PDA

View Full Version : Breaking the game.



Belial_the_Leveler
2009-04-09, 12:32 PM
The vast majority of powergaming is done when a player has a full freedom in choosing treasure, preparations and world conditions and knowledge. However, such choice in a normal game does not reside with the player. It resides with the DM or, if you want to stick to RAW, treasure at least is rolled by random tables. During the course of a normal campaign, the following conditions would apply;

1) Encounters are made by the DM. As a result, a player character cannot be familiar with a creature or kind of creature the DM does not want him to be. Given that divinations require familiarity, even if a character goes looking for a creature using OOC knowledge of his existence, such effects would not work ("I wanna go hunt Chronotyryn so I can be familiar enough to shapechange into one" is not feasible). Specifically unbalancing creatures *coughsarukhcough* may not even be in the campaign at all. In short;
The Monster books are a DM resource. In-Character a player cannot use them without the DM's permission so any powergaming including specific monster abilities might not be available on that basis. A wizard who never became familiar with an elder air elemental cannot shapechange into one.

2) While the normal amount of treasure is given in encounter tables, the type of treasure is decided upon by the DM... or rolled randomly. From the random rolls, much of the treasure is not combat-useful outright. In addition, no magic item in the random tables costs more than 40.000 gp. In the end, the PCs don't get the items they want. To get exactly the items you want (a powergaming requirement, or so I am told) you need to sell items and spend time to find someone who has what you want available. That means a 50% loss of value in the exchange. So;
Due to the randomness or DM-dependability of treasure, PCs cannot have whatever items they want. So powergaming requiring specific items requires the PCs to sell loot for 50% of the price then find a vendor that has the item in question. It turns out the local church only had one nightstick to sell. To find the remaining 665 you need to go over a few thousand more churches all over the country.

3) Time is a limited resource in a campaign with an overall goal in mind. A wizard could blow off four 9th level spells, a contingency and a dozen other spell slots into a single encounter and then go to rest. Unfortunately, the invading enemy army is under a strict timetable; they're going to pull off four assaults (encounters) that day, five the following day and a similar amount in the days to follow. The villain's plan of ascencion is going to be completed by midnight of tat day and anyone wishing to stop him must overcome his three-layer (encounter) defence and fight him too before he succeeds. So a wizard can't blow off more than a single rest period per day. Why do you think he'll have the time to cast Genesis that requires an entire week of casting time?


The game is much less breakable under the above circumstances.

newbDM
2009-04-09, 12:57 PM
Many thanks for making this thread.

This is some great advice all DMs should know.

However, perhaps "Unbreaking the game" would a better title for this thread?

Typewriter
2009-04-09, 12:58 PM
I've always considered most 'powegaming' to be fun to think about, and fun to figure out the best possible uses of.

But that's all it is.

Too many people think that because a wizard can do anything any wizard can do anything. These just aren't the ways things work.

I agree with you completely, but it's still fun to theorize.

mikej
2009-04-09, 01:08 PM
I've always considered most 'powegaming' to be fun to think about, and fun to figure out the best possible uses of.

But that's all it is.

Too many people think that because a wizard can do anything any wizard can do anything. These just aren't the ways things work.

I agree with you completely, but it's still fun to theorize.

Agreed

Though you should make it perfertly clear between theoritical optimization and character optimization. I've seen a few paranoid DM's overeact over small things, there's a difference between the player trying to make the best "Scout" possible, while another is purposely seeking to ruin a game. I tend to leave the theory for the web, while in game just make the most mechanically sound character to have fun with.

arguskos
2009-04-09, 11:00 PM
1. THANK YOU GOOD GOD!!! Really, COME ONE GUYS, this **** is basic and useful. We all should know about it and consider it.

2. I actually wanted to point out that putting some basic equipping restrictions in place when players enter the game is a good idea as well. I tend to limit my players to basic gear (general protective devices/armor, stat boosters, weapons w/ no more than one special ability, and whatever potions/scrolls/wands they can afford) when a character enters the game. I tend to think that gear should come in game, at the table, and besides, players are resourceful types, they can make nearly anything work and work well (here I point to my party, which once managed to use a giant immobile crystal statue to defeat the BBEG). :smallbiggrin:

Katrascythe
2009-04-09, 11:12 PM
I agree with arguskos on restricting what players can have coming in. For a game I'm beginning, I placed the restriction that a player can't have anything more than a +1 item. So, a basic cloak of protection, +1 weapon, etc.

A couple of my players have a small problem of not knowing what BASIC means and I have to define +1 "X" more than once. I'm actually going to use some custom crafting rules from a friend in a low magic setting to heavily restrict the magic gear they comes across. I think the only things they have that are more powerful than basic are Belts of Healing and a Handy Haversack. There might be one or two more things but all of the weapons they are going to have to find or make in game.

This is also an experiment to see if the players are going to be smarter with their wealth if the world doesn't have tons of magic items. It also gives me a lot of power over what the players get at any given time.

I also like seeing what players can come up with when they don't have the weapons of epicness. PC's are surprisingly creative with their environments when they need to be...

Thrud
2009-04-09, 11:23 PM
*Lots of commonsense stuff*

Thank you for putting into words far better than I have been able to exactly why no one game system is overpowered. The Game system is never at fault, just the DM, because all he has to do is say 'No! Bad player, no biscuit!' Followed by a swift whap on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

Edit - This of course doesn't mean that some systems are not more prone to being broken than others. But it should always be the DM's responsibility to reign in the players. Some games require more experience to DM than others.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-09, 11:34 PM
For low-magic games, the issue quickly becomes which challenges the PCs can and can't handle. Things like stat-boosters and Cloaks of Resistance are factored into monsters(suposedly). It's hard to balance encounters without those, and PCs will definitely be unable to face many level-appropriate challenges. Spellcasters are generally the least affected(check out EricGrau's thread on trying to find needed equipment for casters for his low-magic item fix), with non-caster meleers being hit worst, IMHO.

Baalthazaq
2009-04-10, 12:39 AM
I often get criticized by some... paranoid DMs.

I always try first and foremost to make a character I find interesting. A lot of the time there will also be an element of trying to make "cool" character, and powerful is a shortcut to cool.

(A guy who can make his enemies burst into flame at a thought is cool. Steve the plumber less so. That's not to say you cannot make weak characters that are cool).

What this means is I am always asking my DM "would it be alright if", and they panic. "NO! Whatever it is no!"

An example that hasn't happened:
"Could I play a Cleric of Levistus who was lawful good?"
"You cannot be 2 steps away from your Deity's alignment! Stop trying to break the game!"
...
...
"I can take the exact same feats, skills, abilities, domains, etc by raw, I just want to be a follower of this dude cos I like the concept"
"Whatever you're doing to break my game stoppit!"
...
...

I then say screw it, trash my character concept, and make a human fighter 13892637812638 times more powerful than the cool cleric I wanted. He's boring as hell, but hey it's a game. Screw interesting characters.

"Can I make an adamantine warforge into a druid? I have to break a rule to do it."
"Stop trying to break the game"
"I don't want to break the game, I've got a specific character in mind and I'd like to play it"
"No"
"Ok, can I make a human druid?"
"Yes"

Great, bonus feat,and I'm not wasting a feat on my armor, I can just buy it. So I have a more powerful character, that I'm less interested in playing.

(It is possible to get Adamantine armour with the human "druid". I was only using druid to qualify for some stuff. Then multiclassed into something more interesting. The reason you need permission to do it with the Warforge is (I think) you need Ironwood body to become a druid, then can't change to adamantine later. Humans can just buy it at a later date. Character concept was basically a warforge who tried to become a druid but they never allowed him due to them being effectively racist. Calling him "unnatural".)

So basically, you don't necessarily want to alienate your players by being your own rules lawyer either. You want to keep the game under control, but do it with monitoring how powerful they're becoming, not by sticking to the rules come hell or high water. I can always make a more broken character, I just like the ideas behind the ones I try to make.

Zincorium
2009-04-10, 12:53 AM
A. These are good rules for a newish DM to follow. And experienced DMs to only break if they really know what the consequences will be.

B. These are irrelevant for most people who are really trying hard to break the game, they'll find thousands of options to do so even if you follow all of these completely. You need additional house-rulings and a bit of spine to keep your *friends* from short-circuiting your enjoyment.

A + B = C in the algebra of D&D.

C. There is no substitute for competent DMing.

Narmoth
2009-04-10, 01:05 AM
Reasons for powergaming:
1. because you can
2. because the dm sent a monster 3 cr higher than your ecl on you and the rest of the party didn't help (it was a duel)
3. because you never get any good items you take overpowering feat combinations to compensate
4. because how hard you can hit something is more important than problem solving and interaction in this campaign

monty
2009-04-10, 01:09 AM
4. because how hard you can hit something is more important than problem solving and interaction in this campaign

Because if you can't solve the problem with brute force, you aren't using enough.

Eldariel
2009-04-10, 01:34 AM
5. Because sometimes playing games with strong characters is fun.

That said, much depends on the definition of "powergaming" here. All my characters are "optimized" in the sense that they're competent in what I want them to be competent at. None of them break any games though.

But I'm not going to intentionally gimp myself unless presented a really good reason - if I want to play a monastic martial artist, I'm going to play an Unarmed Swordsage, not a Monk simply because I don't see what I gain by sucking. If I want to play a master of the arcane arts, he's not going to be an evoker and most likely bans the school.


But this is in no way contrary to the OP of course (more of a response to the possible sentiment that "you shouldn't care about how strong your character is"). With regards to OP, just one thing to remember - crafting effectively gives PCs access to just about any item that exists in the campaign world.

VirOath
2009-04-10, 01:49 AM
For low-magic games, the issue quickly becomes which challenges the PCs can and can't handle. Things like stat-boosters and Cloaks of Resistance are factored into monsters(suposedly). It's hard to balance encounters without those, and PCs will definitely be unable to face many level-appropriate challenges. Spellcasters are generally the least affected(check out EricGrau's thread on trying to find needed equipment for casters for his low-magic item fix), with non-caster meleers being hit worst, IMHO.

But it is cases like this where the Soulknife and Monk shine. Less dependent on items makes them more powerful in a setting where they rest of the party would fly ahead miles in terms of power without gaining a level. IE, from high wealth campaigns.

And the CR system is screwy anyways. Anyone that has used it for any real length of time can tell you that. Some thing are overvalued and others under, and this has a huge impact since the PL vs CR is what gives the experience. In a low wealth campaign you need to count the party as lower CRs because of it, just as a high wealth needs to count the party as levels higher for any chance at remotely working.

And what has been said is exactly right. It's the DM's world. Anything and everything can change on a whim, like removing the rogue's sneak attack if he so wanted to.

Radar
2009-04-10, 01:59 AM
(...) With regards to OP, just one thing to remember - crafting effectively gives PCs access to just about any item that exists in the campaign world.
IF they have time to craft items, that is. Still it would be really hard to stop for example the Affinity Field trick.

Baalthazaq
2009-04-10, 02:03 AM
But it is cases like this where the Soulknife and Monk shine. Less dependent on items makes them more powerful in a setting where they rest of the party would fly ahead miles in terms of power without gaining a level. IE, from high wealth campaigns.

And the CR system is screwy anyways. Anyone that has used it for any real length of time can tell you that. Some thing are overvalued and others under, and this has a huge impact since the PL vs CR is what gives the experience. In a low wealth campaign you need to count the party as lower CRs because of it, just as a high wealth needs to count the party as levels higher for any chance at remotely working.

And what has been said is exactly right. It's the DM's world. Anything and everything can change on a whim, like removing the rogue's sneak attack if he so wanted to.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the DM changing the rules, but when it comes to character creation I'd like to know beforehand. I'd be pissed if I made a rogue only to then find that it doesn't have sneak attack. "Oh ok, I'll multiclass out I guess.... " "No multiclassing".

I hate feeling like the DM is making my characters, and he needs to be making changes for a reason, whether it be world consistency, story consistency, anything.

He doesn't need to explain why he's doing things, but there should be a reason. This is more limited when it comes to what the characters are doing.

"I attack" "No you don't" "... oh he stops me?" "No you just don't attack" "Mind control spell?"

Again, there is a lot of common sense limitation in the game and you need to strike a balance.

sonofzeal
2009-04-10, 02:05 AM
But it is cases like this where the Soulknife and Monk shine. Less dependent on items makes them more powerful in a setting where they rest of the party would fly ahead miles in terms of power without gaining a level. IE, from high wealth campaigns.
I've heard it argued that Monks are actually more item-dependent than Fighters in most campaigns. They need all sorts of stat-boosting items to do anything in combat, and magical AC boosters to avoid dying horribly since they don't wear armor. Unless you're in a place where even non-magical gear is difficult to acquire, a Fighter/Barbarian/whatever with nonmagical armor+shield and a masterwork weapon can generally out-fight your average Monk.

Consider that at lvl20 (twenty, mind you; it's worse at lower levels), your Monk has AC of 10+Dex+Wis+4, and without stat boosters you're lucky if that even hits 20. Meanwhile your Fighter in Mithral Plate (and, by this level, it's got to be a pretty crazy campaign if that's out of reach) and large shield has an AC of 23 without much difficulty at all, with less statpoint investment, and can be doing that at any level while the Monk is slogging his way up from a rather pitiable AC 16.

In a non-magical world, the Soulknife can do decently, the Arcane Archer can at least justify its existence if not excel, and the Soulbow and Kensai are looking pretty. But the Monk still suffers from the exact same problems that make it weak in a magical world. The only time the Monk's ahead is when stripped naked and locked in a dungeon, and that can happen in any campaign regardless of magic level, but is hardly commonplace.

JeminiZero
2009-04-10, 02:06 AM
But it is cases like this where the Soulknife and Monk shine. Less dependent on items makes them more powerful in a setting where they rest of the party would fly ahead miles in terms of power without gaining a level. IE, from high wealth campaigns.


Except of course, that even without items, the Soulknife is still inferior to the PsyWar, and the Monk still has his posterior handed to him by the Unarmed Swordsage.

In fact primary casters become even more stronger comparatively, since they have their buffs, while the Monk/Soulknife/Fighter lose the items that simulate said buffs.

Belial_the_Leveler
2009-04-10, 02:26 AM
crafting effectively gives PCs access to just about any item that exists in the campaign world.
They have to take crafting feats. 50% loss of resources always applies because crafting materials never come as treasure. They have to have the required spells and cast them. They have to have the required skills, if any. They need to spend lots of time. They need to pay XP. So, unless they are artificers, no crafting is cost-effective.


In fact primary casters become even more stronger comparatively, since they have their buffs, while the Monk/Soulknife/Fighter lose the items that simulate said buffs.
Angels. Demons. Fey. Devils. Aberrations. Dragons. Most of them have access to dispel magic.

Killer Angel
2009-04-10, 02:34 AM
Thank you for putting into words far better than I have been able to exactly why no one game system is overpowered. The Game system is never at fault, just the DM, because all he has to do is say 'No! Bad player, no biscuit!' Followed by a swift whap on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.


Oh, c'mon. D&D is broken, but a DM MUST have the game under control and sometimes he must say no, otherwise you'll have a broken game with any system. I've seen a broken character even in GURPS. :smallconfused:

That said, problems in 3.5 exist, and are a lot. The OP is simply remembering that you don't have to be a great DM to limit the brokeness, and (most af all) you don't have to stomp the players; you just have to apply a little commonsense.

The concept is simple, but I've the impression that this is the path that leads to flames... :smallamused:

PS: Tecnically, I think magic shops with everything at hand, didn't exist. For every town, you have an amount of gp (according to the DM tables) and the magical object should be generated casually until you reach the sum of gp at disposal in that town; even in a metropolis, you're no sure to find the magical object you need.
Well, casters have the feats to make objects by themselves, but at least they must spend feats and time.
An interesting option is that, if the player wants some specific equipment and in town there isn't, you (as a DM) can invent a side-quest to find such item...

JeminiZero
2009-04-10, 02:51 AM
Angels. Demons. Fey. Devils. Aberrations. Dragons. Most of them have access to dispel magic.


Which also works on items.

If a soulknife and a wizard are chasing after a Solar over a lava pool, relying on flight from items, the Solar can suppress the items and send them falling. The wizard at least can either try and cast fire resistance or flight, while the soulknife has no chance at all.

Similiarly if the cleric and monk are fighting an incorporeal strength draining undead with nothing but mundane gear. The monk finds his fist do not count as magic for striking incorporeal, while the cleric casts magic weapon and sheltered vitality.

Seffbasilisk
2009-04-10, 03:36 AM
As a DM I simply limit what comes into game, requiring each item to be pre-approved.

Even then, I warn the players once. If they aim to break my game, I send in DMPCs, well within CR range, that will absolutely slaughter them. If they take the Hunted flaw? I'm hunting them. Etc.

Belial_the_Leveler
2009-04-10, 04:23 AM
If a soulknife and a wizard are chasing after a Solar over a lava pool, relying on flight from items, the Solar can suppress the items and send them falling.
Tactics; the solar cannot see the ring of solar wings you're wearing under your lead-lined nonmagical gauntlets. The same gauntlets which prevent your sword from being disarmed, too.
Anyone can hide and protect his items like that. No-one can hide his spells well enough to ensure they won't be detected.


Similiarly if the cleric and monk are fighting an incorporeal strength draining undead with nothing but mundane gear.
They're both toast; the undead can attack from within the ground. It can wait in it until the spells end and come up again, too. They can't attack into it. And if the undead is a ghost, the cleric loses his holy symbol to telekineses.

Narmoth
2009-04-10, 04:52 AM
Because if you can't solve the problem with brute force, you aren't using enough.

I don't get more happy if the monster died in 2 rounds because I did 50 or 500 dmg to it.
Really.
Thus, if the problem is the same (kill that thing) and the solution is the same (kill that thing) things will get boring, no matter how powerful you are.
For the record: I'm ECL 15. I do more than 400 hp dmg in 2 rounds. With my greatsword coupled with feats and spells.
Yeah, it's broken. And no, it's not really that fun.
We never see any treasure because we spend it so intelligently (when we got loot we made a flying ship), I only have +1-items (with a ecl 15 group!) and will take vow of poverty because it will actually fit my repenting character.
But: I'll get better ac with it than I get with my armour! Even my fluff-inspired ideas are powergaming because we are so lootstarved.

Next game we'll come back to a village that holds slaves. I will free those slaves one way or another. If we had loot, I'd simply buy them out. Now I will try to intimidate the villagers (I can boost my intimidate past 30 before rolling, and yes, I'll take 20 on it in addition). If that fails, I'll free them by force (great cleave, a lot of dmg on hit). Guess which alternative ruins the game world most?
Broken? Indeed. But fun.
And by the rules as well

JeminiZero
2009-04-10, 04:56 AM
Tactics; the solar cannot see the ring of solar wings you're wearing under your lead-lined nonmagical gauntlets. The same gauntlets which prevent your sword from being disarmed, too.
Anyone can hide and protect his items like that. No-one can hide his spells well enough to ensure they won't be detected.


At this point I would like to point out the irony of relying on (somewhat cheesy) lead lined gloves, in a thread where you speak against players getting any item they want. :smallwink:



They're both toast; the undead can attack from within the ground. It can wait in it until the spells end and come up again, too. They can't attack into it.


Unless they're in the elemental plane of air, where there is no ground. Or the cleric could hope one of his domains grants him a spell that lets him turn incorporeal as well and give chase, or to teleport somewhere safe.

The point I'm trying to make is that regardless of degree of magical item availability, the bottom tier classes are generally no less sucky compared to the top tier classes.

Sure, low magic makes crazy munchkinism harder to achieve, but the monk and soul knife are still going to look bad compared to the swordsage and psywar.

Belial_the_Leveler
2009-04-10, 05:14 AM
Lead is easily available. So are nonmagical gauntlets. So are smiths. In any case simple gloves block line of sight/effect well enough.

As for class tiers, you are right. Weak classes will remain weak and that's the game designers' fault in most cases. It's already strong classes not becoming stronger that my suggestions aim at. Allowing them to do so is the DM's fault in most cases.

ZeroNumerous
2009-04-10, 05:16 AM
Tactics; the solar cannot see the ring of solar wings you're wearing under your lead-lined nonmagical gauntlets.

A solar (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm#angelSolar) has an intelligence score of 23 and a wisdom score of 25. If it seems a human flying, does not see wings and knows that humans cannot normally fly without wings.. It's going to use Dispel Magic. Handing a creature the idiot ball does not make it more balanced when facing useless classes.

EDIT: At the above: AoE Dispel affects everything in it's radius. It just has to aim the AoE to catch the Monk and Wizard to dispel their things.

BlueWizard
2009-04-10, 05:48 AM
Belial, I agree.

Crazy Scot
2009-04-10, 06:05 AM
I see a repetitive concept here. Basically, if a person wants to break a game, they probably can even within RAW and with limited magic item availability. The DM can step in and knock some sense into them to get them back in line, or just eliminate the character if it gets out of hand, but this is not the real problem I think. I personnally, occasionally, find combinations within RAW which have the potential to unleash game-breakage, but my gaming friends are comforted by one fact, that while I know the rules, I never use them to break a game. When I game, I prefer Roleplaying as opposed to Rollplaying. If you set out to break a game, in an actual campaign, what you are probably really doing is either frustrating the DM or the other players, and often times both. It may be great to be able to drop a creature in one round, but if you leave nothing for the others to do, or leave the DM wondering what the heck he can throw at you, you are really only hurting the game. I have said this before in other threads, the basic premise behind gaming (any game: RPG, board, computer, etc) is HAVING FUN. If you are destroying the fun of others be careful you don't find yourself playing by yourself in the near future.

Thrud
2009-04-10, 06:31 AM
I see a repetitive concept here. Basically, if a person wants to break a game, they probably can even within RAW and with limited magic item availability. The DM can step in and knock some sense into them to get them back in line, or just eliminate the character if it gets out of hand, but this is not the real problem I think. I personnally, occasionally, find combinations within RAW which have the potential to unleash game-breakage, but my gaming friends are comforted by one fact, that while I know the rules, I never use them to break a game. When I game, I prefer Roleplaying as opposed to Rollplaying. If you set out to break a game, in an actual campaign, what you are probably really doing is either frustrating the DM or the other players, and often times both. It may be great to be able to drop a creature in one round, but if you leave nothing for the others to do, or leave the DM wondering what the heck he can throw at you, you are really only hurting the game. I have said this before in other threads, the basic premise behind gaming (any game: RPG, board, computer, etc) is HAVING FUN. If you are destroying the fun of others be careful you don't find yourself playing by yourself in the near future.

Yeah, I have always asserted that roleplaying is the key and provides the solution to powergaming, and at heart if everyone keeps in mind exactly the way their character should actually think and react then there will be no problem. And if the player is incapable of that, then the DM can simply say no and hopefully eventually the lesson will be learned.

Hmm, I had an interesting disccusion going in a thread about that once, last summer, before RL stepped in and kicked me hard in the head. I should dig that up.

edit- Err, not literally. No thread necromancy from me, no siree bob.

mostlyharmful
2009-04-10, 06:41 AM
Lead is easily available. So are nonmagical gauntlets. So are smiths. In any case simple gloves block line of sight/effect well enough.

Area dispel ignores homebrew lead lining. by this understanding all characters should run around with a gimpsuit on over their items so as to block line of sight and line of effect, it's the same idea as hiding behind your total cover tower shield which then disappears as it's an item in your possesion and should get ignored by the DM.


As for class tiers, you are right. Weak classes will remain weak and that's the game designers' fault in most cases. It's already strong classes not becoming stronger that my suggestions aim at. Allowing them to do so is the DM's fault in most cases.

They don't get stronger, they get proportionally stronger when compared to deitemed lower tier PCs. When the game is rejigged to reduce WBL no-one is arguing that the top tier get better, just that they loss less power than others, they loss a considerable amount of their endurance though since they now have less slots and less backup casting to blow through every day. Which inconveniences the non-casters since their resource management means that the team now has to retreat and rest more often as the meleers hp drops faster since they don't get the same level of buffs and Battlefield controls slung by their mates.

Saph
2009-04-10, 06:51 AM
1) Encounters are made by the DM.

...

2) While the normal amount of treasure is given in encounter tables, the type of treasure is decided upon by the DM... or rolled randomly.

...

3) Time is a limited resource in a campaign with an overall goal in mind.

This is all very accurate - and the reason I find most CharOp stuff to be pretty useless for actual games. It assumes too much.

Two other points I'd add:

4) Book access is determined by the DM. Reasonable DMs will usually allow stuff from a particular book if you ask for it (and bring the book to use as reference) but the more powerful and less well-known it is, the less likely they'll okay it. Assuming that you're going to be allowed to use interpretation A of obscure feat B from Dragon issue C is not generally a good idea.

5) In a typical fight, you don't automatically know the monster's strengths and weaknesses. Looking something up in the Monster Manual mid-session to find its weakest save is not a practical tactic for several reasons.

- Saph

Kyeudo
2009-04-10, 09:57 AM
1) Knowledge checks. It is DC 10 + Monster's HD in an appropriate knowledge skill to identify basic information about a monster. That's not hard to make for most of the good forms (like Chokers).
2) Item Creation Feats. If you want it, you can make it yourself most times.
3) You are not always on a time crunch and many encounters can be solved with a single spell. Wizards have far more spell slots than they need for the day if they play smart, and playing smart is the essence of Batman.

And Saph's 4 and 5,
4) Most of the truely devastating stuff is Core. Wish, Time Stop, Polymorph Any Object, etc. Everything else is just icing on the cake.
5) Monster saves are mostly by Creature Type. You only need to know Outsider, Animal, Magical Beast, Monstrous Humanoid, Giant, Dragon, Aberration, Elemental, Fey, Ooze, Plant, Construct, and Undead. That's only 13 types to memorize.

Kurald Galain
2009-04-10, 10:21 AM
1) Knowledge checks. It is DC 10 + Monster's HD in an appropriate knowledge skill to identify basic information about a monster.
If you assume that every DM must let you take the form of a choker just because you can make a knowledge check, you are quite a bit wrong.


2) Item Creation Feats. If you want it, you can make it yourself most times.
If the DM doesn't allow the item, then no you can't. Furthermore, if your campaign doesn't have sufficient downtime, then no you can't either.



4) Most of the truely devastating stuff is Core. Wish, Time Stop, Polymorph Any Object, etc. Everything else is just icing on the cake.
As a simple counterargument, Incantatrix. Or how about Nightsticks, or DMM to begin with, or Celerity, or Initiate of the Sevenfold Gouda. Hm, none of that is core. Wow.

mostlyharmful
2009-04-10, 10:30 AM
As a simple counterargument, Incantatrix. Or how about Nightsticks, or DMM to begin with, or Celerity, or Initiate of the Sevenfold Gouda. Hm, none of that is core. Wow.

Incantatrix, Nightsticks and DMM are all just manipulations of the metamagic system that came in core, reducing the costs is indeed broken no argument but the best spells they use are the ones that have come up time and again from core. Celerity is a whole lot less broken without Contingency, Timestop and Foresight.... which are all core. Initiate of the sevenfold is a good example of out-of-core cheese sure, but it's a long loooong way down on the others being bandied around here and in no way compares to Genesis, Shapechange, Gate etc.

Belial_the_Leveler
2009-04-10, 02:50 PM
The most important rule to remember;

6) When something is open to interpretation, the DM's interpretation usually stands. What constitutes familiarity for Shapechange? The knowledge check only reveals a few pieces of pertinent info so you don't know all of a creature's abilities-let alone how exactly they work. The DM might as well rule you're not familiar enough unless you either study the creature or fight against it. What constitutes an environment for Genesis? The example includes temperature, terrain shape, amosphere and the like so the DM might as well rule that natural laws such as gravity and time (not one of which is mentioned anywhere in the spell) aren't environment. The DM might also say that since the demiplane is conterminous (open to) to the Ethereal, the laws are as per the Ethereal. How literally does an unwilling Gated creature with an intelligence of 30 follow your commands? Whoops! You didn't tell it not to include you in the area of its area attacks. You're dead!

Myrmex
2009-04-10, 03:42 PM
For low-magic games, the issue quickly becomes which challenges the PCs can and can't handle. Things like stat-boosters and Cloaks of Resistance are factored into monsters(suposedly). It's hard to balance encounters without those, and PCs will definitely be unable to face many level-appropriate challenges. Spellcasters are generally the least affected(check out EricGrau's thread on trying to find needed equipment for casters for his low-magic item fix), with non-caster meleers being hit worst, IMHO.

I find that those problems are most easily solved by equipping NPCs with small static boosters everyone should have. Your NPCs aren't going to last against the wizard's spells without one, anyway!

woodenbandman
2009-04-10, 03:47 PM
This is a pretty good idea, but there are a few things:

Heward's Fortifying Bedroll. Totally unjustifiable to remove such a (likely) common, (definitely) useful item from the game, and it trivializes rest periods.

Actually, that was about it.

It's my opinion that wizards should be the party buffers/debuffers, because if they go around and kill everything with summons/SoDs, then not only is the party pissed, but the DM has to work harder to challenge the wizard, rather than the party as a whole. That's lame.

Telonius
2009-04-10, 03:52 PM
Three propositions...

1. As-written, D&D has a lot of potential for rules abuse and game imbalance.
2. DMs should be in control of their games.
3. Players should have fun.

None of these propositions implies the others are true or false. There's nothing inconsistent about believing all three. All three are debatable. But a lot of the flaming comes from people who think that 2 being true implies that 1 and/or 3 are false.

Narmoth
2009-04-10, 04:04 PM
Heward's Fortifying Bedroll. Totally unjustifiable to remove such a (likely) common, (definitely) useful item from the game, and it trivializes rest periods.

What book is it in?

Swordguy
2009-04-10, 04:29 PM
Three propositions...

1. As-written, D&D has a lot of potential for rules abuse and game imbalance.
2. DMs should be in control of their games.
3. Players should have fun.

None of these propositions implies the others are true or false. There's nothing inconsistent about believing all three. All three are debatable. But a lot of the flaming comes from people who think that 2 being true implies that 1 and/or 3 are false.

I would add:

4) Players should not deliberately attempt to see what they can "get away with" - if you have to use the term "get away with" anything, you're tacitly admitting that it's broken to being with.

Otherwise, you aren't incorrect in the slightest. But some of the onus for the game IS on the players, not just "the GM being in control of the game" (which makes everything the GM's fault if it doesn't happen).

lesser_minion
2009-04-10, 05:03 PM
it's the same idea as hiding behind your total cover tower shield which then disappears as it's an item in your possesion and should get ignored by the DM.

Actually, I was under the impression that a tower shield explicitly states that it does nothing to block spells, and then explains that a caster can merely target the item you are holding.

I think in low-magic games you would probably go with the flying mount approach, although I would also consider reducing the number of magical countermeasures out there if magic items are going to be rare.

I'm going to agree with Swordguy, that players shouldn't be trying to break the game, however.

As for the bedroll: does it actually say something like "benefits of eight hours' rest"? Or does it say "full nights' sleep". The two are different (even if you don't sleep 8hrs/day, you still have to rest while preparing spells.)

One thing that could be worth adding to what Belial has already said, although it really just refines rule #6 for one specific case:

7. Custom items, of any kind, are designed and houseruled into the game by the DM. If anyone tries wearing a shrunk adamantine cone for a wizard's hat then they die as it expands, either crushing them, cutting them in half or even doing something horrible considering how fast it must be expanding in order to do so.

And anyone who makes a +100 item of Diplomacy should not be surprised when said item requires and a custom homebrew Epic spell that the DM just wrote with a Spellcraft DC that Pun-Pun couldn't make.

The same goes for the lead-lined gloves - they offer protection from dispels if the DM says they do. They don't if she doesn't.

mostlyharmful
2009-04-10, 05:24 PM
Actually, I was under the impression that a tower shield explicitly states that it does nothing to block spells, and then explains that a caster can merely target the item you are holding.

However, by a RAWtarded reading of the rules a tower shield can give you total cover, by which you can hide, by which you (again RAW, oh the hilarity) disapear along with everything you're holding onto including the shield..... hence you poof into invisibility...... you can target someone you can see but if they hide behind RAW then you are a weeee bit stuffed.


I'm going to agree with Swordguy, that players shouldn't be trying to break the game, however.

That applies to all involved, players and DMs alike. This is a communal endevour we spend our nights fartassing about doing.


As for the bedroll: does it actually say something like "benefits of eight hours' rest"? Or does it say "full nights' sleep". The two are different (even if you don't sleep 8hrs/day, you still have to rest while preparing spells.)

Yes, it is specifically an item that lets you recharge your spell slots, you can only use it once every 48 hours.


The same goes for the lead-lined gloves - they offer protection from dispels if the DM says they do. They don't if she doesn't.

And if the DM says there are no gods and no sources of divine power the cleric and the druid get hosed, what's your point?

lesser_minion
2009-04-11, 07:19 AM
And if the DM says there are no gods and no sources of divine power the cleric and the druid get hosed, what's your point?

The gloves are just an example of a custom mundane item, like the hat of adamantine. I wouldn't allow them either, although it is an interesting idea.

I missed the trick about using a Tower Shield to enable a Hide Check, which is a case where the DM should probably just slap the player with Rule 0 and Rule -1 (don't be a jerk).

As for your comments on the DM also not breaking the game or being a jerk - you're right. Players do have the right to expect the DM not to make unfair or unreasonable judgements.

HailDiscordia
2009-04-11, 10:53 AM
Why would anyone want to break the game? I don't get it. Isn't the point to just enjoy it and have fun with some friends?

As a DM I have never had a problem saying that something wasn't going to be kosher for a game, but usually it's not an issue since the players I game with don't want to be that way either. I agree that it's a fun intellectual exercise in gaming to try to create super characters, but those should never really see the light of day in an actual game. Even some of the core stuff can be abused pretty good. Ever see the spring attack, spiked chain wielding fighter in action? It's as devestating as it is lame, which is to say very. Ideally players won't want those types of characters.

I also think it's important to limit what books are available in the game, some (most?) of those were made primarily to sell more books, secondarily to actually add to the game play. The result being that they have all sorts of "broken" stuff in them.

horseboy
2009-04-11, 08:45 PM
The vast majority of powergaming is done when a player has a full freedom in choosing treasure, preparations and world conditions and knowledge. However, such choice in a normal game does not reside with the player.Okay, to be the voice of oposition. No, the vast majority of powergaming is NOT done when a player has a full freedom in choosing treasure. Because 1) that is a sweeping generalization and 2) Living Greyhawk had a lot of power gamers in it, Dyvers is a wretched hive of scum and powergamery.
Players MUST have knowledge of their world during character creation or else their characters will only "fit in" by random chance or if the DM completely builds the world around 4-6 people. Not my personal style, but I will acknowledge it's validity.
Finally, I assume you mean "over" preparation, as I am a Gygaxian player and view any character not prepared to be deserving to die for incompetency.


1) Encounters are made by the DM. As a result, a player character cannot be familiar with a creature or kind of creature the DM does not want him to be. False. The DM determines what creatures are in the world, as the world is the purview of the DM. However, an agreed on set of rules determine what a character knows. In 3.x Raw that's the Knowledge skills. It is within the power of the DM to decide that another method is to be consistently used. It's also within the power of the players to veto this either by decry, or leaving.
The next problem becomes how will this new method define a "good enough" familiarity. Does one have to buy it dinner and a movie first? Is seeing it at a "zoo" enough? Is watching it though his master's crystal ball while a voice over tries to sell him insurance enough? Does one need to vivisect it? Mages are, arch typically scholars. Given the existence of "Summon" spells it would certainly be well within the grasp of believability that some magician, cleric or druid would have created a Grey's Anatomy of every animal available via that spell.


Due to the randomness or DM-dependability of treasure, PCs cannot have whatever items they want. So powergaming requiring specific items requires the PCs to sell loot for 50% of the price then find a vendor that has the item in question. It turns out the local church only had one nightstick to sell. To find the remaining 665 you need to go over a few thousand more churches all over the country.Kinda sorta true. You don't need that many night sticks, in fact it's pretty much easier to just ban night sticks. Casters don't really need items, any they get is either gravy (pearls of power, orange ioun stone) or basic stuff everybody needs (cloak of saves, stat bonus items, HHH). And they can naturally make their own anyway.


3) Time is a limited resource in a campaign with an overall goal in mind. A wizard could blow off four 9th level spells, a contingency and a dozen other spell slots into a single encounter and then go to rest. Unfortunately, the invading enemy army is under a strict timetable; they're going to pull off four assaults (encounters) that day, five the following day and a similar amount in the days to follow. The villain's plan of ascension is going to be completed by midnight of tat day and anyone wishing to stop him must overcome his three-layer (encounter) defense and fight him too before he succeeds. So a wizard can't blow off more than a single rest period per day. Why do you think he'll have the time to cast Genesis that requires an entire week of casting time?
Two things here:
1) "Batman" wizards do not nova. You don't have to "blow off four 9th level spells, a contingency and a dozen other spell slots into a single encounter and then go to rest." You blow maybe two evernations, or a glittercheese, or what have you and the encounter is all over but the cryin'. Batman solving all the problems with a nova is a myth.
2) a) That's why things like spell scribing, item creation, item buying and all that sort of thing happen between adventures. The party teleports (or sneaks, I mean, come on, it's not like minions tend to be classes with spot/listen/search) in, pew-pew-pews the BBEG and claims all his stuff (including his army). Now, with the world safe, is the time when you cast genesis and be ready for the next BBEG.
2) b) So I take it your campaign world doesn't have winter? All the Owl Bears hibernating in their barns, armies unable to move because of cold weather, nobody really wanting to go outside. Another great time to get "caught up" on the "paperwork" aspects of being an adventurer.


The game is much less breakable under the above circumstances.Yes, and if one suspends their 360 from the ceiling and has a 24" fan underneath it blowing cooled air at it constantly it's much less likely to catch the RROD. Trying to blame a DM because their D&D game blew up is like trying to blame the driver of a Pinto. Some things are just poorly engineered.