PDA

View Full Version : Readying (de-cheesing) a New Campaign



droppedbutnot
2009-01-07, 07:04 PM
I'm starting a new world/campaign as the DM with a new, but hopefully cool, group. I'd like to give the game every chance for success that I can. Could you recommend resources (e.g. links, magazine articles, etc.) that address good "house rules" in light of broken, unbalanced, ill-advised, irksome, or simply "unfun" aspects of the game . . . or perhaps resources that identify broken, unbalanced, ill-advised, irksome, or simply "unfun" aspects of the game so I can make good "house rules"? I do know that the house rules will often have to be responsive to the players, but I am looking for some guidance on the areas that are likely to creat problems. For instance, shapechange and gate are spells that can cause problems; planar shepherd is a class that is too unbalanced; etc. I imagine that there have been posts discussing the set of troublesome rules/aspects that would help me prepare. I'd appreciate any number of suggestions.

:cool::cool::cool:

woodenbandman
2009-01-07, 07:13 PM
You have to know your players, really. If a newb player wants to play planar shepherd alongside a veteran character who plays a beguiler, the two may end up surprisingly balanced. Try to ban as little as possible, while instructing the power players that you don't want them destroying the economy of your game or anything like that. If the players agree to it and sign on to that, no problem.

Polymorph line and gate are pretty much all you need to ban almost across the board. Alter self could be useful as a 4th or higher level spell, but as it stands, a 2nd level spell, it's just silly.

TheCountAlucard
2009-01-07, 07:22 PM
The Giant has an excellent article about the Diplomacy skill on this very site.

You might also try looking over some of the Frank and K articles.

Inyssius Tor
2009-01-07, 07:24 PM
Fixing every book, class, and combination of options that have ever been published by Wizards? More trouble than it's worth.

All you really need is rule one: GUYS, DON'T TRY TO BREAK THE GAME.

Run their class selections by us later, see if there are any problems that need to be fixed on a case-by-case basis.

Eldariel
2009-01-07, 07:26 PM
The Rebalancing 3.5 (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?board=39.0)-project would be a nice starting point. The project isn't finished, but it's filled to the brim with good houserules to change stupid/boring/broken aspects of the game for the better. Other than that, allowing/encouraging martial (melee and range; use homebrew Falling Star for range) not-caster-in-any-way characters to use ToB should be a great way to enhance the play experience. You should use Homebrew classes instead of most of the PHB classes (Rogue and Bard being the singular exceptions that are fine out of the box; Druid design is fine, but the power could use some limiting) if possible since the PHB classes suffer of some very basic design flaws.

For example, none of the casters get any real class features beyond level 1 (Wizard gets few bonus feats, yawn), no class has any real level 17-20 capstone ability and they're filled to the brim with dead levels when you gain nothing. Also, some are simply poorly thought out such as the Monk which has a bunch of weird class features and no real means to combine them, making them basically Fighters with less feats and worse BAB. Pathfinder (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG) versions are actually pretty good. You could also search our Homebrew forum for more interesting versions of Wizards, Clerics and Sorcerers, along with the "Rebalancing 3.5"-link I gave earlier; it's going to contain a rebuild of every PHB class but I'm not sure how far along they've come.


ToB versions of Knight, Ranger, Barbarian and Marshal at least should be easy enough to find (this thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=804856) has a nice compendium of ToB homebrew; also, check our Homebrew section), and the ToB version of Fighter is already covered by Warblade (although giving them heavy armor and Tower Shield prof to increase the variety you can go for would help; that said, as one-level Fighter dip gets you those, it isn't much of a problem), ToB version of Monk is already covered by Unarmed Swordsage (Swordsage variant which gives up armor proficiencies and weapons for Monk's Unarmed Damage progression), ToB version of Paladin is already covered by Crusader and ToB version of Ninja, Rogue, etc. is already covered by Swordsage. I strongly encourage trying 'em for a more interesting melee combat system, that doesn't need to have any magic at all to it (often the complaint about Psychic Warriors, Factotums, Totemists, etc.). Also, you may wish to look at Frank & K's Tomes (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=48453); they just improve the general game experience and world sensibility as a whole.


Use what you wish. The game is playable out of the box, but I'd bet my life on you having more fun using some of the homebrew and alternative material people have made.

Saph
2009-01-07, 07:27 PM
It really does depend on the players and how power-gamey they are. If you play with a bunch of casual gamers, newbies, and RP-types, house ruling for balance isn't usually necessary. If you have a group of powergamers, then you can either make houserules, or just upgrade all the challenges.

The only situation in which you need to use houserules or DM fiat is when you have some members who are powergamers, and some who aren't. My preferred way to deal with this is just to talk to the powergamers and explain that it's their responsibility to make sure the party isn't too far off the same power level.

Very few things really, really need to be banned. In core, the only things I'd ban would be the polymorph line and a few 9th-level spells (time stop, shapechange, gate). The rest are fine as long as you don't try and abuse them.

Outside core the list obviously gets much longer, too long to list. The best way to deal with this is to only allow material that you're very familiar with.

- Saph

KeresM
2009-01-07, 07:30 PM
To balance and de-cheese a game, you really only need to enforce one rule

1 - Don't be a jerk

Thrud
2009-01-07, 07:34 PM
As Saph said, banning stuff you don't know really well is a good way to go. I would go a step farther and say until you get to know your players well, ban anything beyond PHB and DMG. This will prevent prestige class hopping crazyness from people who have the game memorized inside out, and keep them closer to the same level as newer players. Once you get to know them better you can decide if you want to open the game up to more supplements.

As far as banning spell lines goes, once again that is only really necessary if you allow struff from outside the core rules.

Edit - Oh yeah, don't be a jerk works well too. Damn Ninjas and their succinct writing.

Flickerdart
2009-01-07, 07:39 PM
As Saph said, banning stuff you don't know really well is a good way to go. I would go a step farther and say until you get to know your players well, ban anything beyond PHB and DMG. This will prevent prestige class hopping crazyness from people who have the game memorized inside out, and keep them closer to the same level as newer players. Once you get to know them better you can decide if you want to open the game up to more supplements.

As far as banning spell lines goes, once again that is only really necessary if you allow struff from outside the core rules.

Edit - Oh yeah, don't be a jerk works well too. Damn Ninjas and their succinct writing.
Except Core is just as broken than everything else, and more so. Why? The Big Three: Wizard, Cleric, Druid all come from there. If anything, ban Core.

Saph
2009-01-07, 07:53 PM
Except Core is just as broken than everything else, and more so. Why? The Big Three: Wizard, Cleric, Druid all come from there. If anything, ban Core.

That's extremely unhelpful advice.

Core is generally well-known. Other books are less so. Thus, if you're worried about cheese, a good first step is not to allow any books you aren't familiar with. It reduces the number of possible combinations exponentially, and so makes it much easier to keep things reasonably balanced.

- Saph

Oslecamo
2009-01-07, 07:57 PM
Except Core is just as broken than everything else, and more so. Why? The Big Three: Wizard, Cleric, Druid all come from there. If anything, ban Core.

Ardent(pun-pun at level 1), that other monster pun-pun abuses, artificer, archivist, arcane swordsage, shall I continue?

Mushroom Ninja
2009-01-07, 08:10 PM
I'd not ban anything unless problems start to occur. Even if they do, you can probably avoid banning things just by talking to the players who have troublesome characters.

ericgrau
2009-01-07, 08:29 PM
Generally you only need to (1) approve all non-core material on a case-by-case basis, and (2) use common sense. i.e., if a player tries to pull an infinite damage loop, for example. Though it's unlikely someone will even try such a thing. Which brings me to (3) try to have sensible players.

People really tend to exaggerate the issue.

Mushroom Ninja
2009-01-07, 08:34 PM
(1) approve all non-core material on a case-by-case basis

I agree, as long as you don't just arbitrarily give the thumbs-down to various non-core sources. I've had DMs who would keep me from using some splatbooks for no real reason reason at all, causing much annoyance.

droppedbutnot
2009-01-07, 08:39 PM
Thanks for all the excellent substntive advice. I especialy appreciated those of you who understood my interest in anticipating problems. I do understand that it's worthwhile to wait for players to get out of line before reeling them in. But, I'd rather be prepared to SEE the problems. Eldariel had some very nice sugestions along these lines and I'd certainly welcome others.

What are Frank and K articles? And where do I find them?
:smallcool::smallcool::smallcool:

Occasional Sage
2009-01-07, 08:39 PM
This is a new group of players, to you at least. Something I find to be very helpful is to sit down as a group and discuss exactly what it is that we're all looking for in a RPG, and what kind of guidelines we want to set down for ourselves as players to ensure that everybody has fun. That's everybody's goal, after all, so why not make a social contract to be sure that it happens? If you won't find it fun to DM a group that exploits splatbooks to gain migh-infinite cheese supplies, tell them that up front to set proper expectations. Likewise, they might well have some useful comments about what they like or dislike, from a DM and from other players.

Eldariel
2009-01-07, 08:55 PM
Thanks for all the excellent substntive advice. I especialy appreciated those of you who understood my interest in anticipating problems. I do understand that it's worthwhile to wait for players to get out of line before reeling them in. But, I'd rather be prepared to SEE the problems. Eldariel had some very nice sugestions along these lines and I'd certainly welcome others.

What are Frank and K articles? And where do I find them?
:smallcool::smallcool::smallcool:

You can find a .pdf here (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=36046). I did hotlink that button though.

RS14
2009-01-07, 09:01 PM
The Tomes can be found here (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=48453).

The classes presented are a bit of a radical change; I wouldn't personally recommend using them unless you have difficulty with casters breaking the game, or unless your players are bored with the standard martial classes. Nevertheless, they are good reading if you want to create a sensible world.

Note that there is a difference between allowing new classes and allowing new systems. I wouldn't hesitate to allow most classes, provided they were mechanically similar to what I know, reasonable, and I get to spend some time reading over them. However, I would hesitate to allow material from Tome of Battle or Magic of Incarnum without spending a great deal more time reading said books---not because they're bad, but because they add mechanics.

Knowing your rules is the first step to preventing abuse.

Yahzi
2009-01-08, 01:41 AM
good "house rules"?
1. Everybody gets max HPs at every level (monsters too).

2. Start at level 1.

3. End at level 10.

Problem solved!

Cheesegear
2009-01-08, 02:26 AM
No Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Sorcerers, Artificers, Archivists or Psionics.

Your campaign is immediately de-cheesed.

Without those classes, you have (almost) no need for Tome of Battle anyway.

Favoured Souls and Spirit Shamen still exist, so tell your Cleric and Druid lovers to quit crying. Beguilers, Dread Necromancers and Warmages are still around. So tell your Wizards and Sorcerers to quit whinging.

Don't let your players use LA buyoff. Alternatively, don't let them be anymore than LA 0. And don't fall for the 'Lesser' versions of Outsiders in Players Guide to Faerun. Just don't.

Make sure everyone understands how alignment works. Or don't use it at all.

Kurald Galain
2009-01-08, 05:19 AM
I don't think you need to worry about level 17-20 or about 9th level spells, really. Unless you plan on starting that high :smallbiggrin:

At low level, I really don't see much of a problem. I'd suggest some house rules like ignoring the prerequisite on Weapon Finesse, and changing the Dodge feat to a flat "+1 AC, always" to make it less annoying.

kamikasei
2009-01-08, 05:37 AM
However, I would hesitate to allow material from Tome of Battle or Magic of Incarnum without spending a great deal more time reading said books---not because they're bad, but because they add mechanics.

Knowing your rules is the first step to preventing abuse.

This is very true. It's terribly frustrating to see people who refuse to allow psionics, for example, because a player once brought a psion in to their game, the DM didn't know the rules, and the player either cheated or made honest mistakes that left the class overpowered.

Most abuse can be avoided by having sensible players and familiarizing yourself with their abilities. Make sure they know you will be checking over spells or feats they want to take and be reasonable in letting them change their minds if you alter the mechanics (i.e., don't let them take an ability, then nerf it and leave them stuck with it if it no longer does what they wanted it to do; talk to them about longer-term build direction so that they won't saddle themselves with bad prerequisites now for the sake of an ability you'll ban when they look to take it).

Most balance issues, as opposed to abuse, can be solved by paying attention to how much characters are contributing and how much fun their players are having, and adjusting things based on those results. If the fighter is bored because all he can do is a) make the same type of attack for X damage in every fight or b) not really contribute to the encounter, be open to letting him rebuild. If the cleric is dominating every fight, suggest he shift focus to buffing over tanking. What's necessary here depends not just on what your players take but how they play their characters.

Eldariel
2009-01-08, 11:21 AM
Without those classes, you have (almost) no need for Tome of Battle anyway.

The point of ToB isn't to make the game higher powered, it's to make it more fun for the melee.


Don't let your players use LA buyoff. Alternatively, don't let them be anymore than LA 0. And don't fall for the 'Lesser' versions of Outsiders in Players Guide to Faerun. Just don't.

Actually, the Lesser versions are about on par with Humans. If you ban them, also ban Humans.

Cheesegear
2009-01-08, 11:52 PM
Actually, the Lesser versions are about on par with Humans. If you ban them, also ban Humans.

The ones in the back of PGtF, just drop the Outsider type. That's it. They retain all SLAs and ability modifiers. They still have natural resistances, etc. etc. They don't actually lose anything.

The other version here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20040213a) is fair.

Eldariel
2009-01-09, 08:33 AM
The ones in the back of PGtF, just drop the Outsider type. That's it. They retain all SLAs and ability modifiers. They still have natural resistances, etc. etc. They don't actually lose anything.

The other version here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20040213a) is fair.

I know. They still don't get bonus feats (which is why Humans are so ridiculously strong; Strongheart Halflings and Whisper Gnomes are about on par with Humans, but that's about it), and they lose all the martial weapon proficiencies, polymorph forms and such; losing the Outsider-type is fairly huge. And are even more vulnerable to magic. And have the whole "do not fit to the world"-problem going on about them.

Saph
2009-01-09, 08:38 AM
I know. They still don't get bonus feats (which is why Humans are so ridiculously strong; Strongheart Halflings and Whisper Gnomes are about on par with Humans, but that's about it)

Bonus feats are only 'ridiculously strong' if you're going out of your way to cheese out your character to the maximum degree and pick the most broken feats you can find, which is exactly what the OP was asking for advice to avoid. For a normal campaign, +2 Cha and +2 Wis for no significant drawbacks (which is what the Lesser Aasimar gets, if I remember right) is far more powerful than an extra feat.

- Saph

Eldariel
2009-01-09, 09:02 AM
Bonus feats are only 'ridiculously strong' if you're going out of your way to cheese out your character to the maximum degree and pick the most broken feats you can find, which is exactly what the OP was asking for advice to avoid. For a normal campaign, +2 Cha and +2 Wis for no significant drawbacks (which is what the Lesser Aasimar gets, if I remember right) is far more powerful than an extra feat.

- Saph

The power of a bonus feat is directly proportional to the power of the least powerful feat in the build. If you're using enough sources to have the Lesser Outsiders, chances are you've got enough sources that even the weakest feat in your build is another Leap Attack, Easy Metamagic, Extra Turnings or Font of Inspiration. And that's doubly true whenever talking about characters involving Prestige Classes with feat prerequisites. My experience is that all characters get way too few feats making every extra feat (and thus e.g. flaws) ridiculously strong. Even a Fighter 20 can be picking feats like Knock-Down, Mage Slayer, Karmic Strike or similars at 20. And that's for builds that haven't picked the Weapon Supremacy-chain; the ones that have are even more starved.

Point being, allowing Lesser X isn't going to break anything.

Saph
2009-01-09, 09:55 AM
The power of a bonus feat is directly proportional to the power of the least powerful feat in the build. If you're using enough sources to have the Lesser Outsiders, chances are you've got enough sources that even the weakest feat in your build is another Leap Attack, Easy Metamagic, Extra Turnings or Font of Inspiration.

Yes, but maybe not everyone searches through every book available specifically looking for broken feats?

And that's assuming the feats in question are even allowed. In the campaign I'm DMing, out of the four feats you've listed, Easy Metamagic is banned (for obvious reasons, and besides, it's from Dragon), and Font of Inspiration would be only allowed conditionally (no arithmetic progressions). The remaining two are fine, but the standard cheese combos with them (Frenzied Berserker/Divine Persist) are definitely not.

In a campaign like that - which is fairly close to the normal, I think - the bonuses from a Lesser Outsider amount to far more than one bonus feat.

- Saph

Eldariel
2009-01-09, 10:08 AM
Yes, but maybe not everyone searches through every book available specifically looking for broken feats?

And that's assuming the feats in question are even allowed. In the campaign I'm DMing, out of the four feats you've listed, Easy Metamagic is banned (for obvious reasons, and besides, it's from Dragon), and Font of Inspiration would be only allowed conditionally (no arithmetic progressions). The remaining two are fine, but the standard cheese combos with them (Frenzied Berserker/Divine Persist) are definitely not.

In a campaign like that - which is fairly close to the normal, I think - the bonuses from a Lesser Outsider amount to far more than one bonus feat.

- Saph

In all the campaigns I've run with Lesser Outsiders (3 so far), their racial abilities haven't been especially more applicable than anyone else's. I don't know if it's just me, but when there're as many good feats available as in D&D 3.5, my experience is that having a feat to complete chains early, to qualify for PrCs early and to simply complete combinations ASAP simply puts you further ahead in the powercurve than some elemental resistances, stat bonuses and a spell-like. This is emphasized by the low amount of feats available in a low-level game (where the spell-like shines the most too). I do think that if he allowed the Lesser Outsiders, they wouldn't perform relevantly better than any other character in the party with smart race choices. I know I still lean towards Humans even with them and Dragonwrought Kobolds and Whisper Gnomes and Strongheart Halflings available.

Maybe it's just in the playstyle; I don't really know what causes this difference in perception. As he was asking for advice, I was giving some based on my own experience; Lesser Outsiders have never been a problem in my games, and give for some interesting RP options (the whole celestial/fiendish heritage-thing). They're certainly better than the +1 LA versions which I personally find unplayable except for casters abusing Alter Self (and even then only with buyoff), or really high level games (and even then it's a relevant hurdle as power increases almost exponentially for many classes).

Saph
2009-01-09, 10:16 AM
Well, when you're playing at a high power level, I guess it's less of an issue. But in general, one of the principles of 3.5 is that a +0 LA race is not supposed to have a net bonus to stats. Breaking that tends to lead to perceptions of unfairness from other players at the very least.

You also talk about 'smart' race choices as if everyone picks races solely on the basis of optimisation, but I don't know if that's really true. In my experience players generally pick races that they can relate to and like the fluff of. For instance, the Halfling and Gnome sub-races are mechanically quite powerful, but hardly anyone I know wants to play them because being mechanically powerful doesn't make up for being a midget.

- Saph

Eldariel
2009-01-09, 10:32 AM
For instance, the Halfling and Gnome sub-races are mechanically quite powerful, but hardly anyone I know wants to play them because being mechanically powerful doesn't make up for being a midget.

- Saph

Luckily Humans kick ass :) But yea, I've noticed the same; that said, it's worn off my players (and off me as a player) as they realized that you get to play the whole "the bigger they are, the harder they fall"-shtick when small. Not to mention, it makes for great taunts.

Anyways, I think non-Human races should get a net positive out of their ability scores since Human has ±0 too and a feat. It just feels incredibly unfair that the scores "even up" (ok, I'm not even pretending that scores are equal; however, Elves have Con-penalty which hurts everyone, Dwarves, Halflings and Gnomes have 20' speed which is easily worth +2 ability score, and Half-Orcs and Half-Elves either have net negatives or nothing), and Humans have a damn feat vs. Elves' weapon proficiencies or Dwarves' bonus vs. Giants or so on.

If anything, I feel the extra good stat puts Lesser outsiders a bit more on par with Humans, and I feel rather than weakening them, that should be extended to the other non-Human races.

Saph
2009-01-09, 11:15 AM
I'd say that assuming you're using non-cheesed feats, a +2 in your primary stat is worth more than a feat. Two +2 stats with no drawback are worth much more than a feat.

Compare a Lesser Aasimar Sorcerer to a Human Sorcerer. The Human Sorcerer has a bunch of Conjurations known, so he spends his bonus feat on Spell Focus (Conjuration). That gives him +1 to his Conjuration spell DCs. By contrast, the +2 Cha of a Lesser Aasimar gives him +1 to all his spell DCs, as well as extra spells per day, and a bonus to everything else that uses Charisma (ability checks, Bluff, Diplomacy, UMD, etc). Oh, and the Aasimar gets +2 Wis as well.

So when the human feat goes on Spell Focus, the Lesser Aasimar Sorcerer is just objectively better. And Spell Focus is not a particularly bad feat at all.

So I can't agree with your estimation of how massively powerful feats are. The only way feats are as powerful as you're implying is if you use significant cheese.

- Saph

Eldariel
2009-01-09, 02:22 PM
Ah, but the Spell Focus does more than just make his spells harder to resist. Now he's already got one of his prerequisites towards...say Archmage. When comparing whole builds, having that one extra feat can easily make the difference between getting Improved Familiar/Quicken Spell (in due schedule)/Rapid Metamagic/etc. and this is especially true for Sorcerer who's woefully featstarved, but still wants to enter a PrC ASAP to get out of the sad Sorcerer progression that provides you with nothing.

So for example, if you want to qualify for Mage of the Arcane Order on level 5, you need Arcane Preparation, Cooperative Metamagic and another Metamagic-feat (say, Extend Spell). You really want to qualify ASAP as every Sorcerer-level you take is just worse than PrCs levels as they still provide you with nothing. A Human could qualify on level 5. A Lesser Aasimar could qualify for level 6 and spend all his feats on the qualification. Human could be picking...say, Improved Familiar or Craft Wondrous Items on level 6 while Lesser Aasimar would just be fulfilling the qualifications at that point. If feats only provided you with improvements on your class's functionality, they wouldn't be amazing, but since they are also needed to open new roads for your character and to complete some character portitions (say, the same Sorcerer wanting to use Quicken Spell will also need Rapid Metamagic to pull that off), I'd say they're way more valuable than just the effect.

Saph
2009-01-09, 02:48 PM
But not everyone takes a prestige class. And not every prestige class has particularly heavy feat requirements.

And again, you're using absurdly high standards. "Sad Sorcerer progression"? Sorcerers get full casting, the most powerful ability that D&D has. So a straight-class Sorcerer has to make do with only gaining more and more powerful spells and increasing in power at a geometrical rate. Oh no! However will he survive? :P

Or he'll have to manage without Improved Familiar - who cares? - or Rapid Metamagic/Quicken Spell - which means he'll have to make do with casting only one incredibly powerful spell per turn, instead of two, or use one of the twenty or so other ways to get sped-up casting. I really don't see how that's much of a loss.

Basically, the high value you put on feats only applies in a case where every character in the party picks only the absolute most powerful feats possible for every single feat slot - not just some of their feats, but all of them. And I just don't think that applies to most games.

- Saph

Egiam
2009-01-09, 04:40 PM
Chill guys! Just relax, you both have valid opinions. Mine would have to be that humans are balanced to certain classes and preferences. It depends on the player how neccesary feats are (but I have to admit I agree that +2 to an ability is better than a feat).

My advice would be to:

-Read the DM's guide :smallsmile:
-Use average HP/level
-Read DM's guide
-Average starting money
-25 point buy abilities
-READ THE DANG DM'S GUIDE!
-start at level 1, end at level 9-12
-did I mention that you should read the DM's guide?

-Egiam

Tacoma
2009-01-09, 06:26 PM
Featstarved sounds like a PrC.

Bard 6 / Featstarved 6 / Boatmurdered 2 / Dwarven Archmage 1