A gnome illusionist (a non-cheesy Shadowcraft Mage)
A Ranger/Scout (Swift hunter & a splitting bow)
Both have been forcibly ejected from his game for being either too powerful or too "confusing".
The illusionist never killed ANYTHING.
The Ranger rolled a lot of dice (manyshot on a splitting bow)
He told me to find something he could control so I showed him a blue mage. He refused to even read the class.
I would leave the group permanently, but it's the Boys and Girls club. I have to deal with this guy on a daily basis anyway.
Oh, and I've tried fighter 10, and he still called me a munchkin.
Someone help!
Seriously, this sounds like the guy wants to play Pansy's and Kobolds, not DnD.
But for a better evaluation, could you elaborate on the Illusionist? IE: What spells did you use, how did you use them, and so forth?
Save or Dies, Save or Sucks, Etc, I occasionally used shadow conjuration for chump blockers/flankers
hmmmm, well SoD/SoS can be really annoying for a new DM. (which he sounds a bit like to me) Personally, I think most of them should be removed completely from the game
But if you're set on staying, ask what is acceptable.
I have to have a roleplaying based character that won't get killed in combat, who fills a party niche, doesn't steal the spotlight, and only uses basic rules.
Oh, and he "prefers" core books. (as in he shoots down any book he doesn't have. Totally understandable, but makes my life a little more difficult.)
He's been DMing for over a decade, and his ideas of whats acceptable are:
I have to have a roleplaying based character that won't get killed in combat, who fills a party niche, doesn't steal the spotlight, and only uses basic rules.
Oh, and he "prefers" core books. (as in he shoots down any book he doesn't have. Totally understandable, but makes my life a little more difficult.)
He calls you munchkin, for playing a 10 figther..... and he's been a DM for a decade.
Oh boy.
Well the only thing to do is ask him what he accepts.
...a roleplaying based character that won't get killed in combat, who fills a party niche, doesn't steal the spotlight, and only uses basic rules...
OK, roll up a horse.
Yeah, it sucked that bad.
This time we have a dragon shaman, a bard, and I don't know what else. We are level 1 though.
Last campaign we had a scout (never hit anything), Frenzied Berserker (killed us, then died), Paladin (party face, but never actually healed anyone but the tiger...), and a druid (didn't know the rules or stats for wildshapes).
Yeah, it sucked that bad.
This time we have a dragon shaman, a bard, and I don't know what else. We are level 1 though.
Well, your DM is an idiot for ever allowing a frenzied berserker in a game so its well deserved that the rest of the group died in the process for being stupid enough to adventure with a FB to begin with.
It sounds like your group of players are novices or relatively new to the game or just aren't into the whole min/maxing or powergaming up their PCs to their potential. You seem to be the type who does min/max and by comparing you to the rest of the group, you may appear to be a "munchkin" depending on what toine your DM is using. My personal definition of Munchkin is someone who tries to create a powerful PC but tends to misinterpret, ignore, or outright cheats to reach their goal of creating a powerful PC. Your DM may be using the term Munchkin in the sense your PC is substantially more powerful then the rest of the group.
Based on my presumption, either don't play with this DM or tone it down your playstyle a bit. When I say tone it down, play a core fighter using only feats from the PHB. Do not go playing a core spellcaster to "prove" that you can break the PHB class in twenty different ways to prove a point. Intentinally create a weaker PC then you're capable of to be more in line with the rest of the group. Teach the rest of your group how to maximize their PCs so that you're all on equal footing.
And then see if you can make up a better campaign. Say that you are more combat focused, and that you have an incompatible idea of DnD. Don't try to break the game if you have to talk to the guy, just don't play with him.
Maybe, just maybe, you should try making a character that isn't as powerful or confusing as the ones you made before? From the sound of it, he could be exactly right. A gnome illusionist can pull off some very powerful feats of magic and shoot a whole adventure to hell. And I can imagine the way he'd feel if his combats were interrupted by your Ranger/Scout rolling a hundred dice and adding them and recounting and whatnot.
Try something simpler. Make your character unique in ways that aren't visible on the stat sheet.
Not trying to bash it, but if this is his playstyle, but it is not yours, then you would have to excuse yourself from the game or intentionally make a weaker character.
This being truth, as I said earlier, the DM is throwing his weight around, and is too impatient to work with die rolls, complicated spells and whatnot.
This game is run by DICE ROLLS, BOOKS, PAPER, PENCILS, DMS, IMAGINATIONS, AND COMPLEX THINGS. If the DM doesn't have time for these kind of things, said person whould not be in such possition. Thus, impeachment is called for or quitting that particular group may be an option. If he is being like this because you are a lower level than the others, or because he is not an ally in real life, do something to make him respect you in the D&D world. Read up on the rules and such, level up, and thwart him if he tries to scam you out of rewards and the like. (Now yes, the DM does basically rule the world...) But that doesn't mean they can't be wrong.
and if he still has something against you, walk away.
Nowhere does it say that a DM has to allow you to play anything you want. I think that had to be said. And I hope it doesn't sound cruel.
You said you played a fighter he didn't like. However you did not say if you used stuff from TOB or other books. My advice is to talk to him find out specifically what he doesn't like. If he wants you to play from a specific set of books then do so. It may not be exactly what you want, but it may end up only being temporary. Lend him a book or two of yours so he can go through and learn about the things you want to do. Handing him a book open to a class and saying this is what I want to do may not give him the time he needs to incorporate it into the game.
Hmmm well you do realize, Lord Varos, that it is the DM's job to run a game, not pick on someone. The player may choose any class/race he/she desires.
I believe the DM in question is just causing trouble... however, your statement is flat wrong.
A DM is well within his rights to veto any character or concept which does not fit his game, or that he is not comfortable with and any player that questions that right or tries to make it an issue does not belong in his game.
And, the OP has tried several combinations and the DM still refuses to co-play. Thus, the only reason I see: the DM is just trying to cause trouble.
It rejects the creativness and originality of the PCs if the dm only allows certain classes and such, it would be a bland game if the dm just allowed say clerics and fighters...
Break out the dice, SakuraDM! I'm comin' to your table and bringing my WOOKIE BLOOD-MAGUS with me! Woo hoo!
...but I do agree that in this particular case it sounds like the DM is the one who's being restrictive. Though we only have one side of the story, mind you.
Hmmm well you do realize, Lord Varos, that it is the DM's job to run a game, not pick on someone. The player may choose any class/race he/she desires.
I can fully identify with these sentiments. I do not agree with a blanket statement like this, but I can see why you would.
This game is run by DICE ROLLS, BOOKS, PAPER, PENCILS, DMS, IMAGINATIONS, AND COMPLEX THINGS. If the DM doesn't have time for these kind of things, said person whould not be in such possition.
Now, are you truly saying that the DM, who has to run an entire world of NPCs, plots, stories, villains, and statistics, all while keeping an eye on the dice and making sure players are playing correctly (i.e. not metagaming or ignoring roleplay) has absolutely no right to say to a player, "Your build and all of the dice-rolling is slowing down combat to a crawl. We aren't getting enough done. Please make a new character with less paperwork for me."
You say that the DM's job is already very hard, and then that the only proper solution is to give him no ability whatsoever to keep the player side of it manageable? This is something with which I cannot agree, as a long-time DM and storyteller.
The DM's job is not to give each player absolute freedom. If that's what a player wants, he should roleplay by himself or in a solo campaign, where no one can interfere with his grand designs. It is necessary for a game to run smoothly and with inter-player balance. The DM's job, as it is commonly accepted to be on these boards, is to ensure that everyone present has fun playing the game. If one player's character is outshining the others to the point that it disrupts the game (as I suspect is the case here, with the decade's-experience DM saying that the character is too powerful), it is not only his right to make sure that the balance is preserved, but it is his duty as the DM chosen to make that decision by his peers.
In reference to the quote above, it is obvious he can do these things. He is a DM, and has been for 10 years. He is clearly competent enough to perform D&D's greatest balancing act: maintaining a world and a group of PCs. Therefore, when he says that something is too complicated to play, I am inclined to believe him. If it's literally slowing down combat because the player has to calculate, roll, and add so many dice, it is naturally his right to change something in order to keep the game running and keeping the other players from getting bored (during the five-minute turns).
I am not saying the DM is right on this one. I'm saying that anyone who says "OMG LEAVE THAT GROUP NOW" after reading only the excessively limited information we were provided by the OP, especially with how one-sided and incomplete it is, is clearly jumping the gun.
Clearly your fellow players do not really agree that what the DM is doing is wrong. If they did, you'd be seeking sympathy from them and not from faceless, sarcastic strangers. I think you need to ask what the exact problems were with your characters, OP, and then ask what you can do to make them better for his game.
I would leave the group permanently, but it's the Boys and Girls club. I have to deal with this guy on a daily basis anyway.
Someone help!
No problem. Invite him here and let us hear his side. I double-dog-dare you!:P
Anyway, the likely result is that he'll come away with some excellent advice and a slightly changed attitude.
He's been DMing for over a decade, and his ideas of whats acceptable are:
I have to have a roleplaying based character that won't get killed in combat, who fills a party niche, doesn't steal the spotlight, and only uses basic rules.
Oh, and he "prefers" core books. (as in he shoots down any book he doesn't have. Totally understandable, but makes my life a little more difficult.)
How long have the other characters been playing D&D? This might make an impact on the DM's decision to have you limit your style of playing. You should just confront him with the problems that you have (ie. picking on you and such), and discuss exactly what he sees wrong with the characters that you have played.
If you can't work things out, then it's time to find a new DM. They are plenty out there.
I once recruited for a game that I set up specifically to train a new player who asked to learn how to play the game. Do you know what the other players, who were also DM's did? They all threw a fit that they couldn't do certain things in order to keep a power balance involved with the new player. Even after I specifically told them, right off, how it would have to be for that game. Surprisingly, the newbie, who, even though he picked a horrifically built character, was the best of the bunch due to his lack of biases and meta-gaming.
What kind of encounters is this DM throwing your way? How long have the other players been playing? How old is everyone involved? Are they all still learning the basics, with you holding back from using uber builds? If so, frankly, I'd do something similar. I don't mind players coming at my game with great builds. Unless, I have a group of new ones, and one player who's experienced, and that one steals the show. Then I need to run two shows, and the latter being interference on the guy who isn't compromising with the rest of the group.
Sometimes you just run into "old-school" DMs who think all characters should be built around a concept with a mish-mash of feats and skill selections, to make a fairly mediocre, but "believable" character. I say "old-school" in quotes because to certain DMs it seems like that is the only right way to do things, and if you make a character that is powerful using different rules and combinations (and planning) you are somehow bastardizing their game.
Not trying to bash it, but if this is his playstyle, but it is not yours, then you would have to excuse yourself from the game or intentionally make a weaker character.
I understand the want for an even power balance in a party, but how does this make sense:
...all characters should be built around a concept with a mish-mash of feats and skill selections, to make a fairly mediocre, but "believable" character...
It seems to me most people want to be good at what they do, even if 'the best' is not a reasonable goal. Perhaps the old I-fell-into-adventuring concept would allow for this. If someone could explain the philosophy behind the playstyle quoted above, I would be honestly grateful.
Unless, I have a group of new ones, and one player who's experienced, and that one steals the show. Then I need to run two shows, and the latter being interference on the guy who isn't compromising with the rest of the group.
I could understand this, though.
It rejects the creativness and originality of the PCs if the dm only allows certain classes and such, it would be a bland game if the dm just allowed say clerics and fighters.
Well, I allow rangers too.
At one time, we had 16 players in the campaign, in three different groups.
It doesn't reject creativity to limit player choices, it just restricts out players that aren't willing to abide. Certainly, players saw my house rules and left before generating a character. But many stayed. No wizards, no sorcerers, no barbarians.
I agree, I want to see the DM post here.
Alternatively, just meet with the DM and say look, I want to work with the group, and all of my ideas have been shot down. I am coming to you with a final appeal to see if we can work this out. offer me 4 choices that you can deal with.
If you like none of the choices, then politely decline to continue play, since you and he can't come to agreement on a role you'll accept, that he'll approve of, no hard feelings.
It rejects the creativness and originality of the PCs if the dm only allows certain classes and such, it would be a bland game if the dm just allowed say clerics and fighters.
I really hate it when people believe that restricting materials or limiting certain classes and/or prestige classes somehow prevents a player from being creative or "original" (I use this term loosely since just about everything I've seen over the years is no longer original and is simply a re-hash of something old).
Creativity and originality have nothing to do with classes or prestige classes.
No barbarian allowed doesn't prevent me from playing a fighter that "rages" (as in just getting angry in a fight). There's just no mechanical benefit to doing so.
Classes ultimately gives mechanical benefits for the most part with minimal or 0 effect on personality, originality or creativity behind the PC itself. Certain prestige classes may have certain restrictions to RP but in my experience, a good chunk of that could sometimes be ignored (ie. Jade Phoenix Mage for example being limited to something like 9 of them in the whole world, Ur-Priest going adventuring with clerics, Exalted PCs/Prestige classes not acting all that exalted, etc.).
While developing your character are you trying to optimize everything and squeze out the biggest bang? I imagine everyone does it to some extent, but some people do it to an extreme.
Assuming you want to play in his game, try the following exercise:
Try developing a concept of an adventurer in your mind, with personality and some abilities. Write down your ideas on paper, with no reference to D&D code words (such as class or feats). Edit your description until you are happy with the character concept. Next, write a backstory for the character to give him some motivation and expand on his personality. When you are done, get a blank character sheet and start translating your concept into a D&D character, without using any books. Fill out his race and gender, pick the most appropriate class, and mark every skill he should have. When it comes to feats, try picking some things that aren't combat related. Finally, roll up some stats, flesh out the skills, going for variety rather than maximums, and pick the remaining feats to round out your character.
That should be a character that you can get into, roleplay memorably, and enjoy. Most of all, it will be a character that other players enjoy with you.
Good luck.
A) trying to cause a bit of trouble
B) too lazy to allow a bit of spice to his campaign
C) being very restrictive
D) Claims to be DM'ing for a while but is somewhat 'new'
I agree with what some other posters have said, I would like to get the DM's side instead of just a one sided bias.
It seems to me most people want to be good at what they do, even if 'the best' is not a reasonable goal. Perhaps the old I-fell-into-adventuring concept would allow for this. If someone could explain the philosophy behind the playstyle quoted above, I would be honestly grateful.
Well... his comment was more sarcasm than anything. As far as I could tell.
But I don't optimize my characters long numbers either. Sure, as a rogue, I want to be an awesome lockpicker and trap-disarmer. But I am also more than the sum of my parts.
The philosophy behind not optimizing everything, at least for me, is that my characater is three-dimensional. He has dreams, goals, interests, hopes, hobbies and abilities. Sometimes, it just feels right to express them mechanically.
I love castles. Even though, as a rogue, I'm probably never going to own or build one. But it interests me enough that I want to spend the time and effort to learn all about these awesome feats of structural engineering. I'll sacrifice a few ranks in UMD, for example, so I can pick up a few in "Knowledge: Architecture."
I don't personally believe in gimping my charcter into being one-eyed, one-legged and a leper in a wheelchair to consider it roleplaying. I don't need a wizard with an int of 9 to consider it roleplaying.
But the reason for not always optimizing to the point of outshining everyone else, is to give my character that third dimension. That flavor that makes the character you're playing memorable and worth playing.
Sometimes you can be an awesome lockpicker... Who carries around a copy of "The Fountainhead," and read that during camp instead of polishing his skills.
Does... that make anymore sense?
When a DM says "core only" that translates directly to, "I want players to be more interested in the adventure and roleplaying than in numbers and dice."
If DM's really wanted players "to be more interested in the adventure and roleplaying than in numbers and dice.", they'd play 2nd ED!:P
But I don't optimize my characters long numbers either. Sure, as a rogue, I want to be an awesome lockpicker and trap-disarmer. But I am also more than the sum of my parts.
The philosophy behind not optimizing everything, at least for me, is that my characater is three-dimensional. He has dreams, goals, interests, hopes, hobbies and abilities. Sometimes, it just feels right to express them mechanically.
I don't personally believe in gimping my charcter into being one-eyed, one-legged and a leper in a wheelchair to consider it roleplaying. I don't need a wizard with an int of 9 to consider it roleplaying.
Does... that make anymore sense?
Thanks for responding, Rood. Yeah, it makes sense. I more than understand where you're coming from - most of my characters have 'that quirk'. Really, I think that's a given for roleplaying as opposed to wargaming (often confused terms that I'm afraid have become synonymous - which they should not!).
The philosophy I was really after was the "gimping your character" idealism, though. Showboating I agree is for the player of weak self-regard. My question is why gimping a character would be 'right' and 'realistic', but a character who's good at what they do is not so? And everyone's run into the guy who has the over-the-top role-playing philosophy. The first thing that pops into my head when the 'I'm a great role-player' guy shows is the jaded actor who refuses to play the drab, boring cliche character when the orphaned, homeless, drug-addled, teenage prostitute isn't available. *swoon* Restricting you players' options is fine, rejecting a character that just is working in the game is acceptable, but this:
...he still called me a munchkin.
smells like a DM who has an unquestionable opinion of how the D&D game should be played & enjoyed in his head. If so, then he'd better explain his ideal game & give options for cooperation so the player can learn to enjoy the game his way.
Try something simpler.
Like a freaking single class fighter?
Oh wait, he tried that. And was called a munchkin.
When a DM says "core only" that translates directly to, "I want players to be more interested in the adventure and roleplaying than in numbers and dice."
No. Thats what you think.
This guy is obviously out to get you. If he didn't start giving the Frenzied Berserker a hard time for killing the whole party, and yet you got a hard time for some slightly advanced but not obscene characters, he is out to get you.
For the record, the splitting enchantment for bows is overpowered when combined with any ability that allows it to use precision based damage on it. If you were adding skirmish to both arrows, it's broken. Trust me, I've seen it.
You have to say it to him, straight up, that his rejection of your characters is annoying and makes you not want to play. Whether it is public or private is up to you.
[. . .] when the 'I'm a great role-player' guy shows is the jaded actor who refuses to play the drab, boring cliche character when the orphaned, homeless, drug-addled, teenage prostitute isn't available. *swoon*
These people bother me, too.
Let's take a very common character in theater, and see how many different ways the cliche can be played out. Hamlet's the first example that springs to mind.
Mel Gibson
MacLiammoir (from Welles' 1934)
Ethan Hawke
Brannaugh
All the same freakin' Hamlet. I don't even recall any major edits or revisions to the script in these. A couple of them are played fairly traditionally, but each is very distinct in their own right.
And people still BEG to be Hamlet.
The same exact thing can be done with the Elven Ranger and Dwarven Fighter and Halfling Rogue. Really.
If you think you need splatbooks and character optimization to make a character more in-depth, you fail at being creative. If you think you need to play the most emotionally-crippled, physically-cripppled and attention-whoring weakling to make your character more realistic, you fail at being creative.
Two ends of the same spectrum, really.
(A quick aside... It seems Orson Welles did a stage production of "Julius Ceasar" using a Nazi motif. I just found some pictures from a '37 production. That's... pretty novel, actually.)
House has the "Lame" flaw, and he's still pretty freaking optimized. Isaac Mendez was a drug addict, but his painting skill was second to none (except Alex Ross and DiTerlizzi). Adrian Monk is the most optimized inquisitor ever, but he had to burn a feat and get a cohort to just function inside the party...
People who think they have to gimp themselves in the name of "roleplaying" are just fooling themselves. People who think they need supplemental material to make their character more exciting are just foolish.
Core-only games are not bad. Nor do they restrict anyone's creativity.
After Id's statement... I felt the need to be a bit more illustrative with my points. Sorry.
If you think you need splatbooks and character optimization to make a character more in-depth, you fail at being creative. If you think you need to play the most emotionally-crippled, physically-cripppled and attention-whoring weakling to make your character more realistic, you fail at being creative.
-------------------------
People who think they have to gimp themselves in the name of "roleplaying" are just fooling themselves. People who think they need supplemental material to make their character more exciting are just foolish.
Core-only games are not bad. Nor do they restrict anyone's creativity.
After Id's statement... I felt the need to be a bit more illustrative with my points. Sorry.
I agree about the Core-Only isn't ''fun-bane'' part, but I don't think anybody brought the idea that splatbooks were needed to make ''deep'' characters. I believe it rather stimulates the mind by expanding the mechanics available.
P.S: My first comment(on the first page) was a joke. I believe you should simply discuss with the DM about what is ''Core'' to his game table.
Hmmm well you do realize, Lord Varos, that it is the DM's job to run a game, not pick on someone. The player may choose any class/race he/she desires.
This being truth, as I said earlier, the DM is throwing his weight around, and is too impatient to work with die rolls, complicated spells and whatnot.
This game is run by DICE ROLLS, BOOKS, PAPER, PENCILS, DMS, IMAGINATIONS, AND COMPLEX THINGS. If the DM doesn't have time for these kind of things, said person whould not be in such possition. Thus, impeachment is called for or quitting that particular group may be an option. If he is being like this because you are a lower level than the others, or because he is not an ally in real life, do something to make him respect you in the D&D world. Read up on the rules and such, level up, and thwart him if he tries to scam you out of rewards and the like. (Now yes, the DM does basically rule the world...) But that doesn't mean they can't be wrong.
The DM (emphasis mine above) is the Referee, the Adjudicator, and in many cases the creator of the game. Players are NOT entitled to play whatever they want, they are entitled to play what they want that fits into the DMs game. Those that object need to go away and DM for themselves - which is actually my advice to the OP: if you feel he has it in for you, or that he is being unreasonable, show him how it should be done. If the other players prefer your game to his, cool. If not, you know that he must have been doing something right that you don't get.
Remember, if a player is unhappy, your game is down one player. If the DM is unhappy, you don't HAVE a game.
OK, roll up a horse.
I know it's a little late in the thread to comment on this, but you sir, are hillarious. I literally lol'd.
The DM (emphasis mine above) is the Referee, the Adjudicator, and in many cases the creator of the game. Players are NOT entitled to play whatever they want, they are entitled to play what they want that fits into the DMs game. Those that object need to go away and DM for themselves - which is actually my advice to the OP: if you feel he has it in for you, or that he is being unreasonable, show him how it should be done. If the other players prefer your game to his, cool. If not, you know that he must have been doing something right that you don't get.
Remember, if a player is unhappy, your game is down one player. If the DM is unhappy, you don't HAVE a game.
Please keep in mind, my other posts.
No problem. Invite him here and let us hear his side. I double-dog-dare you!:P
nytemare3701 have you done this yet?
I know it's a little late in the thread to comment on this, but you sir, are hillarious. I literally lol'd.
That makes two of us.
Anyway, nytemare3701, that game sounds really frustrating. Make a Sorcerer and play it like a superhero. That's my advice.
I'm going to go absolutely hog-wild with my response and hold nothing back:
Maybe, just maybe, you should try making a character that isn't as powerful or confusing as the ones you made before? From the sound of it, he could be exactly right. A gnome illusionist can pull off some very powerful feats of magic and shoot a whole adventure to hell. And I can imagine the way he'd feel if his combats were interrupted by your Ranger/Scout rolling a hundred dice and adding them and recounting and whatnot.
Try something simpler. Make your character unique in ways that aren't visible on the stat sheet.
Really? I never realized the mental strain that managing a Fighter 10 puts on a DM.
So why don't you simply ask him what it is (though you likely already know)?
Or, just ask him to make your character. Just play whatever he comes up with.
Really? I never realized the mental strain that managing a Fighter 10 puts on a DM.
Depends on what kind of fighter. If it's the "Weapon Focus to Specialization, etc" fighter who does nothing but attack, it's simple. But if you build a complex fighter that aims for battlefield control, it's a lot of numbers to keep track of.
Depends on what kind of fighter. If it's the "Weapon Focus to Specialization, etc" fighter who does nothing but attack, it's simple. But if you build a complex fighter that aims for battlefield control, it's a lot of numbers to keep track of.
Yet also is more fun for the player than standing there every round rolling a d20.
If your DMs rejecting a straight up fighter, then yes, there is some problem between you.
So why don't you simply ask him what it is (though you likely already know)?
Or, just ask him to make your character. Just play whatever he comes up with.
but if the DM does such a thing, you may end up with a very pathetic player. He has something against you, isn't willing to let even the basics work. Do you really want to keep starting and restarting constantly? you have tried THREE different characters already.
- It is a DM's right to restrict his campaign regarding which classes, feats, supplements, etc. he will allow.
- It is the DM's responsibility to inform the players BEFOREHAND what those restrictions are and live with the consequences otherwise.
- It is the players right to disagree with the restrictions the DM proposes for his campaign
- It should be understood by both DM and player that they may have to negotiate on the above points to arrive at a consensus which both can live with.
- It is the players responsibilty to SHUT UP once he has agreed to play the game under the restrictions set forth by the DM.
- It is the DM's responsibility to accept that he loses. A lot. REPEATEDLY. That is his job - to have his NPC's and monsters routinely get their asses kicked by overpowered and obnoxious PC's. If the DM can't accept that he's got no business WHATSOEVER being behind the shield.
- Corallary to above - if there is an out-of-control or overpowered PC in the game it's the DM's FAULT/RESPONSIBILITY first and foremost, NOT THE PLAYER for enabling it to come into existence. When such situations arise it is the RESPONSIBILTY of both parties to communicate with each other to reach an acceptible solution - whether that be adjustements to existing characters or an all new PC. In any case, "I don't like it - pick something else" is hardly sufficient response from the DM in this regard. The DM needs to work WITH the players, not merely be the boss of them.
When a player runs into this kind of situation - a DM who seems to have it in for them - the first and ONLY appropriate response is to sit down with the DM and say, "I want to play an acceptible character for your game. I also want to enjoy that character. You need to provide for ALL your players, up front, the limitations on what we can create and after that you need to LET US PLAY the characters that result unless we are being intentionally disruptive. This is not disrespect of you, nor an imposition upon you - it is your job as DM." If the DM does not respond appropriately you have two choices - to accept the DM's terms anyway (and all that goes with that), or to state quite simply, "I cannot be a player in this game under those terms. Maybe some other time," and find another game. END OF STORY.
When a DM says "core only" that translates directly to, "I want players to be more interested in the adventure and roleplaying than in numbers and dice."
Or it could mean "I'm afraid of giving my players power and am under the delusion that Core is balanced."
Or it could mean "I'm tired of dealing with splat-books and would like to get back to basics for a while."
Or it could mean "I'm afraid of giving my players power and am under the delusion that Core is balanced." These DM's have probably never set foot on the boards. Get them to read the boards. If they refuse, put them to the torch
Or it could mean "I'm tired of dealing with splat-books and would like to get back to basics for a while." Totally understandable, but I prefer to just ban prestige classes as appropriate. Most splat book base classes are pretty balanced. Some aren't though, and those get banned. If a class is underpowered, I try to strengthen it at it's nitch.
My reply in bold
I have to have a roleplaying based character that won't get killed in combat, who fills a party niche, doesn't steal the spotlight, and only uses basic rules. Oh, and he "prefers" core books. (as in he shoots down any book he doesn't have.
Play a Cleric?
Slap him with a large trout, then leave with your dignity intact.
Fixed.
Also, core is considerably less balanced than core + other stuff.
Adding expansion materials to the core is like adding perpendicular arms to a balance beam - any existing imbalance will still be there, compounded by any new imbalances along the new arms. You have to have a balanced core before you can balance it in expansion.
Or it could mean "I'm afraid of giving my players power and am under the delusion that Core is balanced."
Well, at least he's not under the more ridiculous delusion that splatbooks are balanced.
I'm going to second what's already been said. Core-only still has plenty of options and can allow for a very wide variety of character concepts. (I still haven't heard that your fighter character was a core-only fighter - simply single classed. There's a big difference there.)
The core rules, including the base three books, is about a thousand pages of rules for the DM to be familiar with - and the DM needs to be completely familiar with everything in his campaign. Add a couple dozen splatbooks to that array and you've increased the burden of knowledge by about an order of magnitude.
I suspect the DM feels the same way about you - "What does this player have against me? Why does he keep trying to make my job harder?"
In core you have your absolutely broken stuff (and quite a lot of it). We'll call this '99'. Examples include infinite wish loops, polymorph, and so forth.
Then you have your really high end stuff. We'll call this '85'. This is where your basic full casters are.
Then there's your poorly conceived stuff. Let's call this '30'. Here's where your core martial guys are.
Notice the massive disparity and that this is on a scale of 1-100.
The stuff in other books tends to be all over the place. To illustrate this, roll a percentile die. Notice that it is quite easy to roll above a 30, but kinda hard to go over 85, and going over 99 doesn't happen that often.
What does all this mean? It means that a lot more stuff in non core books acts to improve the weak classes, to get them closer to that balanced baseline whereas very little improves upon what already kicks ass. There is however a lot of weaker alternatives to said power classes. Beguiler/dread necromancer/warmage are all significantly inferior to a Wizard, or a Sorcerer for that matter for example. The PHB2 Shapeshift variant is vastly inferior to Wild Shape and Animal Companion, which the core druid would get.
Course it's possible something will end up even weaker than weak, see CW Samurai and Hexblade for examples.
Therefore, non core stuff improves the strong stuff a little, but the weak stuff by a lot. As it acts to close the gap it acts to increase balance level by reducing the disparity in effectiveness.
And before you counter with anything along the lines of 'roleplaying'... anything can do that. Including a blind, paraplegic commoner. The moment you move from 'shooting the breeze at the tavern' to 'doing anything else', 'not sucking at it' becomes a factor. Therefore, being competent in your chosen field is a requirement. Good luck even finding 18-19 worthwhile feats for a fighter to take without looking at a non core book. Also, don't retort with taking competence to mean being a DvR 21 overgod at it as some sort of misplaced anti cheese bash.
Then there's your poorly conceived stuff. Let's call this '30'. Here's where your core martial guys are.
And your core martial guys stay there, while your splatbook martial guys go every which other way.
If your DM is silly enough to allow abuse of the "99" material, it's still going to be abused. Anything built from the core will stay there; tons of NPCs, for example, and monsters, and any PCs generated without the aid of the splatbooks - for that matter, any PCs generated by the majority of players who aren't familiar with how to really optimize characters in 3/3.5, Unless you actually revise existing material, you cannot balance an unbalanced system.
In addition, we have new "clearly broken" ("99" as you say) material, some simply included, some resulting from combinations that were never playtested. Combinatorics dictate that an ever-decreasing fraction of combinations from the splatbooks have been examined prior to publication even if WOTC does the same amount of testing... and I think it's fairly well given that the splatbooks have a shorter testing cycle than the core books did.
Here's the problem, phrased another way: The system can be gamed, creating a wide disparity between certain optimal character types and less optimal character types.
The solution of adding more ways to game the system does not fix the problem; it simply makes the problem more endemic, and the disparity between optimized and non-optimized characters grows wider.
Not allowing combinations that you think break the system as a DM is a viable solution.
The moment you move from 'shooting the breeze at the tavern' to 'doing anything else', 'not sucking at it' becomes a factor.
I call ******** on your implication. "Not sucking" is not the same as "designing the character around the maximum possible power mechanic."
Nobody is obliged to mechanically optimize their character to the utmost. It suffices that they be good enough to handle appropriate challenges in their field. If I want to play a heroic warrior of yore, it is not necessary that he have exactly optimal skill selection; it is quite good enough that he can slay the ogre, rescue the maiden, and inspire the rebel army to victory against the tyrannical necromancer-lord.
So what if it turned out that getting three Toughness feats at first level wasn't the best idea in the long run? So what if he got Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Feather Duster after acquiring an enchanted Duster of Doom, which he lost several level later, making the feat useless? As long as he perseveres successfully and keeps meeting the challenges one way or another, I can still play him as a great warrior.
As you point out, roleplaying has absolutely nothing to do with power level. You can play a blind paralyzed commoner and have fun - and that's the point of the game, isn't it? Roleplaying fun?
nytemare3701 have you done this yet?
He didn't and he's not going to, Daniel. No one ever does.
He didn't and he's not going to, Daniel. No one ever does.
I am the DM in question.
Not really
I am the DM in question.
Not really
I was just about to ask you a bevy of questions when I read the hidden text... shame on you for muddying the waters.
I stand by my original claim. Nytemare won't invite his DM because no one ever does. Players come here to rant and receive moral support... they don't want *gasp* actual answers.
I was just about to ask you a bevy of questions when I read the hidden text... shame on you for muddying the waters.
I stand by my original claim. Nytemare won't invite his DM because no one ever does. Players come here to rant and receive moral support... they don't want *gasp* actual answers.
Mostly you are right. :P One reason why I ask twice. If they ignore me twice then we pretty much know they fit into "Players come here to rant and receive moral support..":P :D
Ok, Clem-Da-Squig, would you care to explain more fully? Please.
Thanks for dropping by. I love to hear both sides.
You are kidding right?
As you point out, roleplaying has absolutely nothing to do with power level. You can play a blind paralyzed commoner and have fun - and that's the point of the game, isn't it? Roleplaying fun?
There is also more to D&D than "roleplaying". There is also "role-fulfilling".
Now of course there is going to be situations where your character is less useful, where his main abilities are nullified or useless, but any base class in the PHB, made in an even mediocre way, should find themselves useful if not needed often enough.
But if you decide to make a character that is never useful cause you think it is "good roleplaying" or "might be interesting to play" then you can only expect your comrades to do what would be in character for them. Ditch you at the next possible place.
Playing a wizard with 10 int may seem like an interesting concept in your head "Well he's not very intelligent, which makes life hard for him as a wizard, which could lead to some incredible drama!" Although it might make a funny TV show or cute kids story or even a great novel, this is not something you play D&D with. Your adventuring buddies with 14s, 15s, 16s and 18s in the right stats will all kill your enemies, and see you casting..... acid splash for 1d3. At 3rd level. Then even if you invest a point into your int at 4th, you still are casting only first level spells up until you get an int boosting item. During all this time any spell with a saving throw is much easier to resist than normal, and your spells often fail because of it. I guarantee your friends will be mad at you this whole time, YOU not your character and they WILL ditch you, or force you to make a new character or the DM will intervene.
Now this is not to say your character can't have a weakness. Raistlin Majere had what, 6 constitution? Hardly optimized. Yet I would consider him a playable character. Because he casts spells, and casts them well. That is role-fulfillment.
A DM is well within his rights to veto any character or concept which does not fit his game,
I'll go further than that: any participant in the game is free to veto anything at all by leaving the game. Of course, when that participant is the DM it puts a pretty severe crimp in things.
There is also more to D&D than "roleplaying". There is also "role-fulfilling".
I would argue that if you are role-playing successfully your role fulfillment is a part of this.
Furthermore, anyone not skilled at optimization needing to keep up with optimizers need only play a Cleric, Druid, or Wizard.
Published NPCs and most monsters in the MMI are not worth their CR at best and are literally unusable at worst either way. Statistical errors making them an illegal build being a good example of the latter sort. Alertness and Toughness spam is a fair bit of the former.
Letting the '30's become '50's or '60's helps. Doing things that make the '85's less also helps. If you could just get the '30's up to at least '75's, even better.
I don't think you even read my entire post though.
Therefore, being competent in your chosen field is a requirement. Good luck even finding 18-19 worthwhile feats for a fighter to take without looking at a non core book. Also, don't retort with taking competence to mean being a DvR 21 overgod at it as some sort of misplaced anti cheese bash.
Let's see... arguing only competence is required as if you were arguing against me? Nope, didn't read my post. Going and doing exactly what I said not to and falsely assuming I meant super optimized perfection instead of competence? Yeah, you did that too.
I wonder though why he's actively anti optimizing. It'd be like an accountant refusing to use macros in their spreadsheets. Technically possible, but considerably less productive.
Very true... what do you mean by the first part of your response... are you being sarcastic or are you siding with my views?... It is a tad hard to tell on forums and text based conversations.
He's being sarcastic. Allowing a player to play anything he wants, regardless of its effect on the game or the DM is, at best and politest, foolish, and the mindset of "I'm allowed to play anything, dont oppress my creativity, man!" is both immature and selfish. And not usually very imaginative, either.
Ok, Clem-Da-Squig, would you care to explain more fully? Please.
Thanks for dropping by. I love to hear both sides.
You're kidding, right Daniel? Did you read the hidden text?
You're kidding, right Daniel? Did you read the hidden text?
Yes, it said "Not really" which I had to assume was a reply to " My DM has something against me..." otherwise there's a problem. Apparently, after reading Clem's other reply, he was fibbing.
Yes, it said "Not really" which I had to assume was a reply to " My DM has something against me..." otherwise there's a problem. Apparently, after reading Clem's other reply, he was fibbing.
Yes I was jokeing/lying.:D
Or was I?
My reply in bold
Totally missed my point, which was that there exist multiple reasons to run a Core-only game (and that some of those reasons are more valid than others).
Your adventuring buddies with 14s, 15s, 16s and 18s in the right stats will all kill your enemies, and see you casting..... acid splash for 1d3. At 3rd level. Then even if you invest a point into your int at 4th, you still are casting only first level spells up until you get an int boosting item. During all this time any spell with a saving throw is much easier to resist than normal, and your spells often fail because of it. I guarantee your friends will be mad at you this whole time, YOU not your character and they WILL ditch you, or force you to make a new character or the DM will intervene.
This illustrates a situation wherein one player wants to play for fun and several players want to play to win. In this situation, the for fun character had better be damned interesting. He has a greater challenge than the players whos only job is to roll dice. He may have wisdom or charisma to compensate in other ways as an advisor or figurehead. It's a fair bet that all of his companions have used charisma as a dump stat. He could manage their resources, such as maps, rations, tools, and animals.
I'll grant that immature players will resent the for fun player's character choice and want to penalize him, such as withholding reward share, kicking him out of the group, or suiciding him. It's not a given though.
In my latest game we had a pacifist magician who only wanted to perform non-lethal magic, and planned to eventually have metamagic to turn all damage into Subdual damage (if that's even legal). She was a thorn in my (let God sort em out) rogue's side, and they occasionally came to blows, but it was a good thing. It was fun.
This illustrates a situation wherein one player wants to play for fun and several players want to play to win.
If by "want to win" you mean "want to not die", then yeah.
Chaos
*swirls*
I brought in a Lvl 1 sorcerer, core books, and used my feats on flavor stuff. I used all my starting cash on Skill+tools so I can be a street performer. Everything went well until a battle broke out and I was useless...
Daniel wants me to bring my DM here? That's funny. I've tried to get him to read the forums forever, at least the Errata or FAQs. He's too busy and I respect that, as he runs the daytime portion of the Boys and Girls Club.
I confess! I do get rather hostile when my characters are nixed.
I came to the game expecting others to know the rules and play by them. I found out fast that I could not assume anything in the core rules would be followed. (grapple, trip, etc).
The DM dropped a few houserule bombs, and I freaked out. Magic weapons ended up costing about 3x the norm, and it was a little too much to handle out of the blue. as I said, I get a little hostile when my characters get nixed.
In his defense, He RUNS A B&GC, it's a stressful job that doesn't give him much time for us D&Ders. Plus, he's used to playing with younger kids, ones that never question anything he says about the rules(the other group is 9-13 year olds).
WAY too much opposition on both sides of the DM screen. One of the other players had a similar experience and is leaving to play with me in another campaign.
My turn to get back behind the DM screen
In short: all will be well, thanks everyone.
BUT!!!
We don't know that. As many people have pointed out, there could be any number of reasons for what he does. The best course of action would probably be:
1) Ask him what's allowed.
2) Ask him why the others weren't allowed.
3) Invite him here so he can tell us himself (if you already did, I apologize: I only read the first page).
4) Look at yourself. You know how the game went. Were you far more powerful than the others? Were you hogging the spotlight? Could you pull off any "game-breaking" combos? Be honest with yourself.
5) Go start your own game, and allow the players more freedom. Be nice about this. As you've said, you're still going to have to see this guy a lot in the future.
6) Some combination of the above.
-Count Dravda