PDA

View Full Version : Is it mean to optimize/break the game?



randomhero00
2010-01-21, 02:33 PM
So I played with one particular DM who has a set of homebrew rules that lets you customize character creation at level one. A nice set of rules most of the time, especially since he runs very hard campaigns. Needless to say a short time later I had a lvl 1 cleric with a straight 30 AC (I could have gone higher...no point at level 1 tho :P ). It's not exactly breaking the game, since I'm not one shotting monsters, but when he asked my AC, and I'm like 30, "No, seriously..." he kind of looked disappointed/sad. Probably because he now had the headache of redesigning his homebrew system again, but I dunno.

Should I purposefully hold back? Part of the fun for me after all, is optimizing. I wouldn't *intentionally* break the game so its not fun for other people, but its not really my fault if his homebrew rules are out of whack, right? On the other hand, D&D in general isn't hard to optimize in the first place, especially AC. I'd only need a few more levels/gold without his homebrew to do the same thing.

What do you all do? What do you think?

Tyndmyr
2010-01-21, 02:37 PM
If his homebrewed system is horribly flawed, finding the holes is just good testing. I welcome destructive tests to things I make, as it enables me to find and fix the flaws.

Optimizing and breaking the game are two seperate things. 30AC is not breaking the game. Time travel, on the other hand...

randomhero00
2010-01-21, 02:38 PM
Agreed. This was the first time I felt bad doing it though. Just not sure why.

Evard
2010-01-21, 02:41 PM
Well it depends on what others are doing. If everyone is over powered then its fine. Breaking/optimizing is only bad/wrong when the team is not on the same page.

A optimized wizard is only broken when he's in a party with a sub-optimized fighter. But put the wizard in a party consisting of an optimized Druid and Cleric then suddenly nothing is really broken.

It all depends on how the team plays since DnD is a team game.

Saph
2010-01-21, 02:50 PM
Optimizing and breaking the game are two seperate things. 30AC is not breaking the game.

Uh, yes it is. It's a very weird way of doing it, but it's still going to mess up combats. Just because you can come up with something worse doesn't mean that what you're doing is good.


Should I purposefully hold back? Part of the fun for me after all, is optimizing. I wouldn't *intentionally* break the game so its not fun for other people, but its not really my fault if his homebrew rules are out of whack, right?

Mmm . . . no. I've got some sympathy for you, but this is self-serving reasoning. Just because there are holes doesn't mean you're justified in exploiting them.

Part of the skill of optimising is knowing how to make something that's a good level of power, which is generally not the same as trying to make something that's the maximum level of power. In this case your DM's obviously got some very exploitable house rules. The question becomes: do you want him to change them?

If you do, then this kind of character design is a good way to make sure they'll be changed quick, and it certainly exposes the problems with the system. If you don't, then yes, you're going to have to tone it down.

What you're doing is, as Tyndmyr pointed out, called destructive playtesting. If you're trying to balance a system as part of a systematic test, it's a valuable tool for the developers to use (so they can ban whatever you do). If you're playing in a casual environment, destructive playtesting can be real obnoxious. The reactions of your DM and other players will tell you which is which.

illyrus
2010-01-21, 02:51 PM
My idea is that having PCs drop left and right is A Bad Idea (TM). So I tend to attempt to play at about the level needed to prevent that and adjust what I'm using to about that level. The issue comes in when the DM really does feel that every encounter should have PCs dropping left and right that it gets into an arms race of sorts.

In the current game I play in, a 4E game, I've limited myself to the PHB, the Adventurer's Vault 1, and the expertise feats from the PHB II. So I'm trying a different tactic of intentionally holding back what I have access to in hopes that the GM will step down their side of things. So far the answer has been no.

If your game is one where the party can get through most fights without having a character drop then personally I'd play within the spirit of the rules or perhaps take a step back. If your DM instead enjoys to decimate the characters for sheer personal joy, then by all means go all out. More than likely it falls somewhere in-between where you should show some restraint but not hobble yourself.

Sstoopidtallkid
2010-01-21, 02:55 PM
Uh, yes it is. It's a very weird way of doing it, but it's still going to mess up combats. Just because you can come up with something worse doesn't mean that what you're doing is good.Not really. It's the classic problem with D&D tanks, what else can you do in combat. Yeah, you have great defenses, but any reasonably intelligent enemy can probably tell that, and since you have weaker offenses, they're going to ignore you if at all possible to focus on the more glass-cannon party members.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-21, 02:55 PM
Well, it's normal to feel bad when you point out a flaw in someone's creation. They tend to invest themselves in it to some degree.

30 AC is high, yes...but does nothing against nat 20s, and against attacks that ignore AC. Likely your touch is also much more reasonable unless his system is truly messed up.

If someone hands me a custom char creation method, and warns that the upcoming campaign is really tough, I would likely also optimize for survivability.

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-21, 02:56 PM
If his homebrewed system is horribly flawed, finding the holes is just good testing. I welcome destructive tests to things I make, as it enables me to find and fix the flaws.

Optimizing and breaking the game are two seperate things. 30AC is not breaking the game. Time travel, on the other hand...

Right.

If you want your character to be good at what he does, optimize as much as you need to. There's nothing wrong with this. It's when you optimize to specifically ruin the DM's campaign that it is bad (there's an easier way to do this).

Riffington
2010-01-21, 02:58 PM
My idea is that having PCs drop left and right is A Bad Idea (TM). So I tend to attempt to play at about the level needed to prevent that and adjust what I'm using to about that level. The issue comes in when the DM really does feel that every encounter should have PCs dropping left and right that it gets into an arms race of sorts.

Work this out beforehand, instead. The player loses every arms race.

If your character sheet makes your DM uncomfortable, just change it. Seriously.

valadil
2010-01-21, 02:59 PM
You should ask your GM. Some GMs want to fix their homebrew material, some don't. Whenever I've come up with well intentioned but clearly exploitable rules my players have been happy to oblige my request that they play nice. They understand that it's tedious to come up with air tight rulings. Most of the time it's not even worth the trouble. I'd rather test rules as intended to see if they're even worth the trouble. If a rule doesn't add to the game, then I won't bother proofing it against optimizers. OTOH if I come up with something fun, then it may be worth investing some time in making sure there aren't loopholes and then submitting it to powergamers.

Sorry, got off on a rant there. It should be common couresty to see if your GM is in the "testing for fun" or "testing for brokenness" phase of using his houserules. If he just wants to see if they're fun, you shouldn't make him feel bad by breaking them. And even if you do see a hole, it's probably better to tell your GM instead of making an exploitative character.

Saph
2010-01-21, 03:00 PM
Not really. It's the classic problem with D&D tanks, what else can you do in combat. Yeah, you have great defenses, but any reasonably intelligent enemy can probably tell that, and since you have weaker offenses, they're going to ignore you if at all possible to focus on the more glass-cannon party members.

We've been told that the DM runs hard campaigns; that means he's going to want enemies that can threaten the PCs. So if you play a character with 30 AC, then you're going to start running into things that can hit you even with a 30 AC . . . say, a +15 attack bonus or so. For you, that's fine. For the players who have PCs with a normal first-level AC, say 16 or so, that's not so fine.

Once you start getting into optimisation, it's not enough to think about what you'll produce in-game. You also have to think about what the consequences of it are going to be.

Sstoopidtallkid
2010-01-21, 03:02 PM
We've been told that the DM runs hard campaigns; that means he's going to want enemies that can threaten the PCs. So if you play a character with 30 AC, then you're going to start running into things that can hit you even with a 30 AC . . . say, a +15 attack bonus or so. For you, that's fine. For the players who have PCs with a normal first-level AC, say 16 or so, that's not so fine. Or more casters, trippers, and similar who don't target AC.

Eldariel
2010-01-21, 03:05 PM
Or more casters, trippers, and similar who don't target AC.

Aye. Just in the Endless Dungeon, I faced an Azer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/azer.htm) on level 2. Not terribly frightening offensively, but it has all high saves and AC 23. That means I'm pretty much 18-20ing it on attacks and under 50% SoDs. Grappling, though, works just fine. So I just grappled it and in three rounds, it was down. On low levels, there are means around whatever the opp is doing for almost all characters.

Kaiyanwang
2010-01-21, 03:08 PM
In my opinion, Saph is right.

If for that DM the 30 AC is game breaking, you shoud keep the power level down letting him make his job without worrying about built the world around you.

I agree, an high AC is not game breaking FOR ME, as a DM.

Generally speaking, find the loophole of the system is a good idea only if is fun for everybody: does not seem to me that you are just "debugging" your system, but only trying to take a direct advantage.

Could be fun for a while, but could lead other people to think you are not behaving, we can say, in a well-mannered way. You could ruin your own game after a while.

randomhero00
2010-01-21, 03:14 PM
I also got him something like +9 vs grapple checks (with another +5 or so in the works), he also has a base 17 touch, with a way to boost it to 21 ish. His saves are something like +6, +5, +6, and he can heal himself as a swift action :D

Yeah, I think I'll take the advice and simply ask him if he wants me to tone it down.

EDIT: I do still roleplay him as frail though. I may know he's tougher than the tank, but he doesn't.

Superglucose
2010-01-21, 03:17 PM
Also would like to note that the GM I had who wanted us to "playtest" really meant "I want you guys to reassure me that my system is balanced." As such he got really upset when we broke his system into a million tiny pieces.

randomhero00
2010-01-21, 03:24 PM
Also would like to note that the GM I had who wanted us to "playtest" really meant "I want you guys to reassure me that my system is balanced." As such he got really upset when we broke his system into a million tiny pieces.

That's kind of what I'm a bit worried about. And that, me asking if he wants me to tone it down might be insulting. Oh well.

magic9mushroom
2010-01-21, 03:33 PM
Time travel, on the other hand...

Okay, I've been in the dark long enough. How do you make that work?

lsfreak
2010-01-21, 03:35 PM
Instead of implementing these things into your character, approach him and say, "You know, you can get AC30 at level one by doing this, this, and this. Just making sure you meant to have that happen."

randomhero00
2010-01-21, 03:36 PM
Instead of implementing these things into your character, approach him and say, "You know, you can get AC30 at level one by doing this, this, and this. Just making sure you meant to have that happen."

Its too late, I've already played a session. And changing it randomly without asking first would be worse.

drengnikrafe
2010-01-21, 03:40 PM
Okay, I've been in the dark long enough. How do you make that work?

I did this once. I made a backup plan, too.
The main plan involved a very poorly worded homebrew class I called the "Pandamoniest". 3th level Warforged Pandamoniest with 0 dexterity can be treated as a time machine, if built correctly, and with ease at 5th level (as in, without planning that in advance).
The alternate version involves artifacts with epic time magic imbued on them.

Sadly, my PCs destructive nature ended the campaign when their shenanagins (sp?) in the past destroyed the possibility that they ever existed.

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-21, 03:40 PM
Okay, I've been in the dark long enough. How do you make that work?

Forward only.

magic9mushroom
2010-01-21, 03:42 PM
I did this once. I made a backup plan, too.
The main plan involved a very poorly worded homebrew class I called the "Pandamoniest". 3th level Warforged Pandamoniest with 0 dexterity can be treated as a time machine, if built correctly, and with ease at 5th level (as in, without planning that in advance).
The alternate version involves artifacts with epic time magic imbued on them.

Sadly, my PCs destructive nature ended the campaign when their shenanagins (sp?) in the past destroyed the possibility that they ever existed.

Then why is there a ban on time travel in the Test of Spite?

lsfreak
2010-01-21, 03:42 PM
Its too late, I've already played a session. And changing it randomly without asking first would be worse.

Do it in the future then. You said you're working towards getting a rather large bonus to grappling, bring that up. If you find out there's a way you can get an extra +4 to hit, ask him before you actually start working towards it.

ericgrau
2010-01-21, 03:45 PM
Optimize no, break yes. If you're screwing up a bad homebrew, I'm all in favor of blowing it out of the water, but only if you plan on remaking your character after the hole is found and patched.

drengnikrafe
2010-01-21, 03:45 PM
Then why is there a ban on time travel in the Test of Spite?

There is? Huh...
I guess there is theoretically some way to travel around in time, and they wanted to stop it before somebody tried.
Maybe creating a plane in which time flows backwards. Or maybe they mean going to a plane where, in one round (or something) you can get 8 hours rest, refresh your spells, and shift back.

I really don't know. The above post is entirely speculation.

Bayar
2010-01-21, 03:46 PM
Okay, I've been in the dark long enough. How do you make that work?

Genesis. Create your plane, choose the time trait, make it go backwards and fast.

randomhero00
2010-01-21, 03:47 PM
Going forward in time is easy. Just use a race or a way to make a race that doesn't age. And either doesn't need to eat/drink or a way to ignore it, like Elans. Then find a safe place. Can do that at very low levels. But especially easy as a high level caster.

Going back in time, I'm not so sure about.

EDIT ninja'd a long time ago :P

randomhero00
2010-01-21, 03:51 PM
Optimize no, break yes. If you're screwing up a bad homebrew, I'm all in favor of blowing it out of the water, but only if you plan on remaking your character after the hole is found and patched.

I'm fine in remaking him, not sure if he's fine in remaking his homebrew though. I'll find out.

illyrus
2010-01-21, 03:54 PM
Work this out beforehand, instead. The player loses every arms race.

If your character sheet makes your DM uncomfortable, just change it. Seriously.

While yes, a DM should be able to win the arms race, in our case generally it keeps it on an even keel. I remember one event where the DM threw a super monster at our party and after we finally figured out how to defeat it we proceeded to simulacrum it and then buff it up ourselves. It turns out a half-strength superbeing with party buffs is still a superbeing. After using it for 2 sessions the DM was convinced that things like that were way overpowered and we then continued with a more reasonable game. It really comes down to an understanding of the rules and whether the DM plans to abide by or break the world's rules at every turn.

And yes, talking it out is generally the best solution, but you tend to run into two types you can't really talk it out with:

GM: Yes I'm here to make your life miserable.
- to which you walk away from the game

or

GM: No I'm not trying to crush your characters at every event, it's completely balanced and fine.
- to which they've probably placed themselves under some limitation and if you approach that limitation then you can have a game where the PCs stand a reasonable chance of walking out of encounters with all their limbs still attached

But yes, I agree with your sentiment on if something makes your GM uncomfortable (and they're not currently screwing you over) to adjust it to where they want it.

dsmiles
2010-01-21, 03:58 PM
Breaking the game is, indeed, bad; unless you are asked to "playtest" something. I ask my players to do this all the time, and it always finds the holes in my homebrews and campaign worlds. I then fix them before we start an actual campaign.

Optimizing is not inherently bad, per se; unless you go full Red Mage (twink/munchkin/whatever). But, IMO, you should play within your character's story. If you want a 2 level dip into a class, it should have been already justified by your backstory and pre-determined character goals (at least in my campaigns I require a written backstory and IC story goals not OoC mechanics goals).

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-21, 03:59 PM
I'm fine in remaking him, not sure if he's fine in remaking his homebrew though. I'll find out.

Even I have reservations about editing my home brew (mostly because most of it is all ready in PDF form, and I can't access my PDF creator laptop any more). Be very careful about how you address this concern.

Jayabalard
2010-01-21, 04:00 PM
Mmm . . . no. I've got some sympathy for you, but this is self-serving reasoning. Just because there are holes doesn't mean you're justified in exploiting them. Ageed. If there are holes in the system, then talk to the GM about it so that they can be fixed; exploiting something like that seems, well, extremely juvenile to me. You're just being obnoxious.


Even I have reservations about editing my home brew (mostly because most of it is all ready in PDF form, and I can't access my PDF creator laptop any more). Be very careful about how you address this concern.Just FYI: You can edit PDF's using Open Office; specifically, I think that Oxygen Office comes with the necessary plugins bundled with it.

Gamerlord
2010-01-21, 04:01 PM
It isn't mean, you are just showing him the inherent flaws in his houserules,better they are discovered now before a munchkin gets his hands on them.

Anyway, the problem with going "OMG OVERPOWAHED" level of optimization on purpose without reason is that you start a conflict with the DM, and players never win in-game battles with the DM. Never.

magic9mushroom
2010-01-21, 04:02 PM
Genesis. Create your plane, choose the time trait, make it go backwards and fast.

That can't travel back to before you created the plane, though, just pointing out.

Jayabalard
2010-01-21, 04:03 PM
It isn't mean, you are just showing him the inherent flaws in his houserulesNo, absolutely not; if he had noticed them, gone and talked to the GM about it, then he'd be showing him the inherent flaws in his houserules; exploiting them and using them in a game is just antisocial behavior.

valadil
2010-01-21, 04:03 PM
It isn't mean, you are just showing him the inherent flaws in his houserules,better they are discovered now before a munchkin gets his hands on them.


How is it any different than if a munchkin discovers the rules? The only difference is that you get to play the part of the munchkin.

Riffington
2010-01-21, 04:17 PM
While yes, a DM should be able to win the arms race, in our case generally it keeps it on an even keel. I remember one event where the DM threw a super monster at our party and after we finally figured out how to defeat it we proceeded to simulacrum it and then buff it up ourselves. It turns out a half-strength superbeing with party buffs is still a superbeing. After using it for 2 sessions the DM was convinced that things like that were way overpowered and we then continued with a more reasonable game.
I don't think I understand. He threw a super monster at you, and you didn't all die. Therefore it was a reasonable thing to throw at you. You even defeated it (which means he threw something too weak, or you were quite clever, or both).
It is true that Simulacrum is an overpowered spell. It lets you create an ally equal to your own power* and have total control over it.

*well, without items. But with LA/templates for free.



It really comes down to an understanding of the rules and whether the DM plans to abide by or break the world's rules at every turn.


I'm not sure I see how that's related. The DM can very well want to avoid excessive optimization, but still want to throw high-level challenges at you. The ideal mortality rate should still be determined by the group's desires; given a certain level of optimization for the group, the DM can then calibrate the challenges accordingly. The main problem is if one player optimizes more than others; that makes it difficult for the DM to be fair to everyone.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-21, 04:21 PM
We've been told that the DM runs hard campaigns; that means he's going to want enemies that can threaten the PCs. So if you play a character with 30 AC, then you're going to start running into things that can hit you even with a 30 AC . . . say, a +15 attack bonus or so. For you, that's fine. For the players who have PCs with a normal first-level AC, say 16 or so, that's not so fine.

Once you start getting into optimisation, it's not enough to think about what you'll produce in-game. You also have to think about what the consequences of it are going to be.

One would hope the DM would be more creative that to simply add massive flat boosts to hit to all his mobs.

If that's how he responds to every player action, then you don't have a "tough game", you have a DM that doesn't really know what he's doing, and is going to screw you over no matter what you do.

In the case of the OP, we really don't know if it's a good DM, bad DM, we just know his houserules had a few flaws(not that unusual, IMO. Easy to do.)

CTLC
2010-01-21, 04:22 PM
yes,
even in every system ive ever seen you can over power things.
and you shouldnt.
tell the dm the system is faulty, help him fix it, and never optimize.

randomhero00
2010-01-21, 04:22 PM
Hey I resent being called juvenile and obnoxious. Where I come from playing from within the rules set before you is not exploiting. And let me paint a picture for how hard this campaign is. On the first encounter we had to fight 8 soldiers 1/2 CR (not bad) but then the boss popped up with something like a +20 to grapple and proceeded to 1 shot 4 of the 5 party members into the negative hps before finally going down. All in an area we couldn't even run from. He nearly wiped us on the first encounter. ><

dsmiles
2010-01-21, 04:22 PM
One would hope the DM would be more creative that to simply add massive flat boosts to hit to all his mobs.

Maybe he just uses higher CR encounters. They'd be able to take out the other characters as well.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-21, 04:22 PM
Okay, I've been in the dark long enough. How do you make that work?

It involves Schism and a thought bottle. I believe it was Emperor Tippy's unholy creation, and it allows absolutely ludicrous exploits.

Gamerlord
2010-01-21, 04:27 PM
No, absolutely not; if he had noticed them, gone and talked to the GM about it, then he'd be showing him the inherent flaws in his houserules; exploiting them and using them in a game is just antisocial behavior.

Perhaps I was misunderstood, just show him the problems with it, then fix your character once he makes the changes to the game.

@valadil: Munchkins are a whole lot more stubborn.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-21, 04:30 PM
How is it any different than if a munchkin discovers the rules? The only difference is that you get to play the part of the munchkin.

Munchkinry is typically accepted as being wiling to break, as well as abuse the rules.

Optimizers use the rules in an effort to work within the system towards a particular end. It may be an overpowered, cheesy end, but it's legal. Huge gap between the two.

Now, optimization is a tool. It can be used towards evil ends or perfectly fine ones. If you're trying to make that character stand up to the challenges the DM throws at you...great. If you're trying to ruin the game and end everyones fun...not so great.

Given that he came here, concerned about it, I don't think his goal is the latter.

Jayabalard
2010-01-21, 04:35 PM
Hey I resent being called juvenile and obnoxious.Well, those are among the nicest labels I can think of for that sort of behavior (Intentionally "breaking a game" ... your wording). I rank it right up there with throwing a tantrum and throwing dice/books/other items at people when you're not happy with how the game is going. So, I'm sorry that you resent those labels being put on a certain type of behavior (not on you, just that particular behavior), but if you were really certain that you were in the right you I kind of doubt that you would be here asking that particular question.


And let me paint a picture for how hard this campaign is.Sorry, I don't really care how hard the campaign is; hardness of the campaign doesn't excuse exploiting a flaw in the rules (which is what it sounds like you did, since you talked about him fixing it).


Munchkinry is typically accepted as being wiling to break, as well as abuse the rules.No, really, it's a term that gets applied equally to people who stay within the letter of the rules, or go out of their way to break the game by over-optimizing. It's often treated as a synonym of powergaming (see forum definitions (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18512)).

Tavar
2010-01-21, 04:35 PM
Plus, if the campaign is known as killer, I wouldn't be surprised to see people optimizing their characters to a greater degree than normal. From the first post, it seems that this exploitive AC was relatively easy to obtain. Assuming that the poster brought it to the DM's attention before play started, I fail to see how he can be blamed any more than the DM can be blamed for making the homebrew available.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-21, 04:36 PM
Well, those are among the nicest labels I can think of for that sort of behavior (Intentionally "breaking a game" ... your wording). I rank it right up there with throwing a tantrum and throwing dice/books/other items at people when you're not happy with how the game is going.

Having good AC and saves is not equivalent to actually throwing things at people, yknow.

Saph
2010-01-21, 04:36 PM
One would hope the DM would be more creative that to simply add massive flat boosts to hit to all his mobs.

Exploiting a houserule to create overpowered characters and then blaming the DM for compensating with overpowered challenges is unlikely to be productive.

The issue, again, is what you're trying to accomplish. Decide that, then decide the best way to get there.

Jayabalard
2010-01-21, 04:39 PM
Having good AC and saves is not equivalent to actually throwing things at people, yknow.I don't really agree: I'd label having good AC because you exploited a flaw in the rules (which is what the OP seems to be implying) as just as juvenile as actually throwing things at people.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-21, 04:42 PM
The difference between "exploiting a flaw in the rules" and simply building a good character is an unclear one, and one that I can't make a certain determination on without actually seeing these house rules.

Clearly, these sorts of added customization already add to the power level of the average first level character. How much his use of them differs from average is difficult to discern. We only know that his DM didn't expect it, and thus, at least from this perspective, the rules are flawed.

Jayabalard
2010-01-21, 04:46 PM
The difference between "exploiting a flaw in the rules" and simply building a good character is an unclear one, and one that I can't make a certain determination on without actually seeing these house rules.No, I think that following it up with a boast like "I could have gone higher...no point at level 1 tho :P" and the fact that the OP is asking this question at all makes it pretty clear, at least to me; I'd say that anyone who posts something like this knows they were in the wrong and they're looking for some sort of validation.

Tavar
2010-01-21, 04:47 PM
Because clearly, showing restraint is an evil, despicable thing to do.

Jayabalard
2010-01-21, 04:51 PM
Because clearly, showing restraint is an evil, despicable thing to do.Of course it isn't, but I wouldn't classify someone who exploits a rule "just a little bit" as someone who as showing restraint in any way, especially if they're at the point where they feel that there's no real point in going higher.

Zaydos
2010-01-21, 04:51 PM
Optimization: no
Break: said.

That out of the way, now to the specific problem. I have to agree with the talk to the DM about it. The problem is how easy is it to find holes. If one of my players could break this thing, then I'd need to fix it (none of them are optimizers). On the other hand if some of the people on this forum could break it wide open it might not mean anything more than that it is on par for balance with WotC stuff (it depends upon how easy it is for them to break). So really it is: does the system break itself? Or do you have to actively work to make OMG hax characters? Honestly the AC thing doesn't seem too bad, but you ought to work with the DM. If it is breaking the game on accident then you try and not break the game.

In my current game I'm playing a wizard who is powerful. I could have made one that broke the game with house rules he's implemented (suggesting a pixie familiar and using Guardian Familiars from Encyclopedia Arcane) simply by playing a Focused Transmuter and taking advantage of the above two combined with Draconic Polymorph. Instead I played a focused conjurer with BC. The rest of the party: Sorcerer, Druid, DMPC Warlock/Necromancer/Theurge, and Swordsage. I did have to point the swordsage's player to unarmed swordsage instead of monk several times; since he wanted to throw people around unarmed this was perfect.

So yes build a functional character, but don't just abuse the system for all you can.

randomhero00
2010-01-21, 04:53 PM
Except that I haven't exploited or broken any of his rules. If I had why would I be here?

The "break" part if the title was simply addressing the broader issue, not my personal one. I don't personally believe having a high AC is breaking the game, as there are still many ways to die, as well as the fact that it actually contributes very little to group/campaign performance. Only to my character's personal survivability. And even then, not 100%. Cause if my group wipes, I'll likely wipe too, unless there's an easy escape route.

The DM knew his rules, knew what I had, and what I was creating. He oversaw the majority of my character creation. He just hadn't realized how much it had all added up, as that was the first time he'd heard the total AC. The AC was quite easy to obtain and didn't require any shenanigans.

Jayabalard- apparently we have *much* different ideas about civility...

randomhero00
2010-01-21, 04:57 PM
No, I think that following it up with a boast like "I could have gone higher...no point at level 1 tho :P" and the fact that the OP is asking this question at all makes it pretty clear, at least to me; I'd say that anyone who posts something like this knows they were in the wrong and they're looking for some sort of validation.

That was actually to imply the opposite: that it was easy and didn't require shenanigans.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-21, 04:57 PM
No, I think that following it up with a boast like "I could have gone higher...no point at level 1 tho :P"

Uh, I would say that not exploiting the flaws as much as he possibly could indicates that he's not a munchkin. Someone trying to break the game wouldn't say "That's enough optimization, I'll leave this obvious possibility alone".

Tyndmyr
2010-01-21, 04:58 PM
Do you have a copy of the rules? It might help if we could look them over.

Jayabalard
2010-01-21, 05:06 PM
Except that I haven't exploited or broken any of his rules. If I had why would I be here? Please realize that this is strictly an answering your question and not some sort of commentary on you as a person: Feeling guilty and looking for validation; it's a fairly common reaction for people, who've done something that they feel guilty about for them to go out and try to present it in a good light to people so that they get people to tell them that it's ok, that they didn't do anything bad.


That was actually to imply the opposite: that it was easy and didn't require shenanigans.Well, that's not how it came across to me.


Jayabalard- apparently we have *much* different ideas about civility...I would have to agree.

randomhero00
2010-01-21, 05:13 PM
Do you have a copy of the rules? It might help if we could look them over.

Tempting. I'd prefer to keep this anonymous though for his sake as I don't have his permission. I don't remember every detail but the main problem was that you could take multiple ranks in + AC skills that also allowed you to increase you bonus to dex from armor. There is also a + natural armor that stacks...It also allows stat ups, it has caps but he didn't expect anyone to do all 3. So I grabbed banded mail (I think, +7 ac, 1 dex bonus but with his skill it goes up to max dex bonus of of 5 or 6)), got my dex up to 20 with stat buys, maxed ranks in the main AC skill, and took some from nat armor too.

Behing able to add/keep 5 ac from dex alone to heavyish armor is what really puts it over the top easy. Add in like another 6 ac from the bonuses... And I still had a few customization points left over. I really just wanted a tank mage, an idea I've had in my mind for awhile (not literally a tank or a mage, I mean a seriously armored caster) that I wanted to explore. Looking back I really don't even need 30ac and wouldn't have minded going lower. But I'm the type that likes to do experimental builds, like getting a monk's base move to a 100...sure its not very useful but its a fun ride.

If it comes up I think I'll suggest he simply make it so that you can't get multiple ranks in anything at level 1; that you need 2 levels for each rank. So you'd need to be like level 8 or so before you could get to this point. That should pretty much fix it. Keep in mind the other stuff is powerful too, its not like your getting this for free. He expects a certain power curve.

Freshmeat
2010-01-21, 05:17 PM
Just talk this over with your DM so you can fix this. I think the problem here isn't so much the power level, but the inner-party power level as some have already pointed out. While a DM can always adjust the difficulty as needed (and in this particular case probably should) balance among party members is more difficult to restore unless the DM allows his players to completely overhaul their characters halfway through the game once they notice they're falling way behind. I'd say 30 AC is rather excessive for a level 1 character, but if you say it was easy to obtain, the DM probably should've seen it coming. You might want to add that to your opening post, since that wasn't entirely clear.

Be that as it may, your DM will now have a difficult time challenging you and is far more likely to feel compelled to throw special mobs at you, because normal monsters quite simply won't be able to reliably hit you at all. Expect grapplers, trippers, a disproportionate amount of casters to simply target your saves instead, and so on and so forth. Cue the cries of "the DM is arbitrarily making my character useless!" and the situation simply becomes worse. If the DM instead goes after the rest of the party every single fight, regardless of circumstances, they'll feel like the DM has it out for them. So they too, desperately scramble to find some kind of loophole or imbalance to stand a chance. Not good.

So I'd just talk this over with your DM. Let him scale down the power level so you don't end up in an arms race with the DM, carefully go over the homebrew (together, provided you feel that won't offend him too much) so it can be reworked properly if there are more balance issues, and then do a (partial) restart or something. Alternatively, if your DM feels he can still work a 30 AC level 1 character without making arbitrary adjustments that will either place the burden on the rest of the party or are tailor-made encounters that miraculously target your weaknesses every single time, give him a few more sessions to work things out. It's not all that unlikely that he simply got caught off-guard by your character.

Jayabalard
2010-01-21, 05:20 PM
Except that I haven't exploited or broken any of his rules. Personally, I would label taking advantage of any rule that the GM, on noticing, will immediately feel a need to "fix" as exploiting the rules. In some cases it's exploiting bad/questionable/incomplete wording, in some cases it's exploiting bad design.


Uh, I would say that not exploiting the flaws as much as he possibly could indicates that he's not a munchkin. Someone trying to break the game wouldn't say "That's enough optimization, I'll leave this obvious possibility alone".I'm not sure of your point... I don't think anyone has indicated that he's a munchkin.

Tavar
2010-01-21, 05:26 PM
Personally, I would label taking advantage of any rule that the GM, on noticing, will immediately feel a need to "fix" as exploiting the rules. In some cases it's exploiting bad/questionable/incomplete wording, in some cases it's exploiting bad design.

But, if it's really that easy to obtain, how could you avoid doing it without essentially going "how can I keep all my numbers as low as possible"?

illyrus
2010-01-21, 05:28 PM
I don't think I understand. He threw a super monster at you, and you didn't all die. Therefore it was a reasonable thing to throw at you. You even defeated it (which means he threw something too weak, or you were quite clever, or both).


Not wiping the whole party doesn't make it a reasonable monster. Imagine you're playing 3.5 and you have 5 PCs. Every encounter 1 of them dies and at a later point is raised, losing a level. Eventually you get a level spread such as 12, 10, 3, 2, and 1. Now you have a level 12 and 1 in the same group and you can't really make a combat challenge appropriate for both of them. Even the level 10 and the level 3 is pretty far apart. At some point the game falls apart because the party's level differences become unmanagable. I've seen this happen and up until the players got up and quit the campaign the DM felt that the mortality rate and game were all fine.

As to why we didn't die the first time we encountered it we were smart enough to not engage it fully (as it could kill any 2 PCs in a round with around an 80% chance of success). And the whole reason for this monster in the first place was as a source of food, not some plot defined boss critter. We went back later fully prepared to fight it and only it. While a DM can make it when you're out hunting you find "food" that happens to be a +10 CR monster that is tougher than any other creature in that game world, it doesn't make it a reasonable encounter.

I've also watched DMs pull scry and dies on sleeping PCs (when no PC had tried any cheese tactics or optimizations at all). While the assassins only killed about half the party before the rest woke up it doesn't make it reasonable.

The game is supposed to be fun, if half of the people there are spending 1/2 of every game session bleeding out or dead and are off reading a book then it's probably not fun to them. If the DM is not willing to budge on the encounter difficulty then you either have to quit the game or else optimize to make it where people are spending more time playing than not. This can lead into an arms race but as long as the players are spending more time playing than they would had without any character optimization than you're "winning it".

*Edit - Oh and as a note on why optimization doesn't tend put a big gap between the party members when I do it, I tend to do it by buffing up the other party members. So everyone is still on the same playing field (or else thanks to buffs they're much more powerful than my support characters) so it creates about as level of a party strength as you can get. So basically I optimize my characters to be excellent support as opposed solo stars.

Jayabalard
2010-01-21, 05:30 PM
But, if it's really that easy to obtain, how could you avoid doing it without essentially going "how can I keep all my numbers as low as possible"?Talk to the gm before using the rule, either let him fix it or help him fix it, and then use them as fixed.

randomhero00
2010-01-21, 05:36 PM
Talk to the gm before using the rule, either let him fix it or help him fix it, and then use them as fixed.

I did. Part of the problem was that I didn't know for sure how unreasonable 30 ac would be. I knew it was quite high of course, but like I said, its like a mini epic version of 1-20. This was my first time playing in it.

My other, more optimized, option instead of doing the ac route would have been starting as a full dragon, with racial HD, and caster class for crying out loud. Trust me when I say I held back. Apparently the game is not as epic as I thought, just hard. Also keep in mind 50% of the game is roleplay, so combat mechanics and numbers aren't as big of a deal to us as some.

illyrus
2010-01-21, 05:46 PM
The DM can very well want to avoid excessive optimization, but still want to throw high-level challenges at you. The ideal mortality rate should still be determined by the group's desires; given a certain level of optimization for the group, the DM can then calibrate the challenges accordingly. The main problem is if one player optimizes more than others; that makes it difficult for the DM to be fair to everyone.

That assumes that the DM is the most mature and reasonable person at the table. If the DM is something less than that ideal you can have a problem. What I'm talking about is the DM going overboard first then the party changing their methods accordingly and not the other way around.

Riffington
2010-01-21, 08:24 PM
Not wiping the whole party doesn't make it a reasonable monster.
You aren't expected to fight every monster. You tried, and not all of you died. This means it was not "too powerful". There are a hundred reasons it still might not be a reasonable monster (too racist, excessive puns, preys on real-life fears of players, etc) but power isn't one.



Imagine you're playing 3.5 and you have 5 PCs. Every encounter 1 of them dies
If every encounter someone is dying, you have a serious problem. In fact, if every encounter someone is fighting, you have a serious problem.


level spread such as 12, 10, 3, 2, and 1

This would also be a problem, but one that a high mortality rate campaign can easily avoid. Just let people come in with new characters at closer to the group's level.




As to why we didn't die the first time we encountered it we were smart enough to not engage it fully
Good for you.


That assumes that the DM is the most mature and reasonable person at the table. If the DM is something less than that ideal you can have a problem. What I'm talking about is the DM going overboard first then the party changing their methods accordingly and not the other way around.

Well, I don't know anything about "most", but if you don't trust your DM then you can't really fix that.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-21, 08:36 PM
But, if it's really that easy to obtain, how could you avoid doing it without essentially going "how can I keep all my numbers as low as possible"?

It seriously looks like it's not an exploit. He just focused his points in one area. This is...remarkably common. I would expect melee types to grab multiple AC boosting things.

Also, it's pretty clear that EVERYONE is going to have power levels higher than average for D&D from this thing. It's really not even that big of a deal.

I'd suggest that if he wants to implement a trait buy system into D&D, he use escalating costs, similar to how point buy works.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-21, 08:39 PM
Well, I don't know anything about "most", but if you don't trust your DM then you can't really fix that.

Or, just a thought...perhaps everything shouldn't be boiled down to "DM vs Player" and assuming that the player is to blame?

I mean, how many of these threads have we had recently...someone comes asking for help, and gets told he's the problem, when there isn't enough info available to possibly assume that. This thread is especially indicative of that. Calling the OP juvenile, blaming him for a lack of trust in his DM(perhaps his DM isn't trustworthy...it's not like we know the guy), etc...

Can we just address the issue at hand instead of blaming the questioner?

Tavar
2010-01-21, 08:51 PM
Really, this kinda thing happens a lot. Sometimes it's people extolling the virtues of the unarmed swordsage, sometimes it's people accusing a player of being a jerk because he did something pretty normal (I mean, seriously, if people are playing true dragons at level 1, this clearly isn't a normal game). Both sides are equally guilty of jumping down peoples throats before enough information is given, or ignore information once it's given.

Idlewyld
2010-01-21, 09:15 PM
Question: Is it mean to optimize/break the game?

Answer: Yes, for players AND DMs, both can be guilty. It's like playing touch football with brass knuckles and saying, "well no one said I couldn't use them."

Of all the games I've played in and DMed for, the greatest characters and most fun games have revolved around characters that were built on personality, not ability. As a DM, if I have a player that adds nothing to the depth of the game, but there character is the highlight of every fight because of "build" I usually have a brain fart when it comes to reminding them when/where game is.

On the flip side, I have walked out on DMs that got joy out of player misery: i.e. no escape route, too high a CR for a non-plot-line random encounter, trying to force characters to act out of character (good do evil), extreme difficulty in performing mundane tasks.

Riffington
2010-01-21, 09:25 PM
Or, just a thought...perhaps everything shouldn't be boiled down to "DM vs Player" and assuming that the player is to blame?

I mean, how many of these threads have we had recently...someone comes asking for help, and gets told he's the problem, when there isn't enough info available to possibly assume that. This thread is especially indicative of that. Calling the OP juvenile, blaming him for a lack of trust in his DM(perhaps his DM isn't trustworthy...it's not like we know the guy), etc...

Can we just address the issue at hand instead of blaming the questioner?

You may be responding to a writer different than I.
I wasn't talking about the OP. I was talking about a different person who gets in "arms races" with his DM. I said they should get together and talk about what mortality level they want; at that point, the player must then trust the DM rather than trying to influence his behavior by overoptimizing. I never called anyone juvenile.

Consider deleting your post.

illyrus
2010-01-21, 11:46 PM
You aren't expected to fight every monster. You tried, and not all of you died. This means it was not "too powerful". There are a hundred reasons it still might not be a reasonable monster (too racist, excessive puns, preys on real-life fears of players, etc) but power isn't one.


You see, we just disagree on a base level. I believe that if the PCs are supposed to kill things (you are not playing a political intrigue game etc and the DM has explained the game as such) then it's the DMs job to make sure that more often than not that the creatures you are supposed to kill are things that the player can kill without degrees in military history. Or at the least give some way of determining something is outside of your abilities past "huh, the beast just ate our fighter on round 1". Now given if the players all agree that they're going to sit down and play a survival horror game that's different, but if you're sitting down to play a heroic fantasy game then constantly facing enemies well outside the CR system and taking a trip a session to the local healer is not really in line with that experience. If you add in the fact that if your character dies the DM forces any new character to come in at that character's experience level (1 level lower than he was before death) then it is even more pronounced. And really that's not an unreasonable of a limit to prevent a revolving door of characters.

But again, this is about why I said that in some cases optimizing is needed. You could instead call it rising to the occasion to be able to eek out a victory against very tough encounters. To me, that's all just wordplay.

illyrus
2010-01-21, 11:55 PM
You may be responding to a writer different than I.
I wasn't talking about the OP. I was talking about a different person who gets in "arms races" with his DM. I said they should get together and talk about what mortality level they want; at that point, the player must then trust the DM rather than trying to influence his behavior by overoptimizing. I never called anyone juvenile.

Consider deleting your post.

How do you know I'm overoptimizing? Is it simply because I said I used a simulacrum spell? To which I actually had a conversation with the DM before hand:

me: Do you have a problem if I simulacrum [the creature]?
DM: Nope, go for it.
me: Are you aware it creates a half strength duplicate?
DM: I'll look over the spell to see if it's okay.
*1 week later*
DM: Sure go for it.

I actually talk with my DM before I take or use anything I consider might be too powerful and only do it if he specifically allows it. Simulacrum was already allowed by his rules base but I knew that creating one of this creature would be amazing powerful which is why I asked the DM if it was ok. If the DM had said no then I never would have done it. The DM didn't say no because he felt that his critter was a reasonable threat. It was only after being on the receiving end of massive damage that he admitted that it was too powerful and backed off, something no amount of discussion could convince him of.

I only play with friends and generally I:

A) try to have a conversation with them about the game being a meatgrinder beatdown when it was advertised as something milder
B) then if needed I try to make up for anything by optimizing my character to boost the party up to where they can stand against the threat
C) if the DM finds that what I am doing is too far gone and asks me to relax, then I will back down and he will back off with the crazy CRs, then we go back to playing a game we all love

Riffington
2010-01-22, 07:18 AM
You see, we just disagree on a base level. I believe that if the PCs are supposed to kill things (you are not playing a political intrigue game etc and the DM has explained the game as such) then it's the DMs job to make sure that more often than not that the creatures you are supposed to kill are things that the player can kill without degrees in military history.
More often than not, sure.
But you have a false dichotomy here. Just because you aren't playing a political intrigue game doesn't mean you kill everything you see. You went fishing and caught a shark. So you run away, which is good.

Yes, if *everything* you see is more powerful than the party, that's a problem. But there can be plenty of things (even hostile things) that are more powerful than the party; you just need to offer the group a chance to run.


How do you know I'm overoptimizing?

Because you said the DM wanted a high-mortality game, and that you therefore optimized to prevent yourself from playing a high-mortality game (the very game your DM wanted).



Is it simply because I said I used a simulacrum spell?

No. See above. But Simulacrum is an extremely strong spell. I think you showed him in action how strong it is, even though he didn't notice it beforehand.



C) if the DM finds that what I am doing is too far gone and asks me to relax, then I will back down and he will back off with the crazy CRs, then we go back to playing a game we all love

So,I suggest that instead you back down without "forcing" him to change the CRs he uses. If you want to convince him out of game, that's fine, but convincing him in-game by overoptimizing is highly problematic.

Ashiel
2010-01-22, 08:04 AM
Well it depends on what others are doing. If everyone is over powered then its fine. Breaking/optimizing is only bad/wrong when the team is not on the same page.

A optimized wizard is only broken when he's in a party with a sub-optimized fighter. But put the wizard in a party consisting of an optimized Druid and Cleric then suddenly nothing is really broken.

It all depends on how the team plays since DnD is a team game.

I blame the fighter. No, seriously. :smalltongue:
I'm not saying that everyone should have to optimize their characters. That being said, I don't think everyone should have to not optimize their characters. If the poorly optimized fighter can't compete with a better optimized character, then even if it is not the fault of the former, it is definitely not the fault of the latter; then again, they shouldn't be competing in the first place.

Let me put it another way. If if you're on a team with someone playing a game (let's say Super Smash Brothers Melee) and another team member is better at the game than you are, do you expect them to hold back to make you look better? Do you purposely put yourself in a position to get taken down because someone else on your team happens to be wearing a big bulls-eye for a holy symbol?

I ran a game once when one of the players was decidedly un-optimized. He was an off the wall character, with plenty of multiclassing based on what he felt was appropriate with the story at the time. By 10th level, he had levels in rogue/ranger/wizard/cleric/assassin, with no real general focus.

He later lamented that the other party members were out-doing him in things. He complained that the party's druid (who didn't even have an animal companion) and the party's fighter/bard were stealing all the glory. He complained that the fighter/bard fought better, climbed better, bluffed better, and didn't die as often as him.

Should the other party members have turned around and rolled new characters because they didn't bother to make their characters suck? Should instead of one of the party members occasionally dying in a tough fight, should they all require the DM to hold back to avoid a TPK?

This idea that optimization is somehow inherently disruptive (and by inherently, I mean people automatically it's the optimizer's fault) to the game is, in my humble opinion, an un-warranted stereo-type. I've seen more problems caused by characters who are doomed to failure, rather than those who are destined to "win".

To the original poster, I feel that you did nothing wrong. Your DM provided you a set of rules, and said it was going to be a tough/hard/dangerous campaign. If he had said it was going to be a casual campaign or something, that may be one thing, but he sounds like he was suggesting that you be tough too. If I were in his shoes, I'd personally be thankful that you pointed out a major flaw in my homebrew material so I could fix it; anything less is arrogance or silly pride.

Anyway, I just wanted to throw that out there. I'm really sleepy and I'm hoping this post was at least coherent. Peace out everyone, and have a fun day. :smallcool:

Tyndmyr
2010-01-22, 09:20 AM
Riff, it was a general statement. I believe Jaya was the one who called the OP juvenile.

Yes, Ashiel, I agree. A power discrepancy is no more the fault of the optimizer than the guy who plays the goofy, useless character. Both are equally responsible for working together as a team.

Heck, in my RL gaming group, goofy, useless and horribly suboptimal characters tend to be treated with contempt by the party. They've been killed, sold in to slavery, or abandoned to horrible fates as a result. Unless you have an extremely good party, the Elans of the world have a short survival rate.

illyrus
2010-01-22, 09:21 AM
Because you said the DM wanted a high-mortality game, and that you therefore optimized to prevent yourself from playing a high-mortality game (the very game your DM wanted).


I never said he stated that he wanted a high mortality game. If he had stated up front I wouldn't have had an issue. Instead he stated that he was going to DM a normal game, which was for our gaming group not a high mortality meatgrinder.

I did state in general about DMs on both sides of the coin but I never stated in my example which my DM was, sorry if there was any confusion.



No. See above. But Simulacrum is an extremely strong spell. I think you showed him in action how strong it is, even though he didn't notice it beforehand.


Perhaps, really I chose to believe what he told me in person of what he was thinking over someone second guessing him. Unless you are him that is.

Jayabalard
2010-01-22, 09:45 AM
Riff, it was a general statement. I believe Jaya was the one who called the OP juvenile.If you'll go back and actually read the post in context, you might notice that I'm talking about the particular behavior that Saph mentioned (Exploiting holes in the system rather than talking to the GM about them), and not the OP himself.


Yes, Ashiel, I agree. A power discrepancy is no more the fault of the optimizer than the guy who plays the goofy, useless character. Both are equally responsible for working together as a team.I dunno, I think it's generally the fault of whichever one is making the game less fun for the group as a whole. In my experience, that tends to be the optimizer far more often than it is the anti-optimizer, but YMMV.

Saph
2010-01-22, 09:51 AM
Heck, in my RL gaming group, goofy, useless and horribly suboptimal characters tend to be treated with contempt by the party. They've been killed, sold in to slavery, or abandoned to horrible fates as a result.

Good grief. There are players who actually act like this? I thought it was just a straw man.

Jayabalard
2010-01-22, 10:01 AM
Good grief. There are players who actually act like this? I thought it was just a straw man.Well, of course there are... there are entire RPG systems devoted to playing those sorts characters.

illyrus
2010-01-22, 10:04 AM
Tyndmyr, do you mean intentionally goofy and suboptimal like a player making a clown character that throws pies for 1d2+0 damage for a serious adventure or also things like a player that makes a weaker character because of a distaste or ignorance of optimization?

Tyndmyr
2010-01-22, 10:15 AM
I don't think it would particularily matter WHY the player made an incompetent character...the party would likely react the same regardless.

I should note that player stupidity is, of course, the most blatant form of incompetence though. The chaotic stupid have extremely short lifespans. New players are given enough tips to make sure they have a solid character, and if any of them want optimization, most classes have a player in the party that specializes in them.

My last character to bite the bullet this way was a rogue in a theives guild. He was built with the idea of disarming traps via setting them off, and surviving the result. He was actually pretty good at doing this...but the obvious problem here is that not all traps affect just the rogue. Unfortunately, one of his character traits was also gullibility. He got tricked by the party into going on a "secret mission" for which being sold into slavery was his cover.

We've lost a few more since then. The kender, for example...for being a kender, mostly.

dsmiles
2010-01-22, 10:48 AM
We've lost a few more since then. The kender, for example...for being a kender, mostly.

What'd you do, send him into a room full of undead armed with a spoon (with some jam remnants on it)?

:smallbiggrin:

Seriously, though...I think the groups I play in tend towards under-optimizing (you know, making character builds that actually expend a fifth of their resources on a CR-appropriate encounter) as you guys see it. None of us ever try to break the game, unless we're specifically "playtesting" a homebrew or campaign world. I kind of see alot of WoTC's 3.5 material (ToB, etc.) as game breaking for RAI (you know, the whole spending of a fifth of your resources during a CR-appropriate encounter thing).

Tyndmyr
2010-01-22, 10:54 AM
What'd you do, send him into a room full of undead armed with a spoon (with some jam remnants on it)?

:smallbiggrin:

Demonic possession. I missed that session, so I don't have the details, but I know it involved the party tricking him into "playing with" some shiny he shouldn't have.

Sure, there are rules we could use to save him from it...in theory. Not gonna happen, though.


Seriously, though...I think the groups I play in tend towards under-optimizing (you know, making character builds that actually expend a fifth of their resources on a CR-appropriate encounter) as you guys see it. None of us ever try to break the game, unless we're specifically "playtesting" a homebrew or campaign world. I kind of see alot of WoTC's 3.5 material (ToB, etc.) as game breaking for RAI (you know, the whole spending of a fifth of your resources during a CR-appropriate encounter thing).

*shrug* Most of core is game breaking for RAI by that interpretation. RAI is a very unclear thing.

But hey, if that works for you...the thing is, you're all playing to a rough level. It doesn't matter what your preferred optimization level is, but the game runs smoother if everyone sticks to the chosen level.

Riffington
2010-01-22, 11:34 AM
Perhaps, really I chose to believe what he told me in person of what he was thinking over someone second guessing him. Unless you are him that is.

I meant that logically, all you demonstrated based on what you described is that Simulacrum is powerful (or, possibly, that buffs are powerful).
I believe you when you said you thereby convinced him his creature was too powerful to be encountered. I just don't believe that speaks to anything other than your ability to convince him of things.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-22, 11:41 AM
I meant that logically, all you demonstrated based on what you described is that Simulacrum is powerful (or, possibly, that buffs are powerful).
I believe you when you said you thereby convinced him his creature was too powerful to be encountered. I just don't believe that speaks to anything other than your ability to convince him of things.

C'mon...a "Im gonna make a simulacrum of this...it's gonna be a half strength clone, you ok with that?" is perfectly legitimate. Persuasion skills or not, it's a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

And if a DM concludes that a half-strength mob would be game breaking, and thus, decides to avoid using the original mob as a result, that's quite reasonable.

To me, this says that both the player and the DM are making reasonable attempts at balance. Nobodys perfect, sure, but it's an excellent way of solving problems.

Riffington
2010-01-22, 12:17 PM
C'mon...a "Im gonna make a simulacrum of this...it's gonna be a half strength clone, you ok with that?" is perfectly legitimate.
Agreed.



And if a DM concludes that a half-strength mob would be game breaking, and thus, decides to avoid using the original mob as a result, that's quite reasonable.
A mob? No, just one creature.
But anyway: surely we can agree it's fine to encounter an elephant in a jungle, without having to agree it's fine to let that elephant (or even a smaller one) join the party?

dsmiles
2010-01-22, 12:20 PM
But anyway: surely we can agree it's fine to encounter an elephant in a jungle, without having to agree it's fine to let that elephant (or even a smaller one) join the party?

WHAT?!?!?!? No pink pachyderm animal companion for my anthropomorphic mouse driud?

Tyndmyr
2010-01-22, 12:29 PM
A mob? No, just one creature.

Wow slang again.


But anyway: surely we can agree it's fine to encounter an elephant in a jungle, without having to agree it's fine to let that elephant (or even a smaller one) join the party?

Right. And if the DM decides to solve that problem by using something other than an elephant, great. If he decides to solve it by structuring the encounter in such a way that you can't get the necessary part as a spell component, etc, also great.

Zen Master
2010-01-22, 01:14 PM
Munchkinry is typically accepted as being wiling to break, as well as abuse the rules.

Optimizers use the rules in an effort to work within the system towards a particular end. It may be an overpowered, cheesy end, but it's legal. Huge gap between the two.

I see what you're saying there - but in actual application, I can tell no difference between the two. It's .. how does it go, the pot calling the cettle black? It's just a matter of where you draw the line.

My group had a longish talk yesterday about the powerlevel within the group - with me being the 'optimizer' in the group. You know - I believe one of the guys I play with might well even call me munchkin. My characters best shot at being overpowered is being able to do 7d6+27 on a charge, at level 9. He himself plays a straight rogue, with 4 attacks per round, for (potentially) 22d6+4d4+8.

It's all perspective.

(oh btw - I just got psionic lions charge, so now I get 24d6+54)

dsmiles
2010-01-22, 01:23 PM
I see what you're saying there - but in actual application, I can tell no difference between the two. It's .. how does it go, the pot calling the cettle black? It's just a matter of where you draw the line.


Personally, I've never had a munchkin at any of my tables. I review all characters at my tables for both legality and power level, and if I ever found a munchkin at my table, they would either have to change their character to comply with both rules-legality and party power level, or they would be banned from my table. Not, "asked to leave," banned, and not only by me, my players would get in on it, too. Breaking the rules is as unacceptable to me as it is to my players.

ShippoWildheart
2010-01-22, 01:40 PM
The 30 AC doesn't seem too problematic. The DM can just send casters against you, or employ each of his bad guys rings that enable touch attacks, or rings of True Strike. Or...... his bad guys can just ignore you by using Crowd Control related antics. Grease or any slippery substance will keep you stuck on the ground. The DM just needs to improvise.