I like to DM a fairly “free roam” game. Meaning, I have no problem in letting people use any D&D books they have as long as I have at least heard of them. But I always have this one player that even if I put restrictions on always seems to have a horribly broken character, whether it be a +20 on a skill check at level 4 some how, or doing obscenely large amounts of damage at low level, and also builds obviously horribly broken builds, like anything with the Goliath. This is really more of a rant but does anyone else have this problem?
Maybe that player is just playing a Jester instead of a Bard?
ha ha ha, touche.
Yeah I have one but he doesn't sound as bad as yours. Everybody has one right?
(For those that don't have anyone like that I don't want to here it. But enjoy it.)
He does it a lot with druids especially. I have had to ban certain PrC and even a few feats*. I've explained to him why I did so "If you make a character using all these extras, to challenge you I have to kill the rest of the party." Also I gave him the reminder of "Your character is empty. They are just a set of stats and abilities right now. I want to hear who they are, not what can they do."
It seems to be slowly working. I have to keep on my toes and he sure has made me get over the "I don't want to have to say no" thing. Guidance not punishment is the way a prefer to think of it.
*I know a few people will gasp and look with shame filled eyes but I have permanently banned the Natural Spell feat.
I've explained to him why I did so "If you make a character using all these extras, to challenge you I have to kill the rest of the party."
What I mean here by the way is not that his character needs to be made bad but that the game is not a competion against the other players or the me. That he needs to realize that its about having fun together not shining the brightest.
Hope that helps.
|
I always tell my players they've got to be at a similar level of power to one and other, and everyone should get an equal share of play - otherwise something's gone wrong.
And if somebody insists on power builds, I insist on one-on-one combats with a great wyrm red dragon. You mess with ECL, I mess with CR...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I've worked on keeping my RotRL as close to the PHB/Book of X Might series as I can, letting players use the Spell Compendium for 'reasearching' spells and the like, so I know the feeling.
It doesn't help that I myself can take any rules system and beat them into an abomination.
This is really more of a rant but does anyone else have this problem?
Yes. You're right. It's usually only one player. (I had one guy back out of a game after I told him "No, you can't play a fighter 3/doppelganger with a group of 5th level PCs.") I think they just like to feel really, really powerful. To be able to fly, cast spells, avoid taking damage, and just beat things up while being near-invincible. They are also very, very good at sussing out combos that let them achieve that end.
However, short of outright bans on certain things that would be fine in the hands of other players, there is little you can do. Though I will admit that in my old age, I am comfortable admitting to a player that "Henry can play that character. You can't because I know what you'll do with it." Even if it seems unfair, it's not when you realize (as said upthread) that it's all about making sure everyone gets to participate relatively equally and not have one guys PC take over the game.
Often its due to a rule misunderstanding, either on the part of the player (turns out that super sweet combo doesn't work quite like you think)
I find that this generally a problem with players that spend time browsing the Wizards boards.
The real problem i have is that when there is one character doing all the fighting it takes away some of the fun from the other players. Like dealing out alot of damage at a low level and killing the would be boss in a single round alone.
thanks for shareing my pains guys.
Die...ninja Gnome....Die!
|
Yeah, I have 2 in my group. And Yeah, they frequent WotC's boards, cruising to find the most broke things possible. Then when I say "you have a 38 search when taking 10 at 7th level?!?" they reply with stuff like "oh, thats nothing, I could've taken XXX feat and YYY item and boosted that by 8 more".
People suck. I wish I could just get people that wanted to be part of a group instead of the uber-coolest.
|
|
Yes.
I have a whisper gnome ninja (who plays a Goliath fighter in our other campaign)... > +20 seaches, hide, and so on. Goes invisible, sudden strikes for immense amounts of damage and the whole thing. But we're playing the Red Hand of Doom so he'll get his soon enough.
He drives me crazy, but in his defense, he is having fun...and that's what it's suppose to be about. My challenge comes from trying to make it fun for everyone else.
I am the uber coolest in real life, so I like playing minimalized mongrel man losers in game.
Oh yeah? Check this guy out :) I'm playing a wizard with Str 7, Dex 9, Con 11, Int 13, Wis 9, Chr 17.
|
|
He drives me crazy, but in his defense, he is having fun...and that's what it's suppose to be about. My challenge comes from trying to make it fun for everyone else.
If you're fun time is something that spoils it for everybody else, surely that's going to sour it for you too?
I've only once had a player who didn't respond well to a bit of; "I want everyone to be at a similar power so we can all be involved..."
"I want everyone to be at a similar power so we can all be involved..."
Which is why i have swithed from random rolling to point buy for stats.
I reserve the right to veto everything my players bring to the table. It really hinges on what I feel is balanced or not and what would work and what would not. I'm quite willing to make compromises but I have limits.
But a safe bet is using the core 3 books, everything else is playing with fire(and your character concept).
|
Yes.
I have a whisper gnome ninja (who plays a Goliath fighter in our other campaign)... > +20 seaches, hide, and so on. Goes invisible, sudden strikes for immense amounts of damage and the whole thing. But we're playing the Red Hand of Doom so he'll get his soon enough.
He drives me crazy, but in his defense, he is having fun...and that's what it's suppose to be about. My challenge comes from trying to make it fun for everyone else.
I am the uber coolest in real life, so I like playing minimalized mongrel man losers in game.Oh yeah? Check this guy out :) I'm playing a wizard with Str 7, Dex 9, Con 11, Int 13, Wis 9, Chr 17.
That's it!!! Time for a minime off.
Gimme a commoner, all 6's. I'll jack shit up.
Of course we have one like that. If given free rein, he'll have an overpowered character, and even if you limit the choices, he'll have a very effective combat machine. And he also changes characters quite regularly.
But it could be worse. They can only do that if you let them.
In my pathfinder campaign, I'll cut back on the player power and see where that brings us.
That's it!!! Time for a minime off.
Heh, I have banned myself from Evocation spells whenever I play a wizard; sadly, I still end up being hte most powerful character. Next up, a fat elven Diviner specialist who likes to eat.
But I'm off wizards for a while. I've tried to find anti-munchkin characters, like the Dragon Shaman or Beguiler (sort of). Still too powerful. I'm just too l33+ IRL... ;)
l33+ IRL
BLASPHEMER!
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So, is the problem that he's breaking the rules, or that he's designing characters that are way more powerful than the other PC's?
If it's the former, tell him to stop cheating.
If it's the latter, the problem is only half with him; the other half is the rest of the gaming group, who aren't plying the same twinkification game.
(I've found similar issues crop up between friends who play [i]Magic: the Gathering{/i]. Some people just are just better at deck-building and playing strategically, and they can get the reputation of being 'not fun' opponents.)
I'll tell you one thing that helped me, some years ago, when I had a player in 3.0 who would try to pull all sorts of "holes-in-the-rules" nonesense. I told him to pick a fantasy illustration as the basis for his character. He picked the cover from a fantasy novel. His efforts were directed to trying to model the fighter, from weapons and equipment to feats that reflected the character's actions in the story. He had a blast, and didn't pick a stale, "power play" build.
|
The problem is only half with him; the other half is the rest of the gaming group, who aren't plying the same twinkification game.
Well your point is good: whatever is good for the whole group is what should be played, BUT, your percentage is horribly off. If one PC in the group is a Swamp-Donkey Munchkin and the other 4 PCs plus the DM are actual roleplayers, you know, not the "I have a low self-esteem in real life so I have to break the game to feel good about myself" loser type, then it's more of a 1 of 6 percentage, not 50/50. Thus the majority rules and the Tweetle-Munchkin should adjust his/her character generation motives.
-W. E. Ray
PS., Heath, you are the uber Coolness BaDonka-Doink in real life; I bow to your ergziness.
Now go comb your face, you Werewolf!
l33+ IRLBLASPHEMER!I'm so out of touch with reality; I have no idea what this means. Please help me.
It means I took (mock) offense to his use of "leet speak," that vile debasement of everything lingual. The additional internet slang (IRL = In Real Life), which I normally don't have a big problem with, only compounded the issue.
l33+ IRLBLASPHEMER!I'm so out of touch with reality; I have no idea what this means. Please help me.
I have to look up most leet references. I refuse to use leet though. Even if I send a text message and pay per letter. Leet might be easy but it makes you look base. The only ones I use are the ones that are the ones that allow me to avoid writing swears (wtf as example).
Edit: Hmmm does that even count as leet?
I've had quite a few of those over the years. Presently there aren't really any that qualify. I have one player that runs druids pretty effectively, but only because he just has a really great grasp of how to use that class well.
BTW, this sounds more like a munchkin player rant. Not a rules lawyer rant. But I'll go along with it ;).
|
|
Ah, neat. Thanks guys.
I tell ya, though, Wiki said it is suppose to be argot for elite internet users but the codex is incredibly simple. Really, "3" for "B" or "E," "2" for "R," "1" for "i" or "L" -- you'd have to really be a simpleton to consider that an elite argot.
You want elite, try learning Bulgarian.
-W. E. Ray
PS. Heath, Heath, he's our man / 'f he can't do it / The Wererat can!
The real problem i have is that when there is one character doing all the fighting it takes away some of the fun from the other players. Like dealing out alot of damage at a low level and killing the would be boss in a single round alone.
Is it not possible, at least, that the other players may need to simply cowboy up and play better characters? I find it very silly to suggest that a player should do anything other than make the best possible character they can. I think we can all agree on the following:
1) Adventurers are regularly faced with life-threatening situations.
2) Adventurers don't want to die.
It seems to me that if you accept those two premises as true, then from a realism standpoint your character should either always try to maximize his contribution to the party, or should have plans for early retirement.
What I see most commonly in these types of threads are complaints about people who run characters that do something "too" well, to the point where they overshadow the rest of the party. I think this is almost always the fault of the DM, and sometimes the fault of the other players. A good DM provides a variety of challenges that can be resolved in many different ways and villains that use good tactical sense. If all encounters are resolved by combat, then the fighter will excel. But the cleric shines when the undead are present, the bard can handle negotiations, and so on. Each character class will overshadow the others depending on the circumstances, and a good DM will find a balance.
Similarly, if you have two characters of the same class, the better built one will excel at performing its job. If one fighter decides he wants to be a power-attacking greatswordsman in full plate and his ally decides that he wants to specialize in throwing axe and comes up with the character quirk that he only carries a single family heirloom axe, then naturally the more effective character will be more likely to survive. That is about the only situation when I blame the other players-- it's not someone else's fault if you decide to limit your own survivability.
The bulk of the issue lies with the DM. I can't think of a single time that a main villain I've devised has ever been struck down in a single blow, mainly because my villains are not stupid. If you're a bad guy, and you are faced with a foe who can conceivably take you out in a single hit, then you have to be incredibly stupid to face them in face-to-face combat, especially alone. That's just incompetent DMing. The monsters aren't lining up to become an XP snack; they should be played with the same motivations the PCs have, or at least with the idea that not even an animal will die needlessly if it can help it.
I'd really like to see someone make a post that said "I'm fed up with my players and DM. The rest of the party can't make a useful character to save their lives so I get stuck on the front lines doing all the work, and the DM can't figure out that low AC plus high HP equals an easy encounter for me."
This is why my theory is that most issues in D&D are one of style conflict. Some DMs don't live and breathe combat optimization of villains and try to perfect their strategy and tactics. There are times that villains can get arrogant and try to "take on the world" by themselves. Or just a party of PCs. The OP and others in this thread take issue with someone who over-optimizes their character. Others might want to focus on roleplaying and possibly non-combat options at times. Neither is wrong, it's just a different approach. It doesn't mean that the DM's incompetent.
Sometimes people just get lucky. SKR wrote about a duel in Ptolus. Their characters faced off against House Vladaam. Vladaam brought in 'ringer's which included a beholder. SKR's PC Shurrin stepped forward after winning initiative and rolled 3 d20s in a row, killin the thing with the optional (but in play in that game) DMG rule about instant kills. Guess who the DM was? Monte Cook. Is that incompetent DMing?
Our group has one of those players. He actually DMed the long dead The Long Trek campaign and he is one of the worst power gamers I have ever known. He actually wanted us to advance our characters (which were already at 21'st level or something) to 54th level!!!!! He also has a very loose sense of the rules.
SKR's PC Shurrin stepped forward after winning initiative and rolled 3 d20s in a row, killin the thing with the optional (but in play in that game) DMG rule about instant kills. Guess who the DM was? Monte Cook. Is that incompetent DMing?
No, clearly not. You're talking about something that had a 1:8000 chance of happening, which is wholly different from sending a villain with 40 hp against a party that has a character who has a 75% chance of hitting and deals 20 points of damage on average.
Furthermore, non-combat options and roleplay are great-- but if the bard takes ends up with a +20 bluff modifier, it doesn't mean that player has done something wrong if he then tries to bluff his way out of everything. If your entire campaign can be undone by a guy with a huge bluff score, then yeah, you probably are pretty inept.
To give an example, the last adventure I ran involved the PCs (level 2) landing on an island that the captain of their ship had visited decades before. The arrived to find half the island denuded, overrun by rats, with a starving population claiming the "forest spirits" were attacking them. The PCs suspected a defiler, and entered the forest to find a dryad and some treants, who explained that improvements in technology given the islanders on the last visit had allowed them to increase food production, which led to a population boom, which led to overfishing and overlumbering, which is turn caused the dryad to get mad. She told the PCs that she was going to wipe out the islanders before they did any more harm.
So, my PCs found themselves in a situation where there was no clear bad guy (if the killed the dryad, the islanders would have all starved eventually anyway, and killing the islanders was unpalatable for obvious reasons, though the dryad did say that she'd be okay with a simple culling to bring the population under control), and they had to figure out how to resolve the issue. They ended up doing it in such a way that sidestepped combat entirely (which was good, because I had a whole riot ready to go that would have solved the problem in unsavory ways).
That being said, my group has nothing but optimized builds and very high stats overall (12+1d6, 12+1d6, 6+2d6, 6+2d6, 3d6, 3d6), yet we actually took a week off gaming because the party needed more time to try and find a solution for the problem. If I had sent them against a bunch of orcs and an ogre or two, they would have blazed through it in a minute. As things played out, there were several combat heavy situations, a lot of roleplaying, negotiation, and creative problem solving.
The DM has the responsibility of challenging the players. The players have the responsibility of working together to overcome challenges. A DM who has to hamstring his players is a DM who isn't being creative enough.
Our group has one of those players. He actually DMed the long dead The Long Trek campaign and he is one of the worst power gamers I have ever known. He actually wanted us to advance our characters (which were already at 21'st level or something) to 54th level!!!!! He also has a very loose sense of the rules.
I think this pretty much clearly shows that people are using the description, Rules Lawyer, incorrectly. What people in this thread are really complaining about is munchkins not rules lawyers.
So, my PCs found themselves in a situation where there was no clear bad guy (if the killed the dryad, the islanders would have all starved eventually anyway, and killing the islanders was unpalatable for obvious reasons, though the dryad did say that she'd be okay with a simple culling to bring the population under control), and they had to figure out how to resolve the issue. They ended up doing it in such a way that sidestepped combat entirely ....
Which is an excellent example of how things can go forward in a non-story manner. If one of the munchkins under discussion (thank you for the correction!) was sitting at that table though, he'd probably have been bored to tears and trying to provoke a fight.
So, my PCs found themselves in a situation where there was no clear bad guy (if the killed the dryad, the islanders would have all starved eventually anyway, and killing the islanders was unpalatable for obvious reasons, though the dryad did say that she'd be okay with a simple culling to bring the population under control), and they had to figure out how to resolve the issue. They ended up doing it in such a way that sidestepped combat entirely ....Which is an excellent example of how things can go forward in a non-story manner. If one of the munchkins under discussion (thank you for the correction!) was sitting at that table though, he'd probably have been bored to tears and trying to provoke a fight.
And the key is that if my group HAD decided to go that route, I was prepared. DMs make a mistake when they create a scenario and imagine only one way it "should" play out, especially if they become frustrated when the players' solution doesn't meet their "correct" solution. The better way to go is to create a situation where the players' dictate the direction of the outcome, and to have several outcomes prepared.
Sticking with my above example, my players could have chosen to kill the dryad, or the islanders, or neither. They could have left. It was entirely up to them, and I had different eventualities mapped out, the only difference being that more creative solutions yielded more XP than less creative solutions. I could have had a party of 4 gestalt Monk/Driuds with Vows of Poverty all around and it wouldn't have made a difference in terms of balance, simply because the adventure was not one where combat was either the only or the most desirable solution. If you are going to rely heavily on "kill the bad guys" as a plot device, it's your responsibility to challenge the players, not ban feats and classes until they no longer challenge the DM.
The key here is that at no point did I ever think to myself, "This is how they should behave." That's silly and pointless, and sets you up for failure and late-night Internet complaining. Really, if your main villain is going to offer an alliance to your party, you need to be prepared with what to do if they accept.
[
No worries, mate! I am one of those anal-retentive grammarians who cannot split an infinitive or end a sentence with a preposition, so the whole idea of Leet-Speak is both anathnema and ironically amusing to me.
Plus I have a bunch of dorky code-monkey friends who would oocasionally vomit up random numbers, letters and symbols at me. Oh, and I once crafted a masterpieces of a backstory for a character only to have the first friend who read it on-line post "tl;dr". That's "too long; didn't read" for other losers like me who didn't instantly recognize the short-hand. My friends are tools. :)
Plus I have a bunch of dorky code-monkey friends who would oocasionally vomit up random numbers, letters and symbols at me. Oh, and I once crafted a masterpieces of a backstory for a character only to have the first friend who read it on-line post "tl;dr". That's "too long; didn't read" for other losers like me who didn't instantly recognize the short-hand. My friends are tools. :)
You should have used the enter key copiously. Make many little paragraphs. The ideal length is 1-2 sentences.
The problem with those 1337-speakers is that their memory is so small. They can't process more than one or two lines of text at once. That's why they use their ridiculous language: The numbers are to keep their mathochistic attention up (they can pretend they're calculating something so their brain doesn't switch to standby mid-sentence), and the abbreviations (that is an uneccesarily long word for that concept!) are to pack more stuff into those two lines. It's like packing. Many 1337-speakers can beat Zip's algorithm for plain text data compression (though that's not hard)
;-)
Uh, I mean: pnwed, d00d3. ROFLMAO!!!111oneeleven!1
What people in this thread are really complaining about is munchkins not rules lawyers.
They're actually describing a Power Gamer. He may well be a Munchkin as well but that's not the the main complaint here.
It's natural for players to gravitate towards a more powerful character. You can't blame them afterall it serves two purposes:
1) It feeds their need for "stuff", be it items or abilities
2) It gives them more comfort zone for survival
As more and more books come out, you can guarantee that every loophole will be exploited. I recommend for your next campaign that you have a simple house rulebook with some ongoing lists of categories you're going to limit. Using "categories" serves a much more useful purpose than trying to keep up with every feat and every 'thing' from the other books.
In our games, I limit players to the WotC books only. When books come out, I take a little trip over to the PIMP MY CHARACTER boards and they'll tell you everythign that's broken or "powerful" in the game.
Another good resource for you is the LIVING RPGA campaign handbooks. They've done 99% of the work for you too. If anybody has people pouring over rulebooks to nerf the twinks, it's the RPGA (thank god for them).
HINT: Place some limits on your campaign and your players. Players like to know what their boundaries are..so they can push outwards. Without boundaries..they push outwards to infinity.
Jay H
Colorado
|
|
I am one of those anal-retentive grammarians who cannot split an infinitive or end a sentence with a preposition, so the whole idea of Leet-Speak is both anathnema and ironically amusing to me.
So English isn't your native language?
For those who might have been confused, there is no grammatical problem with splitting an infinitive or ending a sentence with a preposition when speaking or writing English.
All my players are like this - but the advantage always lies with the DM. If my twinkie monster is a bust there is always another monster a little further down the line that I can twinkify in the hopes of killing one of my players characters in a gruesome manner.
Another advantage of being the DM is if your players twinkification is too powerful you can house rule it out of existence but the players can't do anything about your twinked out monsters but b!$%* and moan.
I am one of those anal-retentive grammarians who cannot split an infinitive or end a sentence with a preposition, so the whole idea of Leet-Speak is both anathnema and ironically amusing to me.So English isn't your native language?
For those who might have been confused, there is no grammatical problem with splitting an infinitive or ending a sentence with a preposition when speaking or writing English.
Yes, but there is a stigma that such is the case. I'm pretty young, but I know conventions have changed noticeably in some areas over the last few years. I'm guessing these issues fall are such cases. Official changes in English grammar aren't exactly front page news, however, and thus can go unnoticed for years and years, especially in a country where texting is rampant and the ability of the populace to read and construct basic sentences is in question more and more.
So English isn't your native language?
For those who might have been confused, there is no grammatical problem with splitting an infinitive or ending a sentence with a preposition when speaking or writing English.
I'm an English grognard... no, I take that back; I cannot in good conscience use the term grognard, which, to me at least, has purely a gaming conflict connotation. Instead, I am a curmudgeon.
Although grammar restrictions have loosened over the years, I initially learned that such things were "poor" construction and tend to avoid them. Given that I tend to write a lot, and have dabbled in a variety of forms and styles (rather successfully, in some venues); I hold myself to a high standard in writing.
I find the purpose of writing, generally, to be communication, thus clarity in communication is essential. Splitting an infinitive or typing "l33+" both may not hinder communication, and thus could both be valid grammar. Of course, sometimes language's purpose is to obfuscate meaning too, which is perhaps where leet-speak derived. I enjoy playing with language, but I hold the rules I learned in my youth in some esteem, and use it in my personal writing style, which usually draws compliments (and the term verbose).
See, even in an online forum I cannot help but both play with some language, work to craft an understandable point, and be verbose. My dorkiness knows no bounds. :)
The split infinitive was created by grammarians of the 18th Century to bring English into line with Latin... not really comprehending that It is IMPOSSIBLE to "split the infinitive" in Latin. They made it up because it felt 'right' to them; there were many other seemingly whimisical choices that came about at a time when language was deemed to be under threat, arising from class and nationalistic concerns.
Shakespeare and Chaucer, to name many authors could never have dreamt of such a 'rule', nor of that of ending a sentence with a prepostition. Again, another dictat that came from a desire for a 'classical' nature to English; creating a chimeric system of regulations with little or no relation to how the language was actually used at the time or indeed has continued to be used.
The split infinitive was created by grammarians of the 18th Century to bring English into line with Latin... not really comprehending that It is IMPOSSIBLE to "split the infinitive" in Latin. They made it up because it felt 'right' to them; there were many other seemingly whimisical choices that came about at a time when language was deemed to be under threat, arising from class and nationalistic concerns.
Shakespeare and Chaucer, to name many authors could never have dreamt of such a 'rule', nor of that of ending a sentence with a prepostition. Again, another dictat that came from a desire for a 'classical' nature to English; creating a chimeric system of regulations with little or no relation to how the language was actually used at the time or indeed has continued to be used.
emphasis mine
So it pretty much falls in line with the rest of English, then, eh? I don't want to get into huge debate about proper English construction, but I would like to point out that in some arenas, such usage is considerd poor (you'll also please note the parentheses in my original use of poor).
Paizo probably does not consider such construction poor, given a perusal of past publishings, but I have noticed that nothing in Pathfinder or Dungeon or Dragon was published in leet-speak. As mentioned, both are valid in a particular context. Similarly, some institutions brand split infinitives and the like as inappropriate as well.
English has a long and varied history of usage, abusage, and pre- an dproscriptions being introduced by a variety of interested parties. Wikipedia confirms that some "authorities" indeed find split infinitives poor form, just as Bartleby's labels the prescription reactionary. Both, however, agree on one point: Clarity is the key. From http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/059.html
If you plan on keeping your split infinitives, you should be wary of constructions that have more than one word between to and the verb. The Usage Panel splits down the middle on the one-adverb split infinitive. Fifty percent accept it in the sentence The move allowed the company to legally pay the employees severance payments that in some cases exceeded $30,000. But only 23 percent of the panel accepts the split infinitive in this sentence: We are seeking a plan to gradually, systematically, and economically relieve the burden. The panel is more tolerant of constructions in which the intervening words are intrinsic to the sense of the verb. Eighty-seven percent of the panel accepts the sentence We expect our output to more than double in a year.
The point is, I flinch when using split infinitives (except poetically, as Shakespeare did once), just as some people flinch when they use or hear leet-speak. Each person's usage varies, but so long as they can make themselves clear when necessary, any usage is fine (though prejudices remain). As for me, I still struggle to accept the meaning of the Oscar WIlde quote, "I live in fear of not being misunderstood."