Why? Because everyone else cant make a proper character to save their life.
That may sound kind of arrogant, but their 3 level 7 characters cant kill a CR 4 alone, and because my Wizard can he's "Broken". So we recently started a new campaign, the DM told me I "HAD TO PLAY A FIGHTER." because my "CASTERS ARE BROKEN", like doing 28 damage with a fireball at level 7 is broken. I played a fighter last campaign, I want a bit of a change but he's being pretty adamant on his decision. We're good friends and have been gaming for a few years together, so I can't just decide to quit, anyone got any advice? This is to the point where he wont let me play a rogue, or a bard, or a paladin, or a ranger, or a sorcerer, or a cleric, or any arcane caster, or even a god-damned barbarian.
Help!
Well long story short, In my gaming group I've been known as a power-gamer.
Why? Because everyone else cant make a proper character to save their life.
Have you considered helping them make better characters? It's something to consider.
As far as your DM, why not show him what broken actually looks like (not in game, just with example builds and whatnot)? Also, see if he'll work with you on a character so it winds up interesting for you but not broken in his opinion. If he still refuses to let you play anything other than a fighter, I'd walk away.
t~
Have you considered helping them make better characters? It's something to consider.
As far as your DM, why not show him what broken actually looks like (not in game, just with example builds and whatnot)? Also, see if he'll work with you on a character so it winds up interesting for you but not broken in his opinion. If he still refuses to let you play anything other than a fighter, I'd walk away.
t~
you make some good points, but these guys are stubborn in their characters, though I'll definitely work with him on a character, I'll show him pun-pun and see his expression.. :D
you make some good points, but these guys are stubborn in their characters, though I'll definitely work with him on a character, I'll show him pun-pun and see his expression.. :D
Some ways to overcome resistance to optimization:
- Avoid telling people what to play. People who say things like "you need to play a caster because non-casters suck" are the people who inspire ill-will towards any form of optimization.
- Ask people what they want their character to be able to do, and then help them be effective doing what they want to do. In cases where this is impossible, (briefly) explain the difficulties and see if the person is willing to compromise somewhere.
- Don't over-optimize. You aren't trying to break the game; you're just trying to get the characters to where they are actually capable of doing what their players claim they are capable of doing.
t~
However, ruling out the option of abstaining from play, I have only one suggestion: negotiate. Make concessions if you need to, but my point is that you know your friends a lot better than any of us do. Anyone on these boards is hardly qualified to tell you how to deal with these people.
As for me, if I were in your shoes, I would demand fairness as a condition of my presence in the game. If my class is dictated by the DM before the campaign even starts, every other player's character must be equally dictated. Hopefully, the DM will see how ridiculous that is, and will concede his position, because that would be a terrible idea. I used to put up with DM BS like that, but not anymore.
Because everyone else cant make a proper character to save their life.
By proper I assume you mean to your own mechanical standards....
Wich aren't really relevant if their having fun with the characters they made.
So you're forced to play a fighter, the others won't make characters how you'd like them to, and you can't/won't/don't want to quit. Now what do you do???
Mechanicaly you either make the best damned fighter you can, or you build "down" to the play style of the group.
Either way though, remember, there's more to your character than just the stats (or at least there should be). Race, personality, backstory, etc etc etc. What can you do that'll ensure this character is still talked about years from now?
I'd say your DM is in for a real shock. If he thinks a wizard whose fireball does 28 damage at level 7 is broken....
I'm pretty sure you can come up with a fighter of the same level who does at least that much damage every round, without the downside of running out of spells like the wizard. And if the DM is foolish enough to insist on it, I think you owe it to him.
I'm normally opposed to 'power-gaming' but in this case, I think he's asking for it. Telling you what class to play is too obnoxious to let pass. So if you're stuck with playing a fighter, play the best fighter you possibly can.
And find a really broken prestige class, too.
PtM
I don't agree with the way your DM came to this decision. It should have been something discussed, or at least a request. But do try to look at it from his point of view. If the rest of the party has trouble with a particular CR, yet you can single handedly take it out. Then something is amiss. Work with your party. You are supposed to be a team, help them use tactics to overcome tougher enemies.
As a fighter, see if your DM will allow you a certain amount of "Monster Lore" for a skill. This, from an actual roleplaying standpoint will give you justification to bark out orders on weak spots.
This is 3.5, right?
Yes. If it were 4ed, he would say "Your Fighter is too broken! You have to play the Wizard!"
Well long story short, In my gaming group I've been known as a power-gamer.
Why? Because everyone else cant make a proper character to save their life.
The real problem with powergamers is not a powerful character. A DM can easily compensate for a powerful group, counter the parties startegies etc. In fact some find it easier to DM for a group of powerfulk characters because then they don't have to worry abouttoning encounters down. (it's easier to balance an encounter by making it tougher then it is to make it weaker)
The problem with "powergamers" comes when only one PC is doing it. And they need not be powergaming, or intending upon powergaming. Simply making the obvious and sensible choices are all that may be needed. The real issue is that they are the only one that is doing so.
And the problem which the DM faces is in balancing the game for a group that is comprised of common or below average PCs with that one well made PC.
Yes they are too weak, but the issue is still the same, your PCs are always too strong when compared to the group. Not your fault maybe.
Several reasons are for this on the part of the pther players, they a: Don't fully understand the rules whereas you do, and b: they are focusing their characters on non-combative concepts (ie a fighter who places his highest stat into Charisma instead of Consititution because he wants his fighter to be suave and handsome) This can be especially true if the group is more into roleplaying rather then combat (in which case you might be trying to make incompatible PCs)
Some ways of fixing this for you are:
-Select a non-combative character concept, choosing feats that allow you to do stuff other then fight (such as non combat related feats)
-Help the other players to create their characters so they aren't so weak, and help them when they level up to select the right feats etc.
I second the suggestion that you offer some advice (if they want it) to the other players as long as you don't do it in a way that seems belittling or condescending (avoiding words like 'idiot', 'dumb-ass', etc. will help;) jk). Of course, if they're having fun with those characters and have no problem with you, then the DM needs to take a chill pill.
There's a certain amount of satisfaction to be gained in creating the best possible character within certain challenging limitations. Additionally, if presented in a well-thought out manner to the DM, explaining how you want to work WITH the group, not against it while at the same time keeping the game fun and challenging for yourself might lead the DM to be more lenient about which class you could play.
Aside from that; my advice is play the fighter, but don't play the ROLE of a fighter. Stat it us as whatever other class you want to be.... or something that's optimized to look like another class! Like feats for unarmed combat to make it look like a monk (Improved Unarm, WF unarmed, etc), or play an archer!
Actually, get into Complete Warrior and take Zen Archery. Make your primary stats Wis/Con. Then the only thing you'll be able to do is use archery! You can stay at a distance and let these unoptimized characters get beaten to a pulp. When they die, you can point out better ways to make their characters. At the very least, the DM will then see how much your party is better off with you optimizing your characters, because it keeps the party alive.
Several times, I have looked at a player or players and told them what to play. Usually there is a bit of grumbling, until I say the magic words "Just trust me." They then nod and make the character I asked them to. Every time I have done this the players tell me it is / was one of their favourite games. Their eyes practically light up now when I tell them what to make because they know they'll enjoy it. To the point where the last campaign I started, I told them to just make what ever they wanted and the responce was "Oh.., uh... ok." with a look of defeat on their faces. But they're still having fun, so that is a plus.
But I do whole heartedly understand why someone would be miffed being told what to play only out of spite. That is hardly cool. Also, if that DM is upset about a Wizard doing 27 damage at seventh level, it is pretty clear that that DM has never encountered even a mediocrely built Fighter of first level...
I'm normally opposed to 'power-gaming' but in this case, I think he's asking for it. Telling you what class to play is too obnoxious to let pass. So if you're stuck with playing a fighter, play the best fighter you possibly can.
PtM
I agree and I think a Spiked Chain Fighter might be in order. But also like other people have said you could looking into differently built fighters like the cha based disablers, int based expertise builds, or the jack of all weapons ones. Even the unarmed fighter (Improved Unarmed Strike, Superior Unarmed Strike, Improved Disarm, Improved Trip) can be amusing.
Although I understand why some people are complaining about being told what to play, and I agree with being miffed about it from this stand point, I have to say I disagree with the fact that it is unfair or something something if the DM tells you wnat to play.
Several times, I have looked at a player or players and told them what to play. Usually there is a bit of grumbling, until I say the magic words "Just trust me." They then nod and make the character I asked them to. Every time I have done this the players tell me it is / was one of their favourite games. Their eyes practically light up now when I tell them what to make because they know they'll enjoy it. To the point where the last campaign I started, I told them to just make what ever they wanted and the responce was "Oh.., uh... ok." with a look of defeat on their faces. But they're still having fun, so that is a plus.
But I do whole heartedly understand why someone would be miffed being told what to play only out of spite. That is hardly cool. Also, if that DM is upset about a Wizard doing 27 damage at seventh level, it is pretty clear that that DM has never encountered even a mediocrely built Fighter of first level...
Tell me then, what would you do if a new player of yours had a genuinely miserable time because they were being made to play something that they didn't enjoy?
This is the viewpoint people are getting at. It is not fun to play something you have no desire to play, or may find genuinely frustrating to play, when you know that you would have had fun with something else.
It's all well and good if it 'Works out', but that doesn't mean it is a good thing. A lot of painful things 'Work out' in the end, and are still painful experiences.
Not trying to be rude here, but I've played in games where our classes were dictated to us. They were awful every time.
Tell me then, what would you do if a new player of yours had a genuinely miserable time because they were being made to play something that they didn't enjoy?
Well, I will tell you then. New players are not ever part of those games. Those are the "advanced" games, where I don't want to have to explain anything ruleswise at all ever. I have zero problemme with helping new players, and indeed I am the default DM wneh we get new players, because I am the one that can best deal with running and answering tedious questions I've answered a thousand times with a smile on my face. But those games are for the players that have been playing with me for at least about a decade.
This is the viewpoint people are getting at. It is not fun to play something you have no desire to play, or may find genuinely frustrating to play, when you know that you would have had fun with something else.
I also know my players very well. I know what kind of things they will and will not want to play. And honestly, none of them whine about playing something they might not have otherwise played. It usually works out the other way around. They usually end up really liking a class they never gave half a thought to before. They also know I would never deliberately lead them into something they would not enjoy.
It's all well and good if it 'Works out', but that doesn't mean it is a good thing. A lot of painful things 'Work out' in the end, and are still painful experiences.
Different views on gaming I suppose.
Not trying to be rude here, but I've played in games where our classes were dictated to us. They were awful every time.
Well, obviously the DM either didn't have a good reason for her/his class dictation, or s/he was just not a good DM. Of course, I am not trying to be rude.
Help!
Next time you see your DM do the following:
On one side:
Character sheet, your dice, a mini for your character, and a pencil.
Other side:
A piece of paper with your phone number.
Tell him to give you a call when he wants you playing in his game and until then to go ahead and make/run your character for you so you can go do something fun.
OK, now that I've gotten some sarcasm out there, let's move on.
First question: Do you go out of your way to build "game breaking" characters that disrupt play? Based on your fireball comment, I'm guessing that isn't the case but I still need to ask. (If that's your DM's idea of broken, how does he handle any spellcaster ever?)
I think you need to have a long talk with your DM. I think you need to ask what exactly he expects out of his players. You have a track record of building characters that are an order or magnitude or two above the rest of the party in power and it's unlikely, barring the DM or one of the other players making your character and all leveling choices, that you will end up with a character that he considers acceptable. And even with someone else building the character, you can probably use rules knowledge to push the limits of the game so that might not even be an option.
Another thing to do is ask the other players how they feel about your characters. Does anyone else besides the DM have an issue with your characters? Do they know that you are frustrated with them sometimes about their lack of game knowledge, tactics, and character building?
Even with a poorly built character the fight should not have been difficult. This problem seems to be more with them not knowing how to play the game.
1. Dont agree to the fighter nonsense.
2. Tell them what they did wrong tactically--> Say it nicely
3. You might want to DM, since you seem to have the most knowledge.
4. Invite them here so we can tell them they are doing it wrong.
5. Pray that if they come that some of the more diplomatic posters correct them.
Are you upset because he's restricting you, or because you are restricted to fighter in particular? If you're just upset that he's hindering your optimization, I'd suggest getting over it; you can have fun once in a while as a different class. One that uses its base attack bonus, for example.
If you simply don't like fighters but are glad to play another non-caster class, just negotiate it with him. Barbarians can be fun, and I bet you Knights can be interesting too. Check his opinion of the Tome of Battle, perhaps. Assuming you're willing to use pseudo-4th Edition classes such as they.
I also know my players very well. I know what kind of things they will and will not want to play. And honestly, none of them whine about playing something they might not have otherwise played. It usually works out the other way around. They usually end up really liking a class they never gave half a thought to before. They also know I would never deliberately lead them into something they would not enjoy.
So you're trying to dictate your limited, personal, and extremely contextual experience as a broad generality that should be accepted everywhere?
I'm sorry, but this just reeks of contention- I understand getting to know a group and being able to tell the big stupid fighter that he might enjoy playing a fighter rather then running the fifth failure of a wizard- we've got a couple of those in our 3.5 group. But that's extremely different from people who are entrenched in their playtypes, and especially ones who are experienced with the game. Sure, you can have fun with a 'forced' character, but ultimately, if it's not the character you want to run, there's something going wrong.
This situation has all the hallmarks of all the hallmarks of this sort of situation- a DM is forcing a player into running something that he vehemently does not wish to run. It's not because the DM 'knows' the player will enjoy it, or that the campaign is so delicately balanced that the DM can't account for even the minutest amount of change, it's because the DM isn't willing to make the effort to bring the other players up- so in order to balance he needs to bring the guy who's actually 'okay' down.
I'll admit, it happens. I'm 'that guy' in one of our campaigns, though through a lot of work and effort, I've managed to bring the other players into a reasonable understanding of the game- and two in particular right up to 'semi-optimized' status, where they'll actually be proactive and look to make their characters actually capable of doing what they want.
@Op
If you can work to bring the other players up- do so. If you can get your DM to help, that's great, but strictly speaking it's not actually needed. The biggest issue that you're having is being forced to run a fighter, and while the option for running the cheesiest fighter ever is still on the table (albiet a harsh option), I personally would suggest some more negociating with the DM. And possible talking about not participating in this game.
Given that you have a lot of history together, if you reasonably outline what it is he 'appears' to be doing, and your understanding of the whole situation, and tell him quite frankly, that you don't think you'll be able to participate in a game with such a slanted perspective. Offer to help the other players- and do so irregardless of whether he joins in or not.
Other then that, there's really not much you can do. A spiked chain fighter will result in one of two real outcomes. The first is the sucky outcome, where your DM brands you an unrepentant power gamer, and ejects you from the game. The second is the one you're aiming for, where the DM, massive hyppocrite that he is, goes "oh, it wasn't the caster that was broken, it was that this character was actually designed by someone with who hands and a brain"
The problem, of course, is getting that latter decision, because based on his previous actions, it seems much more likely he'll go with the first. But if you've already broached your problems to him, including 'opting out' and then 'joining under duress' then it makes the inevitable realization of the latter option far likelier to happen. With a couple nudges, anyways.
That said, show him punpun. Show him the theoretical optimization archives. Tell him, strictly, that such things are entirely within the rules, but realistically are never intended to be played.
Moreover, talk character design. He seems like a storyteller, rather then a thinker- they're at 90 degree angles from one another on the spectrum, and it shows. Approach things from a fluff down perspective, rather then mechanics up. Rather then saying "I can do this, and this, and take this feat, and this weapon, and it'll let me be a ******* bolt of lighting." approach it from the initial desire to be a ******* bolt of lightning. "I have a character, and I want him to be a bolt of lightning when he attacks. Backstory backstory blah blah blah, he's going to be pretty powerful, but that's because it's the only way I can make him a *******ed bolt of lightning"
Investment in story really helps pad the coffers when dealing with storytellers, and having a defined concept should allow you some leeway from the 'play a fighter ALL FIGHTER ALL THE TIME'
Right now he sees you as a power gamer, but that's not your fault. Fortunately, there are things you can do that should repair that reputation.
I wish you well on your endevour.
Why is it you don't want to play a fighter? Melee classes can be some of the funnest. Especially if you've been playing a wizard for long enough a time.
Are you upset because he's restricting you, or because you are restricted to fighter in particular? If you're just upset that he's hindering your optimization, I'd suggest getting over it; you can have fun once in a while as a different class. One that uses its base attack bonus, for example.
If you simply don't like fighters but are glad to play another non-caster class, just negotiate it with him. Barbarians can be fun, and I bet you Knights can be interesting too. Check his opinion of the Tome of Battle, perhaps. Assuming you're willing to use pseudo-4th Edition classes such as they.
If he is restricted to fighter only, there is no way he will be allowed to play a ToB character. I am sure a 7th level ToB could have easily killed a CR 4 also. I dont understand how the others could not do it, assuming they the WBL is about where it should be.
However it highlights an important point, making a level 7 beating a CR 4 the boundary of power is completely and totally unreasonable. Frankly, any DM that sets that as power level of "Broken" sounds like he wants to keep the PCs so weak he can easily enjoy a masturbatory kill-fest/power trip.
So you're trying to dictate your limited, personal, and extremely contextual experience as a broad generality that should be accepted everywhere?
Yes, that is exactly it. Accept it!
Or...
Try going back and seeing what exactly that was in responce to. Talk about "personal, limited" there. Sometimes it helps to read the whole thread before trying to attack someone over something you don't entirely understand.
Okay, so some of that is making yourself a PITA to the other players as well but role-playing a party with one guy who kills everything and a bunch of spectators is often not fun. Unless you're a full-on powergamer, having to role play more often makes the game more fun, not less.