Then I'll set my house on fire. If he has treasure I can dig it up later. How much XP is he worth? Do I get XP for the wardogs?
Well, first off, I'm not convinced that there is a relationship there. Plenty of people enjoy both role-playing and tweaking thier characters.
Secondly, combat IS roleplaying.
And thirdly, it sounds like that barbarian is doing a fairly decent job of roleplaying a character who really doesn't like it when someone breaks into his house and starts eating his food.
1. Your second sentence is immaterial to the first. I said in the post, it's not the min/max in and of itself that's the problem. You've never played with someone who had great min/maxing skills but poor role-playing ability? Never played with someone with poor role-playing ability who made up for it by focusing on damage output and damage spells to the point of sad, sad predictability? Maybe it's just me... and the poster... and whoever coined the phrase min/max.
What does it take to be a min/maxer?
The ability to add single-digit positive numbers coupled with an ability to compare two numbers and determine which number is greater.
Clearly, the min/maxing isn't the issue. The issue is an inability to be able to discern when taking the lower number is more representative of the character concept.
2. Self-evidently incorrect. Combat may (and should) provide plenty of opportunities to role-play, but it isn't roleplaying. By any stretch.
3. And setting his own house on fire was part of a pre-established scorched-earth policy, I assume? Excellent roleplaying!
Okay.... the scene at the beginning of the Hobbit movie wasn't the best example, other than the same scene would have resulted if the dwarf had waited patiently outside after sending fair warning (with a verbal messenger sensitive to literacy issues, of course).
This is because many min/maxers are predictable. So godawfully predictable. They seem to play the part of the psychopathic serial killer in the midst of their last hurrah, where they are so sloppy that they seem to WANT to be called out on it, presumably so they can get some help... since they can't seem to help themselves.
As I said, it's not the min/max by itself.. it's when it's coupled with poor role-play skills that it just becomes a way to 'win' at D&D for some people.
1. Your second sentence is immaterial to the first. I said in the post, it's not the min/max in and of itself that's the problem. You've never played with someone who had great min/maxing skills but poor role-playing ability? Never played with someone with poor role-playing ability who made up for it by focusing on damage output and damage spells to the point of sad, sad predictability? Maybe it's just me... and the poster... and whoever coined the phrase min/max.
Anytime you make a choice that your character would also reasonably make in a given situation, you are roleplaying. That means both flattering the princess and swinging your sword at an orc. Flourish with the prose is not an indicator that someone is roleplaying. Making decisions in-character is. This includes when to use the most amount of damage, even if it's predictable.
What does it take to be a min/maxer?
The ability to add single-digit positive numbers coupled with an ability to compare two numbers and determine which number is greater.
And for someone who doesn't know what roleplaying is to call them a min/maxer because they don't like the particular way they roleplay.
Clearly, the min/maxing isn't the issue. The issue is an inability to be able to discern when taking the lower number is more representative of the character concept.
Mechanics are in no way tied to how you should roleplay a given character unless you choose them to be. My Int 20 wizard is dumb as a brick in-character because he's a gladiator and has been hit upside the head one too many times.
2. Self-evidently incorrect. Combat may (and should) provide plenty of opportunities to role-play, but it isn't roleplaying. By any stretch.
Wrong. Combat is a form of roleplaying because combat represents making decisions in-character.
This is because many min/maxers are predictable. So godawfully predictable. They seem to play the part of the psychopathic serial killer in the midst of their last hurrah, where they are so sloppy that they seem to WANT to be called out on it, presumably so they can get some help... since they can't seem to help themselves.
As I said, it's not the min/max by itself.. it's when it's coupled with poor role-play skills that it just becomes a way to 'win' at D&D for some people.
It's okay to not like how someone chooses to roleplay - everyone has their preferences. But to say that your way of doing things is roleplaying and that other guy's way is not is wrong.
Clearly, the min/maxing isn't the issue. The issue is an inability to be able to discern when taking the lower number is more representative of the character concept.
Mechanics are in no way tied to how you should roleplay a given character unless you choose them to be. My Int 20 wizard is dumb as a brick in-character because he's a gladiator and has been hit upside the head one too many times.
And it's not as simple as numbers anyway. There's no number someone can pick to have a character who gets knocked around pretty well, but still managed to come out on top like a hero. That might happen, sure, but one can't pick numbers on the player side to determine it, because it involves factors the player can't control. So, they control what they can, and pick numbers that let them control the most variables. Basically how we'll they are protected, from what kinds of damage, and how well they can do their job, be it damage, healing, control, defense or whatever.
2. Self-evidently incorrect. Combat may (and should) provide plenty of opportunities to role-play, but it isn't roleplaying. By any stretch.
Wrong. Combat is a form of roleplaying because combat represents making decisions in-character.
This again? Look, TALKING isn't combat, I'll grant that. But roleplaying isn't just talking.
I get that people stop thinking about their character and start thinking tactically in combat? Again, it's about control. If they die, any potential for roleplaying is over, so they maximize their potential in battle. If DMs don't want people to do this, then they shouldn't make NOT acting tactically mean the game is over.
This is because many min/maxers are predictable. So godawfully predictable. They seem to play the part of the psychopathic serial killer in the midst of their last hurrah, where they are so sloppy that they seem to WANT to be called out on it, presumably so they can get some help... since they can't seem to help themselves.
As I said, it's not the min/max by itself.. it's when it's coupled with poor role-play skills that it just becomes a way to 'win' at D&D for some people.
It's okay to not like how someone chooses to roleplay - everyone has their preferences. But to say that your way of doing things is roleplaying and that other guy's way is not is wrong.
I like the quotes around "win." That's right, they want to win. There are games that have rules that encourage roleplaying and the only thing they do differently is make the interesting, non-predictable choices the best ones. They do a judo flip on min/maxing, using its strength (the numbers, and exploitation of loopholes) against its supposed weakness (lack of interesting choices and roleplaying). DMs can do the same thing in D&D as soon as they stop coupling boring outcomes for the players to the choices the players make.
This again? Look, TALKING isn't combat, I'll grant that. But roleplaying isn't just talking.
I get that people stop thinking about their character and start thinking tactically in combat? Again, it's about control. If they die, any potential for roleplaying is over, so they maximize their potential in battle. If DMs don't want people to do this, then they shouldn't make NOT acting tactically mean the game is over.
The case can be made that thinking tactically in combat is exactly what the character is doing in the context of the situation in which he finds himself. And so by doing the same, the player is roleplaying, because he's making decisions his character would also reasonably make.
But perhaps because this roleplaying isn't using flowery descriptions or praising Moradin, certain people think he's not roleplaying. It's okay not to like this player's choice of roleplaying. It's not okay to say it's not roleplaying just because you don't like it.
I like the quotes around "win." That's right, they want to win. There are games that have rules that encourage roleplaying and the only thing they do differently is make the interesting, non-predictable choices the best ones. They do a judo flip on min/maxing, using its strength (the numbers, and exploitation of loopholes) against its supposed weakness (lack of interesting choices and roleplaying). DMs can do the same thing in D&D as soon as they stop coupling boring outcomes for the players to the choices the players make.
Exactly right.
The issue of the min/maxer is nothing new, even though the "video game mentality" gets the blame these days. Back in the '70's and the 80's we simply called those who valued character power above all else, logically enough, "Power Gamers."
The reason these types get labelled as not being role players is because, most of the time, they don't. I know, Iserith claims that any time a player chucks a die in combat that player is role playing. Not so. If that were so, then anyone who chucks a die in Risk, Sorry, Monopoly or makes tactical decisions in Stratego or Chess would be role playing. When I throw my 2D6 in Monopoly, am I role playing a thimble? When I plot how to bankrupt my fellow players, is that what a thimble would do?
Can a Power Gamer be a Role Player? Most definitely, but they are rare and that is why the stereotype exists.
Can a Power Gamer be actually role playing his character by the use of his decisions in combat as Iserith asserts? Yes, but again this often isn't the case.
Those who do role play tactically will play as the character and will use combat as a vehicle of expression. These types will never balk at a tough but fair fight. They often chose character with a military or combat background or theme. If their character has a low intelligence score they will not use tactics that puts Rommel to shame.
The above is stepping into character and role playing. Simply pitching a die while smiling about an supremely optimized spread sheet (AKA Character Sheet) is not.
Often the Power Gamer takes an different turn. They refuse to role play at any time. They simply love killing monsters and getting rewards. If this is the only issue, then this guy is easy to entertain: Simply give him combats and goodies.
However, many such players insist that the whole game be combat. Should role play breaks out, they go lay on the couch, play with their electronic device and so on. The best way to call these players back to the game is not a stern reprimand, but, so much better, is to simply say in a loud voice, "Initiative!" or, "Roll for Treasure!" They will immediately be table side and focused.
The above never lets "in character" get in their way. If they have a 6 intelligence, you wouldn't know it, ever-- in combat or out. In fact, they tend to get very predictable. Why? Because these types are not as Tactical as one thinks or they claim. Often, these are the "easy mode" players, or as Centauri calls them, the "I win" players.
Compromise and collaboration is not in their lexicon. They seek not only to dominate the in game world and the DM's challenges, but also seek to be the most powerful in the group over the other players. Should their build be challenged in a tough fight, they resort to rules lawyering. If they find that a player might have a more powerful character than them, they lose interest in their current character. Some groups called these types "Munchkins." If the whole group is like this, the game can work, though PvP is very common.
The above is a very harsh portrayal to be sure, but if anyone has DMed for any length of time in a variety of venues you WILL encounter these types, for they are legion. Like any type of player (or DM), there are magnitudes of the above where a given player isn't bad enough to warrant the boot but he/she can sure get on everyone's nerves, especially a DM's
The issue of the min/maxer is nothing new, even though the "video game mentality" gets the blame these days. Back in the '70's and the 80's we simply called those who valued character power above all else, logically enough, "Power Gamers."
Yes, I tend to use "min/max," "munchkin," and "powergamer" interchangeably, when I use them at all. But others find distinctions between the terms.
If that were so, then anyone who chucks a die in Risk, Sorry, Monopoly or makes tactical decisions in Stratego or Chess would be role playing.
In a way, they are. Chess is a form of tactical simulation. It's not all that realistic, though one might still employ realistic tactics such as flanking, bluffing, sacrificing, dividing and conquering, etc, in their "role" as the leader of a military force. The same could be said for Risk, or Stratego. You're conflating "roleplaying" with "talking."
When I throw my 2D6 in Monopoly, am I role playing a thimble? When I plot how to bankrupt my fellow players, is that what a thimble would do?
You're not a thimble, any more than your character is a lump of painted lead or plastic. You're a cut-throat monopolist. When you bankrupt your fellow players, that, in a basic sense, is your role.
Can a Power Gamer be a Role Player? Most definitely, but they are rare and that is why the stereotype exists.
No, the reason the stereotype exists is so people can feel superior and play gatekeeper against players whose playstyle they dislike.
Can a Power Gamer be actually role playing his character by the use of his decisions in combat as Iserith asserts? Yes, but again this often isn't the case.
So, what is a power gamer basing his decisions on in combat? Survival? Glory?
Those who do role play tactically will play as the character and will use combat as a vehicle of expression. These types will never balk at a tough but fair fight. They often chose character with a military or combat background or theme. If their character has a low intelligence score they will not use tactics that puts Rommel to shame.
What's the minimum intelligence a character needs to come up with a genius tactical plan? What if no one is enough of an actual genius to come up with a plan commensurate with the highest Intelligence of the group? Is the wizard really going to be better at military tactics than even the dumbest fighter? Even the dumbest fighter isn't just swinging his sword wildly when he attacks. There is training and practice involved, as much as with a wizard's spells.
No, that dog won't hunt. The Intelligence score is unrelated to tactical ability, always has been, except in the case of warlord powers. While we're at it, it's unrelated to puzzle solving, and, in 4e, unrelated to one's ability to speak. If you want it to be, pick a DC for being able to plan or do whatever else.
The above is stepping into character and role playing. Simply pitching a die while smiling about an supremely optimized spread sheet (AKA Character Sheet) is not.
It's clear your issue is with optimization. I don't like it either, but it's easy to see why people do it, and it's pointless to blame them or disregard them.
Often the Power Gamer takes an different turn. They refuse to role play at any time. They simply love killing monsters and getting rewards. If this is the only issue, then this guy is easy to entertain: Simply give him combats and goodies.
However, many such players insist that the whole game be combat. Should role play breaks out, they go lay on the couch, play with their electronic device and so on. The best way to call these players back to the game is not a stern reprimand, but, so much better, is to simply say in a loud voice, "Initiative!" or, "Roll for Treasure!" They will immediately be table side and focused.
To me, the connection is clear. Acting ability aside, which not everyone has or is comfortable using, combat offers a player an environment they can control and optimize for. Non-combat, which you conflate with "role play" is not something they can easily pick the best strategy for, and so they feel they are likely to be made to look stupid or useless. Once you understand this, you can try to bring people into roleplaying through skill challenges, interesting failure, and collaboration.
The above never lets "in character" get in their way. If they have a 6 intelligence, you wouldn't know it, ever-- in combat or out.
Sure you will: every time they make an Intelligence based roll.
Praytell, where can I find in the rules for exactly how to play a 6 Intelligence?
In fact, they tend to get very predictable. Why? Because these types are not as Tactical as one thinks or they claim. Often, these are the "easy mode" players, or as Centauri calls them, the "I win" players.
I've been playing a lot of Halo. Whenever I can get my hands on a long-range weapon, a tough vehicle, or explosives, I use them. Unless I have to, or get jumped, I don't run in and engage with the enemy even though that would be the kind of cool scene I'd prefer. Why? Because the game makes it uninteresting to do so. If I run into a huge firefight, I will be killed, regardless of my skill, and I will be out of the game for four seconds, and lose some progress. That's not horrible, but it's not as interesting as uninterrupted play.
Furthermore, if I ran in to the mass of enemies, instead of thinning them out at range, any reasonable person would think I was being reckless and stupid, because there's simply no incentive to do that.
When a game gives me incentives to do cool, reckless stuff, I do it. When it doesn't, I don't.
The D&D players you dislike see it this way. It has nothing to do with video games, that's just a useful example. It has to do with wanting to be smart and not wanting to suffer the consequences of failure, which in D&D are listed as follows:
1. Death.
With death, comes loss of a character, loss of progress, and loss of personal entertainment time until being brought back into the game. There's no upside. The amazing thing is that anyone would ever do anything other than play as conservatively as possible.
Compromise and collaboration is not in their lexicon.
Doesn't sound like it's in yours either.
They seek not only to dominate the in game world and the DM's challenges, but also seek to be the most powerful in the group over the other players.
Why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't they try to control as much about their in-game interactions as possible?
Should their build be challenged in a tough fight, they resort to rules lawyering.
Why shouldn't they? Why should they trust that anyone (particularly you, who clearly hates them) isn't trying to wrest control over their character from them?
If they find that a player might have a more powerful character than them, they lose interest in their current character.
Why shouldn't they? They see someone who as control they lack.
The above is a very harsh portrayal to be sure, but if anyone has DMed for any length of time in a variety of venues you WILL encounter these types, for they are legion. Like any type of player (or DM), there are magnitudes of the above where a given player isn't bad enough to warrant the boot but he/she can sure get on everyone's nerves, especially a DM's
Over on What's a DM to Do? we offer ideas for how to deal with players like this, that don't involve denigrating their playstyle. Better to do what many modern games have done, and find a way to use its strength against it, to turn it toward more interesting in-game interactions.
So, I am role playing in Monopoly? Didn't know that. I'll note Hasbro to tell them to put that on the box. All sarcasm aside, I think you are now down to semantics on this.
Then you seem to be clouded by your personal experience after the monopoly thing. You have condoned rules lawyering, even for fair challenges. You seem to be OK with PvP, even if the rest of the group isn't.
I think you might have never experienced the kind of player I described for what I am describing is a player who is purely out for himself to the detriment of all others in the game. How is that collaboration or cooperation?
As far as denigration goes-- bad play is bad. You seem to have no problem stomping on DMing styles to the point of labeling them "bad" as you have called me here (or in the What's a DM to Do Forum);therefore, I have no issue calling out what has been a universally despised play style since D&D's incarnation. This even has been addressed in the old Dragon Magazines (as bad) repeatedly. Steve Jackson even made a card game parody of the phenomenon: Munchkin. Therefore, my experiences aren't unique here and may not even be in the minority.
As a player, why should I put up with a guy who snoozes during the dialogue, forcing us to re-explain things over and over? A guy who argues with the DM whenever the going gets tough? Why must I put up with a guy who quits his character because I happened to get a better item than his (actually happened to me as a player a couple of months back)? A guy or gal who starts inter party strife when he gets bored with the power scale and/or pace?
Why should everyone else be forced to scale up to that of the optimizer? How about the optimizer dial it down a notch?
I am an optimizer. I am a Power Gamer. I however, know when to stop. Is that too much ask of a player? From a lot of what I have seen, it is.
I greatly value your posts and contributions, and I do apologize if my experiences make you angry.
My view on that is fairly simple. I have a very limited amount of free time; there are 6 billion possible D&D players out there; if one player does not suit the style the rest of the group prefers, he can F*CK OFF or change.
While I see where Iserith and Centari are coming from, my experiences have gone much differently.
The issue of the min/maxer is nothing new, even though the "video game mentality" gets the blame these days. Back in the '70's and the 80's we simply called those who valued character power above all else, logically enough, "Power Gamers."
Give whatever label to them you'd like. They're still roleplaying whenever they make a decision their character would also reasonably make in the context of the game.
The reason these types get labelled as not being role players is because, most of the time, they don't. I know, Iserith claims that any time a player chucks a die in combat that player is role playing. Not so. If that were so, then anyone who chucks a die in Risk, Sorry, Monopoly or makes tactical decisions in Stratego or Chess would be role playing. When I throw my 2D6 in Monopoly, am I role playing a thimble? When I plot how to bankrupt my fellow players, is that what a thimble would do?
Notably, those aren't roleplaying games.
Can a Power Gamer be a Role Player? Most definitely, but they are rare and that is why the stereotype exists.
Can a Power Gamer be actually role playing his character by the use of his decisions in combat as Iserith asserts? Yes, but again this often isn't the case.
You're a roleplayer simply by playing a role in a roleplaying game, making decisions your character would also reasonably make given a situation. It's just that simple. Anything else is editorializing. You can say it's a form of roleplaying you don't prefer, but you can't say it's not roleplaying. That's not cool.
Those who do role play tactically will play as the character and will use combat as a vehicle of expression. These types will never balk at a tough but fair fight. They often chose character with a military or combat background or theme. If their character has a low intelligence score they will not use tactics that puts Rommel to shame.The above is stepping into character and role playing.
Simply pitching a die while smiling about an supremely optimized spread sheet (AKA Character Sheet) is not.
Ability scores only influence choices in roleplaying if the players wants it to. There is no rule for this in the game. Mechanics and fluff and severable.
The decision of what action to take in the given situation prior to pitching a die is roleplaying, if the player is making a decision his character would also reasonably make given the situation.
Often the Power Gamer takes an different turn. They refuse to role play at any time. They simply love killing monsters and getting rewards. If this is the only issue, then this guy is easy to entertain: Simply give him combats and goodies.
However, many such players insist that the whole game be combat. Should role play breaks out, they go lay on the couch, play with their electronic device and so on. The best way to call these players back to the game is not a stern reprimand, but, so much better, is to simply say in a loud voice, "Initiative!" or, "Roll for Treasure!" They will immediately be table side and focused.
Sure. They prefer a style of roleplay that's different from your preferred style of roleplay. That happens. But to sit there and say they're not roleplaying is both elitist and completely misses what roleplaying is.
The above never lets "in character" get in their way. If they have a 6 intelligence, you wouldn't know it, ever-- in combat or out. In fact, they tend to get very predictable. Why? Because these types are not as Tactical as one thinks or they claim. Often, these are the "easy mode" players, or as Centauri calls them, the "I win" players.
Ability scores mean exactly nothing when it comes to roleplaying, unless a player chooses to use that as a creative constraint. In fact, if you're looking at your friend's sheet and he has an Int 6 but isn't acting as you might expect him to, you're actually metagaming. I would think that you be might someone who'd want to avoid that (though that's a guess).
Compromise and collaboration is not in their lexicon. They seek not only to dominate the in game world and the DM's challenges, but also seek to be the most powerful in the group over the other players. Should their build be challenged in a tough fight, they resort to rules lawyering. If they find that a player might have a more powerful character than them, they lose interest in their current character. Some groups called these types "Munchkins." If the whole group is like this, the game can work, though PvP is very common.
The above is a very harsh portrayal to be sure, but if anyone has DMed for any length of time in a variety of venues you WILL encounter these types, for they are legion. Like any type of player (or DM), there are magnitudes of the above where a given player isn't bad enough to warrant the boot but he/she can sure get on everyone's nerves, especially a DM's
What you're describing are people incombatible with the way you want to play. That doesn't mean they're not roleplaying. They're just not roleplaying in a way you find desirable. Which is fine, play with others who play like you. Nobody will fault you. But I think it's folly to paint them with such a broad brush and give them labels. I thought we've started to move beyond that as a society.
So, I am role playing in Monopoly? Didn't know that. I'll note Hasbro to tell them to put that on the box. All sarcasm aside, I think you are now down to semantics on this.
Plenty of boardgames have wording on them about the player "becoming" or "playing the part of" the job within the game. Maybe Monopoly doesn't, but these rules for risk start off sounding just like a roleplaying game: www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/risk.pdf
you are battling to conquer the world. To win, you must launch daring attacks, defend yourself on all fronts, and sweep across vast continents with boldness and cunning. But remember, the dangers, as well as the rewards, are high.
Then you seem to be clouded by your personal experience after the monopoly thing. You have condoned rules lawyering, even for fair challenges. You seem to be OK with PvP, even if the rest of the group isn't.
I don't condone them, I just understand the reason those sorts of things occur. I've found that rules lawyering in particular is not inherent but can be negated by the "Yes, and..." approach and giving the players more control.
I think you might have never experienced the kind of player I described for what I am describing is a player who is purely out for himself to the detriment of all others in the game. How is that collaboration or cooperation?
I don't believe that such a player is out for the detriment of others. If you talked to them, they wouldn't put it in those terms. And collaboration and cooperation are usually completely absent, which is what causes the DM and other players to feel as though they're being antagonized: because their set ideas for how the game should go are being challenged.
As far as denigration goes-- bad play is bad.
That's obvious, as most tautaulogies are. My point is that their play isn't necessarily "bad." They probably don't see it that way, and would happily play another way, if they saw another way to get the level of control they prefer. Lots of power gamers prefer to DM. This is why.
I have no issue calling out what has been a universally despised play style since D&D's incarnation. This even has been addressed in the old Dragon Magazines (as bad) repeatedly. Steve Jackson even made a card game parody of the phenomenon: Munchkin. Therefore, my experiences aren't unique here and may not even be in the minority.
I'm not saying your experiences are unique. I'm not denying that what you see exists. I'm saying that your interpretation of it, and the interpretation of the authors of those articles and the creator of that game, are flawed, and fail to take into account what it is about the game itself that generates that behavior.
As a player, why should I put up with a guy who snoozes during the dialogue, forcing us to re-explain things over and over? A guy who argues with the DM whenever the going gets tough? Why must I put up with a guy who quits his character because I happened to get a better item than his (actually happened to me as a player a couple of months back)? A guy or gal who starts inter party strife when he gets bored with the power scale and/or pace?
I'll be the first to say you don't have to game with people you don't want to game with. My point is that the reason you don't want to game with them doesn't necessarily stem from them, but from the game and the common misunderstandings (on your part and theirs) that surround it.
Why should everyone else be forced to scale up to that of the optimizer? How about the optimizer dial it down a notch?
I don't believe I suggested that anyone be forced to scale up. I believe I suggested creating encounters that challenge everyone, and asking the players - includingthe optimizer - for suggestions on how to do that.
I am an optimizer. I am a Power Gamer. I however, know when to stop. Is that too much ask of a player? From a lot of what I have seen, it is.
You don't get to tell people how to play, where to set the level of optimization they use. I never have stats higher than 16 and I never take Expertise feats, but I'd never tell someone not to. I'd never tell someone how to roleplay their Intelligence score, as long as they abided by the mechanical results of that score.
I greatly value your posts and contributions, and I do apologize if my experiences make you angry.
I'm not angry. I'm a little tired that the game I enjoy encourages and rewards raw powergaming, and just assumes that players will make interesting choices, without incentive. Fortunately, other games (and finally 4th Edition, to an extent) understand this problem, and have given me tools and approaches to deal with the kind of "problem" you're talking about.
- The term "min/max'ing" goes back to at least the AD&D 2E DMG, it has a few paragraphs on how to handle it.
- Our resident optimizer is a good roleplayer and a friendly player. He has nice character concepts.
- For example, his current character is a Bard/Rogue whomanizer who walks around in little more than a loincloth so he can "share his beauty with the world". The character is easygoing and of the "Make love not war" train of thought. He will even walk up to a rampaging Great Wyrm Red Dragon to try and talk some sense into it. I like how he roleplays and he makes interesting characters.
- Now the problem is that when our resident optimizer choses the spells, abilities and class levels of his "Bard" he goes and picks the option that gives hime the most benefit within the concept at every turn. He is really good at this, with the result that the Great Wyrm Red Dragon has no abilities (including his spells short of like a Wish) that can really harm him and he can kill the dragon in a single round without effort. There are very few things that he's vulnerable to, basically Anti Magic Field, Wish, and things that are dependent on HD only.
- And it's not just at character creation, but also during play. He has a phenomenal knowledge of the material and can produce the details of nearly any feat, spell class ability or monster stat by heart within seconds. He's also very good at doing the math in his head quickly.
I like roleplaying with the guy, but I find that as a DM it's very hard to challenge him in a meaningful way without having the rest of the players quickly feel redundant.
- The term "min/max'ing" goes back to at least the AD&D 2E DMG, it has a few paragraphs on how to handle it.
Right, and that term can stay back in the 80s where it belongs along with shoulder pads and Max Headroom.
- Our resident optimizer is a good roleplayer and a friendly player. He has nice character concepts.
- For example, his current character is a Bard/Rogue whomanizer who walks around in little more than a loincloth so he can "share his beauty with the world". The character is easygoing and of the "Make love not war" train of thought. He will even walk up to a rampaging Great Wyrm Red Dragon to try and talk some sense into it. I like how he roleplays and he makes interesting characters.
- Now the problem is that when our resident optimizer choses the spells, abilities and class levels of his "Bard" he goes and picks the option that gives hime the most benefit within the concept at every turn. He is really good at this, with the result that the Great Wyrm Red Dragon has no abilities (including his spells short of like a Wish) that can really harm him and he can kill the dragon in a single round without effort. There are very few things that he's vulnerable to, basically Anti Magic Field, Wish, and things that are dependent on HD only.
- And it's not just at character creation, but also during play. He has a phenomenal knowledge of the material and can produce the details of nearly any feat, spell class ability or monster stat by heart within seconds. He's also very good at doing the math in his head quickly.
Cool, to hear some others tell it, this just can't be. Glad to hear that's not the case. What does one do when their fellow player doesn't exactly fit a tired stereotype?
I like roleplaying with the guy, but I find that as a DM it's very hard to challenge him in a meaningful way without having the rest of the players quickly feel redundant.
That's a system/edition issue really.
- And it's not just at character creation, but also during play. He has a phenomenal knowledge of the material and can produce the details of nearly any feat, spell class ability or monster stat by heart within seconds. He's also very good at doing the math in his head quickly.
Then he's in a perfect position to advise you on how to challenge his character, while still only challenging (and not utterly destroying) the other characters. Have you talked to him about this?
>Should their build be challenged in a tough fight, they resort to rules lawyering.
Why shouldn't they? Why should they trust that anyone (particularly you, who clearly hates them) isn't trying to wrest control over their character from them?<
Ok, lets go on the assumption that I am a very bad DM since some here are convinced of that. No problem. I have to wonder, does DMing in a style a player doesn't like condone the unhappy player ruining the fun for the other 5 people who like the DM and the game?
Why do you think I hate them? I only hate Destructive Optimizers and Munchkins-- you know the guys who go out of their way to wreck a game. That is what a Munchkin is. In MMOs they have another name-- griefer.
>I don't condone them, I just understand the reason those sorts of things occur.<
You condone it right there above. Now you see why I am confused by your stance?
>I don't believe that such a player is out for the detriment of others.<
Never ever? Sounds as if we are not talking about the same type of player. You see, not all optimizers are munchkins but most Munchkins are what I now call "Destructive Optimizers" (to avoid hurt feelings). You play at their level or get left in the dust. There are Destructive Optimizers who are not Munchkins. To say that this is the DM's fault or that there aren't players like this is simply not true.
>I am an optimizer. I am a Power Gamer. I however, know when to stop. Is that too much ask of a player? From a lot of what I have seen, it is.
You don't get to tell people how to play, where to set the level of optimization they use.<
I wrote that from my perspective as a player. I sure do get to set the level of optimization I play at since it is my character. True, I can't tell you how to play (though I can ask), but I can lead by example. It's that whole thing about control you spoke of, and it's not just a pact between player and DM, but between the players too.
There is a flaw with the mandate that the DM challenge the party in a way that lets the optimizer shine while not destroying or rendering the rest of the party impotent-- What if the DM is not up to the task? This is clearly the issue in the OP. Sure, one could ask the optimizer for help, and if he can, great. What I have found is that while many can build a mean character, they might not know how to construct challenges beyond saying, "Hit my weaknesses." It's one thing to play; it's another to DM. If that is the case, and it often is, it is back to square one.
Notice how, in this case the optimizer is in fact telling the DM how to play, for the DM is being forced to completely redesign and rethink his encounters and possibly adventures. This also has a ripple effect on the players and alters their play too. Likewise, the optimizer can have his play compromised not by the DM but by players who simply don't try to work with him. It goes both ways.
As pointed out in posts above, this really is a system issue. But that is like complaining that water is wet since we are playing D&D and therefore we are forced to deal with it's limitations. I don't think DDN is going to do much better. That means if certain builds and tactics are hurtful to fun play (be it the DM's or the players') the main recourse will be to simply ask that such builds and play not be used. It sucks, especially for the optimizer who is doing nothing wrong, in fact he is doing it right, too right, but that is the way it is. I think in this case, the best bet lies in house rules that are fair to all involved.
It's clear that the player in the OP's game is not a jerk. But he is an optimizer. It does not appear that there was an agreement, either at the game's outset or in subsequent conversations, on the level of optimization to be employed in that game. This is something that should be discussed and agreed upon before the game commences. The point at which this groups finds itself is that the ease of making "unbalanced" characters in 3.X plus the reluctance of the player to scale back something he feel he has a right to (and why wouldn't he?) is making it so challenges are trivial and those that aren't run the risk of killing everyone but the heavily-optimized character. Ultimately, this is a problem of mismatched expectations that no amount of house-ruling or name-calling can solve.
A system change to 4e would represent an immediate improvement in making the characters have more parity while maintaining a power level the optimizer may well enjoy.
Here's the real issue though - what you're talking about aren't necessarily "min/maxers" or "optimizers." You're talking about jerks. People who are not playing in good faith and who are purposefully hurting the game, regardless of their level of optimization or the like, are jerks. Unless you like gaming with jerks, they shouldn't be at your table.
It's clear that the player in the OP's game is not a jerk. But he is an optimizer. It does not appear that there was an agreement, either at the game's outset or in subsequent conversations, on the level of optimization to be employed in that game. This is something that should be discussed and agreed upon before the game commences. The point at which this groups finds itself is that the ease of making "unbalanced" characters in 3.X plus the reluctance of the player to scale back something he feel he has a right to (and why wouldn't he?) is making it so challenges are trivial and those that aren't run the risk of killing everyone but the heavily-optimized character. Ultimately, this is a problem of mismatched expectations that no amount of house-ruling or name-calling can solve.
A system change to 4e would represent an immediate improvement in making the characters have more parity while maintaining a power level the optimizer may well enjoy.
I feel your summation is pretty much right on.
In an ideal world, one would not have to game with jerks, but it doesn't work that way. A lot of it is about perception. What one may feel is fine, is something another would consider a jerk move.
This happened to me a while back: I had a character that was pretty well optimized. During a fight, a player got mad and walked out because he thought my character was too powerful. This game had a session zero even. After he left, the other players were stumped because statistically two other players had better characters than mine. I just played to my strengths. Fortunately, the player who got his feelings hurt came back and now we are very good friends. The point was, he thought I was a jerk for having such a "good" character compared to his.
I agree that a good session zero can really help, but most of the session zeros I have seen have accomplished nothing or if an agreement is made things will change down the road or folks won't mean what they say. Jerk moves? Maybe, but what can you do? It's not bad enough to quit over, but it is still annoying.
I think most folks don't know how to set up and run a good session zero and have it stick. I know I struggle here myself as a DM.
In an ideal world, one would not have to game with jerks, but it doesn't work that way. A lot of it is about perception. What one may feel is fine, is something another would consider a jerk move.
This is why it's important to set expectations for the group prior to play. Session Zero helps with this, but...
I agree that a good session zero can really help, but most of the session zeros I have seen have accomplished nothing or if an agreement is made things will change down the road or folks won't mean what they say. Jerk moves? Maybe, but what can you do? It's not bad enough to quit over, but it is still annoying.
...it can't help if it's not done properly or adhered to later. Those that refuse to adhere to their agreements are not playing in good faith. Those players get the boot. (At least at our table.) It's okay to change the agreement later if circumstances change, of course, but not unilaterally in a group setting.
I think most folks don't know how to set up and run a good session zero and have it stick. I know I struggle here myself as a DM.
It's definitely not a new concept, but it's one that is only really starting to catch on from what I see. Perhaps a guide on this is in order some day.
>Should their build be challenged in a tough fight, they resort to rules lawyering.
Why shouldn't they? Why should they trust that anyone (particularly you, who clearly hates them) isn't trying to wrest control over their character from them?<
Ok, lets go on the assumption that I am a very bad DM since some here are convinced of that. No problem. I have to wonder, does DMing in a style a player doesn't like condone the unhappy player ruining the fun for the other 5 people who like the DM and the game?
No, of course not. But it's normal for people to consider their own enjoyment first. Players like to control their characters, and power-gaming gives them that control, while not taking that control from other players. The others are welcome to play at whatever level they want. I did this frequently when I first played. I wanted to run characters right out of the book, while other players wanted weird houserules to allow them to play ninja, or werewolf-vampires or whatever. I think our DM dealt with that by splitting the party a lot.
Why do you think I hate them? I only hate Destructive Optimizers and Munchkins-- you know the guys who go out of their way to wreck a game. That is what a Munchkin is. In MMOs they have another name-- griefer.
But unlike in an MMO you can talk to the person at your table, find out what they're really after, and part ways if there's no possible compromise. But there's probably a compromise.
>I don't condone them, I just understand the reason those sorts of things occur.<
You condone it right there above. Now you see why I am confused by your stance?
I'm not saying they should do it, I'm saying there's no reason they're going to see why they shouldn't do it. Look at it from their point of view.
>I don't believe that such a player is out for the detriment of others.<
Never ever? Sounds as if we are not talking about the same type of player. You see, not all optimizers are munchkins but most Munchkins are what I now call "Destructive Optimizers" (to avoid hurt feelings). You play at their level or get left in the dust. There are Destructive Optimizers who are not Munchkins. To say that this is the DM's fault or that there aren't players like this is simply not true.
I won't say it's always the DM's fault, but it sometimes is.
>I am an optimizer. I am a Power Gamer. I however, know when to stop. Is that too much ask of a player? From a lot of what I have seen, it is.
You don't get to tell people how to play, where to set the level of optimization they use.<
I wrote that from my perspective as a player. I sure do get to set the level of optimization I play at since it is my character. True, I can't tell you how to play (though I can ask), but I can lead by example. It's that whole thing about control you spoke of, and it's not just a pact between player and DM, but between the players too.
A pact? If it's a pact, it needs to be explicit, and worked out, or people have no grounds for complaint.
There is a flaw with the mandate that the DM challenge the party in a way that lets the optimizer shine while not destroying or rendering the rest of the party impotent--
First of all, that's not the mandate, or at least not the one I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that every character be challenged. Or, if you like, that every character shine. That might mean that the optimized character defeats bigger foes, or solves tougher problems, but overall that doesn't need to mean a bigger contribution from, or less risk to that character.
What if the DM is not up to the task? This is clearly the issue in the OP. Sure, one could ask the optimizer for help, and if he can, great. What I have found is that while many can build a mean character, they might not know how to construct challenges beyond saying, "Hit my weaknesses." It's one thing to play; it's another to DM. If that is the case, and it often is, it is back to square one.
"Hit my weaknesses" is an ideal answer, as long as it comes with a discussion of exactly what weaknesses the player is interested in having hit. It's trivial to disable spellcasters, with targeted dispells, disruption of their rest, ability score damage, spell absorbtion, shortages of components, sundering items etc and all those things can be targeted at just that character. It's just normally considered bad form to pour on stuff like this without player buy-in. But with "Hit my weaknesses," and some further discussion, buy-in is acquired.
There are also the other players to ask, not just the optimizer.
Notice how, in this case the optimizer is in fact telling the DM how to play, for the DM is being forced to completely redesign and rethink his encounters and possibly adventures. This also has a ripple effect on the players and alters their play too. Likewise, the optimizer can have his play compromised not by the DM but by players who simply don't try to work with him. It goes both ways.
Well, frankly, playing without accounting for optimizers is an unstable approach in D&D. It can work, but it's not robust, and falls apart as soon as any assumptions prove wrong. I think a DM would be well served in the long run by designing encounters and adventures in such a way as to not have them ruined by optimizers. Collaboration is one way to accomplish this.
As pointed out in posts above, this really is a system issue. But that is like complaining that water is wet since we are playing D&D and therefore we are forced to deal with it's limitations.
But it's not as limited as people think. If you have player buy-in, there's really nothing you can't do. That's the basis for house rules (whether they restrict or add options), but it's also the basis of all DM and player control.
Here's the real issue though - what you're talking about aren't necessarily "min/maxers" or "optimizers." You're talking about jerks. People who are not playing in good faith and who are purposefully hurting the game, regardless of their level of optimization or the like, are jerks. Unless you like gaming with jerks, they shouldn't be at your table.
It's clear that the player in the OP's game is not a jerk. But he is an optimizer. It does not appear that there was an agreement, either at the game's outset or in subsequent conversations, on the level of optimization to be employed in that game. This is something that should be discussed and agreed upon before the game commences. The point at which this groups finds itself is that the ease of making "unbalanced" characters in 3.X plus the reluctance of the player to scale back something he feel he has a right to (and why wouldn't he?) is making it so challenges are trivial and those that aren't run the risk of killing everyone but the heavily-optimized character. Ultimately, this is a problem of mismatched expectations that no amount of house-ruling or name-calling can solve.
A system change to 4e would represent an immediate improvement in making the characters have more parity while maintaining a power level the optimizer may well enjoy.
May 13, 2013 -- 9:35AM, RogerWilco wrote:
"Unless you like gaming with jerks, they shouldn't be at your table."
- They are encouraged to play 4th edition?
"A system change to 4e would represent an immediate improvement in making the characters have more parity while maintaining a power level the optimizer may well enjoy. "
- Going to 4e would represent an immediate regression to something akin to Chainmail prior to Gary Gygax deciding to add dragons to the mix. Sure, there's dragons, but c'mon... it's not like they can kill your character (unless you really just want them to kill your character, of course).
Going 4e would also trade common-sense character creation for an encouragement of hodge-podge collections of random abilities that show a complete disregard of any sense of purpose, also a disjointed alignment system (easily ignored for the superior 2nd edition D&D alignment system, or even Basic, for that matter.), and will reduce the challenges for everyone across the board so that all but the most clueless players will find the challenges not only trivial, but practically non-existant. There will be no disparity... everyone will suffer equally from the lack of challenge. Except for the min/maxing munchkinizer (which I'm sure has some sort of namby-pamby PC term by now, which I won't bother to find). Fear of a fair challenge is this type of player's forte.
But, hey... you take the good with the bad, I guess.
P.S. The AD&D 2E DMG should be required reading by everyone at WOTC and also for anyone claiming the title of DM. Ignore the appeal to novelty.
Grrrr. Mean bear.
You really should stick to topics you understand. You clearly don't understand 4e or else you'd know that its parity among character classes is a fact, not an opinion. This was not a design goal of 3.X and so the character classes and the resulting builds can be so wildly disparate that it can result in exactly the situation the OP describes. That's also not a slight against 3.X which I played for 8 years and had fun with. It's a simple statement of fact. (Unlike your many unfounded slights against 4e above. Edition warring is so passé.)
"Unless you like gaming with jerks, they shouldn't be at your table."
- They are encouraged to play 4th edition?
"A system change to 4e would represent an immediate improvement in making the characters have more parity while maintaining a power level the optimizer may well enjoy. "
- Going to 4e would represent an immediate regression to something akin to Chainmail prior to Gary Gygax deciding to add dragons to the mix. Sure, there's dragons, but c'mon... it's not like they can kill your character (unless you really just want them to kill your character, of course).
Going 4e would also trade common-sense character creation for an encouragement of hodge-podge collections of random abilities that show a complete disregard of any sense of purpose, also a disjointed alignment system (easily ignored for the superior 2nd edition D&D alignment system, or even Basic, for that matter.), and will reduce the challenges for everyone across the board so that all but the most clueless players will find the challenges not only trivial, but practically non-existant. There will be no disparity... everyone will suffer equally from the lack of challenge. Except for the min/maxing munchkinizer (which I'm sure has some sort of namby-pamby PC term by now, which I won't bother to find). Fear of a fair challenge is this type of player's forte.
But, hey... you take the good with the bad, I guess.
P.S. The AD&D 2E DMG should be required reading by everyone at WOTC and also for anyone claiming the title of DM. Ignore the appeal to novelty.
Grrrr. Mean bear.
You really should stick to topics you understand. You clearly don't understand 4e or else you'd know that its parity among character classes is a fact, not an opinion. This was not a design goal of 3.X and so the character classes and the resulting builds can be so wildly disparate that it can result in exactly the situation the OP describes. That's also not a slight against 3.X which I played for 8 years and had fun with. It's a simple statement of fact. (Unlike your many unfounded slights against 4e above. Edition warring is so passé.)
As should you. You opened the blasé, edition-warring can of worms by claiming it would be an improvement. I never claimed that there was a lack of parity in 4e. The method of achieving this lack of parity, by mixing and matching (mix/maxing?) character abilities blurring the distinctions from class-to-class is going to create 12 problems for every one it fixes.
Fact: There are discussions on the forums, by 4e players, in which the problem being discussed here, was obviously not fixed. Unless you assume those discussions are all a conspiracy, that's problematic.
Fact: Healing Surges.... per encounter. Good thing we have a cleric, ummm fighter, umm.. what's your 'role' again? Contoller? Oh yeah... I didn't see the slop bucket. The leader says throw that down the stairs. Don't blame me, I'm just the Defender. Heal me.
Fact: Second Wind. In case redundancy isn't redundant enough for you.
Less snarky Fact: There are multiple races in 4e.. with stat adjustments (just like any other edition). There are skills/options/powers that can take advantage of this. Do I have proof of any min/maxers that are playing 4e? Only anecdotal, but I'd play the odds that the so-called hordes of people who left 3.5 in droves in search of the holy grail of editions that solved all problems included at least a handful of min/maxers who are ruining somebody's 4e game even as we speak.
Fact: You yourself maintain that combat is roleplaying. Or did I misunderstand you? Not a personal thing, just showing proof of bias.
I maintain that changing editions isn't going to solve this particular problem. As soon as the min/maxer figures out the quirks in the new system, he's going to be problematic. I don't even think it's about being a jerk. It's more like a guy getting sent in to play basketball, steals the ball, and makes a dramatic slam dunk into the wrong basket. And is wondering why his coach and his team are frustrated him.
None of this was really my point, and you are correct, e-warring is passé
I don't know if ANY system or house rule (other than telling the min/maxer to 'shape up or ship out') can fix the problem of min/maxing without diluting all that is good in the game. If you want players to have character options so they can customize, there's going to be some players that do that in order to make interesting characters and some who use that as an opportunity to try to 'win' because they don't understand the nature of the game being played.
Correction: The AD&D FIRST edition DMG is the book I meant to refer to, although the 2e DMG is still an excellent reference, even if the crazy Thac0 mechanics problem hadn't been solved yet.
P.S. To be fair, the 4e skill system is a little more controlled/organized. Skills can easily be min/maxed to the point of ridiculousness in 3.5e. And there are so many ways to pick up skills, you can easily get the same mish-mash of skills if you so choose. Unless there's a focus on showing the min/maxer that he can be replaced with an abacus with his min/maxing, nothing is going to change. Is the DM at fault? Sometimes. If all you do is throw monsters at the party (or worse, show-stealing DMPCs), what do you expect?
The AD&D 1st edition DMG, available for reprint... etc., etc., warned you.
RIPGG
As should you. You opened the blasé, edition-warring can of worms by claiming it would be an improvement. I never claimed that there was a lack of parity in 4e. The method of achieving this lack of parity, by mixing and matching (mix/maxing?) character abilities blurring the distinctions from class-to-class is going to create 12 problems for every one it fixes.
Fact: There are discussions on the forums, by 4e players, in which the problem being discussed here, was obviously not fixed. Unless you assume those discussions are all a conspiracy, that's problematic.
It's not edition warring to state a fact. D&D 4e classes have more parity. If the problem of the original poster is with character parity, then switching to 4e is a viable solution. It's not a judgment on 3.X to state this. Simulation-focused games do not value character balance as much as other games do.
The players in our games use some of the most optimized builds that exist. I've yet to see them ruin the game. The fact is that optimization as discussed on the forums is the solution for only a very narrow set of problems. A good game challenges on many fronts.
None of this was really my point, and you are correct, e-warring is passé
Did you have a point?
I don't know if ANY system or house rule (other than telling the min/maxer to 'shape up or ship out') can fix the problem of min/maxing without diluting all that is good in the game. If you want players to have character options so they can customize, there's going to be some players that do that in order to make interesting characters and some who use that as an opportunity to try to 'win' because they don't understand the nature of the game being played.
Or they understand it very well: Failure is boring, by default. It's often not about winning, but avoiding failing. Optimizing means not being bored as often.
As should you. You opened the blasé, edition-warring can of worms by claiming it would be an improvement. I never claimed that there was a lack of parity in 4e. The method of achieving this lack of parity, by mixing and matching (mix/maxing?) character abilities blurring the distinctions from class-to-class is going to create 12 problems for every one it fixes.
Fact: There are discussions on the forums, by 4e players, in which the problem being discussed here, was obviously not fixed. Unless you assume those discussions are all a conspiracy, that's problematic.
It's not edition warring to state a fact. D&D 4e classes have more parity. If the problem of the original poster is with character parity, then switching to 4e is a viable solution. It's not a judgment on 3.X to state this. Simulation-focused games do not value character balance as much as other games do.
The players in our games use some of the most optimized builds that exist. I've yet to see them ruin the game. The fact is that optimization as discussed on the forums is the solution for only a very narrow set of problems. A good game challenges on many fronts.None of this was really my point, and you are correct, e-warring is passé
Did you have a point?I don't know if ANY system or house rule (other than telling the min/maxer to 'shape up or ship out') can fix the problem of min/maxing without diluting all that is good in the game. If you want players to have character options so they can customize, there's going to be some players that do that in order to make interesting characters and some who use that as an opportunity to try to 'win' because they don't understand the nature of the game being played.
Or they understand it very well: Failure is boring, by default. It's often not about winning, but avoiding failing. Optimizing means not being bored as often.
IS: Did you have a point?
I guess the point was that it's pretty easy to disprove all of your erroneous claims. Not that you'd ever concede the point, no matter how many facts I use.
You claim that min/maxing is impossible in 4e (but maybe you should stick to topics you understand, to use your favorite zinger). Pick a feat that gives you a bonus. Compare it with another. Stack the bonuses to see how high you can get it in order to eliminate all challenge from the game because (challenges imply the possibility of failure and failure is deemed boring by some, and just too scary for some min/maxers). Ignore your characters intended concept and personality and call everything 'fluff' to cover your tracks. Welcome to min/maxing in 4e. Same as any edition. It's not about edition (and I think you know that).
It's about taking the variety of options available to the game and the player's fear of losing CONTROL of the game (isn't that another of your favorites, and actually true in all its negative connotations in this instance).
Failure isn't boring by default. It's what you learn from it. If you don't include the possibility that maybe Sir Pookums' player doesn't always get his (or her*) num-nums, Sir Pookums' player will never learn anything, never grow and simply move on to break other editions you buy, no matter how good the edition is at discouraging it. If the min/maxer can't step outside his comfort zone long enough to focus on role-playing, it may just be a style difference in the poster's preference and the players. The poster wants the type of role-playing game where characters are heroes that can be related to, not supermen without kryptonite.
*or her... and that's the last time I ignore basic grammar to be PC. If the players REALLY want to encourage more female gamers... buck up and ask them to play.
I guess the point was that it's pretty easy to disprove all of your erroneous claims. Not that you'd ever concede the point, no matter how many facts I use.
When did you start using facts? I prefer it when you stick to your usual wild assumptions and hyperbole.
You claim that min/maxing is impossible in 4e (but maybe you should stick to topics you understand, to use your favorite zinger).
I never claimed that you can't optimize in 4e. What I'm saying is the parity between the classes in 4e is better than 3.X. That's a fact. Whether or not you value that parity is a different issue. (Simulationists tend not to care about such things.) I run games all the time with mixed groups of optimizers and non-optimizers. Everyone gets challenged. That's easy to do in 4e. If the OP is to be believed (and my own 8 years experience in 3.X bears this out), this is not easy to do in 3.X. It's a system issue. It's not edition warring to point out the obvious.
Pick a feat that gives you a bonus. Compare it with another. Stack the bonuses to see how high you can get it in order to eliminate all challenge from the game because (challenges imply the possibility of failure and failure is deemed boring by some, and just too scary for some min/maxers). Ignore your characters intended concept and personality and call everything 'fluff' to cover your tracks. Welcome to min/maxing in 4e. Same as any edition. It's not about edition (and I think you know that).
How would you suggest a player set about choosing feats? Choose ones that offer the least amount of mechanical advantage? To what end? Or let me guess - choose feats that have fluff related to their character concept.
D&D incentivizes optimization. You're urinating in the wind to think that players should choose otherwise. They may. But to think that they should flies in the face of the game mechanics, especially as it relates to failure.
Whether or not you think fluff and mechanics are separable likely depends on whether or not you're a simulationist. My guess based on this and other threads is that you are one, so of course you think that fluff and mechanics are related. They're not, actually. Or rather, they don't have to be. It's just a different way of thinking about the game.
It's about taking the variety of options available to the game and the player's fear of losing CONTROL of the game (isn't that another of your favorites, and actually true in all its negative connotations in this instance).
If the game's default failure mode is either "I miss" or "I'm dead," then you bet your sweet bippy that I'm going to control the variables I can to make those things not happen. Which is why you see a lot of advice on the What's a DM to Do forum about making failure interesting. Make failure interesting and the urge to optimize is reduced. It's just that simple.
Failure isn't boring by default. It's what you learn from it. If you don't include the possibility that maybe Sir Pookums' player doesn't always get his (or her*) num-nums, Sir Pookums' player will never learn anything, never grow and simply move on to break other editions you buy, no matter how good the edition is at discouraging it. If the min/maxer can't step outside his comfort zone long enough to focus on role-playing, it may just be a style difference in the poster's preference and the players. The poster wants the type of role-playing game where characters are heroes that can be related to, not supermen without kryptonite.
Stormwind Fallacy.
How would you suggest a player set about choosing feats? Choose ones that offer the least amount of mechanical advantage? To what end? Or let me guess - choose feats that have fluff related to their character concept.
That is exactly what they'd suggest. They do it, why doesn't everyone? Must be that they're lazy and entitled.
I regularly pick my ability scores and feats and other features to set my preferred difficulty level and character concept, and they're often suboptimal. I pick them. No one gets to tell me that I have to make my character better, worse, or differently and I don't get to tell them. I can look down my nose at them, and they at me, but it just makes us look like snobs.
I had to look up Stormwind Fallacy. Here's a link to anyone who has to too: Loremaster Stormwind Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
BUT if one optimizes one's character mechanically it does mean one is restricting one's options in terms of roleplaying a character who is challenged by the game.
That matters. I would rather play a character who is on the edge of defeat, and I can't rely on my DM to supply challenges that can do that to an optimized character. Some people can "pull their punches" and not use their best abilities when it's more interesting not to (cf. Superman constantly "forgetting" he has heat vision), but others prefer simply not to have those abilities.
The guy who most often DM's in our group tends to limit which books we can draw feats and classes from, which can be frustrating sometimes, but it keeps min/maxing down. (I love the Healer from the Miniatures Handbook, but he generally doesn't allow it. The class is focused on non-combat skills and spells, intended to be a great support character. I wish he would allow it more. Oh well.)
Others have commented on having a conversation about the problem, and I agree. I've been through this as a player several times. A good player who creates a good character that's min/maxed, overshadowing other players to the point we had to tell him and the DM he isn't leaving anything for the rest of us to do but sit there watching.
About 28 years ago, I got my first copy of the master set for the old basic-expert-companion-master game. In it I discovered rules for learning weapon mastery... the first thing the character has to do is find a teacher. Required teaching for some of the more powerful feats or high-level spells is NOT a new idea, its been around for decades. 1st and 2nd edition had rules for training at each level. The DM can control what choices the character has available, and it isn't some made-up arbitrary rule to punish good players. These rules existed as a way to control abuses by 'rules lawyers' and 'power-gamers.'
DM's have an obligation to let the players know ahead of time if they are going to add rules, or changes rules, beforehand. Put it on paper to keep things clear. Let them all know why the rules are being used. Most important, be fair and honest about what is being used and/or not used.
Ok girlfriend says I have to sign off and take her out for ice cream.
Power gamers/Min Maxers are bad/need to be controlled....
As a "power gamer myself" I really hate hearing comments like this. I enjoy systems. I like Math. I like doing research to opitmize the chance of achieving a goal (by profession I am happily employed as a data anylist). Getting told that certain options are retricted due to being too powerful , unbalanced, or good is something i view as both confusing and a double standard.
For the confusing part, sports teams dont remove players from the lineup because they are outshining the others. People dont picket against comerical products (usually) because there are too useful or affordable. Why are some people so determined to penalize and prevent a combat specialized character from excelling at combat?
As for the double standard. Complaints get made that these min-maxed characters overshadow others and are unfair or unblanced in the campaign. Math is a left brain skill, creativity is right brain skill. I dont have the same level of creativity to create the complex and interesing personalities, backgrounds and RP conversations that you "Rp'ers" do. If you are going to complaign that my math application is breaking your compaign, am I entitled to gripe that the creativity other players are using is unfair to me becuase it makes me feel bland and uncreative?
That being said, D&D is meant as a group experience. It is more enjoyable as a group acitivity and I dont want to (and would feel guilty) hogging the spot light all the time. I would be willing to place limits in specific areas provided you throw me the bone of being able to apply all those extra "resources" somewhere...
(as the min-maxer who shows up at your tables) Please define to me, where you want the "ceiling" to be. What are your expectations for non-min maxed damage? how much is too much? If I adhere to your criteria, will you let me go nuts in some other "less unbalancing" area (having a ridicuolously good jump skill maybe?) Could the rest of the party give me some idea's for combat combos i can create (the 4e leader role is really good at this) instead of focusing on myself?
While DnD is a broad hobby and is made for a variety of people as a rules lawyer, power gamer myself, I would say it is the Theater of The Mind and Deep Role-Players who are more selfish and bad for the hobby than powers gamers, because one offers an open system (power gamers) and one offers a closed system ("Deep" Role-players aka DRs).
You know, in a Power Gamer heavy game you can have power gamers who are just straight bloodlusters liking to do nothing but hack'n'slash and kick down doors, who can have the tactician that likes to strategize and approach combat from a tactical perspective, you can be the pure show off who doesn't care if you are doing deep role-playing or exploration or whatever she just made her character to the best at what she does say a maxed out healer build who does no damage but your party will Never suffer a wound or affliction with her on the job. In other words in power gaming all modes of play can exist. With the DRs only one mode of play can exist. For example, I gamed with a DR who insisted on no maps when we played this one RPG, because he felt the tactics and movement etc in DnD was confusing so he didn't like them and thus he modified the rules to where they weren't necessary. This guy also told me he likes simpler games because DND 4E and 3.5 was too complex in character selection via feats choices, backgrounds, etc and he felt pressured to make the best character he could, despite the fact of everyone around him telling him don't worry about think about the character you want to play and play him even if he isn't the most maximezed but he refused to do it. So...because you don't understand and grasp tactics I can't use tactics and this attitude is good for the game? I think not.
I mean, seriously imagine that with anything else. Imagine a group of guys getting together to go eat and there is a great eatery that has a ton of options sweets, fruits, salads, meats deals, etc and this one person gets confused when looking at the menu and says "I only likes salads. This place just has too many options for me. In fact, I only want to go to restuarant that eats salads and that is where we should always go to eat period. Screw the fact that the rest of you guys don't like salads. I just can't be pressured with menus giving me a bunch of options." To me this in a nutshell summarizes the DR and Theater of the Mind Folks. We don't like options, tactics, numbers, and complexity so those elements just shouldn't exist in the game period.
Non-min/maxers: Stop saying min/maxers don't roleplay. Try to understand that D&D incentivizes the very thing you hate. Asking people not to optimize is fighting against the very system you're playing. You may think you're being elitist, but really you're just demonstrating you don't understand a thing about the game.
DMs: If optimization is hurting your game, then your game is too narrowly focused on things that can be affected by optimization. Do better, try harder.
Everyone: People who disrupt your game on purpose with either their optimization or their spotlight-stealing ham acting are jerks, regardless of their approach. Recognize them as jerks first and optimizers (or whatever) second. Don't be a jerk.
If you're playing D&D and making decisions your character would also make, you're roleplaying. Got it?
Min/maxers: Stop calling people who don't min/max "rp'ers" or "roleplayers." You are also roleplaying. They don't get to corner the market on that term just because they speak with a funny accent or have a backstory 10 pages long that nobody wants to read.
Fair enough.
I supose on some level I was attempting to differentiate how some people place more empashsis on certain areas of their character (sheet?) more than other areas. When it comes to character design I do feel there is a perspective difference between using the mechanics as the foundation of your roleplaying choices (and vice versa)
As for the "dont be a jerk" statment. That makes sense. The "unkillable inifinite damage loop" character and the "moral police" paladin probabaly belong in the same place. Not at my table.
I supose on some level I was attempting to differentiate how some people place more empashsis on certain areas of their character (sheet?) more than other areas. When it comes to character design I do feel there is a perspective difference between using the mechanics as the foundation of your roleplaying choices (and vice versa)
What they're doing is simulating their character concept into mechanics, whatever that concept may be. It's a simulationist approach to character creation.
What you're doing is optimizing the game mechanics to your advantage to improve your odds of success and mitigate failure. This is a gamist approach to character creation.
If you find yourself at the same table together, you're likely both pursuing different agendas for the game experience. Conflict is bound to ensue and you should be pleasantly surprised if it didn't.
You will get along better with a group that shares your values and preferences. Or at least one that has enough of your preferred content to keep you satisfied with the same applied to the rest of the players' preferences. (Though I find these types of games a little disjointed.) Note that these distinctions are a spectrum.
Player 2: I'm an orphan badass, trained as an assassin in the City of Thieves where every day was a fight for surivival. I killed my first goblin when I was 6. All my mechanics are combat-focused.
Presuming player 2 is not blocking in some fashion (perhaps going against the agreed-upon theme), if Player 1 has a problem with Player 2's choice, then Player 1 is a jerk. You can't choose to take a less effective character in combat and then judge everyone else who doesn't choose that.
Player 1: I'm playing a lowly scrub-turned-adventurer. I used to be a dirt farmer until goblins carried off my dad. I've got a lot of ranks in Profession: Farmer.
Player 2: I'm an orphan badass, trained as an assassin in the City of Thieves where every day was a fight for surivival. I killed my first goblin when I was 6. All my mechanics are combat-focused.
Presuming player 2 is not blocking in some fashion (perhaps going against the agreed-upon theme), if Player 1 has a problem with Player 2's choice, then Player 1 is a jerk. You can't choose to take a less effective character in combat and then judge everyone else who doesn't choose that.
Right. Ideally though, the discussion of the characters doesn't end there. The group needs to know what Player 1 and Player 2 expect out of the game. If one of them (and it's not necessarily Player 1) wants the game to be constant struggle, with the characters on the edge of death in every fight, then there needs to be some talk of how that's going to be accomplished. Then the level of optimization does matter. "Level of optimization" definitely needs to be discussed in Session 0. I tend not to optimize even when those around me do, but I also tend to be preprared for my character to die.
There are other options, less straightforward than battles to the death. Could be one of them (again not necessarily Player 1) is really interested less in the toe-to-toe fight side of combat, and wants to contribute in other ways. If the DM is down with it, non-combat challenges could be an aspect of every encounter, giving everyone something engaging to do.
I am the embodiment of the Stormwind Fallacy. The better thing, I can take an optimized build and craft a workable story and background around it. And then I really sell it on the roleplaying table.
My DM actually prefers it when there's at least one or two heavily optimized characters in the battlegrid. It gives him room to really push the danger levels without worry that the party won't make it.
In any case, we've come to expect that each character will excel in what they are meant to excel in.
We expect the striker to deal 3-4 times as much damage as anyone else.
We expect the defender to be near unkillable.
We expect the leader to be the one with the crazy buffs.
We expect the controller to be the one making life impossible for the monsters and taking out the swarms of minions faster than anyone else.
And none of us are bothered by that.
Granted, this is 3.5 we're talking about where things could get unbalanced really easily. It doesn't happen as much in 4th since most everything is balanced out of the gate.
In any case, if it's that bad, it's obviously a better choice to bring everyone else up to par than to try to nerf the player whose only crime was a solid understanding of the rules.
If anything, dish out some stuff to up the power of the non-optimized players, explain that to the min/maxer, and give the min/maxer a few new toys to use during roleplay.
Player 1: I'm playing a lowly scrub-turned-adventurer. I used to be a dirt farmer until goblins carried off my dad. I've got a lot of ranks in Profession: Farmer.
Player 2: I'm an orphan badass, trained as an assassin in the City of Thieves where every day was a fight for surivival. I killed my first goblin when I was 6. All my mechanics are combat-focused.
Presuming player 2 is not blocking in some fashion (perhaps going against the agreed-upon theme), if Player 1 has a problem with Player 2's choice, then Player 1 is a jerk. You can't choose to take a less effective character in combat and then judge everyone else who doesn't choose that.
1. In my game, Profession Farmer with high ranks? That is pretty useful, and a great investment, I might add. (Seriously. I mean it.) I get that you probably don't understand "how", but it is. I might have to bother myself to explain it sometime.
That said, in this situation, if Player 1 wants a toned down game but Player 2 is always creating his assassin's and super wizards born in the city of union, then Player 1 has a right to be irritated. He should be allowed to get his way once in a while. That might mean having a toned down game now and then. This is a difference of playstyle.
I like to develop a mutual sense of expectations at session zero before character creation even begins. Once everyone agrees, we proceed to create characters. During character creation, we all learn about each others characters and our own; then discuss the types of games the players are interested in. I delve into tough issues like this issue of power gaming, and whether or not I allow such a player at my table is based on my belief in myself. I would be fine telling a player who was "really good" that i have concerns that my own time is spent developing the world, not conjuring up deadly combat scenarios and I would ask them if they really wanted to be in this game.
Some people are just better than others, and not everyone wants a "zero-sum game" to compete against the other players for fear of being weak. I think maturity is important here, and the key factor.
If they really wanted to play, I would welcome them, and expect that their foreknowledge will guide them to make mature choices about their conduct in the game. That trust is often repaid, and such players are great at helping me improve my systems.
Since Magic: The Gathering has already been brought up, I have some really fun Blue decks (fun for me, that is). I would not break out Mystical Teachings deck or Faeries deck or a super trumped up Red Revenge deck in a situation where my 3 opponents were: one player my own skill level. 2 players fairly new, who don't know much about the game. I would rather play a deck that is more "sane" and easy to understand. Using the "tournament deck which I fairly built" would be akin to "powergaming", and it wouldn't be any fun as a group activity.
I think min/maxers and powergamers are great for the hobby. They challenge the designers to make a well designed system and to correct flaws that can be abuse. More so than that no player should be punished because his character is the best in the group, the only way a power gamer should be chastised is if the player's (not the character's) attitude doesn't mesh well with the teams. Another reason why I think power gamers are good is because usually it the power gamers who actually go out and spend money on gaming supplements, etc because they like to know every little detail and rule of the game that they play.
While DnD is a broad hobby and is made for a variety of people as a rules lawyer, power gamer myself, I would say it is the Theater of The Mind and Deep Role-Players who are more selfish and bad for the hobby than powers gamers, because one offers an open system (power gamers) and one offers a closed system ("Deep" Role-players aka DRs).
You know, in a Power Gamer heavy game you can have power gamers who are just straight bloodlusters liking to do nothing but hack'n'slash and kick down doors, who can have the tactician that likes to strategize and approach combat from a tactical perspective, you can be the pure show off who doesn't care if you are doing deep role-playing or exploration or whatever she just made her character to the best at what she does say a maxed out healer build who does no damage but your party will Never suffer a wound or affliction with her on the job. In other words in power gaming all modes of play can exist. With the DRs only one mode of play can exist. For example, I gamed with a DR who insisted on no maps when we played this one RPG, because he felt the tactics and movement etc in DnD was confusing so he didn't like them and thus he modified the rules to where they weren't necessary. This guy also told me he likes simpler games because DND 4E and 3.5 was too complex in character selection via feats choices, backgrounds, etc and he felt pressured to make the best character he could, despite the fact of everyone around him telling him don't worry about think about the character you want to play and play him even if he isn't the most maximezed but he refused to do it. So...because you don't understand and grasp tactics I can't use tactics and this attitude is good for the game? I think not.
I mean, seriously imagine that with anything else. Imagine a group of guys getting together to go eat and there is a great eatery that has a ton of options sweets, fruits, salads, meats deals, etc and this one person gets confused when looking at the menu and says "I only likes salads. This place just has too many options for me. In fact, I only want to go to restuarant that eats salads and that is where we should always go to eat period. Screw the fact that the rest of you guys don't like salads. I just can't be pressured with menus giving me a bunch of options." To me this in a nutshell summarizes the DR and Theater of the Mind Folks. We don't like options, tactics, numbers, and complexity so those elements just shouldn't exist in the game period.
I think both types are good for the hobby as far as buying books/keeping interest alive. Although the longevity of the power-gamer's interest doesn't seem as strong.
Power-gamer: One time when I was playing DnD, I found a loophole in a supplement that I was able to exploit to make me immune to everything! After some cross-referencing and careful word-wrangling I was able to fully exploit his damage-dealing capabilities as well. By using a calculator I also discovered that 2 and 2 is 4. So, If I had a plus 2 in something and could find a loophole that gave me another +2, which made me TWICE as deadly... So I pretty much found the ultimate class/race/feat/skill combination and all 6 of our group is the same character... even down to the same name because I was able to exploit the meaning of a paragraph written in this supplement called....Hey! Where you going? Come back!!!
Role-player: ...and then the wizard who shrunk the king's horse to make it more easy to tame? Oh! What about that dwarven kennelmaster who insisted on hauling ALL 12 of his dogs AND his sled through the Tomb of Horrors? Or the eunuch choir-singing bard who found a scroll that regenerated his 'missing parts'! Or the gnome witch who insisted that corporal punishment could cure even the most wicked of blackguards! "I am Valdeathgar the Mutilator...and.." "...and looks to me you need your *** whipped! (DOMINATE PERSON)!" LOL! Oh! And then... What? You wanna play DnD? Great idea!
I'm not sure power gamers are buying more supplements, although having powerful options in the supplements is a good incentive for them to do so. Supplements often provide interesting new character classes and abilities that make it much easier to mechanically represent the exact personality type or archetype a deep roleplayer might envision.
As far as understanding tactics, don't power-gamers try to break the system so tactics aren't needed?
I see more tactics and strategic-thinking coming from deep role-players while my power-gamers tend to not like/understand... just the opposite of what you've seen.
I know many non-powergamers who love the combat aspect of the game and min/max, trying to use the rules to "win" while I know many power gamers who aren't good at understanding the rules and just want to ruin the game "because that's what my character to do and I found a rule that says I can".
I also know Power Gamer DM's who you won't last 2 battles in if you aren't min/maxed. "Great, 4 deaths in the last 2 hours. 80 minutes spent making new characters, 40 minutes getting each one killed. There are Power Gamer roleplayers. (who demand your friend at the table to pronounce his characters name correctly, and demand that elves cannot love dark elves).
I think that we all know Power Gaming is a form of "Toxic Gameplay". This gets into the level of being a plain jerk. I think those "Strategist Masters" who min/max and use the rules to the best of their ability are good. That isn't a requirement to be a "Power Gamer". Nor does being a Power Gamer make one a good strategy master.
I will define a difference between a Strategy Master / Combat Specialist - and a Power Gamer, just like I would define a difference between a Role-Player and a Power gamer:
The difference is highlighted that Power Gamers, no matter their preferred way to play or DM, will perform jerky behavior which ends up making the game "cheese out" and "lose value", creating a migraine for everyone else. If you, the player, recognize your "Combat Specialist level" is significantly better than the DM, show the DM the tricks you learned.
This will help earn the DM's trust that you aren't trying to wreck the game, and help the DM improve in the area of tactics. If you are a DM with a player who doesn't understand the game well, you might not want to set up an encounter where the player has to have advanced knowledge of the game to succeed or survive.
In this way, players on all sides of the table can use communication to help adjust the "difficulty level" of the game, and cooperate with each other instead of competing against each other.
.....
Power gamers/Min Maxers are bad/need to be controlled....
As a "power gamer myself" I really hate hearing comments like this. I enjoy systems. I like Math. I like doing research to opitmize the chance of achieving a goal (by profession I am happily employed as a data anylist). Getting told that certain options are retricted due to being too powerful , unbalanced, or good is something i view as both confusing and a double standard.
For the confusing part, sports teams dont remove players from the lineup because they are outshining the others. People dont picket against comerical products (usually) because there are too useful or affordable. Why are some people so determined to penalize and prevent a combat specialized character from excelling at combat?
My problem is that a well optimized character is Superman in a regular football match. At some point the abilities just go past the scale of what the game was designed for. If there is no published monster (including gods) that would pose a challenge to the PC, things tend to get out of whack. There usually still are a few ways to kill the PCs, they're not immortal, but at some point it gets hard to come up with challenges, things are either an automatic success or a TPK.
DMs: If optimization is hurting your game, then your game is too narrowly focused on things that can be affected by optimization. Do better, try harder.
The problem for me when I DM, is that D&D is very combat focussed. The game itself is quite narrow.
Everyone: People who disrupt your game on purpose with either their optimization or their spotlight-stealing ham acting are jerks, regardless of their approach. Recognize them as jerks first and optimizers (or whatever) second. Don't be a jerk.
If you're playing D&D and making decisions your character would also make, you're roleplaying. Got it?
Our optimizer has recognized that his character is hurting the game, and is retiring it at the end of the current adventure, even though he likes roleplaying it. The character even turned out quite a bit more powerful than he intended.
See, in my games I generally play characters optimized to hell and back and I am also at the forefront of roleplayer.
I am the embodiment of the Stormwind Fallacy. The better thing, I can take an optimized build and craft a workable story and background around it. And then I really sell it on the roleplaying table.
My DM actually prefers it when there's at least one or two heavily optimized characters in the battlegrid. It gives him room to really push the danger levels without worry that the party won't make it.
In any case, we've come to expect that each character will excel in what they are meant to excel in.
We expect the striker to deal 3-4 times as much damage as anyone else.
We expect the defender to be near unkillable.
We expect the leader to be the one with the crazy buffs.
We expect the controller to be the one making life impossible for the monsters and taking out the swarms of minions faster than anyone else.
And none of us are bothered by that.
Granted, this is 3.5 we're talking about where things could get unbalanced really easily. It doesn't happen as much in 4th since most everything is balanced out of the gate.
In any case, if it's that bad, it's obviously a better choice to bring everyone else up to par than to try to nerf the player whose only crime was a solid understanding of the rules.
If anything, dish out some stuff to up the power of the non-optimized players, explain that to the min/maxer, and give the min/maxer a few new toys to use during roleplay.
Our first reaction was to start a discussion to bring everyone up to par with the optimizer, he had plenty of suggestions. But before we really executed on that, things already got so much out of whack that we decided not to pursue this arms race as it was leading us into territory far beyond what the design of the game could stand. One character at such an optimized level is already breaking things, 4-5 characters would just make it silly.
I also don't want to get into an edition war.
I posted this in this forum, because to me it's primarily a problem of group dynamic. I found the comment about simulationist vs. gamist play style to be interesting. I'm primarily a simulationist and I think part of the issue might be that D&D (except maybe 4E) doesn't stand up too well against a gamist approach. But that's not the whole answer either.
Valid point. Having played for such a DM, I am surprised at myself forgetting that important fact... sometimes the DM doesn't give you much choice BUT to min/max (or leave the game or be prepared to make numerous soon-to-be-dead characters). This is the type of DM that gives DMPCs such a bad rap. Because they generally are higher level than anything you'll likely achieve playing in his damned-if-you-do-or-don't world.
way more balanced game rules
Has anyone suggested switching to 4th edition?
way more balanced game rules
Yes they have. I will not comment any further as that would just start an edition war.
Has anyone suggested switching to 4th edition?
way more balanced game rules
I wouldn't bother buying in to 4th edition on its deathbed.
DND Next is well in the works, this would be like switching to 3.5 edition when 4E was announced.
There are more pro-con's about what edition to play, and I am only saying for those of us stuck in 3.X, it might be better to "upgrade" when 5E comes out, instead of jumping on 4E.
Most of all, the newest "upgrade" can often have "less" than "more" - and with the DLC model prevalent in video games, be assured that the next DND books will be absolute vanilla; the game has evolved into a monetization model where the "sales goal" is less about the 3 main books and more about the other books. This shift in focus will likely reduce quality in the 3 books (to re-add it later!) and this might be ugly.
Best idea, if you are getting out of 3.X and want to update, might be to wait for 5E.
This way you can look at the elements of the editions and ask "Which of these, all things considered, is the right one for me?" I won't jump into 4E for the reason that I don't wanna spend the money. I have 3.5 books, and some shoppers remorse about that (I was younger).
Instead, I will wait until 5E, and think about it more. Then again, I might just keep my 3.X and smile.