PDA

View Full Version : Min/Maxing and rule zero



quiet1mi
2009-12-15, 03:39 PM
Hey people in the playground... I have a Dilemma... I am an optimizer by nature... I just cannot help it.

This leads me to the issue... any Dm would be annoyed if they had to deal with a character who deals more damage then they have HP, is able to Mind Rape anything because the save DC is usually 20 higher than the average monster's save or is able to summon Legions of monsters to out muscle the opposition.

What I have noticed in the past is this sort of behavior leads to "The Arms Race". Simply put...

If you Power attack for 100 I will add ~100 Hp to every monster, so you do not one shot it...

If you can Mind Rape anything, I will add ~7 to all their saves so they will save around 40% of the time....

If you summon legions of Minions, I will either reduce the space you could fight in, allow the monsters you fight to use more AOE attacks or just increase the number of opponents you face...

Naturally, this will only entice the players to resort to adding to the arms race, whether it be doing more damage, not allowing saves, or summoning stronger monsters over more monsters...

So what I am asking you guys, is there a balance between optimization and the Dm... Is there a way to prevent "The Arms Race"...

Personally, I Dm with the philosophy of the PCs are like super heros, with strengths and weaknesses, You got to let them have their massive damage attack, mindraping powers, or summonable monsters because it allows you to create moments of weakness something special rather than a challenge to overcome...

For example: There is one encounter where the main monster of the group an intelligent Wraith... Thus it is memorable because it is difficult to hit (50% miss chance) and immune to mind rape, battlefield control, and resistant to illusions... This makes the PCs step outside their MO and think of something new.

Aron Times
2009-12-15, 03:41 PM
I find that you can get away with just about anything as long as you don't act like a munchkin. Basically, roleplay well, work with the party, and don't brag about what your character is capable of. This is how people get away with playing the almighty Batman Wizard in 3.5.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-15, 03:42 PM
Hey people in the playground... I have a Dilemma... I am an optimizer by nature... I just cannot help it.
Ok. With this in mind, let us continue.


This leads me to the issue... any Dm would be annoyed if they had to deal with a character who deals more damage then they have HP,
So what you're saying is that if your character had nigh-infinite HP, then his high damage potential would not be a problem?


So what I am asking you guys, is there a balance between optimization and the Dm... Is there a way to prevent "The Arms Race"...
See how the DM reacts when you decide to play an Adept? It could be fun...

Yukitsu
2009-12-15, 03:48 PM
I start using things either with no saves, and no checks for the negative effect on the enemy that happens to be debillitating, or where you get screwed over even if you pass. Then when everything is immune to those effects, I switch to doing uberdamage with the same build. Then, when no one can do anything against any of the encounters, the rest of the players protest their inability to do anything at all. When the DM says it's my fault for using all those tricks, I counter by saying "Ya shoulda let a few of my tricks work once in a while. Then these guys wouldn't be immune to all of them."

Myrmex
2009-12-15, 03:50 PM
I start using things either with no saves, and no checks for the negative effect on the enemy that happens to be debillitating. Then when everything is immune to those effects, I switch to doing uberdamage with the same build. Then, when no one can do anything against any of the encounters, the rest of the players protest their inability to do anything at all. When the DM says it's my fault for using all those tricks, I counter by saying "Ya shoulda let a few of my tricks work once in a while. Then these guys wouldn't be immune to all of them."

And then the DM kicks you out of his game.
Why not just play nice?

drengnikrafe
2009-12-15, 03:53 PM
Have you ever been one of the 'other' PCs?

You know, when you're campaigning and you somehow ended up playing a Monk 3 / Paladin 3 / Figther 5 / Barbarian 1, whereas your buddy is playing an amazingly broken Wizard with whatever prestige classes make it completely overpowered? Have you ever got to sit there and watch as your character was completely outclassed, and you weren't able to do anything?

Alternatively, have you ever been that DM? The DM that had a player who built perfect builds. Who, no matter how awesome the task you created was, would simply blow it away with his sheer awesomeness?

Characters that use and abuse the rules are not good for DMs, unless the DM is capable of actually challenging the party as a whole. It's like when a 7th level party's fighter gets a +5 Vorpal, Shocking, Keen, Spell Stealing Greatsword. Yes, it is awesome, but the imbalance it creates, and the fun it takes away is a hefty price.

EDIT: I, too, am an optimzer. However, if one of my PCs stepped up to the plate, and asked to DM, I would not break his game with an optmized build (unless I really disliked him, for some reason). You like playing characters that are well built. Why? Is it perhaps because it gives you the chance to shine? The chance to be that awesome? What about the DM. All he gets to do is repeatedly smack you (or your character) with the fist of DM wrath. Where is his chance to shine?

Yukitsu
2009-12-15, 03:54 PM
And then the DM kicks you out of his game.
Why not just play nice?

It's usually against DMs that decide everything from 3-20 has mindblank, because he doesn't like charm person etc. That's just unreasonable. Under normal circumstances, I have no reason to step out of my niche, which is usually battlefield control anyway.

As an aside, my most commonly played class, when everything in terms of options is on the table, is paladin. I only play wizards when the interesting options found in splat books are banned.

Arakune
2009-12-15, 03:54 PM
And then the DM kicks you out of his game.
Why not just play nice?

There are ways to prevent a trick abuse without simply saying "no, they are immune just because".

Sir.Swindle
2009-12-15, 03:55 PM
I'm inclined to agree with Joe on this one. You made a character. A character is more than the sum of it's class and race, if you don't act like a douche then your DM doesn't need to.

Example: I'm planning on playing a damage immune character (multiheaded lernean half clay golem). The only reason i don't expect my DM to spam me with earthquakes, move earths and disintegrates (only things that get past immunity). Is to not be a jerk about it.

Don't flaunt your power, don't kill gaurds for no reason other than no one being able to stop you. If you realy need to, comprimise your self, add a template that makes you lol or would be an interesting RP experience, or roll for one if you lack creativity.

Mostly all it come down to is
DON'T BE A ****

Myrmex
2009-12-15, 03:55 PM
It's usually against DMs that decide everything from 3-20 has mindblank, because he doesn't like charm person etc. That's just unreasonable. Under normal circumstances, I have no reason to step out of my niche, which is usually battlefield control anyway.

Oh, gotcha. Yeah, I hate when DMs do that.

Skorj
2009-12-15, 03:55 PM
As a DM, I don't care how powerful you are relative to your opponents. There is no "Arms Race" - you're on a point buy system, and no matter how good your op-fu, I'm not. Your opponents will be as challenging as I want them to be. But it's not supposed to be a competition, it's supposed to be cooperative storytelling.

However, players generally want to feel powerful most of the time, to have the hard fight that they might lose be a boss fight, or dramatically interesting in some way. So I often select minions to be weak against whatever colorful ideas my players had on how to be strong. I create encounters that can be easily solved by some forgotton ability a player put on his sheet for laughs 2 years ago. Or encounters that are easy to solve by thinking "in character", but hard to solve through random firepower.

Mix/Maxing is only a problem when there's a great disparity between players. Then trying to give everyone a chance to shine and have fun can get so contrived that it breaks immersion. Batman builds are great in a game IMO, because they mostly help others shine, so there's no problem anywhere (when played that way, anyhow).

Tyndmyr
2009-12-15, 03:57 PM
I do the same thing. I use the power necessary to overcome the obstacle. If the obstacle is a lonely kobold with a pointy stick, I'm not going to bother optimizing. If the obstacle is a munchkiny DM with ever-inflating hitpoints, ridiculous saves, etc, I'll find a way to destroy it that circumvents those limitations.

I mean, the point of D&D isn't to show up every week to fail, yknow? Characters are *supposed* to find ways to win.

I wont be a jerk about it, but I will call you out if you have a bard casting a sorcerer only spell without using an item(or being sublime chord, etc). I'll then happily obliterate your cheesy, illegal mob with a perfectly legit tactic. You *can* throw me out of the game for doing this, I guess. I've never had it happen. Generally, the players get pissed at the DM for breaking the rules and getting ever more ridiculous.

Sir.Swindle
2009-12-15, 04:02 PM
A DM is allowed to homebrew what ever monster or class or NPC only PrC he wants, it's his say.

I get pissed when the DM tries to disguise it as rules.

Only time i called out a DM he had us roll initiative then take actions with no opponents on the field and then threw a group at us so they got a "suprise round" and their turn. :smallfurious:

BRC
2009-12-15, 04:06 PM
I find that when the situation arises where you have an Experienced DM and one or two people who are capable of optimization far above that of the rest of the party is capable of/wants to do (which is where problems arise), the best solution is a sort of "Social Contract".
The Optimizers agree to tone down their characters to that of the rest of the party. Which means that if the party consists of Sneaky the Rogue, Slashy the TWF fighter, and Healbot the Cleric, you don't have Lord Destromas the 12th, known as "He who makes his enemies heads explode with a thought".

At the same time, the DM agrees to use encounters appropriate to the party's level of optimization, so the Optimizers don't have to worry about "Making up" for their Teammates lack of min/maxery. To put it another way, if the Player agrees to play Blasty the Sorceror instead of Lord Destromas the 12, known as "He who makes his enemies head's explode with a thought", the DM won't throw teleport them into a deep pit with an adamant grate halfway up and a wizard at the top with a wand of Create Water who slowly fills the pit until they all drown (and because it's technically just a 2nd level wizard up there, the encounter is CR appropriate!).

Signmaker
2009-12-15, 04:10 PM
Just be a wolf in sheep's clothing. Use only the appropriate scale of your attacks to deal with the situation at hand, rather than excessive amounts of force. That way you stay at the same general level as the rest of the party, while having an ace in the hole when things go sour.

jiriku
2009-12-15, 04:12 PM
As a player, I often have this problem, as I am a very good optimizer and I enjoy making and playing optimized characters. As a DM, I never have difficulty building challenging encounters, for the reason described above, but I often have group balance issues where some players build average or moderately good characters while others construct truly useless characters.

Observation #1: Optimization presents a challenge to the DM. The DM must solve it -- the players cannot.

Observation #2: The most common mistake DMs make in response to optimization is to build tougher encounters and more powerful monsters. This triggers the dreaded "spiral of escalation."

Observation #3: The correct DM response is to build encounters of equal difficulty, featuring larger numbers of weaker monsters using clever tactics.

Why does this work?
A) Weaker monsters don't require optimization to kill. Tougher monsters would encourage escalation on the part of the optimizer, but this 'reverse escalation' actually creates a disincentive for further excess.
B) Larger groups of bad guys mean that even if the optimizer well and truly splatters his foe, there are plenty of targets for the other characters to take on.
C) Mechanically powerful monsters can be defeated with even more mechanically powerful PCs (escalation again), but clever tactics can only be defeated with even more clever tactics among players. This promotes teamwork, inclusiveness and fun.

Sir.Swindle
2009-12-15, 04:14 PM
As a player, I often have this problem, as I am a very good optimizer and I enjoy making and playing optimized characters. As a DM, I never have difficulty building challenging encounters, for the reason described above, but I often have group balance issues where some players build average or moderately good characters while others construct truly useless characters.

Observation #1: Optimization presents a challenge to the DM. The DM must solve it -- the players cannot.

Observation #2: The most common mistake DMs make in response to optimization is to build tougher encounters and more powerful monsters.

Observation #3: The correct DM response is to build encounters of equal difficulty, featuring larger numbers of weaker monsters using clever tactics.

Why does this work?
A) Weaker monsters don't require optimization to kill. Tougher monsters would encourage escalation on the part of the optimizer, but this 'reverse escalation' actually creates a disincentive for further excess.
B) Larger groups of bad guys mean that even if the optimizer well and truly splatters his foe, there are plenty of targets for the other characters to take on.
C) Mechanically powerful monsters can be defeated with even more mechanically powerful PCs (escalation again), but clever tactics can only be defeated with even more clever tactics among players. This promotes teamwork, inclusiveness and fun.

In short use Tucker's Kobolds.

Yukitsu
2009-12-15, 04:15 PM
As a player, I often have this problem, as I am a very good optimizer and I enjoy making and playing optimized characters. As a DM, I never have difficulty building challenging encounters, for the reason described above, but I often have group balance issues where some players build average or moderately good characters while others construct truly useless characters.

Observation #1: Optimization presents a challenge to the DM. The DM must solve it -- the players cannot.

Observation #2: The most common mistake DMs make in response to optimization is to build tougher encounters and more powerful monsters. This triggers the dreaded "spiral of escalation."

Observation #3: The correct DM response is to build encounters of equal difficulty, featuring larger numbers of weaker monsters using clever tactics.

Why does this work?
A) Weaker monsters don't require optimization to kill. Tougher monsters would encourage escalation on the part of the optimizer, but this 'reverse escalation' actually creates a disincentive for further excess.
B) Larger groups of bad guys mean that even if the optimizer well and truly splatters his foe, there are plenty of targets for the other characters to take on.
C) Mechanically powerful monsters can be defeated with even more mechanically powerful PCs (escalation again), but clever tactics can only be defeated with even more clever tactics among players. This promotes teamwork, inclusiveness and fun.

This also encourages the only good thing to have come out of theory op (IMO) which is battlefield control wizards that assist the party with minimal effort on the casters part. Of course, not all caster players have the proper attitude to accept that most people won't notice their contribution.

BRC
2009-12-15, 04:18 PM
In short use Tucker's Kobolds.
not exactly, but you have the right idea.


4 1st level elf warriors standing 20 feet from the party is a pushover. 4 1st level elf warriors crouching behind rocks each 150ft away from the party in different directions with uneven terrain in between is very difficult.
An Ogre and 2 goblins' isn't much. An Ogre with two goblins riding on his shoulders, throwing flasks of acid and taking potshots with a crossbow, is difficult.

A CR Appropriate giant is boring. A Gian above the Party's CR in a room full of traps the party already knows about but the Giant does not, is interesting.

Yukitsu
2009-12-15, 04:21 PM
An Ogre and 2 goblins' isn't much. An Ogre with two goblins riding on his shoulders, throwing flasks of acid and taking potshots with a crossbow, is difficult.


I recommend nixing that one, not because it's overpowered, but because you can expect the players will start doing such things. You'll really be hoping you gave the NPCs penalties when the entire party is running through walls when the adamantium warforged charger is rampaging through the city whilst being ridden by the party, who is using full round fire support. :smallsigh:

BRC
2009-12-15, 04:21 PM
I recommend nixing that one, not because it's overpowered, but because you can expect the players will start doing such things. You'll really be hoping you gave the NPCs penalties when the entire party is running through walls when the adamantium warforged charger is rampaging through the city whilst being ridden by the party, who is using full round fire support. :smallsigh:
You're saying that like it's not an awesome idea.

Skorj
2009-12-15, 04:23 PM
As a player, I often have this problem, as I am a very good optimizer and I enjoy making and playing optimized characters. As a DM, I never have difficulty building challenging encounters, for the reason described above, but I often have group balance issues where some players build average or moderately good characters while others construct truly useless characters.

Observation #1: Optimization presents a challenge to the DM. The DM must solve it -- the players cannot.

Observation #2: The most common mistake DMs make in response to optimization is to build tougher encounters and more powerful monsters. This triggers the dreaded "spiral of escalation."

Observation #3: The correct DM response is to build encounters of equal difficulty, featuring larger numbers of weaker monsters using clever tactics.

Why does this work?
A) Weaker monsters don't require optimization to kill. Tougher monsters would encourage escalation on the part of the optimizer, but this 'reverse escalation' actually creates a disincentive for further excess.
B) Larger groups of bad guys mean that even if the optimizer well and truly splatters his foe, there are plenty of targets for the other characters to take on.
C) Mechanically powerful monsters can be defeated with even more mechanically powerful PCs (escalation again), but clever tactics can only be defeated with even more clever tactics among players. This promotes teamwork, inclusiveness and fun.

There's a lot to be said for this - I do it - but it's not the only way.

Let's say the party has a min/maxing Wizard who's great at SoL spells. For ordinary encounters, I'd have groups of monsters roaming the land in service of the Big Bad who are terrifying for most, but only slightly challenging to the party because of the Uber SoL spells. The wizard feels like his op-fu has been rewarded, and is happy.

As the story progresses, the Big Bad reacts to the party, and changes his minions (or minibosses, or whatever) in some fashion where suddenly the Uber SoL is SOL. :smallamused: It makes sense in-character, and gives the rest of the party a chance. If the Wizard changes to his second-favorite tactic in time to obliterate the Big Bad - great! That's a good story right there.

But on the the next adventure, and the minions are back to being weak against the min/maxer. It's not an arms race, because there's no need to continue escalation. Easy ecounters are appropriate at certain points in a story arc - let the min-maxer have his fun at that time, and you can keep it in-character when suddenly he has to move to his second or third favorite approach (or however far down the chain until the rest of the party is doing most of the work).

quiet1mi
2009-12-15, 04:53 PM
not all caster players have the proper attitude to accept that most people won't notice their contribution.

This Player typically does battlefield control, the other players did not notice until I launched a Solid fog on the big bad beholder... another player followed up with darkness on a rock and stuck it to the beholder's head with Sovereign glue...

DM::smalleek: Ok... the Beholder can see you guys using the antimagic eye...
ME::smallamused: Too bad, he cannot fire into his antimagic cone...

Myrmex
2009-12-15, 04:55 PM
This Player typically does battlefield control, the other players did not notice until I launched a Solid fog on the big bad beholder... another player followed up with darkness on a rock and stuck it to the beholder's head with Sovereign glue...

DM::smalleek: Ok... the Beholder can see you guys using the antimagic eye...
ME::smallamused: Too bad, he cannot fire into his antimagic cone...

With the AMF eye, he could move out of the solid fog in a direction that you couldn't see and proceed to blast your party with three eye rays, all in the same round.

erikun
2009-12-15, 04:58 PM
Observation #3: The correct DM response is to build encounters of equal difficulty, featuring larger numbers of weaker monsters using clever tactics.
The times I've seen it happen, this has worked for me. Even the best optimized fighter, who can deal 1000+ damage a round, and the best optimized wizard, who can toss out multiple save-or-dies a round, have trouble killing off large numbers of weaker enemies. They really need to work to keep the party from getting swamped.

Then again, I've had players who love diving into the middle of two dozen enemies. Usually they're the ones with low AC, too...

jiriku
2009-12-15, 04:59 PM
With the AMF eye, he could move out of the solid fog in a direction that you couldn't see and proceed to blast your party with three eye rays, all in the same round.

Hehehehe not in the dark, he couldn't. That was CLEVER!

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-15, 04:59 PM
I can only assume it was 3.0 Darkness.

Myrmex
2009-12-15, 05:01 PM
Hehehehe not in the dark, he couldn't. That was CLEVER!

Ohh, I missed the part with the rock. Yeah, that's brilliant.

Ravens_cry
2009-12-15, 05:06 PM
Mostly all it come down to is
DON'T BE A ****
I am Ravens_cry, and I approve this message.
Seriously, don't be a four-asterisks, just don't.
Min-maxing isn't the problem, uber-goober optimization isn't even the problem, in the right group. It's been a four-asterisks, that's the problem.

Pyro_Azer
2009-12-15, 05:36 PM
Another way to control your own minmaxing is to optimize classes for roles they were not meant for. This results in you having fun optimizing, creating a useful character, but not unbalancing the game. An example of this is I have played wizards like skill monkeys before and barbarians as sneaks.

jiriku
2009-12-15, 06:03 PM
The times I've seen it happen, this has worked for me. Even the best optimized fighter, who can deal 1000+ damage a round, and the best optimized wizard, who can toss out multiple save-or-dies a round, have trouble killing off large numbers of weaker enemies. They really need to work to keep the party from getting swamped.

Then again, I've had players who love diving into the middle of two dozen enemies. Usually they're the ones with low AC, too...

Right! Against an optimized party, one CR 8 stone giant will get ubercharged or blinded and greased or have some other horrible fate befall him. There must be a dozen ways he can be defeated or crippled with a single standard action. Plus, one big monster can be a dull encounter.

The solution is not a bigger, meaner, flying giant with blindsight and spell resistance. Nor is it a fight against ten stone giants.

The solution is (for example) a CR 8 encounter composed of a night-time ambush of two 3rd-level vermin totem halfling druids with medium monstrous spider companions, three 2nd-level halfling ranger/rogues with poisoned darts, archery style, favored enemy (human), and four 1st-level halfling whirling frenzy/pounce variant barbarians with tanglefoot bags. Between entangle, soften earth and stone, spider webs, and tanglefoot bags, even an optimized parties are going to be locked down six ways from Sunday while they get pelted with strength-draining poison attacks. The players will still win, but they sure won't end the encounter with one standard action, and they'll have great fun with the battle (although if your players are like mine, they'll be pretty irate when they discover they got their butts handed to them by a bunch of 1st-3rd level half-pints).

Ashtar
2009-12-15, 06:24 PM
I had trouble in a Ravenloft campaign, I was playing a Human barbarian simply raging, power attacking with an oversized war hammer, relatively unoptimized, but the rest of the group was really really sub-optimal characters. Fighter / Rogue going for shadowdancer, Ranger / Monster hunter (Ravenloft Prc), Wizard (mostly blaster, loved defenestrating sphere and explosive cascade) and a Cleric (who decided to be secretly evil and play against the group :smallmad:).

The big problem was my damage output and hit points were so out of touch with the other players that the DM had to put 1 big monster for me to slug it out in every fight. And if I didn't engage him, he would nearly slaughter the other players.

In the end, I changed character to allow the campaign to continue...

IonDragon
2009-12-15, 07:04 PM
I am currently running 2 settings with the same player base, the only difference is one of the settings has a newbie player.

The setting without the newbie is a L4D style with crazy huge encounters, usually way over ECL. Every player is pretty much max optimized, one being virtually immune to damage, another dealing ludicrous amounts of damage a round (EVERY round), and the last able to Dominate some of the special infected. In this game I encouraged the players to work with one another, and with myself to optimize to their maximum potential.

The other game I am running is about 95% RP, and only one of the players is even sort of optimized. It is a cyberpunk style game, and he is Laughing Man status hacker.

My point is, with a good group, optimization is just a part of the game. Some settings can call for it, and it could be inappropriate in others. Just as being a Paladin of Justice would probably be inadvisable in a predominately Evil group.

Levithix
2009-12-15, 07:55 PM
I personally like to optimize my defenses so that I can be pretty durable and able to hold my own, however I tend to have the flaw of telling my DM about my character ... this tends to result in my DM optimizing encounters so that they still threaten my character's life.

snoopy13a
2009-12-15, 08:02 PM
This leads me to the issue... any Dm would be annoyed if they had to deal with a character who deals more damage then they have HP,

Isn't this a possiblity throughout the game?

A level 1 wizard with a heavy crossbow can do 1d10 damage. He has 1d4+Con bonus hitpoints.

A level 5 wizard can do 5d6 damage with a fireball spell. He has 5d4+Con bonus hitpoints.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-15, 08:04 PM
Isn't this a possiblity throughout the game?

A level 1 wizard with a heavy crossbow can do 1d10 damage. He has 1d4+Con bonus hitpoints.

A level 5 wizard can do 5d6 damage with a fireball spell. He has 5d4+Con bonus hitpoints.

Yeah...more possible damage than hitpoints seems...pretty routine. Spells that do d6 damage per spell level are remarkably common for classes with d4 hp.

Adding hundreds of hp to mobs as "punishment" for doing that would indeed lead to an arms race. The best solution is...don't start the arms race?

Tackyhillbillu
2009-12-15, 08:14 PM
Optimizing is fine. Deliberately making every other PC useless... not so much. Doesn't matter if you are just "helping the other characters out" or what. You are deliberately harming the game at that point. Battlefield Control Wizards are definitely included in this definition, by the way.

Hiding your power, worse idea still. All that means is when you finally use it, both the other PC's and the DM feel that they have been decieved. Great way to piss people off.

My advice, if you can't stop yourself from optimizing? Never play a Caster. Try a Sword and Board Fighter, or an actual Sneaky Rogue (and don't put any points in UMD.)

These things can be optimized. But optimizing them doesn't give you infinite amounts of power.

aje8
2009-12-15, 08:30 PM
Optimizing is fine. Deliberately making every other PC useless... not so much. Doesn't matter if you are just "helping the other characters out" or what. You are deliberately harming the game at that point. Battlefield Control Wizards are definitely included in this definition, by the way.
Disagree. Battlefield Wizards, while overpowered, will NOT make the other PCs useless. They will buff the PCs into isnanity and debuff the enemies into oblivioon but the other players will barely notice. They're too busy having fun as they 1-shot the enemies because of their buffed attacks and the enemies debuffed defenses. Killing things and making attack rolls is actually pretty fun when it's effective. Despite the fact that the Wizard did all the work.

BRC
2009-12-15, 08:40 PM
Optimizing is fine. Deliberately making every other PC useless... not so much. Doesn't matter if you are just "helping the other characters out" or what. You are deliberately harming the game at that point. Battlefield Control Wizards are definitely included in this definition, by the way.

Battlefield control wizards are the opposite of that definition. They're role is party support.

A Wizard included in that definition would be one that Paralyzes the boss before the fighter can get a swing in, uses silence+invisibility+knock to outsneak the rogue, mind controls the guard into letting the party through before the bard can open his mouth, and so on.


A Battlefield Control Wizard is somebody who Web's the corridor to slow down the approaching trolls until the party has some attention to spare. Throws up a Fog Cloud so the rogue can sneak attack the enemy casters into oblivion, and hits the fighter with fly so he can introduce that annoying Chimera to mister Axe.

BRC
2009-12-15, 08:56 PM
As for hiding power, here's what I've found. Members of a party are a Team, which means they generally celebrate as a Team, and mourn as a team.

If,when it looks like things are going badly, the Wizard pulls out a Deep Slumber spell to knock out the evil caster's bodyguard, giving the Fighter the opportunity to Power attack said caster into oblivion, everybody cheers and says "Nice Job".
If in the next fight the Wizard uses Suggestion to get the goblins to focus on the raging barbarian rather than finishing off the low-health rogue, everybody grins and says "Good Work"
If a week later, when the fighter's sword can barely pierce it's skin, the Wizard knocks it's hitpoints into oblivion with touch spells, everybody says "That was awesome". Even if the Wizard could have ended all those fights in the first round, it's still fun for everybody.

The problems arise when it becomes clear that everybody else's participation in the fight is little more than a formality. Team Adventurer high fives and congratulates the wizard when he shows those orcs what you can do with some mumbling and a little bat guano. However, when it's Wizard and abunch of people who do things while the wizard is deciding which spell to use next, it's not fun, and you have a problem. Somebody who knows exactly what a wizard is capable of, hiding your power is the only appropriate way to play one in an unoptimized party. Provided you're not bragging that "Oh, BTW, I could win this fight singlehandedly, but I'm going to let you guys participate", it works out.

Tackyhillbillu
2009-12-15, 10:56 PM
First up, BS. It doesn't take a lot to notice when your only purpose is to finish off the things that the Wizard has utterly neutralized. Battlefield Control Wizards make it so the other players could be playing NPC classes for all their characters matter. Yeah, it does make them useless.

Second, BS again. I've been that fighter. It sucks. It really does. If the Fighter didn't convery that to you, its because he's being nice. You know why? Because, it removes any element of risk from the game. All those cool moments, where he got a luck crit? They don't matter. Any triumphs he had? Who cares. Worst comes to worst, the Wizard would have just actually started playing.

Thats why hiding power is terrible. At least if you are showing it all along, the people don't build up the game in their head. When you hide it away, suddenly you are just revealing "All that suspense, all those cool moments? Yeah, that only happened because I let it. I just wanted to let you chumps have a turn."

It sucks. End of story.

Yukitsu
2009-12-15, 11:01 PM
Wait, so all that anyone can do in the group is to just chip away at hit points, and basically have an equivalent amount of DPS as everyone else to make it fun for everyone? That actually sounds really... Boring.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-15, 11:13 PM
First up, BS. It doesn't take a lot to notice when your only purpose is to finish off the things that the Wizard has utterly neutralized. Battlefield Control Wizards make it so the other players could be playing NPC classes for all their characters matter. Yeah, it does make them useless.

Not if played well. If you hog the spotlight, yes...it can be that way. However, it's not only bad gaming to be a spotlight hog, it's sub-optimal play.

Yes, perhaps you can end that encounter rapidly with a flurry of heavily metamagicked spells. If you don't need to do so, though, it's a waste of spells. You might need them later. It's much better to set them up so you and your team takes them out efficiently with a minimum of resources expended. Hp are generally cheaper to replace in a given day than spells are.

Working with good melee people is handy. My usual group runs fairly high optimization. Hell, Im currently playing an incantatrix with a wide selection of metamagic feats, and have an extremely well stocked spellbook(all spells up to level 4 are in there, for example). Yes, I *could* defeat many encounters solo. If time constraints weren't involved, and if I didn't really want to do much in a given day. In practice, the game world shouldn't be waiting for you, things happen even when you're in your rope trick.

My teammates also tend to have rather solid optimization. At level 9, the blackguard has what, 36 AC? Not bad, considering he does pretty good damage too. The barbarian is a brand new D&D player, but he got pointed to Power Attack and accompanying feats, and he's doing quite well. Likewise, the noob druid got pointed to natural spell and some good animals to shift into, and he's a beast(pun intended). The pair of rogues are both old players, and are extremely effective.

Sure, magic items are generally a part of all these builds...a large part of some. But the party is, while ludicrously powerful for it's level, only powerful BECAUSE of that teamwork.


Second, BS again. I've been that fighter. It sucks. It really does. If the Fighter didn't convery that to you, its because he's being nice. You know why? Because, it removes any element of risk from the game. All those cool moments, where he got a luck crit? They don't matter. Any triumphs he had? Who cares. Worst comes to worst, the Wizard would have just actually started playing.

Risk is important, yes. There is always risk. In practice, if the party is massively more powerful as a whole, then the DM will eventually up the ECL of the stuff you face. Because of the buffs, it ends up being about a wash in terms of balance per fight. You tend to progress faster, though.


Thats why hiding power is terrible. At least if you are showing it all along, the people don't build up the game in their head. When you hide it away, suddenly you are just revealing "All that suspense, all those cool moments? Yeah, that only happened because I let it. I just wanted to let you chumps have a turn."

It sucks. End of story.

Hardly. In practice, when you become known for abusing said combo, others in the world will guard against it. Not everyone, sure, but there's a reason not to use your biggest gun every. single. time. You mix it up, you use power appropriate to the situation. You don't needlessly waste spells or power showboating. You keep a few ideas and tricks up your sleeve in case you need them.

The caster is not the only one that does this...it does tend to be more frequent though. I've known many a character with emergency scrolls, potions, items, and tactics that only get busted out when the really bad stuff happens.

ZeroNumerous
2009-12-15, 11:19 PM
It sucks. End of story.

While your experiences are bad: They are not the end-all be-all to D&D. I, for one, love the "I am not left-handed" moments as both a player and a DM. In particular I have a pretty good story about one of my players who was a warblade that posed as a barbarian, and he ended up saving the party from some trolls via applying liberal amounts of Stone Dragon.

No one got angry, and everyone agreed afterwards that it was a cool moment. Basically: Drama and a good story wins out.

sonofzeal
2009-12-15, 11:38 PM
OP: you may be interested in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125802), on how to integrate an optimizer into a non-optimized game.

magellan
2009-12-15, 11:39 PM
But wether you make critters tougher, add more of them, or make them use smarter tactics: It's still the arms race. No fundamental difference between the approaches.

Encounters will *always* scale to the players power level. Thats actually one of the reasons you have a DM in the first place! And of course, you can't outscale the DM, because you are on a budget, and he is not.

What the OP said that characters are supposed to be superheroes: That is one mood to go for. There are others (like, characters are a dime a dozen, for example) Since DM will scale according to mood, how much you optimize doesn't affect the mood. Optimized low level party will get slaughtered by dragons and walk through hordes of Ogres. Unoptimized will get slaughtered by Ogres and walk through hordes of sewer rats.

So the answer is obvious: Realize that you can't win D&D. Stop trying.

Tackyhillbillu
2009-12-16, 12:50 AM
Working with good melee people is handy. My usual group runs fairly high optimization. Hell, Im currently playing an incantatrix with a wide selection of metamagic feats, and have an extremely well stocked spellbook(all spells up to level 4 are in there, for example). Yes, I *could* defeat many encounters solo. If time constraints weren't involved, and if I didn't really want to do much in a given day. In practice, the game world shouldn't be waiting for you, things happen even when you're in your rope trick.

This isn't the same kind of situation. If you have an all optimized Party, then optimizing is fine. It's when you mix optimizers and non-optimizers that things go south real fast.


Risk is important, yes. There is always risk. In practice, if the party is massively more powerful as a whole, then the DM will eventually up the ECL of the stuff you face. Because of the buffs, it ends up being about a wash in terms of balance per fight. You tend to progress faster, though.

Thats the arms race that the player is attempting to avoid. One Optimized Incantrix Wizard and some nonoptimized anything else give a DM two choices. Either do something that will never put the party at risk, or make the other party members completely pointless.


Hardly. In practice, when you become known for abusing said combo, others in the world will guard against it. Not everyone, sure, but there's a reason not to use your biggest gun every. single. time. You mix it up, you use power appropriate to the situation. You don't needlessly waste spells or power showboating. You keep a few ideas and tricks up your sleeve in case you need them.

The caster is not the only one that does this...it does tend to be more frequent though. I've known many a character with emergency scrolls, potions, items, and tactics that only get busted out when the really bad stuff happens.

Scrolls, Potions, those kind of things, you don't hide. Your GM knows they are there. Abusive spell combos are in a different league entirely.

Tackyhillbillu
2009-12-16, 12:53 AM
While your experiences are bad: They are not the end-all be-all to D&D. I, for one, love the "I am not left-handed" moments as both a player and a DM. In particular I have a pretty good story about one of my players who was a warblade that posed as a barbarian, and he ended up saving the party from some trolls via applying liberal amounts of Stone Dragon.

No one got angry, and everyone agreed afterwards that it was a cool moment. Basically: Drama and a good story wins out.

I've experienced moments like that. I've also experienced moments where the Wizard said, "Oh, the DM's actually challenging us now," and downed the BBEG in two shots.

Drama and a good story do always win out. My problem is that hiding power on the level of an optimized Caster ruins the story. (That is what I would say is the difference. Stone Dragon Maneuvers are not on the same plane of existence as Incantrix Metamagic Cheese.)

quiet1mi
2009-12-16, 01:55 AM
I have taken things into consideration and used the tier system to limit my redicoulusnlss... I purposely limited myself to 3rd tier. So I have been using a Beguiler... not a wizard.

I have had a lot of fun, but most importantly I avoid "shutting down" encounters with things like solid fog because it just leaves the other players to clean up... Haste and Slow have been my weapons of choice. Greater Invisibility on the minotaur and Ogre fighters have been fun...

Recently in the campaign due to the mcguffin, schools of magic cease to work, so I had to rely on true battlefield control rather than regular buffing...

When the DM swamped us with 20 level 2 Koa-toa fighters, the party was in trouble. The Ogre and the Minotaur were made to take out one or two people a round, and with all the Koa-Toa working together we did not have 10 rounds to kill them all. I used Mass Whelm because it hit 10 people and takes on average 6 of them out of the fight... Funny enough 10D6 (35 on average) points of non-lethal damage kinda knocks people out. 2 whelms later and the party was able to get a grip on the number difference and win the day.

I have been talking to the Dm on how to set up encounters so that they are not easily shut down with a single Solid Fog... using things like the spell description, (used with the Koa-Toa fight because we were in a lake), and numbers... reinforcements from different directions also helps. Elevation is also handy because it allows players to use skills like climb... For me I have 6 Str so in a fight I cast Spider Climb (Using up resources)....

When I come up with a cool combo, I tell the Dm about it and show him how to deal with it. This way when I finally use it to counter something, he does not freak out and start an arms race by building something that beats that combo. So far this has been the best thing I could do. Working with the Dm not against him.

Remember Each Fight should use up 20% of the parties resources... a level 10 beguiler has 40 spells per day (6+8+8+8+6+4)... In each Fight, the player should use 10 of them... Normally this is preposterous but by creating time pressure, the Dm can make spending spell slots look reasonable.

Environmental Hazards are great for spending spell slots on, have the beguiler cast spider climb on everyone because if they fall off the bridge they will die. Have the beguiler cast invisibility globe and silence so they can sneak around the sentinels... Have the Beguiler cast Seeming to disguise the entire party because there are people looking for them...

With a caster with 40 slots are in the party make use of the "Easy if handled properly" Such encounters would be spending 5 spell slots to simplify the encounter. A Dm might look with disgust as his brilliant ambush is laid to waste because the Beguiler used a See Invisibility, 2 Glitterdust, Major Illusion, and a hold monster... but just remind them that was 12.5% of his resources alone for one encounter, had the Dm just added more to the encounter, the beguiler might have been forced to use 30% of his resources or 20% and the party would have taken some damage...

When In doubt add more bad guys. If they take them out easily, launch a counter attack. After all battle is kinda noisy.

ZeroNumerous
2009-12-16, 02:27 AM
Drama and a good story do always win out. My problem is that hiding power on the level of an optimized Caster ruins the story.

Only if you let it. Give the optimized Caster a Gandalf moment. Let him solo some big evil creature while the rest of the party does something more interesting or actually pertaining to the plot. Demons, devils and the like are good for a caster to fight with because they can move with Greater Teleport, make low-level saving throws and occasionally outright ignore a spell or two. If you want the story to be ruined by the big reveal, then it is. If you don't want that to happen, then it simply doesn't.

taltamir
2009-12-16, 02:36 AM
its easy to make a catch all of "don't be a jerk"...
but the power creep can happen by accident and with good intentions... if the DM wants to be "challenging" and some of the players want to actually have their characters (which they care about) have a reasonable chance of survival, you can start an arms race. Nobody is killing "random guards" (aka npcs) or munchikining out or trying to outclass the other players...

Although the more adept optimizers might start outclassing the others as they try desperate to save their teammates lives.

The DM: I want to make it a challenge, they just blow through challenges, I will give them something lethal.

The tier 1 character: damn, we barely survived that, and jim has to reroll and new character. And he actually used such broken abilities on an NPC? I better stop pulling punches and do my job of team support better.

Emmerask
2009-12-16, 03:07 AM
In a none optimization group take a really weak class
monk, ninja, prcs who loos caster level etc and try to optimize them...
This way you can still have the fun optimizing a char but you won´t break the game that badly ^^

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-16, 08:52 AM
Second, BS again. I've been that fighter. It sucks. It really does.

I've been that fighter too, and it doesn't always suck. Can it? Yes, depending on your personality and the personality of the wizard. Will it often suck? Maybe, I lack relevant data. But it's hardly a universal O NOEZ moment.

Jayabalard
2009-12-16, 09:13 AM
It's usually against DMs that decide everything from 3-20 has mindblank, because he doesn't like charm person etc. That's just unreasonable. Under normal circumstances, I have no reason to step out of my niche, which is usually battlefield control anyway.I don't really see what your personal rant about these particular bad DMs has to do with the thread... The question is "how to avoid the arms race" not "how to be a bigger jerk than your bad dm"

Tyndmyr
2009-12-16, 09:50 AM
Thats the arms race that the player is attempting to avoid. One Optimized Incantrix Wizard and some nonoptimized anything else give a DM two choices. Either do something that will never put the party at risk, or make the other party members completely pointless.

No. Because I'm not fighting as an individual, Im fighting as part of a team. I could go all orbwizard crazy, sure, but I generally pack only a single metamagicked orb to power my reserve feat/serve as a panic button. I do a lot of buffing. I lock down opposing casters. In general, my goal is to help the team first, with damage/offense being a distant second. I'd guess at least half my spells per day are used as buffs.

Optimization does not mean the additional power all ends up with the individual. You can optimize to enhance the entire team equally. Doing this is entirely different.



Scrolls, Potions, those kind of things, you don't hide. Your GM knows they are there. Abusive spell combos are in a different league entirely.

Not generally, no...does your DM keep track of every single scroll and potion owned by every DM?

My group is a bunch of packrats, and multi-page inventory sheets are routine. Sure, the DM has a general idea, but scrolls, wands and potions can be comboed into abusive things just like spells can.

The Rose Dragon
2009-12-16, 09:56 AM
So the answer is obvious: Realize that you can't win D&D. Stop trying.

You can win D&D. Well, WotC D&D. You can stop playing and move on to better games. :smalltongue:

dsmiles
2009-12-16, 10:20 AM
Personally, I Dm with the philosophy of the PCs are like super heros, with strengths and weaknesses, You got to let them have their massive damage attack, mindraping powers, or summonable monsters because it allows you to create moments of weakness something special rather than a challenge to overcome...


Sorry, can't help you there. I follow the "Bilbo Baggins Philosophy."

The PCs are mostly adventurers because they lucked into it, or were chosen for it against their will. Their zany adventures have a running soliloquy in the background about how much they hate this, and they just want to go home.

Talya
2009-12-16, 10:35 AM
The solution is (for example) a CR 8 encounter composed of a night-time ambush of two 3rd-level vermin totem halfling druids with medium monstrous spider companions, three 2nd-level halfling ranger/rogues with poisoned darts, archery style, favored enemy (human), and four 1st-level halfling whirling frenzy/pounce variant barbarians with tanglefoot bags.


This. Exactly this.

Making super-powerful enemies has its place once in a while. For dramatic purposes, you may want some enemies to be an individual challenge. But for the most part, players want to feel like heroes, but still want to be challenged. When a player starts optimizing (which is great!) you need to increase the challenge level for him, but you don't want to make him feel like his optimizing is just an arms race. So send him up against three times as many mooks. Make him struggle due to the sheer numbers. If he's land-bound, have him kill so many enemies that movement for him is now "difficult terrain" due to the sheer number of corpses around him. Even if someone dies in this situation, when they die taking out several dozen even level CRs with them, it's an epic death.

He is a sexy shoeless god of war.

As a side point, this increases the experience and loot gain from the encounter. This is not a problem. Players will like that, too.

valadil
2009-12-16, 10:49 AM
I don't run games, I tell stories. The players know this and they know I'm not their opponent. They can be as badass as they want, but mindraping a dragon isn't what my games are about. Players who try to powergame usually miss the point of my games and miss out on the fun part.

Emmerask
2009-12-16, 10:50 AM
This. Exactly this.

Making super-powerful enemies has its place once in a while. For dramatic purposes, you may want some enemies to be an individual challenge. But for the most part, players want to feel like heroes, but still want to be challenged. When a player starts optimizing (which is great!) you need to increase the challenge level for him, but you don't want to make him feel like his optimizing is just an arms race. So send him up against three times as many mooks. Make him struggle due to the sheer numbers. If he's land-bound, have him kill so many enemies that movement for him is now "difficult terrain" due to the sheer number of corpses around him. Even if someone dies in this situation, when they die taking out several dozen even level CRs with them, it's an epic death.

He is a sexy shoeless god of war.

As a side point, this increases the experience and loot gain from the encounter. This is not a problem. Players will like that, too.

The problem is that the other players who struggle to kill one of those mooks will see the optimizer killing them by the dozens and feel useless -> start optimizing -> the dm needs to increase difficulty (more or stronger enemies) -> more optimization needed etc

doesnt solve the problem at all ;)

the solution just dont optimize in a none optimizer game Or optimize the weakest classes you can find :smallwink:

taltamir
2009-12-16, 11:17 AM
Sorry, can't help you there. I follow the "Bilbo Baggins Philosophy."

The PCs are mostly adventurers because they lucked into it, or were chosen for it against their will. Their zany adventures have a running soliloquy in the background about how much they hate this, and they just want to go home.

if they face extremely dangerous encounters routinely, have a low survival rate, and adventure for no good reason... then they are dangerously armed hobo murderers who also happen to be insane and will get themselves killed soon.
The ones who refuse to take on the dragon when they are not powerful enough? those are dangerously armed hobo murderers who happen to be sane and will survive long enough to enjoy their spoils.

taltamir
2009-12-16, 11:19 AM
The problem is that the other players who struggle to kill one of those mooks will see the optimizer killing them by the dozens and feel useless -> start optimizing -> the dm needs to increase difficulty (more or stronger enemies) -> more optimization needed etc

doesnt solve the problem at all ;)

the solution just dont optimize in a none optimizer game Or optimize the weakest classes you can find :smallwink:

which becomes an arms race... the guy who optimized? he probably did it because he wanted things to be "easier" and "more safe" and less of "I am an insane idiot who goes against things highly likely to kill me".

DM and PC need to discuss the appropriate level of power and encounters and gouge them respectively.

If someone tells you "I am playing a monk", it IS appropriate to tell him "no, this will make you vastly weaker than everyone else and you will not survive as it is a lethal campaign. If you insist on playing a kung fu guy, I can make a custom class based on monk that is significantly stronger and can keep up with the other guys in the party". Last campaign this is EXACTLY what the DM told me, and I was HAPPY he did... I chose to play a primary arcane caster (custom, somewhat nerfed). Still was told it will be a HARD campaign with HARD encounter and death is probable. It was very fun overall, not sure how soon I would do it again yet (I need to unwind a little).
And btw, some other guys DID insist on playing something weak and got the occasional epic item / illegal ability combo to compensate.

Thus you avoid the "arms race" because you actually discuss difficulty level.

Bagelz
2009-12-16, 11:24 AM
Remember, you are all there for the same reason - to have fun.

if can one shot everything all the time, there is no challenge, there is no reason for other players to be there, and it is no fun for anyone (not even for you after the 3rd or so time).

if you are rendered ineffectual by the dm's homebrew additions to monsters, that is no fun.
Altered hp is a standard fix for most dms and you should not be upset about that. A balanced encounter your opponent should save 25-40% of the time, unless you have spell focus, or other +DC modifiers other than your primary stat. If you are built around increased DC's then higher saves render your character ineffectual.

You both need to find the balance. I've had many dm's not allow certain books/spells/prestige classes that have been known to unbalance the game. (book of vile darkness for instance, the old 3.0 true necromancer). But those DMs did not undermine the players.
On the other hand, if you do want your character to blow through encounters, you are not there to play the game, you are there to show off, and you can do that on a char op forum instead of at a game table.

taltamir
2009-12-16, 11:27 AM
well... what if your build is that you can one shot one thing once a day if you get LUCKY on a roll... otherwise you are pretty ineffective?
Solution, a few LOWER level enemies instead of one high level one... replace that party +4 level lead enemy with 3 party +1 enemies for the boss encounter.

Or discuss ahead of time and mention not going for such a build, if already done, allow rebuilt... that way someone doesn't invest all their power into a "one shot once a day" build.

Arakune
2009-12-16, 03:27 PM
This is an interesting, low level wizard. (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=173422) I expect him to die horribly in a normal campaign. Passable as NPC.

If in order to "roleplay" you need to use that sort of thing on dungeon crawling, either the DM is pulling a lot of punchs or every time an encounter starts this character player will hear "roll for initiative" as "kobolds attacks, you die".

Grommen
2009-12-16, 04:50 PM
Just don't be a jerk about things and flaunt your stuff in front of everyone else.

My DM'ing style is simple. If you bring it to the table, eventually you will end up fighting something just like it. The only difference is. The DM can have more than one. Eventually, your gonna fail a save, not roll good enough to soak the Assault Cannon, not block the Lightsaber etc. You die. And I'm not about to be forgiving and bring the character back from the dead am I? Persist with the next character and you'll die even quicker. Don't like it...Door is over that way chummer.

And I do allow them great amounts of koolness. Just as long as it's all relative to the next dude.

Served me well over the years. Ya some people try the arms race but considering that the DM has the hand of god on his side. It's really a loosing battle. Just takes some longer to realize that than others.

Yukitsu
2009-12-16, 04:52 PM
This is why most of my really abusive stuff that I do use in practice just keeps me alive. If it shows up on the other side, I may be irritated if a bunch of people have it, but at least I don't die in the process. DMs don't seem to mind players surviving climactic encounters, so long as the battle rages on for a good 4 rounds of combat.

Thurbane
2009-12-16, 08:11 PM
When I DM, I encourage a reasonable level of optimizing, but the players are aware I'll be doing the same with the monsters/NPCs. This kind of attitude is generally OK unless it escalates into an "arms race" i.e. one side of the equation think the other is being OTT with their optimization level, so does the best to screw over the other with their own optimization.

...and usually the DM wins, because he has the whole MM and other books to choose the opponents from, and to taylor them to defeat the players optimization tricks.

Sila Prirode
2009-12-16, 09:14 PM
Then you can play my game :smallbiggrin:
No, seriously, I encourage optimization, even go out for them and help them build their characters. One of the players (just yesterday as a matter of fact) decided to play a bard. I showed him Dragonfire Inspiration op, and Sublime Chord/Ur-Priest. He went with Dragonfire.
Reason behind this, is that I'm pretty cruel. Yes you get to be strong, big, but if you don't play nice with the party, flaunt in their face, or generally be a jerk, you get stomped. This is a game after all, you are not competing against other players, you are playing with them.

Other reason I help them, because if they make a mistake they are screwed. If you want to play a Big Shot, play him, but if you are not up to it you're going down (again :smallbiggrin:). That helps them learn all the tricks of the trade, and their next characters is well versed in art of survival.

toturi
2009-12-16, 11:01 PM
When I GM, I allow and encourage min-maxing as long as it is done within the rules.

When I play, I assume that the GM is going to throw at us the biggest baddest meanest NPCs, the worst case scenarios that can be done within the rules. Then I build my PCs to withstand those in mind. I assume that my GM is going to try to mirror my PC at some point or another and I develop my PC with that in mind - I create a PC with an obvious trick and make it seem like it is his only trick, then I add in sneaky subtle tricks, that I do not pull out unless I am forced to. I like to create PCs as a group, so unless my GM photocopies the entire group's character sheets, someone in our group is going to be able to stop the NPC.

While the GM would be able to outrace the players in an arms race, it is always possible to force him to lose. An arms race takes the fun out of the game for everyone and there are more players than GMs. The GM doesn't have to start an arms race, it is always his choice to do so, the players cannot force him to do it. By starting an arms race, he is deliberately making his game unfun for everyone.

To me, Rule Zero is to have fun. If the players are having fun, then the GM should suck it up.

taltamir
2009-12-17, 12:19 AM
When I GM, I allow and encourage min-maxing as long as it is done within the rules.

Pun pun, solar chain gating, etc are all completely legit.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-12-17, 05:38 AM
When I run games, I make my philosophy clear: I don't care how powerful you are, as long as everyone else is at or near the same power level and everyone is having fun with that power level. I can (and have in the past) challenge a party of epic Batman wizards/CoDzillas or a party of monk/soulknives--I just can't do much if there's a party consisting of one Batman wizard, one monk, one CoDzilla, and one soulknife.

I tell my party to keep these 3 rules in mind and everything should be fine:
Any dirty tricks you pull, the DM can pull too; I won't use them if you don't.
Anything abusable has most likely been done before, and its countermeasures are probably known (but not used/deployed on you guys, as per #1).
If there's someone in the group not up to the group's level, it's up to you to help them improve their character or tone down your own antics; if they're not having fun, chances are others aren't either, and fun >> power.

dsmiles
2009-12-17, 08:06 AM
To me, Rule Zero is to have fun. If the players are having fun, then the GM should suck it up.

Sooooooo, the GM's don't need to have fun too?

Tyndmyr
2009-12-17, 09:25 AM
Pun pun, solar chain gating, etc are all completely legit.

Pun Pun relies on a DM that allows multiple optional things in it's current build, as well as being in a universe with the sarruk. It's ridiculously easy to stay within RAW and make pun pun impossible.

Chain gating is futile. Once they have performed their task, they leave. If their task is "gate in another solar", all you've accomplished is swapping out which solar is here indefinitely. Which, while of some use in itself for avoiding the length limit on how long stuff stays around, isn't ridiculous.

Most flagrant RAW abuses are fixable within RAW, or require minor changes at most(candle of invocation is at the heart of many abuses).

Playing close to RAW, even with a bunch of powergaming optimizers, isn't nearly as hard as you'd think. It's a very different game from some Ive played in, sure, but it's quite fun in its own way.

Arakune
2009-12-17, 09:28 AM
Pun Pun relies on a DM that allows multiple optional things in it's current build, as well as being in a universe with the sarruk. It's ridiculously easy to stay within RAW and make pun pun impossible.

Chain gating is futile. Once they have performed their task, they leave. If their task is "gate in another solar", all you've accomplished is swapping out which solar is here indefinitely. Which, while of some use in itself for avoiding the length limit on how long stuff stays around, isn't ridiculous.

Most flagrant RAW abuses are fixable within RAW, or require minor changes at most(candle of invocation is at the heart of many abuses).

Playing close to RAW, even with a bunch of powergaming optimizers, isn't nearly as hard as you'd think. It's a very different game from some Ive played in, sure, but it's quite fun in its own way.

Call him for a task that can be done in 21~25 17 rounds. Something along the lines of "lend me your spellcasting and special abilities until the end of spell".

taltamir
2009-12-17, 10:36 AM
what about milking infinite wishes?
simulacarum abuses?
thought bottle crafting?
etc...

Jayabalard
2009-12-17, 10:43 AM
Call him for a task that can be done in 21~25 17 rounds. Something along the lines of "lend me your spellcasting and special abilities until the end of spell".I don't think it's actually within the solar's power to lend you his spellcasting and special abilities until the end of the spell, so that doesn't sound like a valid task to me.