PDA

View Full Version : Druids and Fighters



Zergrusheddie
2009-09-11, 12:37 AM
Those of you who have a great memory may remember my questions and the like about playing a Druid. I decided to do an Ape Druid type of build (Uses Spikes on a Staff while in an Apelike form) and found it to work decently. Currently, I turn into a Dire Ape and attack at +13/+8 for 1d6+17 damage and I am 8th level straight Druid. I find that it is roughly the same as turning into something like a Brown Bear in terms of raw power. This is the thread I started (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119286) when my usefulness in combat was questioned; I'm making this thread as a "What can I do?" and to mostly pass on some semi-amusing information and irony.

These guys play classes as they were 'intended' to be played; Fighters are Sword and Boarders, Clerics are healbots, and Wizards are Evokers. The best way to describe the largest section of the party is thus: the last person to play a Druid took Natural Spell at level 15 once he ran out of feats that he could take that enhance his Archery skill and he only used Wildshape to go Eagle Form and fly Combat Air Scout. Oh, and he never used his Animal Companion. :smallamused:

Last session some of the other players (not the DM) actually stopped me and accused me of cheating. Most of the accusations include not changing my HP when I Wildshape, not reducing my BAB or hit dice, not reducing my Wisdom when I Wildshape, and casting spells during Wildshape. After showing them the Alternate Form Errata and the SRD, I stated that "Druids are often considered overpowered because they have special abilities that are more powerful than entire classes", which they simply dismissed as 'Internet Theory'.

At some point, the question of "what is the point of playing a Fighter if a Druid is better than he is (pointed at the SnB Fighter) at being a Fighter?" came out. This question is the primary point of this thread, with the beginning just to show the irony of how I have gone from being "useless" to "obviously cheating". I think it is mostly the Wizard being upset that I am starting to do more damage than his 10d6 Sonicballs.

TL;DR Version:
How do I respond to "What is the point of being a Fighter if a Druid can do it better than a Fighter?" when it is asked by extremely old fashioned players? The only thing I could come up with is "There is no reason as Fighters are a Tier 4 class and Druids are a Tier 1 class." I would use this line, but it would be dismissed as 'Internet Theory' and will still leave the other players curious.

Best of luck y'all!
-Eddie

FMArthur
2009-09-11, 12:44 AM
Make fun of the way they say "internet theory" as though it means inapplicable nonsense. Tell them that "Internet theory" comes to be from (get this) a huge amount of people playing the same game and discussing it with others.

Kylarra
2009-09-11, 12:44 AM
If you wish to portray an archetype (fighter) as defined within a very narrow scope of abilities (wears armor, hits things) complete with metagame label.

mikej
2009-09-11, 12:50 AM
{tremors}

"I sense a hundred trolls about to gather in one single location"

Joking aside, your situation is 100% the same when I'd pick up the Druid. Before me it was some previous Druid player that didn't know what he was doing. I'd managed to out perform basically the entire party and my only previous experience was a Sorcerer. Nonetheless, my DM was upset after the end of the campaign. I wasn't very optimized at all either. Just an Half-Elf Druid with litthe Con and the only smart move was taking Natural Spell.

IMO, there is really nothing you can do except dumbing yourself down. I still get backlash from "why should we play X non-caster." I'm sure other posters would give better advice but I've been through this before.

Eldariel
2009-09-11, 12:54 AM
Well, let them keep dismissing it as "internet theory" and wait for the reality to knock them in the forehead... Aside from that, Fighter's role is obviously to use all the feats he's got to do something productive instead of increasing their damage ever-so-slightly. Which is why Core sucks for them.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-09-11, 12:54 AM
If you wish to portray an archetype (fighter) as defined within a very narrow scope of abilities (wears armor, hits things) complete with metagame label.Open ToB. Take a sharpie. Cross out all mentions of Warblade. Replace with F1ghter.

@the OP: There isn't. That's sort of the issue with Fighters. When they ask that again, state that there's a reason Druids are considered broken and Fighters weak. When they say "Internet Theory", ask them what their opinion of the balance of the classes is after seeing them in action.

tyckspoon
2009-09-11, 12:58 AM
Things Fighters can do that Druids are not less good at:
Mundane combat control. Fighters have the spare feats to pick up the Improved (Combat Maneuver) feats. In particular, reach weapons and Improved Trip/Stand Still/Knockdown etc make the Fighter better at area denial (ignoring for the moment that the Druid's niche as a spellcaster is also area control starting from level 1 with Entangle, and that nobody goes much of anywhere when the Druid starts dropping tornadoes on them..) A Wildshape-centric Druid does better with single-target control, since Wildshape forms can pretty easily give you a monster-competitive Grapple check that is otherwise somewhat difficult to acquire.

Unfortunately, if the Fighter is running sword-n-board and the enemies are attacking him despite his low offensive capacity because that's Just How It Works, then chances are the group will not see the point of a trip build (they may follow the logic of prone enemy= +4 to hit= +8 extra damage from Power Attack, tho.)

Archery- Druids *can* do this, but Fighters have the feats and general stat arrangement to make it work better. It sounds like your group would probably insist on playing a Ranger if they wanted to do an archery-centric character, tho.

Raw damage: The Fighter can be superior here, but it requires optimization knowledge and source adventurousness that your group almost certainly doesn't have and would lash out against as 'broken' as soon as they saw it. So that's out.

Other than that.. not much reason to use a Fighter when you could be a Druid, mechanically speaking. At best you maybe get a Druid X/Fighter 2 who wanted a couple of bonus feats to help him out.

Kylarra
2009-09-11, 01:04 AM
Open ToB. Take a sharpie. Cross out all mentions of Warblade. Replace with F1ghter.
Yes I know the common response. :smalltongue:

Tempest Fennac
2009-09-11, 01:33 AM
One other advantage which Fighters may have for battlefield control is that they don't need spell slots to use things like Improved Trip or Stand Still. (Admittedly, this isn't likely to be a problem in most groups if the DM is unlikely to put them up against repeated encounters without giving them time to rest).

I'd say fluff is the main reason for not playing a Fighter over a Druid due to how different they are. The fact that Fighters require less book-keeping may be another reason for some players.

Fitz
2009-09-11, 01:37 AM
ok id recomend diplomacy, they are your gaming group, ooc arguements can ruin games. Make it clear how you are doing all that damage.. If they still say you are cheating there isnt much you can do, they are determined to see it. Otherwise, either tone down your optimisation a bit (so take some roleplay inspired feats for next level? Your can loose a feat to skill focus:caligraphy!) or suggest they try looking at "internet theory"
Fitz

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-09-11, 01:40 AM
Tell them that like all warfare, this game has evolved. They're still using bows and arrows in an age of gunpowder. They're the Samurai rebelling against the emperor's new howitzers and rotary guns. It may look like their characters are still effective, and they are just as effective as they've always been, but new tactics and strategies have since developed that are just so much better that they've become obsolete. Tell them that the 'Internet Theory' is no longer theory, it has been tested repeatedly by thousands of people in play and has been proven successful, just as they're seeing it succeed with your character. Tell them that their failure is due to a lack of effort on their part, that if they would just take their heads out of the sand and learn to play more effectively they won't end up feeling like your character's sidekicks.

Eldariel
2009-09-11, 01:41 AM
I'd also point out that it's worth emphasizing to them that the Fighter is Sword & Board. In other words, he's chosen defense as his primary shtick so he shouldn't expect to match offensive characters in damage output. Point out how much more efficient two-hander would be, especially in combination with Power Attack & Improved Trip.

Tempest Fennac
2009-09-11, 01:55 AM
I disagree with the idea of toning your optimization down (my rationel is that doing so would suggest that they have a point). As Biffoniacus said, the problem seems to be them not making the best decisions (I wouldn't class this as a problem if there was an RPing reason for those designs but if they are only making those characters because they think they are "supposed to", I can't see any reason to tone your characters down*).


* I tend to think that making moptimal decisions always makes sense from an RPing perspective due to how your characters wouldn't want to make decisions which wouldn't maximize their survival chances.

jiriku
2009-09-11, 01:58 AM
Let me get this straight...the guy dismisses you when you say that it's common knowledge the druid is stronger, then huffs and asks why he should play a fighter since your druid is so much stronger? Okaaay, sure.

If the druids are racing cycles, then fighters are the tricycles of D&D - easy to learn! You don't have to read more than 30 pages out of the PHB to roll a fighter, sit down and play. Many of my players have never read the PHB completely through and refuse to learn the game well enough to level up their characters without hep. For players like them, ease of play is a huge advantage.

A druid can be much more effective than a fighter, but playing a druid well requires reading a lot more of the PHB, including the spell list, then delving into the MM for shapes and companon and summons, then pre-statting out druid forms, possible summoned monsters, and the animal companion. And this assumes you restrict yourself to core and don't poke your nose into the DMG to look into magic items. For low-involvement players, that's way more time than they're willing to invest in the game.

In 3.5, casters are for serious hobbyists, while non-casters are for accessible casual players.

Doc Roc
2009-09-11, 02:02 AM
Basically, I hate to say it, but...


I'm a well-known champion of optimization. I believe firmly in a player's right to choose. Sorry! Too funny to pass up.

I also believe firmly in a group's right to enjoy their game their way. I think you might consider sitting down with them outside of the table and talking about the various directions they could move in. If they won't budge, you may have to either seek out another game, or nerf-bat your character. These are your friends though. Good friends, I hope. If they won't look at math, maybe they'll listen to you when you present your experiences as evidence. Alternatively, offer to run a game for them with more optimized characters.

Basically, no one's wrong here. You are cheating, in their eyes. They have rules, a set of constraints they place on game performance out of passionate preference. This is silly, sure, but it can also be a lot of fun. If it's not fun for you, then there's the titch of things.

elliott20
2009-09-11, 02:04 AM
I would be careful to not take on the same tone as Biff though. While he does have a valid point, making this about THEIR play style will elevate this to a personal level and it can get ugly from there on out.

Doc Roc
2009-09-11, 02:05 AM
It is about their style. This isn't bad, or unfortunate. They do outnumber you, here. Significantly, if I'm not off my mark. You're the person who (while acting PERFECTLY within your rights as a player) kicked over the apple cart. There are in fact apples, now on the metaphorical ground, that were once in the metaphorical cart.

Kylarra
2009-09-11, 02:08 AM
You could tell them that you can only wildshape a certain number of times per day, whereas the fighter can always fight. It probably won't work, but it's worth a try.

olentu
2009-09-11, 02:09 AM
Well I assume their problem with internet theory is that it is has not had enough sufficiently rigorous experiential verification for them to invest in it. I would assume that they are composing something like this





The Royal Society of Dungeons and Dragons
213 The Real World Avenue
Reality, RL 12345

8/10/2009

Mr. The Internet
31337 Online Street
The Net, WWW 55555

Dear Mr. Internet:

We are sorry to inform you that your grant proposal has been rejected. Your theory on the nature of class value has produced some interesting results. The homebrew factor shows promise and the newly derived player preference equation successfully combines both in-game and meta-game conditions to provide an increased happiness ratio. However we do not think that your theory is sufficiently developed for the society to make such an investment at this time.


Sincerely,



The Royal Society of Dungeons and Dragons


So clearly the answer is to secure outside funding and perform more experiments to refine the theory and gain additional confirmation. Perhaps a company would be willing to fund the project if the possible payoff is sufficient though the company may suppress any discoveries if they would hurt profits.

Eloel
2009-09-11, 02:10 AM
How do I respond to "What is the point of being a Fighter if a Druid can do it better than a Fighter?" when it is asked by extremely old fashioned players?

There is no point.

Easy answer.

Doc Roc
2009-09-11, 02:11 AM
Well I assume their problem with internet theory is that it is has not had enough sufficiently rigorous experiential verification for them to invest in it. I would assume that they are composing something like this




So clearly the answer is to secure outside funding and perform more experiments to refine the theory and gain additional confirmation. Perhaps a company would be willing to fund the project if the possible payoff is sufficient though the company may suppress any discoveries if they would hurt profits.

I lawled. I'd just picked up my drink, so you nearly got me.

elliott20
2009-09-11, 02:15 AM
whatever it is you want to do, you gotta make sure that you establish that the RAW is on your side and that you are merely playing to the effectiveness provided by RAW.

I'm saying, don't make it about the player's personal character (as in, not their personality), and more just about the system and how it's flaws. They might not believe you, but at least they see where you're coming from.

nefele
2009-09-11, 03:54 AM
How do I respond to "What is the point of being a Fighter if a Druid can do it better than a Fighter?" when it is asked by extremely old fashioned players?
Old fashioned answers for old fashioned players (and no, I don't mean that in a bad way).

You play a Fighter because it's fun. You enjoy role-playing a familiar and beloved archetype. You are having a good time. What more do you want?

That said, in cases like this, it's difficult for all the others to stand back while you take care of everything, and it's difficult for the DM to come up with encounters that will challenge equally all players. When this first happens, it's nobody's "fault".

You are certainly not to blame for playing a Druid legally and effectively (and an unoptimised druid, for that matter). On the other hand, they are not to blame for playing the archetypes they want, without struggling with optimisation techniques (which are obviously alien to them) in order to bring their characters closer to your power level. It's simply a flaw in the system: widely different levels of optimisation (in the broad sense) can ruin the game for everyone.

But once this happens, some compromise from both parties would be wonderful. For their part, they really should stop being so... jealous. Yes, a Druid is more powerful by default. So? D&D isn't a contest about "who can build the most powerful character", it's a role-playing game. If they focus on role-playing to their heart's delight instead of trying to outshine the old man with the Viper, all will be better.

And for your part, maybe you should try to leave them some room to shine in battle, too. How? You choose. Could be a typical "So, instead of personally mopping the floor with the monsters, I'll buff you guys! Go bash some heads!" You could use a nerfed version of the Druid, like taking Shapeshift variant or -gasp!- retraining Natural Spell. From what I gather, even without Natural Spell, you'll be better than the lot of them. Choose whether to wildshape OR cast control spells OR summon an army - you can most certainly do all of the above at the same time, but you don't have to. Not if it ruins the fun for the others. (Who subsequently spite you, and ruin the fun for you, too...)

Now, if you don't identify yourself as an "old fashioned player" and if their whole mentality truly annoys you (from what I gathered), maybe this group isn't the best for you. You can always look for a group that will be more to your liking. No hard feelings and no drama needed, it's just that you prefer a different game style. :smallsmile:

kamikasei
2009-09-11, 04:29 AM
"What's the point?"

That question's carrying a whole lot of baggage. "If druids were so much stronger than fighters, there'd be no point in playing fighters. The designers wouldn't do that, so you must be cheating."

The points you need to get across are a) yes, classes do differ in strength, you can't assume the designers got everything just right, and b) you're playing to the strengths of a strong class, while the fighter is a weak class and sword-and-board is a weak style for him.

Maybe they'll dismiss that as "internet theory", but all you can do is point out that that's the consensus achieved by a large number of people looking at the problem and that it's being borne out in your games. Neither point should be particularly hampered by the players being "old fashioned".

As to what to do in the group, once you convince them you're not cheating? I would suggest a party-boosting playstyle where you buff and BC and tone down the actual in-person face-murdering, and at the same time see if you can help the fighter be a little more effective. Not "play a warblade" or anything like that, but work out some strategies to make use of combat bonuses and maybe track down / import some feats to help with his style. (What sources do you have access to?)

Zergrusheddie
2009-09-11, 04:49 AM
Those of you who have a great memory may remember my questions and the like about playing a Druid. I decided to do an Ape Druid type of build (Uses Spikes on a Staff while in an Apelike form) and found it to work decently. Currently, I turn into a Dire Ape and attack at +13/+8 for 1d6+17 damage and I am 8th level straight Druid. I find that it is roughly the same as turning into something like a Brown Bear in terms of raw power. This is the thread I started (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119286) when my usefulness in combat was questioned; I'm making this thread as a "What can I do?" and to mostly pass on some semi-amusing information and irony.

These guys play classes as they were 'intended' to be played; Fighters are Sword and Boarders, Clerics are healbots, and Wizards are Evokers. The best way to describe the largest section of the party is thus: the last person to play a Druid took Natural Spell at level 15 once he ran out of feats that he could take that enhance his Archery skill and he only used Wildshape to go Eagle Form and fly Combat Air Scout. Oh, and he never used his Animal Companion. :smallamused:

Last session some of the other players (not the DM) actually stopped me and accused me of cheating. Most of the accusations include not changing my HP when I Wildshape, not reducing my BAB or hit dice, not reducing my Wisdom when I Wildshape, and casting spells during Wildshape. After showing them the Alternate Form Errata and the SRD, I stated that "Druids are often considered overpowered because they have special abilities that are more powerful than entire classes", which they simply dismissed as 'Internet Theory'.

At some point, the question of "what is the point of playing a Fighter if a Druid is better than he is (pointed at the SnB Fighter) at being a Fighter?" came out. This question is the primary point of this thread, with the beginning just to show the irony of how I have gone from being "useless" to "obviously cheating". I think it is mostly the Wizard being upset that I am starting to do more damage than his 10d6 Sonicballs.

TL;DR Version:
How do I respond to "What is the point of being a Fighter if a Druid can do it better than a Fighter?" when it is asked by extremely old fashioned players? The only thing I could come up with is "There is no reason as Fighters are a Tier 4 class and Druids are a Tier 1 class." I would use this line, but it would be dismissed as 'Internet Theory' and will still leave the other players curious.

Best of luck y'all!
-Eddie

Tyrmatt
2009-09-11, 04:58 AM
It comes down to the simple facts. In a closed room where wave after wave of enemies come at you, the druid will live longer, hit harder and even has the potential to escape or turn the tables with his own summoned creatures ALL AT ONCE.

Now the fighter has only one option in a closed room and that's to fight. He only has whatever equipment he can easily reach out of his backpack without dying of AoOs and no exit strategy.

Offer to run a battle simulation of a oldies style Sword and Board fighter vs your druid against waves of increasingly difficult enemies and illustrate the fact that it's simply a power gap. Maybe nudge them towards Tome of Battle as well.

Saph
2009-09-11, 05:38 AM
TL;DR Version:
How do I respond to "What is the point of being a Fighter if a Druid can do it better than a Fighter?" when it is asked by extremely old fashioned players?

With difficulty.

You can say "Well, you guys should all play higher tier classes." This is equivalent to saying "You should all rebuild your characters, do a bunch of work that you obviously don't want to do, and learn a completely new playstyle." Not a good idea.

You can say "Suck it up, I know how to optimise and you don't, now I get to stomp all over you." Also not a good idea.

The trouble with the situation you're describing is that it might occur to either the DM or the players that the easiest way for them to solve their problems is to either get rid of your character or to get rid of you. If they're nice, they won't do this, but it's still kind of a precarious position to be in.

My preferred solution would be to use combat buffs to try to push the fighters in the group up to the level where they can stand on the front lines with you. But in the long term - and you may not like hearing this - you're probably better off toning down the optimisation levels. Remember that making a character more powerful does not necessarily equate to more fun.

Edit: Whoops, looks like there are two threads. Could a mod merge them?

Starbuck_II
2009-09-11, 06:24 AM
Those of you who have a great memory may remember my questions and the like about playing a Druid. I decided to do an Ape Druid type of build (Uses Spikes on a Staff while in an Apelike form) and found it to work decently. Currently, I turn into a Dire Ape and attack at +13/+8 for 1d6+17 damage and I am 8th level straight Druid. I find that it is roughly the same as turning into something like a Brown Bear in terms of raw power. This is the thread I started (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119286) when my usefulness in combat was questioned; I'm making this thread as a "What can I do?" and to mostly pass on some semi-amusing information and irony.

These guys play classes as they were 'intended' to be played; Fighters are Sword and Boarders, Clerics are healbots, and Wizards are Evokers. The best way to describe the largest section of the party is thus: the last person to play a Druid took Natural Spell at level 15 once he ran out of feats that he could take that enhance his Archery skill and he only used Wildshape to go Eagle Form and fly Combat Air Scout. Oh, and he never used his Animal Companion. :smallamused:

Last session some of the other players (not the DM) actually stopped me and accused me of cheating. Most of the accusations include not changing my HP when I Wildshape, not reducing my BAB or hit dice, not reducing my Wisdom when I Wildshape, and casting spells during Wildshape. After showing them the Alternate Form Errata and the SRD, I stated that "Druids are often considered overpowered because they have special abilities that are more powerful than entire classes", which they simply dismissed as 'Internet Theory'.

At some point, the question of "what is the point of playing a Fighter if a Druid is better than he is (pointed at the SnB Fighter) at being a Fighter?" came out. This question is the primary point of this thread, with the beginning just to show the irony of how I have gone from being "useless" to "obviously cheating". I think it is mostly the Wizard being upset that I am starting to do more damage than his 10d6 Sonicballs.

TL;DR Version:
How do I respond to "What is the point of being a Fighter if a Druid can do it better than a Fighter?" when it is asked by extremely old fashioned players? The only thing I could come up with is "There is no reason as Fighters are a Tier 4 class and Druids are a Tier 1 class." I would use this line, but it would be dismissed as 'Internet Theory' and will still leave the other players curious.

Best of luck y'all!
-Eddie

Tell them Fighters are automatics, but Druids are stick shifts. Most people who drive a stick will tell you that stick shifts are better once you figure out how.

Same for Druids/Fighter disparity. Fighter are easier (just run up and hit things), but aren't as good same way manuals are easy to use but not as good.

Druids have to use the other foot (wildshape) and spells (stick) to drive better (combat, life, etc). So it seems like more work (but once do it becomes easy/second nature).

I got tell them:
Druids can 't wear mrtal armor. So the point of Fighters is wear the metal armor they find. Someone has to feed the rust monster :smallbiggrin:

Jack_Simth
2009-09-11, 06:27 AM
As I mentioned in a different thread:

... it's not the classes themselves that are broken. A party of four poorly-built bards isn't a problem - just throw stuff at them that they can handle while still being a challenge. A party of four optimal full casters isn't a problem - just throw stuff at them that they can handle while still being a challenge. Sure, one's running at -4 CR, the other's running at +4 CR, but either can be accounted for without too much headache by the DM, and everyone gets about the same spotlight time.

What breaks a game is not overpowered classes. It's a wide disparity of power amongst the players. In a party with an optimized Druid, Cleric, and Wizard, the Bard who doesn't know how to build a bard effectively is the broken one... because he's the one off of the power curve of the party, and he's the one that needs to be accounted for. In a party with three bards who don't know how to build characters (what, they wanted to play a rock band and drive around in the mystery mobile), the optimized Druid is the broken one - because he's off the power curve of the rest of the party. It's a game. The broken comes from when someone isn't having fun, and that (mechanically) usually comes from a significant disparity in spotlight time.

If you're teaming up with a Sword and Board Fighter, a Healbot Cleric, and a Evoker Wizard, and none of them are using particularly strong tricks to increase their effectiveness at those roles, you've got a broken character (you're playing significantly above their power level, and thus cutting back on their spotlight time). My recommendation is to tone it down. Pick less useful Wildshape forms (regular Ape instead of Dire Ape, for instance), use fewer buff spells (drop Barkskin and Greater Magic Fang) and play more to the party's level.

Waargh!
2009-09-11, 06:28 AM
Haven't played that lot the game, but a fighter never seemed a class worth of taking 8 levels.
Think of this. When leveling up the druids gets higher levels of spells. The fighter gets feats. There is not even a comparison how more powerful spells are than feats. The higher BAB helps but only a bit. Still spells are far more powerful.
For casters prestige classes offer some added bonuses. For fighters they are just a must.

Not all classes are equal.

The interesting thing to do is compare a 8 lvl fighter with an 8 lvl Druid when they both have the role of a melee fighter. Meaning comparing attack roll, damage roll, defenses and HP

Totally Guy
2009-09-11, 06:35 AM
Tell them Fighters are manuals, but Druids are stick shifts.

Manual is Stick Shift. You're thinking Fighters = Automatics.

Grumman
2009-09-11, 06:38 AM
Let me get this straight...the guy dismisses you when you say that it's common knowledge the druid is stronger, then huffs and asks why he should play a fighter since your druid is so much stronger? Okaaay, sure.
I assume it was a failed attempt at a reductio ad absurdum. Basically, he was saying "If what you were saying is true, why would they even bother creating the Fighter class?"

Unfortunately for him, the answer is that WotC made a mistake and underestimated the effectiveness of spellcasting.

kamikasei
2009-09-11, 06:50 AM
I assume it was a failed attempt at a reductio ad absurdum. Basically, he was saying "If what you were saying is true, why would they even bother creating the Fighter class?"

Unfortunately for him, the answer is that WotC made a mistake and underestimated the effectiveness of spellcasting.

Exactly, that's how I read it too.

Jack_Simth
2009-09-11, 06:52 AM
As I mentioned in a different thread:

... it's not the classes themselves that are broken. A party of four poorly-built bards isn't a problem - just throw stuff at them that they can handle while still being a challenge. A party of four optimal full casters isn't a problem - just throw stuff at them that they can handle while still being a challenge. Sure, one's running at -4 CR, the other's running at +4 CR, but either can be accounted for without too much headache by the DM, and everyone gets about the same spotlight time.

What breaks a game is not overpowered classes. It's a wide disparity of power amongst the players. In a party with an optimized Druid, Cleric, and Wizard, the Bard who doesn't know how to build a bard effectively is the broken one... because he's the one off of the power curve of the party, and he's the one that needs to be accounted for. In a party with three bards who don't know how to build characters (what, they wanted to play a rock band and drive around in the mystery mobile), the optimized Druid is the broken one - because he's off the power curve of the rest of the party. It's a game. The broken comes from when someone isn't having fun, and that (mechanically) usually comes from a significant disparity in spotlight time.

If you're teaming up with a Sword and Board Fighter, a Healbot Cleric, and an Evoker Wizard, and none of them are using particularly strong tricks to increase their effectiveness at those roles, you've got a broken character (you're playing significantly above their power level, and thus cutting back on their spotlight time). My recommendation is to tone it down. Pick less useful Wildshape forms (regular Ape instead of Dire Ape, for instance), use fewer buff spells (drop Barkskin and Greater Magic Fang) and play more to the party's level.

Zanticor
2009-09-11, 06:55 AM
I would recommend sitting down with your group and asking them if your optimization is ruining the game for them. Your in your right by RAW of course but there is this “internet theory” that states 3.5 RAW is not the most balanced game system out there. Balanced gaming is overrated but it sounds to me like your group is getting frustrated by your use of RAW. Just give in a bit to appease the feelings of the group. Like for instance proposing: apes can't use weapons, natural spell should be banned, you don't gain hp from the con increase while shifting, dinos don't exist. I can name a few more things I use to nerve my druids but you should come up with your own which make you and your group more comfortable with the druid power house. It is a nice class with a lot of flavor and game mechanical opportunities. There is no need for it to be the kill (and joy) stealer of the group.

Zanticor

Keewatin
2009-09-11, 07:39 AM
instead of embarassing the fighter at what he should be good at (hitting things) try to build your own area of expertise. Like grappling or pushing things around with fun size bonuses, its unique and fun and doesn't involve big damage numbers which get people scared.


Also spread the buffs around a bit, while its fun to spend 3 spells on your staff and some on yourslef every combat it doesn't make many friends.


I am in a similar situation in a group that is recently comming back to DnD from AD&D.

Dwarven cleric is the front line fighter my halfling druid with a riding dog and a rogue sorcerer who hasn't cast a spell yet (we are almost level 6) and a bard about to multi class into fighter. Mostly I just go along with how the party wants to handle things and helpout with my dog tripping stuff and mabye summoning something to get in the way for the weaker players. IN most cases it nice just knowing I can flip out and kill everything without actually having to do it.

Zergrusheddie
2009-09-11, 08:06 AM
I'd also point out that it's worth emphasizing to them that the Fighter is Sword & Board. In other words, he's chosen defense as his primary shtick so he shouldn't expect to match offensive characters in damage output. Point out how much more efficient two-hander would be, especially in combination with Power Attack & Improved Trip.

Tried it. 'Internet Theory.'

Eloel
2009-09-11, 08:07 AM
Just build one from scratch, showing everything you take 1 by 1. They'll either understand, or will be too bored to whine anymore.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-11, 08:07 AM
Manual is Stick Shift. You're thinking Fighters = Automatics.

Right, too early to differenciate terms.

kamikasei
2009-09-11, 08:09 AM
Tried it. 'Internet Theory.'

...Have you any clear idea what they mean by this? I mean, you can do the math to show that a two-hander outputs more damage than a sword-and-boarder. Hell, it's clear by inspection. How is something you can show them right there at the table to be dismissed as "Internet Theory"? These guys are sounding less old-fashioned and more simply obtuse.

Temet Nosce
2009-09-11, 08:10 AM
My suggestions run down to a few options. Basically, depending on how reasonable and serious of players they are there are ways to deal with this.

A.) Assist them in optimizing their characters, explain how to properly play (and try not to have them think you're condescending). Hopefully this should lead to a more friendly and less accusatory atmosphere after they gain a basic understanding of the game. More likely however, anyone inclined to accuse you of cheating will just get angrier. This is more the option for when you have a reasonable group of players in the first place, who simply aren't good at optimizing.

B.) Play something that sucks. Try optimizing a Truenamer or Soulknife (or anything else that's either weak or nonfunctional). This should give you a lot of room to build a character that won't outshine them to much.

C.) (this is my favorite option) Quit. These people are calling you a cheater, personally I'd have left immediately if someone flipped out at me like that. Find a group which is reasonable (sure, some groups may not want you to play optimized characters but at least most of them will be reasonable about it rather than lashing out at you and claiming you're cheating).

Anyways, as for explaining the difference between a Druid and a Fighter... It's simple enough. A Druid has by virtue of his class abilities multiple options to effectively handle a given situation without any particularly optimization, whereas a Fighter has only one option and it's an option he is often sub par at.

If they stare at you and drool, try doing it using pure numbers. Point out what each of the Druid's class abilities can do individually and compare them to one by one to a standard fighter in similar areas.

If you want to emphasize the good points of a Fighter build up a Jack build or something that can actually be moderately effective. (alternatively you could point out that being effective is not the only "point" for a character, and one should play a Fighter because they want to play that character archetype)

Morty
2009-09-11, 08:13 AM
I agree that the best way to resolve this situation is to tone down the druid so that he doesn't outclass the rest of the party so much. It'd be much easier than forcing the rest of the - old-fashioned as you said - players to optimize.

SparkMandriller
2009-09-11, 08:18 AM
Tried it. 'Internet Theory.'

Retire your druid and make a leap attack shock trooper then?


If they complain about it doing more damage than them just claim they've been on the internet too much.

Ecalsneerg
2009-09-11, 08:22 AM
The problem is that, while druid is a very powerful class, it's a powerful class if you use it's abilities. Yes, using Wild Shape and Natural Spell are very strong, they're awesome. It's fun to turn into a bear and shoot lightning bolts at people.

Have you been intentionally optimising, OP? Because the trouble is, if someone's playing a healbot cleric, I'm not sure you can deliberately underperform them :P (I'm not even sure how healbot clerics can have fun. Maybe some people like them, but I've had players snap after the endless demands for healing and go hit things with hammers)

kamikasei
2009-09-11, 08:28 AM
I agree that the best way to resolve this situation is to tone down the druid so that he doesn't outclass the rest of the party so much. It'd be much easier than forcing the rest of the - old-fashioned as you said - players to optimize.

The other side of it, though, is that his group seem to believe he's cheating and are rejecting out of hand the clear explanations of how he's legitimately doing what he's doing. That's not a good ground for compromise, if "Okay, I'll tone it down to a level better suited to the group dynamic" will be taken as "Heh, you caught me, I'll stop cheating now. So far as you know. Maybe you'd just better kick me out to be sure."

Totally Guy
2009-09-11, 08:29 AM
Have you been intentionally optimising, OP? Because the trouble is, if someone's playing a healbot cleric, I'm not sure you can deliberately underperform them :P

It seems that early on this druid was once the weakest party member. After a few basic pointers from the forums he's matured to be the most powerful member.

I think that this is perhaps more of the issue than the mechanics. the OP has changed the status quo. And that can be dangerous.

Zergrusheddie
2009-09-11, 08:31 AM
...Have you any clear idea what they mean by this? I mean, you can do the math to show that a two-hander outputs more damage than a sword-and-boarder. Hell, it's clear by inspection. How is something you can show them right there at the table to be dismissed as "Internet Theory"? These guys are sounding less old-fashioned and more simply obtuse.

"If you are using Power Attack, than you don't hit. You may add +30 damage, but missing does zero damage."
"If you don't use a Shield. how are you supposed to survive when the Dragon Full Attacks you?"

I even stated that +4 AC doesn't matter against a Dragon and dealing more damage means you take less damage (IE, it dies faster) and the breakpoints for Power Attack. I believe the exact idea is that everything I have talked about doesn't translate to the game table and is therefore 'Internet Theory.'

I don't want to just state "Y'all suck; try again!" because they are having fun and it is mostly only the Wizard saying that I am too powerful/cheating. I do believe it is just his ego that is hurt when I started to out damage him as he did a similar effect with the Rogue.

Best of luck y'all.
-Eddie

Morty
2009-09-11, 08:33 AM
The other side of it, though, is that his group seem to believe he's cheating and are rejecting out of hand the clear explanations of how he's legitimately doing what he's doing. That's not a good ground for compromise, if "Okay, I'll tone it down to a level better suited to the group dynamic" will be taken as "Heh, you caught me, I'll stop cheating now. So far as you know. Maybe you'd just better kick me out to be sure."

Yes, he should still try to convince the rest that he's not cheating. But the end result should be toning down the druid anyway. And the best way to convince the rest that druid being stronger is allowed by the rules would be, I think, to explain every part of the character sheet within the rules to show them that yes, it's legal. Unless the OP tried it already in which case I have no idea.

Temet Nosce
2009-09-11, 08:36 AM
Well, just realized that this is the same thread and I somehow posted in the unused duplicate. Anyways, copying my post over to here.



My suggestions run down to a few options. Basically, depending on how reasonable and serious of players they are there are ways to deal with this.

A.) Assist them in optimizing their characters, explain how to properly play (and try not to have them think you're condescending). Hopefully this should lead to a more friendly and less accusatory atmosphere after they gain a basic understanding of the game. More likely however, anyone inclined to accuse you of cheating will just get angrier. This is more the option for when you have a reasonable group of players in the first place, who simply aren't good at optimizing.

B.) Play something that sucks. Try optimizing a Truenamer or Soulknife (or anything else that's either weak or nonfunctional). This should give you a lot of room to build a character that won't outshine them to much.

C.) (this is my favorite option) Quit. These people are calling you a cheater, personally I'd have left immediately if someone flipped out at me like that. Find a group which is reasonable (sure, some groups may not want you to play optimized characters but at least most of them will be reasonable about it rather than lashing out at you and claiming you're cheating).

Anyways, as for explaining the difference between a Druid and a Fighter... It's simple enough. A Druid has by virtue of his class abilities multiple options to effectively handle a given situation without any particularly optimization, whereas a Fighter has only one option and it's an option he is often sub par at.

If they stare at you and drool, try doing it using pure numbers. Point out what each of the Druid's class abilities can do individually and compare them to one by one to a standard fighter in similar areas.

If you want to emphasize the good points of a Fighter build up a Jack build or something that can actually be moderately effective. (alternatively you could point out that being effective is not the only "point" for a character, and one should play a Fighter because they want to play that character archetype)

Zergrusheddie
2009-09-11, 08:37 AM
It seems that early on this druid was once the weakest party member. After a few basic pointers from the forums he's matured to be the most powerful member.

I think that this is perhaps more of the issue than the mechanics. the OP has changed the status quo. And that can be dangerous.

Not even so much that. I already had the idea of trying out Ape with Spikes because I thought that is was unique and something that the group has never seen before. The weakness came from them assuming me weak. Druids were supposed to Track and basically do nothing in combat. I originally made a Monk and I was told to make something different by the DM and other players when they decided it wasn't powerful enough and didn't contribute to the group. The irony, at least to me, is staggering.

I will say that I have 'matured' on this forum though; when I looked at my first Fighter that I tried a year ago I just thought "What the hell was I thinking?!" :smalltongue:

I have tried explaining my character sheet and going in line by line. In fact, the Wizard spent about 80 minutes auditing my character last session. There is a double standard of sorts: if I ask how the Wizard is casting so many Fireballs, I may told "I'm playing my class; you play yours." My guess is because I am the FNG and am therefore always wrong. :smallamused:

I probably will end up abandoning the Spikes + Ape strategy in favor of a Brown Bear.

kamikasei
2009-09-11, 08:37 AM
"If you are using Power Attack, than you don't hit. You may add +30 damage, but missing does zero damage."
...
I believe the exact idea is that everything I have talked about doesn't translate to the game table and is therefore 'Internet Theory.'

Ugh. This is the sort of thing you can show them, right there and then, with pen and paper and maybe a calculator. Unfortunately it sounds like you're trying to have a reasoned argument with people resistant to reason and/or evidence.

(Out of curiosity, do you use the Completes? Power Attack is not as good without e.g. Leap Attack and Shock Trooper.)


Yes, he should still try to convince the rest that he's not cheating. But the end result should be toning down the druid anyway. And the best way to convince the rest that druid being stronger is allowed by the rules would be, I think, to explain every part of the character sheet within the rules to show them that yes, it's legal. Unless the OP tried it already in which case I have no idea.

See, my understanding is that they have called him a cheater, he's explained how he's doing what he's doing, and they're basically saying "no you must be cheating because how could a druid be better than a fighter and don't try to bamboozle us with your 'inter-net theeeeeories'". Honestly, I would say no game at all is better than a game with a group who think you're a cheat, and a liar, and an incompetent liar to boot.

I may be reading too much in to what the OP has said, and indeed I hope I am, but...

On the other hand, if they are amenable to reason and can agree when shown that, yeah, the druid is legitimately powerful, sorry we accused you of cheating, then it is appropriate for the OP to tone it down.

mikej
2009-09-11, 08:42 AM
I don't want to just state "Y'all suck; try again!" because they are having fun and it is mostly only the Wizard saying that I am too powerful/cheating. I do believe it is just his ego that is hurt when I started to out damage him as he did a similar effect with the Rogue.

Could just be sour grapes? Were they really considered over what little your "weak character" could do earlier? They're under the impression that you're just some magical tracker. I don't think they care until they're nudge out from the spotlight.

edit: that's how I see it though. Also, what was the purpose of the other thread? Both were posted within a 4 hour period.

Saph
2009-09-11, 08:42 AM
Ugh. This is the sort of thing you can show them, right there and then, with pen and paper and maybe a calculator.

I wouldn't bother; this sort of thing is usually a waste of time. It's not generally worth explaining the why of something unless the listener's interested in knowing how it works, and very few people are interested in the mathematical underpinnings of RPGs. :)

kamikasei
2009-09-11, 08:47 AM
I wouldn't bother; this sort of thing is usually a waste of time. It's not generally worth explaining the why of something unless the listener's interested in knowing how it works, and very few people are interested in the mathematical underpinnings of RPGs. :)

Oh, that's probably true. It's just... it's math. It's inherently portable and reproducible. It's ridiculous to dismiss it as "internet theory" when by its nature you can check it for yourself at any time.

Zergrusheddie
2009-09-11, 08:55 AM
Internet Explorer glitched on me and posted twice. Was accidental, so ignore the other thread.

Gnaeus
2009-09-11, 09:04 AM
I don't want to just state "Y'all suck; try again!" because they are having fun and it is mostly only the Wizard saying that I am too powerful/cheating. I do believe it is just his ego that is hurt when I started to out damage him as he did a similar effect with the Rogue.
-Eddie

Step 1. Improve the wizard. This is easy. Print out a good wizards handbook for him to read. I would start with http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=394.0 . If he complains about how he LIKES throwing fireballs, all you can do is shrug and reply that if he wants to play his character poorly it isn't YOUR fault if he is ineffective.

Step 2. Rather than not optimizing, optimize differently. Explain to your DM what you are doing, and ask to retrain your level 3 feat to Craft Wondrous Items. At level 9, take Craft Arms/Armor. At every downtime, spend all your time crafting items for the Fighter, or other gimped members of the party. This should:
1. Lower your combat effectiveness by 1 feat + 1 level when you craft enough.
2. Raise the fighter (and his weak allies) in effectiveness
3. Show that you are a team player and you aren't there to skunk the party.

Telonius
2009-09-11, 09:08 AM
Tried it. 'Internet Theory.'

Point out to them that you can find a reasonably good article on Wikipedia about the "theory" of gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_gravity).

Honestly, if you have a bunch of people who are seeing something with their own eyes and still refusing to believe that it's possible, there's not much you can do.

Morty
2009-09-11, 09:15 AM
See, my understanding is that they have called him a cheater, he's explained how he's doing what he's doing, and they're basically saying "no you must be cheating because how could a druid be better than a fighter and don't try to bamboozle us with your 'inter-net theeeeeories'". Honestly, I would say no game at all is better than a game with a group who think you're a cheat, and a liar, and an incompetent liar to boot.

I may be reading too much in to what the OP has said, and indeed I hope I am, but...

On the other hand, if they are amenable to reason and can agree when shown that, yeah, the druid is legitimately powerful, sorry we accused you of cheating, then it is appropriate for the OP to tone it down.

Well, it does sort of look as if the other players might call him a cheater regardless, because as much as I approve of not caring about optimization, "you have to use a shield, otherwise you're dead" is no different than "druid is better" except that it's false.



Step 1. Improve the wizard. This is easy. Print out a good wizards handbook for him to read. I would start with http://brilliantgameologists.com/boa...hp?topic=394.0 . If he complains about how he LIKES throwing fireballs, all you can do is shrug and reply that if he wants to play his character poorly it isn't YOUR fault if he is ineffective.

Now that, I'll advise against. The game already has an overpowered druid causing troubles, wizard going batman is only going to make it worse.

kamikasei
2009-09-11, 09:16 AM
If he complains about how he LIKES throwing fireballs, all you can do is shrug and reply that if he wants to play his character poorly it isn't YOUR fault if he is ineffective.

Of course, just because you can do this doesn't mean you should. Under any circumstances. You might say "obviously you should play whichever way you find the most fun, but depending on the class and build you choose that style may not play to their strengths. In that case, you just have to expect to be outshone sometimes when others do play to their classes' strengths. I can give you some tips on how to improve your damage-dealing if that's what you want to focus on, or there are other classes that do it better than wizards."

Set
2009-09-11, 09:24 AM
TL;DR Version:
How do I respond to "What is the point of being a Fighter if a Druid can do it better than a Fighter?" when it is asked by extremely old fashioned players? The only thing I could come up with is "There is no reason as Fighters are a Tier 4 class and Druids are a Tier 1 class." I would use this line, but it would be dismissed as 'Internet Theory' and will still leave the other players curious.


Say, 'Fine.' and switch to a Fighter (or Wizard, it it's the Wizard player raising the stank), and, using that pesky 'internet theory' (i.e. going to the CharOp boards and finding a nice build, like a gatling chain-tripper or something), beat the whiny player at his own class.

Prove that if he played a Fighter (Wizard, whatever) halfway as competently as you are playing your Druid, he'd be that much more effective, and have less to complain about.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-11, 09:31 AM
On that note, you can have the feats Power Attack, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Sunder, Combat Brute, and Battle Jump at level 8, along with a Valorous weapon.

That's 7 feats out of 9. You've got two feats to play around with, or you can go for Dungeoncrasher.

Battle Jump is a regional feat from UE, so that might not fly. If so... Combat Reflexes, Dodge, and Karmic Strike seem in order.

Vizzerdrix
2009-09-11, 09:33 AM
[$0.02]
Screw math, teach by example. Sub out the Druid for a fighter for a game or two. Show them how effective Power attack and 2h weapons can be when compared side by side to s&b. Then move onto the wizard for a bit. Show him That while Evokers have their place, (un)Buff/control is king. And as for the cleric, ask them if the Honestly WANT to be reduced to the medic, or if they are doing it because they think the party must have a dedicated healer. If they insist that Cleric Must = Healbot, Show them otherwise as well. Talking hasn't worked so move on to example. This will upset them, but you can ask them what they would prefer for the first time they fight a dragon: to earn that victory with sound tactics and wise training selections. To know that it was an earned victory, or to have it soft balled to them?

[/$0.02]

:smallredface:

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-09-11, 10:01 AM
As I said, they've been playing this game with their heads buried in the sand. They think that any better strategies that they refuse to acknowledge will cease to exist or be somehow less valid.

A bit of a rant:
Jack takes 45 minutes to get to work every day, because of rush hour traffic and slow ferry across the river. He's been doing it this way for years, and is content with it. A new bypass and suspension bridge have recently been built that can cut his travel time to work down to 15 minutes, there are enough lanes that it never gets to the point of stop-and-go and crossing the bridge takes a fraction of the time that the ferry does. Jack refuses to change his daily routine, because it's easier for him to keep taking the same route every day than it would be to learn a new route and cut two thirds off his travel time. He's content to do things the same old way, rather than put the effort into learning a more efficient way of doing it. Jack is too lazy to change his routine, and too stubborn to learn a new route, and becomes defensive and combative whenever anyone tries to tell him so.

I have little patience for this type of person. They have no drive or motivation, no desire to excel or do any better than the bare minimum effort. If the people you play with are even employed, they're most likely all low-rank workers in jobs that don't even require a high school diploma. This is the type of person their attitude is making them out to be, this is the image they're projecting to others.

If I were in your situation, I wouldn't tone it down at all. If they complain, tell them that it's not your fault that they made a weak character who they're bad at playing. If they accuse you of cheating, point out what rules/abilities you're using. It's not your fault if they're bad at the game, and it's not your fault that they're too lazy to learn to play better. Maybe one of them will get his head out of the sand and read some guides and the others may realize that they need to do the same, or maybe you'll eventually have to quit this group and find a better one. Either way, you'll probably be better off.

kamikasei
2009-09-11, 10:17 AM
Maybe one of them will get his head out of the sand and read some guides and the others may realize that they need to do the same...

Hang on, now. They don't need to do anything of the sort. They appear to be taking the attitude that if facts contradict their mental model of the world, the facts are at fault, and that's stupid and wrong and it would be nice if it could be corrected, at least in this instance. But it's possible that the OP will get through to them and they'll realize that, actually, the rules of the game they've been playing allow a player taking one class and playing to its strengths to outshine another with a different class which should notionally be better at that job but which was poorly designed or which he's built without an eye toward the effectiveness of his chosen abilities... that they'll realize that, and decide that the solution is to houserule the game to hell and back or switch systems so that they can continue to play with the style they like.

There's nothing wrong with that. They're under no obligation to play a particular game in a particular way. They should just have the basic decency to not accuse someone of cheating simply because he has a better knowledge of the rules than they do, and the common requirement you may or may not believe all people have to be reasonable and rational and open to changing their minds when presented with new facts.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-11, 10:21 AM
Now that, I'll advise against. The game already has an overpowered druid causing troubles, wizard going batman is only going to make it worse.

False. Batman is what every team loves. He buffs the group, debuffs the enemy, etc.
God is the wizard archetype that is feared. He just takes out enemies: screw the group.

Really, why is the internet bad at remembering names of categories.

Gnaeus
2009-09-11, 10:23 AM
Now that, I'll advise against. The game already has an overpowered druid causing troubles, wizard going batman is only going to make it worse.

The overpowered druid isn't causing troubles. Character envy from the poorly played wizard is causing trouble. Bring the whiny wizard up to speed, and you have solved half the problem. My other suggestion solved the other half.


Of course, just because you can do this doesn't mean you should. Under any circumstances. You might say "obviously you should play whichever way you find the most fun, but depending on the class and build you choose that style may not play to their strengths. In that case, you just have to expect to be outshone sometimes when others do play to their classes' strengths. I can give you some tips on how to improve your damage-dealing if that's what you want to focus on, or there are other classes that do it better than wizards."

OK. Yes. Say it the way he said it, not the way I said it. Same message, just delivered more diplomatically.

Morty
2009-09-11, 10:26 AM
False. Batman is what every team loves. He buffs the group, debuffs the enemy, etc.
God is the wizard archetype that is feared. He just takes out enemies: screw the group.

Really, why is the internet bad at remembering names of categories.

Ah, good point. Since not long ago I was sniping at people misusing the term "batman" is was kind of hypocritical. But my point still stands. Making the wizard overpowered isn't going to fix the situation, as the non-casting characters will now fall behind two characters rather than one. So the only way it'd work would be as a demonstration.

Mike_G
2009-09-11, 10:47 AM
IMO, you need to ask yourself, "Do I want to have fun, or be Right?'

This is similar to my theory of how to be happily married: you can be happy or right, so pick one.

You are, technically, correct in how you play. You aren't cheating, there's nothing wrong, technically, with the way you play.

I say "technically," because if nobody's having fun, then, yeah, there is something wrong with it.

To give an example from non gaming, I was a nationally rated fencer in college. I recently found an amatuer club nearby, and I go every so often just to play around and enjoy the sport again. Now, if I fence to my full (admittedly older, fatter, and slower) potential, I wipe the floor with these guys. It's fun for thirty seconds to beat people who are twenty years younger, in better shape, and more attractive than you, but after one such thrashing, it's not fun, or even instructive. It's just mean.

If I fence close to their level, I can enjoy the competition, and it's still fencing. everyone has fun, they may learn a little, and I actually get invited back.

So, my advice is tone it down mostly, but when things are going badly for the party, occaisionally shift into gear and save the day. That will let everyone shine most of the time, but show them, nicely, that you do have more than empty theory to back up your build.

riddles
2009-09-11, 10:47 AM
1. play a bard
2. optimise the wazoo out of inspire courage (taking dragonfire inspiration if you want to dual wield. leaving it if you want to 2hand)
3. proceed to make your fighter useful (by actually having a damage output)
4. encourage your cleric to get into combat (he's there or thereabouts at the level where he can contribute effectively). point out some of his good self buffing spells.
5. when party complains at lack of combat healing, invest your own money into CLW wands
5. if taking dragonfire inspiration, make the rogue drool at his new sneak attack damage
6. have the other players turn on the wizard when he complains the internet theory is wrecking his game, because they sure as hell WILL be having a good time
7. ???
8. profit

this is what i did for my group after learning some optimisation-fu. i was playing as a cleric, went for a melee cleric and got moaned at that while i was strong, everyone else was suffering because they lacked healing.

consequently, my group optimises a lot more, though not as much as they could, and bards are my favourite characters ever.

alternatively, take a psionic monk. but this group probably thinks psionics are overpowered.

Fitz
2009-09-11, 10:55 AM
ok it sounds like the fighter is at least thinking, even if by accepted theory its incorect. The mage sounds like he is bitching and is calling it cheating. I personally would use buff spells on the fighter at the start of combat before joining in. Bulls strength and barkskin will help him out.
On the other hand id tell the mage to back off , and not accept being called a cheat!
Fitz

Vortling
2009-09-11, 11:04 AM
Sounds like the biggest complainer against your playstyle is the wizard player as you're out damaging him. This suggest to me that most people in your group value damage output over other tactics. So switch your tactics over to buffing others (mostly the fighter and cleric) and you'll fly right under their radar even if you're doing plenty to help out the party. Since you're a druid it shouldn'be be too hard to find good spells to help everyone out. And if the wizard player gets lippy once you back off the damage you can always swing back around and out damage him again.

ericgrau
2009-09-11, 11:07 AM
to zergrusheddie: I quickly skimmed both threads but I couldn't find your build info. Can you please tell me the following stats for your wildshape form and companion: AB (for eachattack), damage, AC, HP, and any relevant (i.e., combat related) feats, special abilities and buffs. Include the buffs in the stats. If you can also tell me the stat boosting gear carried and the approximate total value of gear carried that'd help too, but it's not necessary.

I'd like to compare to a fighter with the same resources and see if you're just plain better, if he's poorly built, if maybe you're just not buffing him enough or etc.

Kylarra
2009-09-11, 11:10 AM
I'd like to compare to a fighter with the same resources and see if you're just plain better, if he's poorly built, if maybe you're just not buffing him enough or etc.He's sword and board. That's going to be hard to contend with the dual claw rake/bite combo of a dire ape.

kamikasei
2009-09-11, 11:13 AM
He's sword and board.

And thinks Power Attack is a trap that means you always miss.

Doc Roc
2009-09-11, 11:14 AM
And thinks Power Attack is a trap that means you always miss.

That's what surge of fortune is for! :)
Surge of fortune is in complete champion, some restrictions may apply, not available at all GMs. Check your local GM for participation.
AC of 450?
No.

Kylarra
2009-09-11, 11:15 AM
And thinks Power Attack is a trap that means you always miss.and by extension of his unwillingness to put down the shield, wouldn't like the shocktrooper solution to missing.

nefele
2009-09-11, 11:38 AM
A bit of a rant:
I have little patience for this type of person. They have no drive or motivation, no desire to excel or do any better than the bare minimum effort. If the people you play with are even employed, they're most likely all low-rank workers in jobs that don't even require a high school diploma. This is the type of person their attitude is making them out to be, this is the image they're projecting to others.

Frankly, I find your rant insulting.
It's not only stereotyping players who prefer one gaming style over another, it goes so far to extrapolate real life... inefficiencies out of that.

What if I said that the CharOp guys are a bunch of losers, who have time to tear every sourcebook apart and find awesome or just game-breaking combinations simply because 1) they have no social life and 2) they have loser jobs with a lot of free time, e.g. night shift in a hotel's reception. Would that be nice? And would that be correct?

No, it wouldn't be nice, and no, it wouldn't be correct. It would be a horribly unfair stereotype. And it would be horribly demeaning to the hotel guy (I didn't make that up, he exists). So what if he does have such a job? Does that make him a bad person? A boring or inept person? A burden to society? Is that how you judge people?

Your rant does the exact same thing, only in the opposite direction. (You are suspicious towards optimisation, therefore you are a Loser. Boo!) Kindly refrain from that sort of thing, because it is very, very insulting.

P.S. I'm not speaking "on behalf" of non-optimisers here, I don't consider myself one. I can make a ridiculously overpowered build, I can ignore every single aspect of optimisation and just play a concept (which may be less than effective, but I happen to like), I can do anything in between and -more importantly- I can equally enjoy all of the above, depending on the game.

But I'd be much happier if you, and everyone, stopped ridiculing other peoples' gaming styles and, on top of that, assuming that Successful People Do It Like Me. :/

Gnaeus
2009-09-11, 11:46 AM
Unless you enjoy being a buffbot (some people do, I do on occasion) following the buff the fighter line is not a good idea. I still recommend getting some good crafting feats (explain to the DM that you will be using them to help the weaker party members and he is likely to allow it). Craft the fighter into competence and play the character you want to play the way you want to play it.

Zaq
2009-09-11, 12:08 PM
'Internet Theory'.

I confess I'm confused. What does this even mean?

Note: I presume they're using theory in the casual sense of the word (that is, an unproven hypothesis as opposed to rigorously tested observations; "I have a theory about that" vs. "This is the theory of gravity"), so for convenience's sake, I will as well.

Is it bad because it's "theory" and thus "doesn't apply to real games?" That doesn't make any sense, because you're applying it to a real game right there in front of their noses. Is it bad because it comes from the Internet? I don't see what that even means. Lots of useful things come from the internet. Sure, I wouldn't cite Wikipedia in a scholarly paper, but I still say we're better off with it than without it, wouldn't you?

So ask them, what does "Internet Theory" even mean? I'm not being facetious, I'm not being tongue-in-cheek, I'm not affecting a sense of ignorance to prove a point. I have no idea what they're actually talking about. What IS Internet Theory, and why is it so bad?

Is it just anything that they haven't come up with themselves? Because that's going to be a really, really dangerous path to tread. I hope, for everyone's sake, that they mean something else.

TheThan
2009-09-11, 12:18 PM
{tremors}

"I sense a hundred trolls about to gather in one single location"


"You hear that? That is the sound of a thousand terrible things coming our way.
-Qui Gon Jinn

Seriously though, it sounds like you guys are using mostly core material. As to what your friends are saying, they do have a point. If you have a well-built druid or cleric, you basically don’t need a fighter around. It sad but true. There is no easy way to fix this, most people call it character imbalance.

Take my group for example. We have a wild shape variant druid, a sorcerer (me), a rogue, a bard, a cleric, beguiler and a custom class. About half the time, half the players aren’t there (cutting it down to the druid, sorcerer, rogue and bard). We have no “fighty” classes at all and we do just fine. The druid buffs up and heads into melee while the rogue sneaks around and backstabs; the bard and I just sit back and support via spells. It works very well.


It does indeed look like the wizard is bitching because you out damage him. Well if that really is the case, there’s not much you can do. It sounds like you can argue and show how you’re doing it all you want and still won’t get through. It’s a shame when people refuse to listen to reason.

What I would is stop them before the beginning of the session and ask them what they want you to do to solve this “problem”. Have them come up with different solutions and come up with a few yourself. Then vote on it. Whatever idea has the most votes go with it.

We did this exact thing with our party. The Dm opened the game up to splatbooks and we took advantage of it. After the first encounter when the (lvl 9) druid took down a CR 11 encounter in the surprise round. He stopped the game and we decided to remove the use of splat books (aside from PHBII). We decided we didn’t want to scale ourselves up too far, and the DM didn’t want to keep throwing more and more formidable monsters at us. We came to a compromise over the situation.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-11, 12:24 PM
IMO, you need to ask yourself, "Do I want to have fun, or be Right?'

A lesser man would quote Ayn Rand...

RiOrius
2009-09-11, 12:32 PM
My suggestions run down to a few options. Basically, depending on how reasonable and serious of players they are there are ways to deal with this.

A.) Assist them in optimizing their characters, explain how to properly play (and try not to have them think you're condescending).

Wow. Good thing you said to have them not think you're condescending, 'cause it sounds like you are condescending.

Optimized play is not "proper" play. D&D is a team game. Playing in a way which gives you significantly more power than the rest of the team is improper.

I like the suggestions of moving into a support role. Not sure Druid is the best class for that, but if you can focus less on being the amazing lead guitar soloist and instead be the amazing bassline who lets the rest of the band rock out in style, you'll make your friends feel more awesome and everyone will have more fun.

Alternatively, tone down the optimization. Again, D&D is about the team; if you're overshadowing them, then back off. You could maybe try helping your friends, but it sounds like they don't really want to play Batman wizards, CoDZillas and ToB fighters.

Maybe you could give occasional, subtle advice to gradually raise the bar, if you really want to have more room for optimization, but that's a long-term solution. In the short term, your best bet is to either play a great support character or an average (by party standards) melee character.

Myrmex
2009-09-11, 12:38 PM
I think you should crank it up to 11- take levels in Planar Shepard. :smallcool:

PinkysBrain
2009-09-11, 12:41 PM
If you're teaming up with a Sword and Board Fighter, a Healbot Cleric, and a Evoker Wizard, and none of them are using particularly strong tricks to increase their effectiveness at those roles, you've got a broken character
He is playing a melee druid in a form with only 4 NA (so his AC isn't broken to hell and back yet). That's not significantly more broken than an evoker with sonic substitution.

A plain old summon + animal growth druid would be more powerful.

Myrmex
2009-09-11, 12:48 PM
Crank it up to 11- take 10 levels in Planar Shepard.


I have little patience for this type of person. They have no drive or motivation, no desire to excel or do any better than the bare minimum effort. If the people you play with are even employed, they're most likely all low-rank workers in jobs that don't even require a high school diploma. This is the type of person their attitude is making them out to be, this is the image they're projecting to others.

Wow dude, it's just the internet. Not like it's serious or anything.

And, for the record, it's the sort of people Zergrusheddie is making them out to be. You're probably one of those people that believes everything they read. :smallwink:

Elfin
2009-09-11, 12:49 PM
The other players seem to be pretty stubborn in their convictions that Tiers are 'internet theory', as they put it- in this case, instead of proving that you're right and provoking a confrontation, I'd say it's just best to realize that this game isn't one with optimized characters, and to tone down on the optimization.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-11, 12:52 PM
How do I respond to "What is the point of being a Fighter if a Druid can do it better than a Fighter?"
The question is misdirection ... the fighter's irrelevance has nothing to do with you.

What does he think the point of being a fighter is? Doing damage? The evoker has got him beat ... what does it matter that you beat him too?

Tengu_temp
2009-09-11, 12:52 PM
I agree with Temet Nosce here. I'd also like to add that, in my book, when you offer someone help in optimizing their characters and they say no, they no longer have the right to complain that you outshine them.

woodenbandman
2009-09-11, 12:57 PM
The easiest thing to do and the path of least resistance is to retool yourself to something weak, or something that aids the entire party. the DM will have an easier time challenging the party, you'll all generally have more fun. I personally love building the most min/maxed character I possibly can, but I find it's much more rewarding to build a character that fits in with the party and everyone contributes meaningfully. So you have a Transmuter wizard rather than a Conjuror, or you decide to do a bard instead of a sorceror.

I played a bard that trades power for flavor. Not to say that he sucks, by any stretch of the imagination. He just wasn't designed to be as strong as he possibly could. His entire spell choice was based around the power of sound (with the exception of Inspirational Boost for tasty +4 IC at level 1). Spontaneous casting cleric, sorceror gish rather than god wizard, stuff like that.

If you want to have room to min/max in a group of that mentality, play a sick-ass buffer.

Myrmex
2009-09-11, 12:58 PM
I agree with Temet Nosce here. I'd also like to add that, in my book, when you offer someone help in optimizing their characters and they say no, they no longer have the right to complain that you outshine them.

And in some groups, you'd be kicked out!

PinkysBrain
2009-09-11, 01:01 PM
That's an option ... the DM could also just drop some items to bring the fighter up to snuff (this as far as I can see is the intended way of balancing high level play by the D&D designers ... just shower the fighter with artifacts).

With a Skin of Proteus and a Life-Drinker Axe the fighter would have no trouble keeping up (although he'd need a deathward before using the axe).

Tengu_temp
2009-09-11, 01:02 PM
And in some groups, you'd be kicked out!

And your point is? I'd rather find a group that shares my tastes than cling to the one I'm in, even though they look down on my gameplay style.

Myrmex
2009-09-11, 01:09 PM
And your point is? I'd rather find a group that shares my tastes than cling to the one I'm in, even though they look down on my gameplay style.

Your advice is bad.

Doc Roc
2009-09-11, 01:10 PM
And the famous GitP Civility shows itself! :: lulz ::

Temet Nosce
2009-09-11, 01:11 PM
Your advice is bad.

Wait, so you think if your style completely conflicts with a group that's unwilling to compromise you should just stick around and punish everybody?

Either you're referring to something I'm completely not seeing, or you're making no sense.

Myrmex
2009-09-11, 01:12 PM
Wait, so you think if your style completely conflicts with a group that's unwilling to compromise you should just stick around and punish everybody?

No; tengu_temp does.

Temet Nosce
2009-09-11, 01:16 PM
No; tengu_temp does.

Er... That's not what I see when I look at what he posted. He just said he'd prefer to find a group that shares his tastes...

Mike_G
2009-09-11, 01:16 PM
A lesser man would quote Ayn Rand...

Only after he was so bored having driven off his friends by being Right that he had to read Ayn Rand.

Tengu_temp
2009-09-11, 01:21 PM
If I'm outshadowing people and offer them help putting their characters up to mine in terms of power, and they refuse, I'm not punishing them by further outshadowing them. Their own arrogance does.

Deepblue706
2009-09-11, 01:22 PM
Wait, so you think if your style completely conflicts with a group that's unwilling to compromise you should just stick around and punish everybody?

As a side note, should a group ever be compromising for an individual?

kamikasei
2009-09-11, 01:24 PM
Your advice is bad.

He... didn't actually give any advice.


As an side note, should a group ever be compromising for an individual?

Sometimes, sure.

Superglucose
2009-09-11, 01:25 PM
Well... 1) sword n' board is wrong. The thing about fighters is they get feats, which, while not optimal, does give them options as long as they try something other than "I power attack for five with my one-handed weapon."

2) No, there is no point to the fighter class since Druid and Cleric both do it much better.

3) The best way I've found to deal with that sort of thing is to play a debuff/battlefield control wizard. I did that once and quietly shut down every encounter. The two people in the party who liked to think of me as an idiot when it comes to optimization were bragging about how easily they managed to fell all of our opponents, while the two who actually know me and have balance discussions with me were silently laughing and afterwords said "Yeah, you're right. That's much better than a blaster."

It's all about winning encounters single-handedly without anyone THINKING you're winning them single handedly (all at level 4 too :smallwink:)

Myrmex
2009-09-11, 01:25 PM
Er... That's not what I see when I look at what he posted. He just said he'd prefer to find a group that shares his tastes...

Here's what he posted:


I agree with Temet Nosce here. I'd also like to add that, in my book, when you offer someone help in optimizing their characters and they say no, they no longer have the right to complain that you outshine them.

And your advice was:
A) Be a jerk.
B) Tone it down.
C) Quit.

Tengu then went on to emphasize that you should be a jerk:

"I'd also like to add that, in my book, when you offer someone help in optimizing their characters and they say no, they no longer have the right to complain that you outshine them."

kamikasei
2009-09-11, 01:31 PM
And your advice was:
A) Be a jerk.

That's an interesting interpretation of "offer to assist them in optimizing their characters".

Soras Teva Gee
2009-09-11, 01:31 PM
"What is the point of being a Fighter if a Druid can do it better than a Fighter?"

Isn't this a trick question because it assumes the Fighter is intended to be the primary combatant at anywhere but lower levels. Even the way the game was "intended" to be played the Fighter is a Meat Shield once spell casting kicks in.

Everybody being better is the natural and "intended" result at later levels. Its the opposite side of why Wizards are "intended" to be useless dead weight at lower levels. And everybody else is "intended" to be somewhere between.

Deepblue706
2009-09-11, 01:34 PM
If I'm outshadowing people and offer them help putting their characters up to mine in terms of power, and they refuse, I'm not punishing them by further outshadowing them. Their own arrogance does.

I think we need to understand that this thing ought to go both ways.

If you're outshadowing people because you're Pun-Pun, then the solution is not to teach other people how to play Pun-Pun. They're right to deny you.

If you're outshadowing people because you're NOT a 32-pt Fighter who wanted to spend 5 points to get CHA 13, yet refuses to take any CHA-related skills or feats, then they'd be silly to deny you.

There's a point where it's warranted and there's a point where you're being obnoxious. Categorically accusing them of arrogance without context gets us nowhere, for the argument's sake.

Tengu_temp
2009-09-11, 01:35 PM
As an side note, should a group ever be compromising for an individual?

I personally don't see optimizing characters to be compromising. To compromise means that both sides give something up, and what do you give up by optimizing?



And your advice was:
A) Be a jerk.
B) Tone it down.
C) Quit.


What? Here's what he said.


A.) Assist them in optimizing their characters, explain how to properly play (and try not to have them think you're condescending). Hopefully this should lead to a more friendly and less accusatory atmosphere after they gain a basic understanding of the game. More likely however, anyone inclined to accuse you of cheating will just get angrier. This is more the option for when you have a reasonable group of players in the first place, who simply aren't good at optimizing.

Which part of it sounds like being a jerk to you? It looks more like being friendly and reasonable to me.


I think we need to understand that this thing ought to go both ways.

If you're outshadowing people because you're Pun-Pun, then the solution is not to teach other people how to play Pun-Pun. They're right to deny you.

If you're outshadowing people because you're NOT a 32-pt Fighter who wanted to spend 5 points to get CHA 13, yet refuses to take any CHA-related skills or feats, then they'd be silly to deny you.

There's a point where it's warranted and there's a point where you're being obnoxious. Categorically accusing them of arrogance without context gets us nowhere, for the argument's sake.

Oh, of course. I'm talking about reasonable powergaming here, not about abuses and stinky cheese. What the OP does, however, belongs to the first category.

Temet Nosce
2009-09-11, 01:35 PM
As an side note, should a group ever be compromising for an individual?

Yes. When I DM I work with all the players, to help make sure the game is fun for them and I expect the players to do the same. When I PC I'm always available to assist the rest of the group if they're having trouble or aren't enjoying the game.

If however I join a game and they just called me a cheater and were unwilling to listen to anything I said, I'd just quit. Willingness to compromise is an integral part of a game like D&D. Sure, some groups just flat out won't work (I.E. if the DM is running a game which deliberately emphasizes something you wanted to avoid, in which case you should obviously find another game), but for the most part a willingness to talk instead of spouting reactionary insults can go a long ways.


Here's what he posted:

He's posted more than once...



And your advice was:
A) Be a jerk.
B) Tone it down.
C) Quit.

Tengu then went on to emphasize that you should be a jerk:

"I'd also like to add that, in my book, when you offer someone help in optimizing their characters and they say no, they no longer have the right to complain that you outshine them."

Yeah... offering to help people better understand the mechanics of the game is a horrible, horrible thing. I'm clearly a terrible person for suggesting an attempt to work with others after they've been insulting and unwilling to listen. Total jerk.

Kylarra
2009-09-11, 01:36 PM
That's an interesting interpretation of "offer to assist them in optimizing their characters".


A.) Assist them in optimizing their characters, explain how to properly play (and try not to have them think you're condescending).

I think it's the bolded part that got him, a poor choice of adverb as it were. No one likes SHFG (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys).

RiOrius
2009-09-11, 01:41 PM
Wait, so you think if your style completely conflicts with a group that's unwilling to compromise you should just stick around and punish everybody?

Either you're referring to something I'm completely not seeing, or you're making no sense.

Tengu said that the "compromise" should be "I'll play my way, but I'll help you guys play my way, too! But if you don't want to play it my way, then you can stay on the sidelines and have no fun." Someone said that Tengu could get kicked out from reasonable groups, and Tengu said that was fine.

So:
A) Tengu wasn't offering much of a compromise at all.

and more importantly

B) Tengu was the one who wanted to stick around and punish the group until they kicked him out.

If you can't find it within yourself to play as a team, and if you can't come to a reasonable (let me say that again: reasonable) compromise that works for the team, then quit. Don't screw up the game until you're kicked out.


I personally don't see optimizing characters to be compromising. To compromise means that both sides give something up, and what do you give up by optimizing?


You give up the character you want to play. You give up sword n' board fighters, blaster wizards, monks, etc.

Now tell me: what do you give up by toning down your build? Is your game really defined by how powerful your character is?

Myrmex
2009-09-11, 01:41 PM
I think it's the bolded part that got him, a poor choice of adverb as it were. No one likes SHFG (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys).

Thanks.


Guys, I only have what you've posted to go on. I can't really read your minds or anything.

Tengu_temp
2009-09-11, 01:48 PM
Tengu said that the "compromise" should be "I'll play my way, but I'll help you guys play my way, too! But if you don't want to play it my way, then you can stay on the sidelines and have no fun." Someone said that Tengu could get kicked out from reasonable groups, and Tengu said that was fine.


That is because the other players don't give up anything by deciding to powergame up to my level and not feeling useless - I even offer them help in doing that, and they throw that offer away.


You give up the character you want to play. You give up sword n' board fighters, blaster wizards, monks, etc.

Wrong. Each of these characters can be optimized without changing the concept at all. In fact, almost all character concepts in DND can be mechanically optimized, apart from those that make sense to be weak, like an underwater basket weaver with no other abilities.


Now tell me: what do you give up by toning down your build? Is your game really defined by how powerful your character is?

Some people like playing powerful characters. I doubt if people play monks et cetera because they purposely like to play weak characters. They like to play concepts that just happen to be weak without optimization.

Deepblue706
2009-09-11, 01:48 PM
I personally don't see optimizing characters to be compromising. To compromise means that both sides give something up, and what do you give up by optimizing?


The Fighter Class.

No, seriously now, the problem is obviously respect. No doubt we all know of the bad reputation powergamers can get. In optimizing to a point where other players are uncomfortable to go, you will lose their respect, and compromise everyone's desire to play the game.

If a single player is dreadfully behind on the power curve, while the rest are way ahead, then that single player needs to catch up to the others. Otherwise, they're dead weight. However, if one is way ahead, while the rest are just on-par, then that player risks syphoning the fun out of the game.

In the end, if you use CR and standard arrays, the party probably is going to win. With your class setup, it just becomes more of a question of How. By pushing to obtain more power and more abilities, you're bringing a competitive nature into what may otherwise be a very laid-back game.

If your style varies from the norm, you are asking everyone else to compromise to meet your standards. I just thought it'd be a good subject to bring up. As my comment was not directed towards you, I did not want to miscommunicate it as against you, per se.



Oh, of course. I'm talking about reasonable powergaming here, not about abuses and stinky cheese. What the OP does, however, belongs to the first category.

Reasonable powergaming itself is vague, and fails to give us context. I believe we're having trouble here because of the subjective nature of what is reasonable.

kamikasei
2009-09-11, 01:49 PM
Guys, I only have what you've posted to go on. I can't really read your minds or anything.

No, but you don't have to read the worst in to it. You could have gone with calling Temet on his poor choice of words, which I suspect he would happily change, rather than assuming he was a jerk who wanted everyone else to be jerks, too.


Now tell me: what do you give up by toning down your build? Is your game really defined by how powerful your character is?

Is "being good at what you do" no longer a legitimate part of a character concept?

Kylarra
2009-09-11, 01:51 PM
Is "being good at what you do" no longer a legitimate part of a character concept?
"I'm the best at what I do, and what I do ain't pretty... bub. "

:smalltongue:


I will concede that you do need a bottom line [in addition to a ceiling] of competency or your concept starts to be draining on other people's fun.

Deepblue706
2009-09-11, 01:57 PM
Yes. When I DM I work with all the players, to help make sure the game is fun for them and I expect the players to do the same. When I PC I'm always available to assist the rest of the group if they're having trouble or aren't enjoying the game.

I don't believe that's what I meant to ask.



If however I join a game and they just called me a cheater and were unwilling to listen to anything I said, I'd just quit. Willingness to compromise is an integral part of a game like D&D. Sure, some groups just flat out won't work (I.E. if the DM is running a game which deliberately emphasizes something you wanted to avoid, in which case you should obviously find another game), but for the most part a willingness to talk instead of spouting reactionary insults can go a long ways.


Well, if your reasonable cries are falling onto the deaf ears of those chant "Cheater, cheater, begone!", I expect you would leave. But does that ever actually happen at the table?

I think while a group ought to be able to render itself open to no ideas (instead of being a bunch of grognards who only accept Core Rules, or something), an individual ought to try to find ways to compromise to the group's standards. If you say you do, I can't refute you; but the immaturity can occur on both sides of the argument, and I think it's a good policy to look inward first.

Temet Nosce
2009-09-11, 01:59 PM
I think it's the bolded part that got him, a poor choice of adverb as it were. No one likes SHFG (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys).

I... honestly don't see how you got that out of a single small phrase in the middle of a paragraph. As noted in the rest of the paragraph, I was suggesting offering them assistance in optimization and basic system comprehension.

Still, if that made things unclear... To elaborate, I was suggesting helping them gain a basic level of comprehension of the system and some simple optimization that kept their character idea intact while making them more effective.

I'm certainly not saying there's only one way to play D&D, just suggesting an explanation of the rules.


Tengu said that the "compromise" should be "I'll play my way, but I'll help you guys play my way, too! But if you don't want to play it my way, then you can stay on the sidelines and have no fun." Someone said that Tengu could get kicked out from reasonable groups, and Tengu said that was fine.

So:
A) Tengu wasn't offering much of a compromise at all.

and more importantly

B) Tengu was the one who wanted to stick around and punish the group until they kicked him out.

Er... I don't see where he said he'd want to stick around, just that he'd prefer to find another group. Admittedly I could be wrong, but I think you're getting upset over nothing here.


If you can't find it within yourself to play as a team, and if you can't come to a reasonable (let me say that again: reasonable) compromise that works for the team, then quit. Don't screw up the game until you're kicked out.

I certainly agree with this, like I said in this case my person favorite option would be finding a new group.


You give up the character you want to play. You give up sword n' board fighters, blaster wizards, monks, etc.

Now tell me: what do you give up by toning down your build? Is your game really defined by how powerful your character is?

You can optimize everything you just listed, sure it might not stand up in a high powered game but that doesn't mean they can't be made to work. A basic understanding of the mechanics of D&D isn't going to hurt someones character concept.

In that case we'd all be playing Pun-pun. No, it's simple enough in my case... I picture my characters as competent individuals with at least a decent grasp of what they can do, for me it tends to make the game suffer if at least a basic grasp of the rules isn't present and the others want me to live down to that standard.

Tengu_temp
2009-09-11, 02:02 PM
No, seriously now, the problem is obviously respect. No doubt we all know of the bad reputation powergamers can get. In optimizing to a point where other players are uncomfortable to go, you will lose their respect, and compromise everyone's desire to play the game.

That's not exactly what I meant. What do the other players lose if they accept your offer to help them powergame?



Reasonable powergaming itself is vague, and fails to give us context. I believe we're having trouble here because of the subjective nature of what is reasonable.

It is subjective, but there are guidelines. If it's 100% legal by RAW but obviously not by RAI, if it requires stretching the rules and definitions to objectionable levels, if it uses obvious holes in the mechanics, if it creates infinite (or almost-infinite) loops, or if it uses spells/abilities even powergamers consider broken, then it's cheese. If it does none of these, then it's probably healthy powergaming. But that's not a hard and fast rule.

Kylarra
2009-09-11, 02:03 PM
I... honestly don't see how you got that out of a single small phrase in the middle of a paragraph. As noted in the rest of the paragraph, I was suggesting offering them assistance in optimization and basic system comprehension.Oh I wasn't saying that I got it. Only that it would be where I would guess the implication came from, as "properly playing" can imply that they are "doing it wrong" which thusly makes you into SHFG.

IE

Explain how to properly play
implies that they are currently not doing so.
Not properly playing == "doing it wrong"
"You're 'doing it wrong'" == SHFG Guy


Now is that necessarily what you meant? Probably not given further context and later posts, but it doesn't mean I don't see how the conclusion could be drawn.

edit: lol 1k post

RiOrius
2009-09-11, 02:04 PM
Wrong. Each of these characters can be optimized without changing the concept at all. In fact, almost all character concepts in DND can be mechanically optimized, apart from those that make sense to be weak, like an underwater basket weaver with no other abilities.

By definition, anything can be optimized. But if you're playing an optimized wizard, and I'm playing an optimized fighter, you're still going to be way more effective than I am.


Is "being good at what you do" no longer a legitimate part of a character concept?

Wow. I think that comment just really helped me understand where the powergamers are coming from. It's rare that someone on the interwebs actually gets through to someone else, but you, sir, have succeeded.

It seems to me that powergamers think that their character has to be powerful relative to its potential within the rules to be "good at what you do." I totally disagree with this assertion.

The PC's are the heroes of the story. It doesn't matter what level they are, or how optimized they are, the story revolves around them. You can still be the best wizard in the world if you aren't optimized, because the world is based on your character! You don't need to be the best fighter possible within the scope of the rules to be the best fighter in the setting.

So again, I ask: what do you lose by not optimizing? Your characters will still be the heroes, and they'll still be outstanding within the campaign world. Why do you need to compare your character to the rules and not to the world in which they live?

Deepblue706
2009-09-11, 02:13 PM
That's not exactly what I meant. What do the other players lose if they accept your offer to help them powergame?


Their envisionment and potentially their enjoyment of the game. Your suggestions may actually be unintentionally telling them to take actions contrary to what they want for their character. They have to understand the implications of every rule from your mindset, which cannot happen until they let go of any contrary preconceptions of their own.

If you say "do this", and they say "no", it doesn't stand that they should logically accept you for being better, because they're probably looking at things from an entirely different standpoint. And by ignoring that and powergaming (and leaving them in the dust) is probably just going to upset them more. There has to be explanation and justification.



It is subjective, but there are guidelines. If it's 100% legal by RAW but obviously not by RAI, if it requires stretching the rules and definitions to objectionable levels, if it uses obvious holes in the mechanics, if it creates infinite (or almost-infinite) loops, or if it uses spells/abilities even powergamers consider broken, then it's cheese. If it does none of these, then it's probably healthy powergaming. But that's not a hard and fast rule.

And because there exists room for doubt, it's unavoidable someone will have a problem somewhere. Some of it may be reasonable, and some of it may be unreasonable. In the end, you'll probably have to defer to popular opinion, and everyone will have to compromise to the standards of the group to continue on.

Temet Nosce
2009-09-11, 02:13 PM
I don't believe that's what I meant to ask.

Might want to rephrase your question then, not sure precisely what you mean. I did cover if the group was playing something specifically incompatible with what the player wanted.


Well, if your reasonable cries are falling onto the deaf ears of those chant "Cheater, cheater, begone!", I expect you would leave. But does that ever actually happen at the table?

I think while a group ought to be able to render itself open to no ideas (instead of being a bunch of grognards who only accept Core Rules, or something), an individual ought to try to find ways to compromise to the group's standards. If you say you do, I can't refute you; but the immaturity can occur on both sides of the argument, and I think it's a good policy to look inward first.

I've actually never had the cheater thing occur (I was mentioning it due to the Op's troubles), so not in my personal experience.

I don't disagree materially with anything that you've said, but I'm unsure what your point is. Also, as far as the Core only thing I'd personally just not get involved in such a situation if I didn't want to play Core.


Oh I wasn't saying that I got it. Only that it would be where I would guess the implication came from, as "properly playing" can imply that they are "doing it wrong" which thusly makes you into SHFG.

Ah, fair enough.


IE

implies that they are currently not doing so.
Not properly playing == "doing it wrong"
"You're 'doing it wrong'" == SHFG Guy


Now is that necessarily what you meant? Probably not given further context and later posts, but it doesn't mean I don't see how the conclusion could be drawn.

edit: lol 1k post

I suppose, although personally I'm really not seeing it (that page seemed to imply other connotations to the term). Also, grats on 1k.

kamikasei
2009-09-11, 02:16 PM
Wow. I think that comment just really helped me understand where the powergamers are coming from. It's rare that someone on the interwebs actually gets through to someone else, but you, sir, have succeeded.

It seems to me that powergamers think that their character has to be powerful relative to its potential within the rules to be "good at what you do." I totally disagree with this assertion.

Sadly, I seem to have missed my mark.


The PC's are the heroes of the story. It doesn't matter what level they are, or how optimized they are, the story revolves around them. You can still be the best wizard in the world if you aren't optimized, because the world is based on your character! You don't need to be the best fighter possible within the scope of the rules to be the best fighter in the setting.

So again, I ask: what do you lose by not optimizing? Your characters will still be the heroes, and they'll still be outstanding within the campaign world. Why do you need to compare your character to the rules and not to the world in which they live?

I see where you're coming from, but I think you're going too far... in... coming from there... look, you know what I mean, clumsy spatial metaphors notwithstanding. Two main points occur to me here. One is that I don't think a DM should have to make every NPC spellcaster into an Adept with poorly chosen spells to compensate for the supposedly Mighty Master of the Arcane Arts in the party being atrociously built. The PC-centrism required by the above, I see as excessive.

The other is that there are objective measures in the game world. Besides the (of course flawed and unreliable) rough guideline of CR, there are static DCs that serve as tests of objective skill, not measured relative to enemies the DM is nerfing. If your acrobatic rogue can't swing off a chandelier without getting his shoelaces caught and faceplanting, if your athletic fighter can't climb a tree, if your loremaster can't identify a first-level spell being cast... then they're objectively bad at their jobs.

In fact, my general approach in any kind of chargen is to work out what minima I want my character to exceed on various objective scales, then calibrate his strengths against what appears to be the likely power level of the campaign.

ericgrau
2009-09-11, 02:16 PM
I haven't read this thread too carefully, and maybe I wouldn't want to, but maybe we need a mod in here to clean things up for that "civility".

Anyhoo I haven't responded to latest comments b/c I'm only waiting for those stats from the OP so I can make a better assessment. Subscribed to the thread so I can check it later.

Tengu_temp
2009-09-11, 02:20 PM
By definition, anything can be optimized. But if you're playing an optimized wizard, and I'm playing an optimized fighter, you're still going to be way more effective than I am.

An optimized fighter will not feel reduntant, however. Because he is at least able to dish out a lot of damage, and, seeing that he'll probably have levels in warblade, have actual options in combat.


So again, I ask: what do you lose by not optimizing? Your characters will still be the heroes, and they'll still be outstanding within the campaign world. Why do you need to compare your character to the rules and not to the world in which they live?

Because it's fun for us? I think I answered that already. An average Joe might be powerful in a world where everyone has the physical and mental capability of a five-year old, but he's still an average Joe.

Exalted is a good example here. No matter how you build your Solar, you will be powerful in comparison to mortals, and to lesser Exalted. But it's fun to create a character beyond that, who is able to explode an elephant in one punch, and has great abilities in some non-combat field on top of that.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-11, 02:22 PM
The druid is not optimized ... he is playing a beatstick. He is a better beatstick than the fighter because the fighter is broken. He could cast blast spells and kill everything together with the evoker and make the fighter feel inconsequential. He could summon and kill everything together with the evoker and make the fighter feel inconsequential.

He could sit casting only his worst spells and do effectively nothing and let the evoker make the fighter feel inconsequential.

This isn't powergaming ... the fighter is weakgaming and there is nothing he can do to fix that.

Deepblue706
2009-09-11, 02:29 PM
Might want to rephrase your question then, not sure precisely what you mean. I did cover if the group was playing something specifically incompatible with what the player wanted.


Well, I figured I'd try to sum up with the rest of the response.



I've actually never had the cheater thing occur (I was mentioning it due to the Op's troubles), so not in my personal experience.

I don't disagree materially with anything that you've said, but I'm unsure what your point is. Also, as far as the Core only thing I'd personally just not get involved in such a situation if I didn't want to play Core.


It was just a curious piece that was mentioned.

"if your style completely conflicts with a group that's unwilling to compromise you should just stick around and punish everybody?" (editted for what I wanted to make note of)

Personally, from the available information, it seems the OP did a very poor job of trying to make the group understand what's happening. Also, they should be talking to the DM, because he controls encounters, items and treasure - anything out of ordinance can easily screw things up.

After the point things are finally brought out into the open, it is then better for the group to decide what the next course of action is. If the DM is not at fault, then what is wrong needs to be determined. If other players are making dopey decisions but the DM is adjusting according to their abilities, the Druid player should chill the hell out. Save the powerful stuff for when the group really needs it. Otherwise, you're compromising everyone's else's fun.

It should be rather obvious when powergaming is not a player's style, or within their abilities yet. And, it should be obvious when powergaming is totally normal with a group and that frivilously picking abilities, skills and feats has no place. The individuals should pretty much always compromise to the group, otherwise it isn't really a group. Although, if you don't play with groups that simply don't share your style, then I guess there's nothing else to be said about it, apart from "good luck finding people at your level".

Tengu_temp
2009-09-11, 02:35 PM
Their envisionment and potentially their enjoyment of the game. Your suggestions may actually be unintentionally telling them to take actions contrary to what they want for their character. They have to understand the implications of every rule from your mindset, which cannot happen until they let go of any contrary preconceptions of their own.

If you say "do this", and they say "no", it doesn't stand that they should logically accept you for being better, because they're probably looking at things from an entirely different standpoint. And by ignoring that and powergaming (and leaving them in the dust) is probably just going to upset them more. There has to be explanation and justification.


Well yes, you do need to clarify your intentions, to let the other players know that you have no ill intent. But what if they are blind to reason and just keep saying "no, powergaming is bad, I don't want to have anything with that!" and similar stuff? There's nothing wrong in not powergaming, but you've just shown this guy an option where the whole group is happy, as opposed to the whole group apart from you - and they're thrown that option away.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-11, 02:38 PM
The PC's are the heroes of the story. It doesn't matter what level they are, or how optimized they are, the story revolves around them. You can still be the best wizard in the world if you aren't optimized, because the world is based on your character! You don't need to be the best fighter possible within the scope of the rules to be the best fighter in the setting.


Um, that is complete bull and I mean that in the nicest way possible.

I've had real games where the NPCs out floored certain PCs because they were not the best.
John, for instance, played a Blaster wizard. We met NPC wizards (Batman type) just wowed him.

So no, you can't be the best wizard if you aren't optimizing.
PCs = heroes of story depends entirely on DM's style (narrative, simulative, etc)

Deepblue706
2009-09-11, 02:42 PM
Well yes, you do need to clarify your intentions, to let the other players know that you have no ill intent. But what if they are blind to reason and just keep saying "no, powergaming is bad, I don't want to have anything with that!" and similar stuff? There's nothing wrong in not powergaming, but you've just shown this guy an option where the whole group is happy, as opposed to the whole group apart from you - and they're thrown that option away.

Blind to reason? Either they have very poor reasoning principles (and probably unsuitable for any argument), or you're explaining it the wrong way. Instead of giving them a lesson on how the word "powergaming" isn't bad, just call it something else. Cite a monster or two, and explain how "Synonym-For-Powergaming" is necessary to fight it.

I like the word "Efficate". It's funny, because it sounds like deficate.

RiOrius
2009-09-11, 02:56 PM
Um, that is complete bull and I mean that in the nicest way possible.

I've had real games where the NPCs out floored certain PCs because they were not the best.
John, for instance, played a Blaster wizard. We met NPC wizards (Batman type) just wowed him.

So no, you can't be the best wizard if you aren't optimizing.
PCs = heroes of story depends entirely on DM's style (narrative, simulative, etc)

Alright, apparently I explained myself poorly. Perhaps a better way of saying it is that PC's strength relative to the world is determined not by how they optimize, but by their place in the story (ie, the DM).

If the DM wants there to be NPC's who can best the PC's, he can make them. If the PC's are playing blasters, fighters and healbots, maybe that means Batmans and Codzillas. If the PC's are playing Batmans and Codzillas, maybe that means the NPC's are ten levels higher. Whatever.

The point I was trying to make is that the level of optimization does not dictate the PCs' power relative to the world, but really only to each other.


An optimized fighter will not feel reduntant, however. Because he is at least able to dish out a lot of damage, and, seeing that he'll probably have levels in warblade, have actual options in combat.

But damage is of course irrelevant when Batmans are throwing around save-or-lose spells. Not to mention to get this far you've had to take levels in Warblade, introducing supernatural powers to your fighter. Barring refluffing (which, while useful, shouldn't be required, especially for casual groups like the one described in the OP), that means your fighter no longer gets to be a guy who's really good with a sword. He's now a guy who can do magic with a sword.

Don't get me wrong, magic with a sword is pretty badass. But sometimes you want to be more mundane.


Because it's fun for us? I think I answered that already. An average Joe might be powerful in a world where everyone has the physical and mental capability of a five-year old, but he's still an average Joe.


Alright, best for last. You find powergaming fun. That's fine, I won't say you shouldn't powergame. But a lot of people find non-powergaming fun, and don't enjoy powergaming. So when your "compromise" is "Let me show you how to powergame," that is not a compromise.

I can understand offering to help if they want to try powergaming. I can understand leaving the group for one more in line with your tastes. But when you refer to powergaming as "playing properly" and state that people who don't want to powergame with you "no longer have the right to complain that you outshine them," you are wrong.

Powergaming is a preference, not the proper way to play. And if you're ruining the game for people, they have the right to complain.

Again, I have no problem with powergaming; it's totally a legit way to play. But it doesn't mix well with non-powergaming. And not everyone enjoys powergaming. So don't act like the solution to OP's problem is "Tell them all to put up or shut up."

kamikasei
2009-09-11, 03:00 PM
The point I was trying to make is that the level of optimization does not dictate the PCs' power relative to the world, but really only to each other.

As I pointed out in my own response, that's just not true. There are aspects of the system which provide objective measures.


Not to mention to get this far you've had to take levels in Warblade, introducing supernatural powers to your fighter.

Could you direct me to the nearest wall, please? I feel a need to bash my head repeatedly against it.

Re: powergaming - I think there's an important point to be made here. Let's say Bob the Fighter doesn't optimize, and Mark the Wizard does. Bob's feeling overshadowed, and Mark offers to help him out. This does not require Bob to optimize. Bob can simply describe what he's trying to achieve to Mark, and Mark can do the optimization for him. The only alteration may be in the numbers on Bob's sheet. Where Bob would be required to play differently for the sake of optimization is in recognizing modifiers in combat (higher ground, tripping and flanking, and so on) - and to be honest I have a hard time seeing such things as powergaming or optimization, they seem like just knowing how the world your characters exist in works, something desirable for all players.

My point is, there's a vital distinction between playing optimized characters and optimizing your characters. The former costs a player nothing, if he doesn't have to spend the time himself on learning to optimize.

quick_comment
2009-09-11, 03:03 PM
Not to mention to get this far you've had to take levels in Warblade, introducing supernatural powers to your fighter. Barring refluffing (which, while useful, shouldn't be required, especially for casual groups like the one described in the OP), that means your fighter no longer gets to be a guy who's really good with a sword. He's now a guy who can do magic with a sword.



Warblades have no magical abilities.

Tengu_temp
2009-09-11, 03:07 PM
But damage is of course irrelevant when Batmans are throwing around save-or-lose spells. Not to mention to get this far you've had to take levels in Warblade, introducing supernatural powers to your fighter. Barring refluffing (which, while useful, shouldn't be required, especially for casual groups like the one described in the OP), that means your fighter no longer gets to be a guy who's really good with a sword. He's now a guy who can do magic with a sword.

Don't get me wrong, magic with a sword is pretty badass. But sometimes you want to be more mundane.

Pure damage still has its uses. The enemies can be spread out - and just as a wizard can immobilize one of them in one round, you can kill one of them in one round.
And warblade can be completely mundane - there's a crapload of maneuvers that have no magic in them, just pure skill and might. In fact, do warblades even have access to the obviously supernatural schools?




Alright, best for last. You find powergaming fun. That's fine, I won't say you shouldn't powergame. But a lot of people find non-powergaming fun, and don't enjoy powergaming. So when your "compromise" is "Let me show you how to powergame," that is not a compromise.

Did I ever say I'm compromising?



I can understand offering to help if they want to try powergaming. I can understand leaving the group for one more in line with your tastes. But when you refer to powergaming as "playing properly" and state that people who don't want to powergame with you "no longer have the right to complain that you outshine them," you are wrong.

Did I ever say powergaming is the only way to play?
And I don't see how I'm wrong. They have a problem, I offer help, they refuse help. Apparently they don't want me to help with their problem. If they have a problem and don't want my help in dealing with it, then they shouldn't complain to me about it.



Again, I have no problem with powergaming; it's totally a legit way to play. But it doesn't mix well with non-powergaming. And not everyone enjoys powergaming. So don't act like the solution to OP's problem is "Tell them all to put up or shut up."

If you have no problems with powergaming, then why are you so negative towards offering people to help them optimize their characters?

RiOrius
2009-09-11, 03:07 PM
As I pointed out in my own response, that's just not true. There are aspects of the system which provide objective measures.

Ah right; sorry, meant to respond to this. It's a good point: unopposed skill checks do provide an objective measure. It's just not something I've really encountered that often in my play, so I don't see it as that important. Certainly not so important that powergaming is the only "proper" way to play the game. I still contend that casual gaming is totally legit, and merely a different preference from powergaming.


Could you direct me to the nearest wall, please? I feel a need to bash my head repeatedly against it.

Y'know, that's really not helpful.


Warblades have no magical abilities.

Oh really? Sorry; haven't read Tome of Battle in a while, guess I got confused. I apologize; comment rescinded.

quick_comment
2009-09-11, 03:08 PM
Oh really? Sorry; haven't read Tome of Battle in a while, guess I got confused. I apologize; comment rescinded.

Swordsages have (some) magical abilities. They can teleport and shoot fire and walk on air.

Warblades just hit things really hard (or really fast)

RiOrius
2009-09-11, 03:14 PM
Pure damage still has its uses. The enemies can be spread out - and just as a wizard can immobilize one of them in one round, you can kill one of them in one round.
And warblade can be completely mundane - there's a crapload of maneuvers that have no magic in them, just pure skill and might. In fact, do warblades even have access to the obviously supernatural schools?


Alright, I'll admit defeat. It sounds like, if you know your way around the splatbooks, you can make a mundane fighter who's not totally useless with an optimized party.


Did I ever say I'm compromising?

Someone else called your offer a compromise; sorry if that sounded directed at you.


Did I ever say powergaming is the only way to play?

Well, your advice was to show them how to "play properly." So no, you never said it's the only way to play--just that it's the right way to play. Still wrong.



And I don't see how I'm wrong. They have a problem, I offer help, they refuse help. Apparently they don't want me to help with their problem. If they have a problem and don't want my help in dealing with it, then they shouldn't complain to me about it.

Except your help isn't a solution. You're offering to help them match your playstyle when you are unwilling to do the same.


If you have no problems with powergaming, then why are you so negative towards offering people to help them optimize their characters?

I'm not; by all means offer to help. But if they refuse, don't conclude that they don't deserve to have fun.

Again, it's all a difference in playstyles. You prefer powergaming. Others (including the entire rest of OP's party) do not. Requiring the rest of the group to match either your preference or sit on their thumbs is not a solution.

kamikasei
2009-09-11, 03:14 PM
Y'know, that's really not helpful.

I found it quite helpful in expressing my frustration, which was its purpose.


You prefer powergaming. Others (including the entire rest of OP's party) do not.

Actually, it just sounds like the rest of the OP's party would like to be powerful, but don't know how. They didn't say "dang Zergrush, that druid is pretty sick. Would you mind toning it down a bit?" They seem to have said (paraphrasing willfully), "What!? Your druid is so powerful? That's not allowed! You must be cheating!"

And again, they don't have to powergame or optimize at all, they need only be willing to accept advice and know the effects of their actions.

Tengu_temp
2009-09-11, 03:23 PM
Well, your advice was to show them how to "play properly." So no, you never said it's the only way to play--just that it's the right way to play. Still wrong.

I never said anything about playing properly. You're mistaking me for Temet Nosce, who phrased it that way but most probably didn't mean that.



Except your help isn't a solution. You're offering to help them match your playstyle when you are unwilling to do the same.

Because I will have less fun playing their way, but I'm sure they will still have equal fun playing my way.



Again, it's all a difference in playstyles. You prefer powergaming. Others (including the entire rest of OP's party) do not. Requiring the rest of the group to match either your preference or sit on their thumbs is not a solution.

RPGs are entertainment, and in entertainment I will not sacrifice my fun so others will have fun. I'm offering them a solution that will make everyone have fun, but they're not taking it.

Temet Nosce
2009-09-11, 03:35 PM
It was just a curious piece that was mentioned.

"if your style completely conflicts with a group that's unwilling to compromise you should just stick around and punish everybody?" (editted for what I wanted to make note of)

I think you took that out of context, I was asking someone if they actually thought that.


Personally, from the available information, it seems the OP did a very poor job of trying to make the group understand what's happening. Also, they should be talking to the DM, because he controls encounters, items and treasure - anything out of ordinance can easily screw things up.

I'd disagree here, the Op has noted that they waved away his attempts at explaining and called him a cheater. It sounds as though the Op has made a reasonable (more than reasonable really) effort to talk to the group.


It should be rather obvious when powergaming is not a player's style, or within their abilities yet. And, it should be obvious when powergaming is totally normal with a group and that frivilously picking abilities, skills and feats has no place. The individuals should pretty much always compromise to the group, otherwise it isn't really a group. Although, if you don't play with groups that simply don't share your style, then I guess there's nothing else to be said about it, apart from "good luck finding people at your level".

So mob rule? I don't really think that's reasonable, simply because there are more people. It's one thing if the group has agreed to play the game a certain way, and entirely another when simple politeness and communication fall by the wayside in favor of reactionary stiffness.

It's true that I'll leave games which are built around concepts which disagree entirely with my style (why would I inflict the bother on me and them?), but for the most part I get along with whatever groups I join through compromising with them. If groups were all set on "My way or get out" I'd never get to play at all most likely (nor I suspect would most other people, playing D&D is a group activity after all).


Actually, it just sounds like the rest of the OP's party would like to be powerful, but don't know how. They didn't say "dang Zergrush, that druid is pretty sick. Would you mind toning it down a bit?" They seem to have said (paraphrasing willfully), "What!? Your druid is so powerful? That's not allowed! You must be cheating!"

And again, they don't have to powergame or optimize at all, they need only be willing to accept advice and know the effects of their actions.

Thank you, that's actually along the lines of what I'm thinking as well. My impression of the group he's playing with is along the lines of they're angry because they're not the most powerful and refusing to consider his explanations of why, because they would mean they aren't as good as they think.

Somewhat insulting to them perhaps, but given that we're talking about people whose first response was to insult him, and who dismiss his explanation as "Internet theory" (whatever that is) it seems most likely to be accurate.

Oslecamo
2009-09-11, 03:35 PM
RPGs are entertainment, and in entertainment I will not sacrifice my fun so others will have fun. I'm offering them a solution that will make everyone have fun, but they're not taking it.

You do realize most people have their pride and tastes right? Some may be willing to acept help, but many others will rather try to suceed by themselves or fail.

Basically, it's no fun if he's playing someone else's sheet. It may be a weack character, but it's HIS weack character! The fun isn't only on reaching the top of the mountain, it's also in climbing the mountain, and some people will try to climb it with half the optimal gear just for the lulz. Even if they get killed during it. Yes, people are that crazy.

Tengu_temp
2009-09-11, 03:38 PM
You do realize most people have their pride and tastes right? Some may be willing to acept help, but many others will rather try to suceed by themselves or fail.

Basically, it's no fun if he's playing someone else's sheet. It may be a weack character, but it's HIS weack character! The fun isn't only on reaching the top of the mountain, it's also in climbing the mountain, and some people will try to climb it with half the optimal gear just for the lulz. Even if they get killed during it. Yes, people are that crazy.

Sure. I understand and respect that. But then they shouldn't have issues with other people being more successful in climbing the mountain.

Oslecamo
2009-09-11, 03:49 PM
Hey, that's envy. Even if you chose half gear for the lulz, you'll feel it when you see the guy with the full gear go ahead of you. At best it makes you improve yourself, at worst it makes you show your darkest side. Humans aren't perfect.

RiOrius
2009-09-11, 04:03 PM
I never said anything about playing properly. You're mistaking me for Temet Nosce, who phrased it that way but most probably didn't mean that.

My apologies, sir; I've been rather sloppy in my posting, it seems.


Because I will have less fun playing their way, but I'm sure they will still have equal fun playing my way.

RPGs are entertainment, and in entertainment I will not sacrifice my fun so others will have fun. I'm offering them a solution that will make everyone have fun, but they're not taking it.

Here is where I'll disagree with you. You're saying that everyone will enjoy powergaming. That is false. I'd sooner believe that everyone prefers cheeseburgers to hamburgers, or that everyone prefers chocolate to vanilla ice cream.

It's a preference, simple as that. Over the course of this thread I've certainly overextended myself, trying to argue more than I'm comfortable with (for instance, attempting to argue that fighters can't be played powergaming). But it boils down to something very simple: some people enjoy powergaming. Some people don't. Trying to get people who don't to play by your style is not a compromise, it's not a solution, it's not a win-win.

If you honestly believe that everyone will have more fun if they powergame, then I really don't know what to say to that. It's just something that's so obviously false.

Tengu_temp
2009-09-11, 04:18 PM
If you honestly believe that everyone will have more fun if they powergame, then I really don't know what to say to that. It's just something that's so obviously false.

I don't. I believe, however, that playing a reasonably optimized character will not detract from other positive RPG experiences. They won't have more fun, but they won't have less fun either.

Zergrusheddie
2009-09-11, 05:30 PM
Alright, I just got back from class and was reading through the thread. I never actually posted a build:

H: Tomb-Tainted Soul (Evil party, so it fit. The Cleric is a Skelecleric)
1: Natural Bond (DM ruled that I could reduce the penalty of Advanced Animal Companions; I use a Dire Wolf.)
3: Spellbound Companion (Increases Share Spell to 30 feet. AC and Druid are on a leash)
5: Natural Spell
7: Multi-Attack
Obviously homebrew system for feats; every 2 levels and Fighters getting 1 every level. I don't know what the Fighter has taken, but I know that it includes Tomb-Tainted Soul, Dodge, Weapon Focus, Mobility, and Weapon Specialization.

Dire Ape:
AC: 22 (Barkskin and Mage Armor)
Attack: +13/+8 for 1d6+17 (Strength of 22 and Spikes at level 8)

Animal Companion Dire Wolf:
AC: 28 (Barding and Share Barkskin)
Attack: +15 for 2d6+14 with Trip at +12.

Items:
Staff that adds +1 on DC's of Spells and on Hit: DC 15 Fort or take 2d8 and fall prone. Everyone has a special item similar like this. The Fort Save thing was the reason I went for Ape Druid and the fact that not using an item that is basically a really weak artifact and crucial to character story was blasphemy for me.
+2 Studded Leather which is not on as Dire Ape.
Lesser Rod of Extend: the whole point in this was getting Barkskin lasting 8 hours.
Just recently found +2 Chain Barding, which I put on my Dog.
Saving up cash to buy a Wisdom Necklace+ Wilding Clasp. The Cleric has Create Wondrous, so there was no point in me grabbing it.

Fighter has +1 Mithril Fullplate, +1 Large Shield, +2 Strength Belt, and either a +1 or +2 Scimitar. His item are boots that give him Improved Bull Rush, Sunder, and Overrun. The funniest thing is that the DM specifically stated that mithril was not available, but had no objections when the party used all the funds to buy him +1 Mithril Fullplate. I believe his AC is something along the lines of 31 or so.

Wizard has +4 Natural Armor Necklace (that includes Barkskin) that gives him Endurance, a +2 Intellect Headband, and Item Familiar Staff that is loaded with something like 20 different 1/day spells.

Spells:
1st: 6, usually 2 Entangle, 2 Faerie Fire, and 2 Lesser Vigor.
2nd: 4, All Barkskin. 3 to get it lasting 8 hours for me and the other traded to the Wizard for Mage Armor as his item makes it last 24 hours.
3rd: 4, DM ruled that Spikes lasts 30 minutes per level. I load 2 Spikes, 1 Greater Magic Fang, and 1 Sleet Storm.
4th: 3, 2 Freedom of Movement and Rusting Grasp/Dispel Magic.

Best of luck y'all.
-Eddie

Eldariel
2009-09-11, 05:55 PM
I hope you all have Cleric casting Magic Vestment on the bunch? 'cause +2 AC across the board helps quite a bit (and yes, you can enchant your clothes or whatever). Anyways, the Fighter shouldn't complain; he has chosen to be a turtle so he isn't going to be dealing damage.

I mean, I'm sure he can understand that Two-Handing = Damage, One-Handing = Defense (though obviously animated shields mostly negate the need for One-Handing). I'm really confused by how he'd have AC 31 though; Mithril Full-Plate + 16 Dex is composite 21 AC, +1 is 22, +1 shield is 25. That's +6 (!) from Insight, Deflection & Natural Armor. It should be pretty simple to point out that switching out his shield for two-hander would increase his damage by ~6-10 points on average, and drop AC by 3. Then further point out how easily he hits most things and that he can afford few points of Power Attack for extra damage. If he says a word about "internet theory", tell him to try it out for himself.


Anyways, I'd be going for Monk's Belt + Wilding Clasps for some AC next if I were you. And honestly, you can point out to the Wizard that this is specifically why e.g. Glitterdust and Web are better than Fireball & Scorching Ray. Also, you could point out that he should be starting to metamagic his spells if he wants to keep up with damage. Really, it's the CL cap of Fireball that's catching up to him; it should be too hard to make that plain.

Guancyto
2009-09-11, 06:09 PM
he should be starting to metamagic his spells if he wants to keep up with damage

This. You're high enough level that some metamagic rods are within reach. Encourage him to get one or two; if he's feeling bad about his damage, getting to throw around Maximized Scorching Ray or Fireball without using his highest-level slots should make him feel better about it.

If you want to go really crazy with it, introduce him to orbs and/or Arcane Thesis.

Zergrusheddie
2009-09-11, 06:29 PM
You're high enough level that some metamagic rods are within reach. Encourage him to get one or two; if he's feeling bad about his damage, getting to throw around Maximized Scorching Ray or Fireball without using his highest-level slots should make him feel better about it.

If you want to go really crazy with it, introduce him to orbs and/or Arcane Thesis.

He has Arcane Thesis: Fireball. He uses Energy Substitution to make them Sonic. When I suggested the Orb Spells (No Save, No SR) he said that "Wizards can't make the Touch Attack."

The Fighter (I think) also has Armor Specialization and Shield Specialization, so that is +2 Armor. The DM introduced Pathfinder's buffs to Fighters; every few levels they get like +1 AC for a specialized weapon and the like. Dodge also doesn't have a target limit and you just need to be aware of them. It's not the Fighter complaining about my character, it's the Wizard.

The Wizard, despite what he has said, has really not read 3.5. That's why he was saying that my HP, HD, Base Saves, BAB, and creature type changed when I Wildshaped. He also made some false statements, like Natural Spell not being Core and me picking and choosing what my stats in Dire Ape Form. As much have I read, I believe your Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution change and Wisdom, Charisma, and Intellect do not change. And even though Con changes, it only changes your Fort save and not your HP. Is this correct?

Eldariel
2009-09-11, 06:32 PM
He has Arcane Thesis: Fireball. He uses Energy Substitution to make them Sonic. When I suggested the Orb Spells (No Save, No SR) he said that "Wizards can't make the Touch Attack."

The Fighter (I think) also has Armor Specialization and Shield Specialization, so that is +2 Armor. The DM introduced Pathfinder's buffs to Fighters; every few levels they get like +1 AC for a specialized weapon and the like. Dodge also doesn't have a target limit and you just need to be aware of them. It's not the Fighter complaining about my character, it's the Wizard.

The Wizard, despite what he has said, has really not read 3.5. That's why he was saying that my HP, HD, Base Saves, BAB, and creature type changed when I Wildshaped. He also made some false statements, like Natural Spell not being Core and me picking and choosing what my stats in Dire Ape Form. As much have I read, I believe your Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution change and Wisdom, Charisma, and Intellect do not change. And even though Con changes, it only changes your Fort save and not your HP. Is this correct?

This is correct. He's thinking of either Polymorph Subschool (which only applies to some newer spells) or 3.0 Polymorph rules (where you got your HP by your new form and at some point, the type too). BAB, Base Saves & HD have never changed when Polymorphing.

And yeah, right now, you determine HP by your old Con but gain the new form's Str, Dex & Con for other purposes (along with Natural Armor, Natural Weapons, Extraordinary Special Attacks, Movement Modes, etc.). Yeah, if he's read the description in SRD, he should be able to figure this out for himself.

kamikasei
2009-09-11, 06:37 PM
As much have I read, I believe your Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution change and Wisdom, Charisma, and Intellect do not change. And even though Con changes, it only changes your Fort save and not your HP. Is this correct?

Correct.

So... basically your wizard is ignorant of the system (fine), and using his ignorance to call you a liar and a cheat (not fine). It seems to me this bad behavior is the largest problem you have. Were "the group" making the accusations of cheating, or was it the wizard alone?

As to "wizards can't make the touch attacks"... You can probably find the numbers pre-crunched online of average touch ACs vs. reflex saves for SRD monsters by level, and you can presumably check his ranged attack bonus and save DCs.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-09-11, 06:50 PM
Correct.

So... basically your wizard is ignorant of the system (fine), and using his ignorance to call you a liar and a cheat (not fine). It seems to me this bad behavior is the largest problem you have. Were "the group" making the accusations of cheating, or was it the wizard alone?

As to "wizards can't make the touch attacks"... You can probably find the numbers pre-crunched online of average touch ACs vs. reflex saves for SRD monsters by level, and you can presumably check his ranged attack bonus and save DCs.http://www.toplessrobot.com/lurch4.jpg
You rang?
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m126/stoopidtallkid/savessriu4.jpg
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m126/stoopidtallkid/touchnormalacro0.jpg

Godskook
2009-09-11, 06:53 PM
He has Arcane Thesis: Fireball. He uses Energy Substitution to make them Sonic. When I suggested the Orb Spells (No Save, No SR) he said that "Wizards can't make the Touch Attack."

Against what? What are you guys fighting that a touch attack is an issue?

Deepblue706
2009-09-11, 07:16 PM
I think you took that out of context, I was asking someone if they actually thought that.

I wasn't addressing that exchange as much as the idea of a single player ever holding influence over a group. The idea of deciding upon the punishment should never even come to question, because you should never be straying so much from what the group has decided upon. Does that make more sense?



I'd disagree here, the Op has noted that they waved away his attempts at explaining and called him a cheater. It sounds as though the Op has made a reasonable (more than reasonable really) effort to talk to the group.


From what I saw, all the OP mentioned was Druids Are Powerful, See?. If he wanted to make an argument these people would more likely understand and appreciate, he should have probably explained the strengths of the other classes, and said "you guys can totally do stuff too, but this class has a lot of resources and I'm making good use of them". Maybe give a pointer or two about the other classes and how they've got strengths of their own, but those need to be actively used by the player.



So mob rule? I don't really think that's reasonable, simply because there are more people. It's one thing if the group has agreed to play the game a certain way, and entirely another when simple politeness and communication fall by the wayside in favor of reactionary stiffness.


Mob rule isn't about being "most-correct", it's about being a team-player. And I'm not saying it's the OP's fault that his group thinks he's a cheater. However, the individual should be conforming to the group, not the other way around. An individual can explain things and try to shape the game for the better with time, but people will not respond well to things that immediately demand they reconsider everything about what they thought they knew. It's just not going to get anywhere.



It's true that I'll leave games which are built around concepts which disagree entirely with my style (why would I inflict the bother on me and them?), but for the most part I get along with whatever groups I join through compromising with them. If groups were all set on "My way or get out" I'd never get to play at all most likely (nor I suspect would most other people, playing D&D is a group activity after all).


Well, it's good you compromise with them. And, nobody should really feel forced to play with bossy members. But, at the same time, before outright engaging what you see as opposing to your viewpoint, you need to cool down and look at things from their perspective - otherwise you hinder the forming of a group's bond, which is one of the most detrimental things to getting people to understand arguments that lie along the justification-for-powergaming stratum.

PId6
2009-09-11, 07:19 PM
Against what? What are you guys fighting that a touch attack is an issue?
Draconomicon dragons with Scintillating Scales of course.

Temet Nosce
2009-09-11, 08:12 PM
I wasn't addressing that exchange as much as the idea of a single player ever holding influence over a group. The idea of deciding upon the punishment should never even come to question, because you should never be straying so much from what the group has decided upon. Does that make more sense?

A group is composed of single players, but presuming you're referring to my own statement about sticking around and punishment... I was assuming a situation of complete incompatibility, where it was clearly not working (as in the entire group had decided to play a certain way, and you simply weren't interested).

As far as straying from the group however, most groups don't make that kind of decision consciously until someone brings it up. It's one thing if they sat down and planning ahead stated out a set of guidelines (in that case you know in advance, and should either not have joined or be willing to play within the stated guidelines for now at least) and entirely another if the matter hasn't really been dealt with directly.

Anyways, what I meant by punishment was that if you and a group are totally incompatible, you may make each other miserable. If you simply can't have fun, you should quit.


From what I saw, all the OP mentioned was Druids Are Powerful, See?. If he wanted to make an argument these people would more likely understand and appreciate, he should have probably explained the strengths of the other classes, and said "you guys can totally do stuff too, but this class has a lot of resources and I'm making good use of them". Maybe give a pointer or two about the other classes and how they've got strengths of their own, but those need to be actively used by the player.

He expands on it in other areas of the thread. He attempted to explain in multiple ways why the Druid is powerful, how they could improve their characters, etc. I don't recall precisely what he said however, and I'm now sufficiently obliterated to be unwilling to check I'm afraid though. Take a glance at the first few pages, he posted multiple times.


Mob rule isn't about being "most-correct", it's about being a team-player. And I'm not saying it's the OP's fault that his group thinks he's a cheater. However, the individual should be conforming to the group, not the other way around. An individual can explain things and try to shape the game for the better with time, but people will not respond well to things that immediately demand they reconsider everything about what they thought they knew. It's just not going to get anywhere.

How is mob rule being a team player? It's more about whoever shouts loudest which is why I used that particular term to be honest.

First, a group is made of individuals. Second, as far as I know, the situation we're addressing in this thread isn't one that they've gotten together and discussed, just that some people are angry at him. That certainly doesn't insisting he conform for them. Also, I don't really see what this stuff about immediately changing everything came from, he attempted to answer some questions and explain a few rules and was treated badly and ignored in return.

I agree it looks like it probably won't get anywhere though. The descriptions of these people paint them as unreasonable, and this is really a situation for quitting from what little he's told us. This isn't a case of disagreeing styles, but of people treating him like crap (which is something I flat out wouldn't tolerate personally).


Well, it's good you compromise with them. And, nobody should really feel forced to play with bossy members. But, at the same time, before outright engaging what you see as opposing to your viewpoint, you need to cool down and look at things from their perspective - otherwise you hinder the forming of a group's bond, which is one of the most detrimental things to getting people to understand arguments that lie along the justification-for-powergaming stratum.

I generally don't get annoyed over it. Also, I don't really engage in some big debate... If I think a group needs help I'll generally talk to the players one on one and assist them after speaking with the DM to get a feel for the group. If the group was truly unsuitable I just wouldn't have gotten involved in the first place.

Obviously I might not get the high powered, semi theoretical level of optimization game I was interested in but getting a group to take more interest in the game, the rules, and RPing is not that hard.

However, none of this is really applicable to the Op's situation due to the people he's dealing with.

Godskook
2009-09-11, 08:53 PM
Draconomicon dragons with Scintillating Scales of course.

Oh god, a touch AC of <14!

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-09-11, 08:55 PM
Oh god, a touch AC of <14!Check your sources. Scintillating Scales turns a Nat Armor bonus into a Deflection bonus. Dragons can get hard to hit, fast, with that.

Godskook
2009-09-11, 09:22 PM
Check your sources. Scintillating Scales turns a Nat Armor bonus into a Deflection bonus. Dragons can get hard to hit, fast, with that.

I have the book open right in front of me. Says:

"Your hide glistens and shimmers with a protective magical
aura, granting you a deflection bonus to your Armor Class
equal to your Constitution modifier. Your natural armor
bonus decreases by an amount equal to your Constitution
modifier × 1/2."

Admittedly, I didn't check every color/metal of dragon, so maybe 15 or 16 on the high side?

Let's find out:

Blacks? <=14
Blues? <=14
Greens? <=14
Reds? <=16
Whites? <=14
Brass? <=14
Bronze? <=14
Copper? <=14
Gold? <=15
Silver? <=15


I really wasn't that far off...

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-09-11, 09:29 PM
I have the book open right in front of me. But the wrong book. The SpC is the most recent version.

Eldariel
2009-09-11, 09:32 PM
But the wrong book. The SpC is the most recent version.

To clarify, SpC version turns your entire NA into Deflection.

Godskook
2009-09-11, 09:35 PM
But the wrong book. The SpC is the most recent version.

That's an honest mistake considering the poster I was responding to specifically mentioned the Draconomicon.

PId6
2009-09-11, 09:46 PM
Yeah, sorry about that. Meant the SpC version, but remembered the spell from Dcon so just went with that.

ericgrau
2009-09-12, 01:00 PM
Ok, zergrusheddie, I'm trying to piece together the stats you posted but there are a lot of holes:


Level 8?

Dire Ape: AC 22, AB 13/8 (75%+50%=1.25/rnd), dmg 20.5 avg. (1d6+17, str 22), HP ??
(barkskin, mage armor)
Dire Wolf: AC 28, AB 15 (85%), trip +12, dmg 21 avg. (2d6+14)
(+2 barding, barkskin)
gear: 4k barding, 4k studded leather = 8k + ? (artifact staff)

Fighter: AC 25+?=31, AB 11-12/6-7 + str mod, dmg 5.5+str mod+crits
gear: ?k improved bull rush/sunder/overrun boots, 12.5k armor, 1k shield, 4k strength belt, 2k or 8k scimitar = 19.5k-27.5k + ? (boots)

my level 8 fighter (standard WBL): AC 27, AB 17/12 (95%+70%=1.65/rnd), 13.5 avg dmg, 88 HP

Average CR 6 monster AC = 19 (4 CR 6 = EL 10 encounter)
standard level 8 wealth = 28,000 gp

With greater magic fang your damages should be 1d6+8 and 1d8+12, which would put you on par with the fighter per hit but actually behind per round since fewer hits land. But by the spoilered numbers your boosted damage makes up for the fewer hits and puts you slightly ahead. Are you using some kind of spell to boost your size category, and if so what are the effects and duration? What does Spikes do?

On touch AC: A level 8 wizard has a BAB of 4 and a dex mod of maybe 2-3 for a total of 6-7. So, yes, he does miss frequently even against a touch AC of 14 (10 + moderate dex or size mod, for example). I've also noticed that average touch AC by level is a flat line, to my surprise, but when I investigated it further it turns out it's the average of AC 6 dragons and things that do have an increasing touch AC. In practice I've noticed the same problem, and have been considering weapon focus (range spell). His sonic ball does 8d6=28 avg. vs. multiple targets (reflex half), while scorching ray does the same but requires a touch attack. I don't see why the wizard should be complaining about damage output vs your standard 15ish damage per hit fighter or normal size druid... unless some non-core feats or spells are boosting melee damage well above the norm without boosting spell damage.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-12, 01:08 PM
The idea is to use shillelagh with spikes, both are spells which improve a club.

He can use a huge club in ape form (with -2 for using an oversized weapon) then get 2 size improvements ... for a 4d6 club. Then spikes gives it a +1 enhancement bonus to damage per caster level.

amethal
2009-09-12, 01:57 PM
7: Multi-Attack

Items:
+2 Studded Leather which is not on as Dire Ape.
a +1 or +2 Scimitar.
Lesser Rod of Extend: the whole point in this was getting Barkskin lasting 8 hours.
It feels weird to be asking questions about this build, when clearly there are better druid builds you could be using if you wanted to.

However ...

Do druids qualify for multi-attack?
Is the studded leather special in some way, or is it a houserule that it doesn't count as metal armour?
Barkskin is 10 minutes per level, or 160 minutes when extended. Where does 8 hours come from?

I personally don't like the Spikes spell, but I guess its better than you using "Bite of ..." after wildshaping.

I think it is great that you are wildshaping into a Dire Ape so that you can use the minor artefact/plot device the DM gave your character. It would be a real shame if, as I think someone suggested, the DM ruled that apes cannot use weapons.

There's a lot of advice in this thread, some of it conflicting.

The only thing I can think of to add is have you considered asking the wizard to polymorph the fighter into a dire ape or something?

PinkysBrain
2009-09-12, 02:03 PM
Well there is always that silly weapon enhancement with which you can wield weapons with your mouth.

Annis Hag is better for the fighter (as I said, the DM should drop a Skin of Proteus for him).

Yuki Akuma
2009-09-12, 02:06 PM
Well there is always that silly weapon enhancement with which you can wield weapons with your mouth.

So that's why Zoro only ever holds his white sword in his mouth.

Myrmex
2009-09-12, 02:17 PM
As to "wizards can't make the touch attacks"... You can probably find the numbers pre-crunched online of average touch ACs vs. reflex saves for SRD monsters by level, and you can presumably check his ranged attack bonus and save DCs.

That is pretty much irrelevant to an actual game, though, since you aren't fighting averaged armor class or touch attack.

If he has low dex, he may only have +4 or +5 to hit with a touch attack, and as soon as the enemy is in melee, that's going to drop to +1 or +2.

Against most humanoids, he's going to be pretty much flipping a coin to hit. At least with fireball he'll do SOME damage.

Touch attacks aren't as easy to make as most people say they are, especially if the wizard doesn't act first. Against some monsters they are, mostly big dumb brutes, but you use spells that disable them, because flat damage isn't really that helpful vs. a giant or animal (high con & good HD). You never use touch spells on dragons until after you thoroughly dispel them, and even then, you should still be careful.

Oh, and if your wizard multiclasses, his touch attacks will be even worse.

Yuki Akuma
2009-09-12, 02:23 PM
You always use Shivering Touch on dragons, because it pretty much disables them in one action.

Myrmex
2009-09-12, 02:25 PM
You always use Shivering Touch on dragons, because it pretty much disables them in one action.

And then you fail because you can't hit AC 30.

Yuki Akuma
2009-09-12, 02:26 PM
And then you fail because you can't hit AC 30.

Only if they know that specific spell and they thought to cast it beforehand...

nightwyrm
2009-09-12, 02:29 PM
And then you fail because you can't hit AC 30.

Depends on whether the dragon have Scintillating Scales on.

And the caster can always have true strike....

Yuki Akuma
2009-09-12, 02:30 PM
Also, quickened True Strike.

kamikasei
2009-09-12, 02:30 PM
That is pretty much irrelevant to an actual game, though, since you aren't fighting averaged armor class or touch attack.

I in no way suggested that you would be. But if, on average, touch ACs hover around 10, then you start out with an even chance to hit that only goes up. The idea that wizards "just can't make the touch ACs" is simply false.

The reason I suggested hunting down the data online rather than just asking someone to post the graphs Sstoopidtallkid provided was because I figured someone probably had not just means but highs, lows and deviations worked out, too, so that a more realistic picture of how many enemies had which kinds of strengths could be formed.

Besides which, the idea that a wizard should never learn or prepare any ranged touch spells because against some enemies they aren't the best is... well...

Your points about the efficacy of disabling over damage spells are well taken, though.

Myrmex
2009-09-12, 02:57 PM
Only if they know that specific spell and they thought to cast it beforehand...

Only if your wizard has reach spell, shivering touch and thought to prepare it beforehand....


Depends on whether the dragon have Scintillating Scales on.

And the caster can always have true strike....

So you have a 50% chance of hitting.

And how many actions has that been?


I in no way suggested that you would be. But if, on average, touch ACs hover around 10, then you start out with an even chance to hit that only goes up. The idea that wizards "just can't make the touch ACs" is simply false.

The reason I suggested hunting down the data online rather than just asking someone to post the graphs Sstoopidtallkid provided was because I figured someone probably had not just means but highs, lows and deviations worked out, too, so that a more realistic picture of how many enemies had which kinds of strengths could be formed.

Besides which, the idea that a wizard should never learn or prepare any ranged touch spells because against some enemies they aren't the best is... well...

Your points about the efficacy of disabling over damage spells are well taken, though.

I feel that against most opponents, your touch attacks aren't as likely to land as AoE save-for-half. Evasion is a lot less common than a touch AC of 10.

I'm not saying you shouldn't pack touch attacks, but against opponents that you want to use touch attacks anyway, the orb spells are a less than optimal solution. If you want to blast, in general, orbs aren't worth it, unless you're abusing metamagic.

nightwyrm
2009-09-12, 03:15 PM
I'm not saying you shouldn't pack touch attacks, but against opponents that you want to use touch attacks anyway, the orb spells are a less than optimal solution. If you want to blast, in general, orbs aren't worth it, unless you're abusing metamagic.

If we're talking specifically about the orbs, you pack them because they ignore SR and they have rider effects in addition to their damage.

ericgrau
2009-09-12, 04:15 PM
The idea is to use shillelagh with spikes, both are spells which improve a club.

He can use a huge club in ape form (with -2 for using an oversized weapon) then get 2 size improvements ... for a 4d6 club. Then spikes gives it a +1 enhancement bonus to damage per caster level.

Shillelagh takes a round to cast, lasts only a minute per level and quicken is outside his reach. Does he have some way to use it without spending a combat round? What about spikes? Do the two spells stack? And how did the dire wolf get a damage boost? If cast during combat shillelagh isn't so bad, since you pay a round for the privelage. Or get rewarded for setting up a good ambush (which allows you a buff round).

Methinks this is the source of the problem right here. Without it, or if the wizard and fighter get similar boosts, the problem disappears and the druid is a little behind both in damage/AC. Just like a fighter/caster mix should be. Damage is kinda high if you add the druid + companion, but their AB is low enough that the total hits between them keeps it in check. Also this is a team game, so the druid should really be pegging the fighter with barkskin for even more AC. It does make sense to peg the single toughest target with it, once the size damage boosts are fixed I mean.

I'll agree that ranged touch spells are useful against some enemies, but not all. And that the wizard should pack at least 1 (maybe more), but not flood his list with them.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-12, 04:20 PM
One minute is 10 rounds. At CL 8, that's 80 rounds. If you've got an inkling combat's going to go on, a regular casting of Shillelagh or an Extended one via a Rod should last you quite a while.

ericgrau
2009-09-12, 04:21 PM
Which is the reward for setting up ambush. But typically PCs are the ambushee. Plus its weaker w/o being stacked with spikes. It'd be nice if the fighter or wizard were allowed a similar splatbook advantage to boost their damage if spikes is allowed.

Allowing anyone weapon proficiency in animal form (w/o a -4, I mean) is kinda iffy too, but I dunno a ruling either way on this.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-12, 04:22 PM
If you are going into a cave or breaking into someone's house, casting it then would also be appropriate.

ericgrau
2009-09-12, 04:24 PM
Which is what traps and locked doors are for, to slow down the party for several minutes if not longer. But if you're well prepared and your enemy isn't, then boosts are appropriate. They can also buff the fighter while they're at it, or he can down potions, etc. The wizard can likewise prep some spells.

Roderick_BR
2009-09-12, 07:25 PM
I'd also point out that it's worth emphasizing to them that the Fighter is Sword & Board. In other words, he's chosen defense as his primary shtick so he shouldn't expect to match offensive characters in damage output. Point out how much more efficient two-hander would be, especially in combination with Power Attack & Improved Trip.
Unfortunatelly, against huge enemies with devastatingly strong attacks, spells/spell-like abilities/special attacks that ignore armor (touch attacks, attacks that target saves), etc, choosing mundane defense (armor and shield) does very little for a fighter.

I second that the OP should explain them how 3.x is somewhat flawed in it's balance. Suggesting the figther guy to look over he ToB is a common and usually annoying response, but it's worth it. A warblade (no reflavouring even needed), can match a buffed druid's combat capacity, with the benefit of no needing time to buff, and can do most of his stuff all day. And if he likes to use a shield, ToB have cool stuff for it.

Suggestions also for the others: Look up "Reserve Feats". It can help the casters with cool new tricks to add to the healbot and blaster repertoire.

Keewatin
2009-09-14, 07:06 AM
Which is the reward for setting up ambush. But typically PCs are the ambushee. Plus its weaker w/o being stacked with spikes. It'd be nice if the fighter or wizard were allowed a similar splatbook advantage to boost their damage if spikes is allowed.

Allowing anyone weapon proficiency in animal form (w/o a -4, I mean) is kinda iffy too, but I dunno a ruling either way on this.

Well the character doesn't lose proficiency in a weapon for wildshaping but unless they specifically design the weapon for the ape you should be taking the -2 for using something not designed for you. Similar to using a weapon designed for a different size creature.

Apes and monkeys are known to throw rocks and sticks as well as swing sticks in fights.

Oslecamo
2009-09-14, 07:21 AM
A warblade (no reflavouring even needed), can match a buffed druid's combat capacity, with the benefit of no needing time to buff, and can do most of his stuff all day. And if he likes to use a shield, ToB have cool stuff for it.

So what? A ubercharger fighter can also match the druid in physical combat capacity. Big deal.

quick_comment
2009-09-14, 07:24 AM
So what? A ubercharger fighter can also match the druid in physical combat capacity. Big deal.

So it takes the cheesiest of all fighter builds to match a vanilla druid?

kamikasei
2009-09-14, 07:25 AM
So what? A ubercharger fighter can also match the druid in physical combat capacity. Big deal.

Uhm... what point are you countering? I read Roderick as saying, essentially, he can play the same sort of character he has now and be more effective by switching to warblade. He could try to keep up by building an ubercharger, but that both requires more optimization and changes the character's style.

I get the impression you think you're replying to an entirely different statement...

Teron
2009-09-14, 08:36 AM
Well the character doesn't lose proficiency in a weapon for wildshaping but unless they specifically design the weapon for the ape you should be taking the -2 for using something not designed for you. Similar to using a weapon designed for a different size creature.

Apes and monkeys are known to throw rocks and sticks as well as swing sticks in fights.
That's completely arbitrary unless you apply the same penalty to dwarves and half-orcs using elf-made weapons and other similar cases. In any case, it would be a house rule.

Keewatin
2009-09-14, 09:41 AM
That's completely arbitrary unless you apply the same penalty to dwarves and half-orcs using elf-made weapons and other similar cases. In any case, it would be a house rule.

Its not arbitrary elves, dwarves and half-orcs are all humanoid. An ape in an animal or at least in this case a humanoid pretending to be an animal. The fact that an ape can use a weapon at all is completely outside the rules already.

SparkMandriller
2009-09-14, 10:06 AM
Do apes in your games not have arms or something?

Yuki Akuma
2009-09-14, 10:11 AM
Its not arbitrary elves, dwarves and half-orcs are all humanoid. An ape in an animal or at least in this case a humanoid pretending to be an animal. The fact that an ape can use a weapon at all is completely outside the rules already.

Anything can wield or use anything as long as it has the body slots for it.

Apes have hands. They can wield weapons.

In fact, several species of ape use tools already, so it's not even a stretch. Some have been known to hit things with rocks.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-14, 10:24 AM
In fact, there are monkeys that have accidently got hold of a gun and shot people. Multiple times. So it wasn't an accident that gun went off (they figured out how).

Now are D&D monkeys unable is a question, but in reality they can. So don't try to find reality as basis for ape nerfs.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-14, 10:14 PM
The AC vs Fighter matches (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124179) are up.

We had a bit of a rules snafu over how to handle dropped objects, and if I could dive bomb, but it's all cleared by a DM ruling now.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-14, 10:16 PM
In fact, there are monkeys that have accidently got hold of a gun and shot people. Multiple times. So it wasn't an accident that gun went off (they figured out how).

Now are D&D monkeys unable is a question, but in reality they can. So don't try to find reality as basis for ape nerfs.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v422/toddsun/Pwnage%20pics/diemonkey.jpg

Gorram monkeys...

Another_Poet
2009-09-14, 10:40 PM
If the druids are racing cycles, then fighters are the tricycles of D&D - easy to learn! You don't have to read more than 30 pages out of the PHB to roll a fighter, sit down and play. Many of my players have never read the PHB completely through and refuse to learn the game well enough to level up their characters without hep. For players like them, ease of play is a huge advantage.

A druid can be much more effective than a fighter, but playing a druid well requires reading a lot more of the PHB, including the spell list, then delving into the MM for shapes and companon and summons, then pre-statting out druid forms, possible summoned monsters, and the animal companion. And this assumes you restrict yourself to core and don't poke your nose into the DMG to look into magic items. For low-involvement players, that's way more time than they're willing to invest in the game.

Wow... that is the best explanation I've ever heard.

When you consider players' time investment in each class, Druid and Fighter are almost... *blink* balanced.

...

...

Holy crap.

Doc Roc
2009-09-14, 10:44 PM
:: nods and gestures :: Ease of use is something we've tried desperately to maintain for War-Marked. It's by no means as approachable as fighter, but it's much closer than a lot of the other fixes and certainly easier than ToB (Which I love).

Lycanthromancer
2009-09-14, 10:49 PM
I'd actually have to disagree somewhat. Fighters seem to be easy to build; after all, all you have are feats.

And yet, building fighters effectively through more than the first 4 or so levels takes a lot more work, and dumpster-diving through lots of splats for ACFs, feats, and PrCs.

With druids, just add in Natural Spell, and have a vague comprehension of how the class works.

Yes, the druid is more complicated at first glance, but as with everything balance-related, there's more than meets the eye. [/Transformers]

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-09-14, 10:52 PM
I'd actually have to disagree somewhat. Fighters seem to be easy to build; after all, all you have are feats.

And yet, building fighters effectively through more than the first 4 or so levels takes a lot more work, and dumpster-diving through lots of splats for ACFs, feats, and PrCs.

With druids, just add in Natural Spell, and have a vague comprehension of how the class works.

Yes, the druid is more complicated at first glance, but as with everything balance-related, there's more than meets the eye. [/Transformers]The best part is, you can play a Transformer Druid, going from Robot to BIG Robot with 1 standard action. It's nice.

Doc Roc
2009-09-14, 11:00 PM
If we're talking specifically about the orbs, you pack them because they ignore SR and they have rider effects in addition to their damage.

Yes. And if you aren't abusing metamagic, you're not a blaster as far as I'm concerned.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-15, 03:10 PM
What a totally strange turn of events! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6934352#post6934352)

Yukitsu
2009-09-15, 03:35 PM
Wow, that thread gave me some serious deja vu. :smallconfused:

olentu
2009-09-15, 04:07 PM
Ah that thread takes me back to that other time.

Though does this quote not imply that the loose a shield action is "unstrapping and dropping a shield so you can use your shield hand for another purpose" or am I crazy.

"Ready or Loose a Shield

Strapping a shield to your arm to gain its shield bonus to your AC, or unstrapping and dropping a shield so you can use your shield hand for another purpose, requires a move action. If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you can ready or loose a shield as a free action combined with a regular move.

Dropping a carried (but not worn) shield is a free action. "

F.H. Zebedee
2009-09-15, 08:49 PM
but I've had players snap after the endless demands for healing and go hit things with hammers

I hope this was In Character, and not at the table! ;)

Anywho, I'm typically not too agressive on this sort of thing. If I was in your situation, I'd try sliding back a bit towards versatility and aiding. Give some buffs to the fighter, wildshape something that isn't a fighter one match and instead run sabotage with spells and whatever the animal form was. Since your party members all do straight damage, tripping and such wouldn't be stepping on any toes, I'm assuming.

Kaiyanwang
2009-09-16, 01:54 AM
I'd actually have to disagree somewhat. Fighters seem to be easy to build; after all, all you have are feats.

And yet, building fighters effectively through more than the first 4 or so levels takes a lot more work, and dumpster-diving through lots of splats for ACFs, feats, and PrCs.
[/Transformers]

Agree with this. IMHO, at least with the power level of my group, you can built several kind of effective fighters.. but you have to SWEAR

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-16, 02:02 AM
Well, the thread's locked. Pity. I had something planned for Giacomo...

Indon
2009-09-16, 08:24 AM
These guys play classes as they were 'intended' to be played; Fighters are Sword and Boarders, Clerics are healbots, and Wizards are Evokers. The best way to describe the largest section of the party is thus: the last person to play a Druid took Natural Spell at level 15 once he ran out of feats that he could take that enhance his Archery skill and he only used Wildshape to go Eagle Form and fly Combat Air Scout. Oh, and he never used his Animal Companion. :smallamused:

You answer your own question here, in the first post on the thread.

They are playing the game the way it's meant to be played.

You are playing the game in a way it's not meant to be played. And they can tell.

What you're doing may not be against the strictly-written rules in the books, but you're in violation of the social contract that brings that group together: The spirit of D&D law, if not the letter. That's why they're calling you on it.

So you can either convert them to the spirit of internet D&D, quit the group, or... wait for it...

Play the game the way you clearly know it is meant to be played, just like they're doing. Cast Call Lightning, take a Wolf-related form, and attack with it. Your party will consider your tripping helpful.

Edit: Or cast Call Lightning, send your Wolf-related animal companion out, and healbot, summoning when you want to hold monsters off. That strikes me as more appropriate.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-16, 09:08 AM
What you're doing may not be against the strictly-written rules in the books, but you're in violation of the social contract that brings that group together: The spirit of D&D law, if not the letter. That's why they're calling you on it.



Play the game the way you clearly know it is meant to be played, just like they're doing. Cast Call Lightning, take a Wolf-related form, and attack with it. Your party will consider your tripping helpful.
I have never in my life seen actual proof that DnD was playtested the way you are talking about.

Indon
2009-09-16, 09:41 AM
I have never in my life seen actual proof that DnD was playtested the way you are talking about.

Indeed, you are correct.

We can not know for absolute certain that this was the intent of the game's designers, and that their facilitating of that playstyle had as a side-effect the facilitation of other, potentially wildly different and disruptive playstyles which were ultimately unintended.

It's just a commonly accepted internet theory.

:D

Doc Roc
2009-09-16, 10:54 AM
You answer your own question here, in the first post on the thread.

What you're doing may not be against the strictly-written rules in the books, but you're in violation of the social contract that brings that group together: The spirit of D&D law, if not the letter. That's why they're calling you on it.

So you can either convert them to the spirit of internet D&D, quit the group, or... wait for it...

Play the game the way you clearly know it is meant to be played, just like they're doing. Cast Call Lightning, take a Wolf-related form, and attack with it. Your party will consider your tripping helpful.


So you advocate an end to player freedom in character design and a strict adherence to set of roles laid down at the beginning of third edition, prior to any serious playtesting. I mean, sure, there are iconic ways to play classes, but the whole point of the broad spectrum of material in core and elsewhere was supposed to be that you weren't entirely locked into bad choices or the deep ruts of iconic roles.

This isn't "internet D&D" or some weird dark totem that only optimizers follow. This is just a guy who wanted to play his druid differently. And then the game snapped and then his fellow players exploded on him. And you condone this result?

Indon
2009-09-16, 01:43 PM
So you advocate an end to player freedom in character design and a strict adherence to set of roles laid down at the beginning of third edition, prior to any serious playtesting. I mean, sure, there are iconic ways to play classes, but the whole point of the broad spectrum of material in core and elsewhere was supposed to be that you weren't entirely locked into bad choices or the deep ruts of iconic roles.
It's no more a restriction than, say, a game which is optimized to the point where only a small selection of options is de facto viable.

I daresay it's far less a restriction, as less-powerful options in D&D vastly outnumber the powerful ones favored by this community. Heck, I wonder if you could even get away with using Monkey Grip!

This is, in fact, a guy who is playing a Druid (one of the potentially most powerful classes in the game) in an optimized fashion, in a group he knew absolutely did not optimize, and is thus intentionally breaking the campaign's power level with his character - and when his group reacts as could be expected, he responds (on this forum, as far as I can tell) with condescention and asks precisely the source for "internet D&D" how to convert them to his preferred gameplay approach.

The OP seems uninterested in a responsible or effective approach to dealing with his fellow players - if he were so interested, he wouldn't have initiated the situation by bringing in a character more powerful than the rest of the group. And this forum, with its' suggestions to create characters who obsolete party members to prove a point, is evidently similarly uninterested.

If he were legitimately interested in showing them the wide world of D&D optimization, rather than lording his 'internet D&D' over everyone else, I would suggest that he offer to DM a game for higher-power characters and guide the players through creating them, showing how such a game style can be unique and enjoyable.

As it is, he's asking how he can get away with bringing a Tier 1 class into a Tier 4 game. The only tenable answer is no - fit the game, leave the game, or you'll break the game. The OP needs to ask himself if he's even interested in the first two of those options.

Eldariel
2009-09-16, 01:49 PM
*snip*

I do wish to direct you to descriptions of the other players. It's not a bunch of players who care not for optimization; the other players have specifically been complaining that he's not pulling his weight. The other players aren't making decisions because of what they "feel is right", they are specifically making decisions based on what they believe is the most efficient; when the OP suggested the Wizard Glitterdust, the Wizard simply stated that he would not touch the spell since "Fireball is better".

Nothing to do with likes, simple matter of efficiency in his mind. Now that the Druid is pulling his weight (and is in NO ways optimized, by the way; well, beyond picking Natural Spell), the Wizard is complaining that he's too good. Do you see where this is going? If he does not optimize, they'll complain he isn't pulling his weight. If he does optimize, they'll complain he's outperforming them.

The solution is not to "play the game as it's intended"; quite possibly the only solution they'd find acceptable would be to copy the Wizard's build and make the exact same character...except that wouldn't be acceptable 'cause it'd be copying. I think you're being exceedingly harsh on the OP or may not have read his earlier threads on the subject.

mostlyharmful
2009-09-16, 02:58 PM
seems to me there's a real pressing in character reason why adventurers might be limited to a small number of mechanical options. Those are the one's that WIN, that survive and get the job done. That's a real concern to someone viciously attacked on a regular basis, someone who wants to save the world or smash a tyrants rule.

To have a set of 'roles' that PCs must fit into while there are more powerful options seems to require a level of metagaming I'm not all that comfortable with, preserving things that don't work simply because that's the way things have always worked irrespective of the 'getting you killed with big sharp metal things' aspect. Seems like soldiers complaining about repeater rifles since everything worked so much better with bows and arrows.

Zergrusheddie
2009-09-16, 08:17 PM
Nothing to do with likes, simple matter of efficiency in his mind. Now that the Druid is pulling his weight (and is in NO ways optimized, by the way; well, beyond picking Natural Spell), the Wizard is complaining that he's too good. Do you see where this is going? If he does not optimize, they'll complain he isn't pulling his weight. If he does optimize, they'll complain he's outperforming them.


That's pretty much it. I've actually decided to stop playing with the group altogether for a few reasons:

1. The Wizard player made me exceedingly angry by just calling me a liar, cheater, and an incompetent cheater at that. Compounded by all the following, that was the final straw when he did not apologize.

2. The group is extremely arbitrary. Stuff like "A Dire Wolf can't trip a huge creature; that makes no sense!", "A Druid shouldn't be able Claw, Claw, Bite and get a free Grapple as a Bear", and "A Dire Animal isn't an acceptable Animal for Wild Shape because it's not an actual Animal." The kicker is that it is not the DM being arbitrary; it's 3/7 of the group. :smallfrown:

3. Most of the group refuses to read the rules, which leads to them calling me the typical names of stupid, cheater, and the like when I bring things up. After calling me a cheater, they would not even read the errata for Wild Shape. It was just so obvious I was "picking and choosing" my stats when I kept my Mental Stats, kept my HP/BAB/Base Saves, and took the Animal's Physical Stats. :smallsigh:

4. This is the most unavoidable one: I'm just a stupid little kid to them. I've known most of them for about half my life and they just see me as an idiotic child. This is what led to Problem Number One because there was no way I could be more effective than the S&B Fighter, the Skeleton Cleric, or the Evoker Wizard without cheating because they have been playing games since before I was born. :smallsigh:

A bit of a pity, as I liked the other half of the group.
Best of luck y'all.
-Eddie

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-16, 08:21 PM
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Eldariel
2009-09-17, 02:11 AM
3. Most of the group refuses to read the rules, which leads to them calling me the typical names of stupid, cheater, and the like when I bring things up. After calling me a cheater, they would not even read the errata for Wild Shape. It was just so obvious I was "picking and choosing" my stats when I kept my Mental Stats, kept my HP/BAB/Base Saves, and took the Animal's Physical Stats. :smallsigh:

This is just silly...this is how it works even by PHB with no errata whatsoever. "This works like Polymorph except as stated here..." and it states nothing about stats there so we look at Polymorph and find: "The subject gains the Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores of the new form but retains its own Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores."

Then we find this:
"It also gains all extraordinary special attacks possessed by the form (such as constrict, improved grab, and poison) but does not gain the extraordinary special qualities possessed by the new form (such as blindsense, fast healing, regeneration, and scent) or any supernatural or spell-like abilities."


If they aren't getting that, they're incapable of reading the PHB. Meh, I'd personally try one more out-of-game discussion to clear the air and the rules, though your route seems sensible too. No point in playing if you can't have fun.

riddles
2009-09-17, 03:13 AM
join the play by post boards?

other than that, sorry to hear man.

Indon
2009-09-17, 10:29 AM
The other players aren't making decisions because of what they "feel is right", they are specifically making decisions based on what they believe is the most efficient; when the OP suggested the Wizard Glitterdust, the Wizard simply stated that he would not touch the spell since "Fireball is better".
How precisely is that not precisely what they 'feel is right', being people who aren't experienced in or care about in-depth game optimization?

I know that this forum, filled as it is with D&D optimizers, has very high standards - but really, there's a lot of stuff we do with our characters without even thinking, because they are such fundamental forms of optimization that we don't contemplate them.

A trivial example is a Druid who dumps all their physical stats - which seems to be precisely what our OP did. Why wouldn't you make a Druid who dumps their physical stats, after all - you can just use Natural Spell and spend all your time in Wild Shape to compensate for any possible physical weakness.

That's an optimization trick most D&D players neither contemplate, nor are particularly interested in. It is 'internet theory' - obvious to us only because we spend so much time talking about it.

A fairly easy character you could make for such a game could be a core-only Barbarian power-attack charger. You'd deal good damage, perfectly in keeping with the intent of the class, you wouldn't outperform everyone easily, and I daresay your character might have a weakness or two.

Eldariel
2009-09-17, 11:04 AM
How precisely is that not precisely what they 'feel is right', being people who aren't experienced in or care about in-depth game optimization?

Because they are optimizing. They are just doing it poorly, but they're still optimizing. So they obviously care about optimization and just don't know how to go about it.

If he makes a Power Attack charger, he'll actually be dealing more damage than he is right now. It would just get them cry more "foul".

Doc Roc
2009-09-17, 11:17 AM
I know that this forum, filled as it is with D&D optimizers, has very high standards - but really, there's a lot of stuff we do with our characters without even thinking, because they are such fundamental forms of optimization that we don't contemplate them.

A trivial example is a Druid who dumps all their physical stats - which seems to be precisely what our OP did. Why wouldn't you make a Druid who dumps their physical stats, after all - you can just use Natural Spell and spend all your time in Wild Shape to compensate for any possible physical weakness.

That's an optimization trick most D&D players neither contemplate, nor are particularly interested in. It is 'internet theory' - obvious to us only because we spend so much time talking about it.

If you think this forum is full of optimizers, I literally don't know what to tell you, Indon. This is pretty much the least optimization-friendly board out there for D&D, much less D&D 3.5, other than maybe the Paizo boards, and even there I got a generally better reception than I've hard here.
I've run 3.5 for two years solid now, and I've never met a druid who didn't dump strength and dex. This isn't some MAGGGGGGGGICAL knowledge. You read your abilities, and you say, "Huh, looks like I probably don't need to hammer my strength and dexterity into the heavens. I'll just put them at ten or maybe even eight." Then you check and you see you still need con. So you push that up some. You're wisdom focused. Let's put wisdom reasonably high. Reading my character's class abilities and coming to conclusions should not be enough to raise anyone's ire.

It's not like he's pulling out the strong Kung-Fu, Indon, he's just casting some spells, and doing a little wildshaping, maybe using some natural spell. Not exactly an egregious offense, certainly not cheating like they claim. Now, sure, he shouldn't have broken the party power balance. On the other hand, when your group is telling you that you aren't pulling your own weight, a bit of a knee-jerk is to be expected. Why does this strike you as so very bad-wrong?

Nidogg
2010-03-10, 02:08 PM
I do wish to direct you to descriptions of the other players. It's not a bunch of players who care not for optimization; the other players have specifically been complaining that he's not pulling his weight. The other players aren't making decisions because of what they "feel is right", they are specifically making decisions based on what they believe is the most efficient; when the OP suggested the Wizard Glitterdust, the Wizard simply stated that he would not touch the spell since "Fireball is better".



These people are ejits (I should know untill recently I was one). As I have recently discoverd, blasting somthing with a showy explosion is almost NEVER the right awnser. In an encounter with an owlbear at low level magic missile wont do much, but Grease and/or colour spray will. So if this aplys at low levels why shouldnt it aply at other levels? It still does. No question.

Leon
2010-03-10, 08:44 PM
The problem is that, while druid is a very powerful class, it's a powerful class if you use it's abilities. Yes, using Wild Shape and Natural Spell are very strong, they're awesome. It's fun to turn into a bear and shoot lightning bolts at people.


Not always and not for everyone - i love the Druid class yet i don't like and quite often find a away to replace Wildshape with something else, shooting lighting bolts is fun but i don't need to be a bear to do it.
When someone come on here to ask for suggestions on making a Druid it saddens me to see the first things that always come up are take this feat and do this - the cookie cutter effect i call it, rather than finding out what style of character that the person wants to make and exploring the possibilities that are open to the class



Have you been intentionally optimising, OP? Because the trouble is, if someone's playing a healbot cleric, I'm not sure you can deliberately underperform them :P (I'm not even sure how healbot clerics can have fun. Maybe some people like them, but I've had players snap after the endless demands for healing and go hit things with hammers)

Different strokes for different folks, i have played with people who like to heal not matter what what game it is or system, one game recently we got one of these people to try a different archetype and while it worked for a while they ended up swapping with me so they could play the healer.

In regards to Clerics (and Druids) i like them for the support capabilities they offer since i like playing support roles - yes i can go up there and wallop the heck of of the foe but I'd rather boost the whole group to wallop the heck out of the foe and then join in since this is a team game I'm in.

Optimizing has its uses everywhere to certain extents but if you try and force your level on others who don't like/use/believe etc its not going to work.
If the DM says no you cant do that/play that then don't kick up a stink - its his game and his word is law, accept that and change to fit with how that group goes or move on and find other options.

JaronK
2010-03-10, 09:08 PM
My feelings about the OP are this: you played the wrong class, and the wrong way. If this group is happy playing healbot Clerics and sword and board Fighters, why did you pull out a Druid that actually played well? It's inapropriate to the game. My advice is that you pick a T5-6 class and play right along with them. If you want to optimize, start with something weak (Soulknife, CW Samurai, Monk). And don't go all out. Stay away from Shock Trooper and the like. In fact, I'd say in this group that Monk might be absolutely perfect. Even VoP Monk would overwhelm them, so stick with a stock standard pure Monk build. Then have fun with it.

JaronK

dougch
2010-03-10, 09:31 PM
Arise From The Grave Foul Minion Of Necromancy!

Superglucose
2010-03-10, 09:31 PM
.
Last session some of the other players (not the DM) actually stopped me and accused me of cheating. Most of the accusations include not changing my HP when I Wildshape, not reducing my BAB or hit dice, not reducing my Wisdom when I Wildshape, and casting spells during Wildshape. After showing them the Alternate Form Errata and the SRD, I stated that "Druids are often considered overpowered because they have special abilities that are more powerful than entire classes", which they simply dismissed as 'Internet Theory'.
...

Man this is hilarious. You're doing it right and they accuse you of cheating, then you say, "Yes, they are powerful" and they say "Nuh-UH, you're just cheating by following the rules!"



At some point, the question of "what is the point of playing a Fighter if a Druid is better than he is (pointed at the SnB Fighter) at being a Fighter?" came out. This question is the primary point of this thread, with the beginning just to show the irony of how I have gone from being "useless" to "obviously cheating".
"Fighter" *points at fighter* "should be using a greatsword, drop the shield, take Shock Trooper and Leap Attack, and switch his class to "Lion Totem Barbarian.""


I think it is mostly the Wizard being upset that I am starting to do more damage than his 10d6 Sonicballs.
"Suck it up and cast a real spell. Off the top of my head, you could be Hasting me so I deal more damage, or you could be casting Stinking Cloud so nothing can hit me back, or you could Slow the enemies, or maybe even Glitterdust them? All of those are better options than "sonicballs" and, true story, Glitterdust only requires a second level spell slot!"



TL;DR Version:
How do I respond to "What is the point of being a Fighter if a Druid can do it better than a Fighter?" when it is asked by extremely old fashioned players? The only thing I could come up with is "There is no reason as Fighters are a Tier 4 class and Druids are a Tier 1 class." I would use this line, but it would be dismissed as 'Internet Theory' and will still leave the other players curious.

First, fighters aren't tier 4. They're tier 5. This has already probably been mentioned.

Second, when they ask, answer honestly; "Absolutely no bloody point at all. Fighters suck." If they say, "Nuh-uh, that's just internet theory" I would seriously respond with, "Well the only other option is that you suck." Seriously. Either the class they picked is weaker than yours, or they're a significantly worse player than you are. If they refuse to accept that Druid >>>>> Fighter, then what should you care? Try to not outshine them too much, but when you do and they question it, keep reiterating:

"Druids are just better than fighters."

Eventually they'll just keep blindly bungling along saying "INTERNET THEORY!" or they'll realize that you just might be right.

mikej
2010-03-10, 09:52 PM
I like this thread :smallwink:

Ironically, in the time spend between this thread was posted and eventually lift, I went through a situation similiar to the OP. Just not accused of ( not that I know of ) cheating per say.

Damn Druids are really good. Can make a whole party feel really uneasy.

JaronK
2010-03-10, 10:07 PM
Really, I think it's important to match the power level of your group. I always ask what the other characters are first for this exact reason. And the point of playing a Fighter when a Druid does everything better? It should be clear. To make a character that can't do everything that good! It'll be more fun for all if you can actually fit in the story properly. Let's face it, the story of Lord of the Rings would have been stupid of Frodo was a D&D Wizard. "We must destroy the ring, but anyone who gets near it gets mentally corrupted!" "Okay, I cast Mind Blank. Now I cast Disjunction. Next adventure!"

JaronK

mikej
2010-03-10, 10:16 PM
Let's face it, the story of Lord of the Rings would have been stupid of Frodo was a D&D Wizard. "We must destroy the ring, but anyone who gets near it gets mentally corrupted!" "Okay, I cast Mind Blank. Now I cast Disjunction. Next adventure!"

JaronK

Or they could have just used that Griffon. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yqVD0swvWU)

Emmerask
2010-03-11, 11:05 AM
Really, I think it's important to match the power level of your group. I always ask what the other characters are first for this exact reason. And the point of playing a Fighter when a Druid does everything better? It should be clear. To make a character that can't do everything that good! It'll be more fun for all if you can actually fit in the story properly. Let's face it, the story of Lord of the Rings would have been stupid of Frodo was a D&D Wizard. "We must destroy the ring, but anyone who gets near it gets mentally corrupted!" "Okay, I cast Mind Blank. Now I cast Disjunction. Next adventure!"

JaronK


Exactly and if you really really want to play a druid still take the alternative class features and don´t take natural spell at all. That way you are still more powerful then the fighter (you are a spellcaster...) but not to the degree the druid is now in a low no optimization game.

DragoonWraith
2010-03-11, 11:13 AM
But, and this is the important bit, before they complained that he wasn't pulling his weight.

Seriously, he was in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. There is no way he's culpable for that, it seems the other players were determined to blame him for everything under the sun.

Superglucose
2010-03-11, 11:34 AM
Really, I think it's important to match the power level of your group. I always ask what the other characters are first for this exact reason. And the point of playing a Fighter when a Druid does everything better? It should be clear. To make a character that can't do everything that good! It'll be more fun for all if you can actually fit in the story properly. Let's face it, the story of Lord of the Rings would have been stupid of Frodo was a D&D Wizard. "We must destroy the ring, but anyone who gets near it gets mentally corrupted!" "Okay, I cast Mind Blank. Now I cast Disjunction. Next adventure!"

Yeah if he was a 20th level wizard the book would've been boring, but (and I can't remember where) someone once detailed that the characters are most likely around 3rd level, not 20th, since Orcs are still a threat to them, etc.

A 3rd level wizard is pretty damn squishy. "Glitterdust" "Ooops made my save, I'm going to eat you now." "... well then."

Gorilla2038
2010-03-11, 01:05 PM
I would say, sit down with the three folks that are annoyed with you, take each complaint down, and say thanks.

Go find the relevant material, quote and page number it, and then go talk to the DM. Explain you've been accused of cheating, and show him your data(not internet stuff either, but quotes about natural spell, wild shape, etc). If hes worth his salt, he'll try to compromise with the players, or just shut them up, depending on the guy.

This way, you've got a decent chance to stay in the group, and if if doesn't work that way, then you still got to tell them 'I told you so'.

Roland St. Jude
2010-03-11, 01:13 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: This thread was six months dead and ought to have stayed that way.