[3.5] Help with a DM who doesn't understand classes.

[Splodge]

A bit of help, here.

I'm playing a ECL 12 game, but the DM has a ...skewed... view on character builds.

i.e, His version of how powerful the core classes are is;

Monk > Cleric > Wizard > Druid > Fighter > Barbarian > Ranger > Bard.

So yeah.

On top of this, he views anything Psionic as broken as hell. Period.

How do I make him both understand the Core classes, and convince him that Psionics are [reasonably] balanced?

[AstralFire]

Offer to DM instead.

[Earthwalker]

I don't think ti takes long to exaplin why the tier 1 classes are tier 1.

The simplest start would be to point him at the teir post and the explanations there.

If he doesn't want to look it up then just explain the difference in versitilty between a lvl 5 wizard and a lvl 5 fighter.

If he can't see it after some examples then no idea what to tell you.

[Gnaritas]

Let him build a psionic character and use it, then you play a wizard and use it. See which does better (fighting monsters for example).

[Dracons]

Gawd. Psions are broken. I know people scream how unbroken they are, but everytime I've allowed them, they've uttery crushed everything and had zero challenge.


and YES I KNOW ABOUT THE GAWDDAMN PP LIMIT TO LEVEL, It Does NOT help.

[Splodge]

That's the problem - he won't allow me to roll Psionic.

In another campaign, he was with a Psion, and he went as a Psithief and stole all his power points until he rerolled.

[AstralFire]

Gawd. Psions are broken. I know people scream how unbroken they are, but everytime I've allowed them, they've uttery crushed everything and had zero challenge.


and YES I KNOW ABOUT THE GAWDDAMN PP LIMIT TO LEVEL, It Does NOT help.

Psions have one (1) advantage over Sorcerers and Wizards - making one successfully is much easier with much less "whoops, I screwed up."

That's it.

Tells me you're playing with players who fall into build traps easily and you're not used to adapting when they don't.



That's the problem - he won't allow me to roll Psionic.

In another campaign, he was with a Psion, and he went as a Psithief and stole all his power points until he rerolled.

Your DM sounds like a jerk. Don't bother.

[Comet]

Your DM is either twelve years old or hasn't read the rules through. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but there's no denying that there are some pretty fierce misunderstandings going on in his head.

If you have the patience, sit down with him and go through the relevant rules, explaining how they actually work. If that seems like too much work (as it should, to be honest), offer to DM for him. Don't state it like "I'm going to be a better DM than you", just say that it would be fun if you could try your hand at DM'ing.

Either way, you have quite a bit of work ahead of you. In my experience, once a person learns the game "wrong", it's very difficult to persuade them to accept any other views. Doubly so if they happen to be the DM.

[AstralFire]

This guy was in another campaign and rolled up a character just to screw with someone else playing a psion, harassing them until they stopped. This is not the type of person to be reasoned with.

[Psyren]

Tells me you're playing with players who fall into build traps easily and you're not used to adapting when they don't.


This was my thought exactly. Magic users have significant advantages over psionicists - auto-scaling spells, better summons, all schools of magic, metamagic stacking, etc. The system is not at fault, Dracon's players are just better at playing psions.

[Ecalsneerg]

I dunno, he has a point. Psionics ARE broken... just not compared to arcane magic. They're still significantly more powerful than a lot of classes.

[Sir Swindle89]

My usual solution, especially when the DM is being a child, is to offer to play what they think is over powered then when they shut it down, i play what they consider an underpowered class and optimize every thing into oblivion.

So i say you play a bard(seeker of the song, fylucan lyreist, the works) and blow his head off. It's childish but at least it's spitefull too:smallyuk:

[AstralFire]

I dunno, he has a point. Psionics ARE broken... just not compared to arcane magic. They're still significantly more powerful than a lot of classes.

Psionics are broken.

Just not compared to Tome of Battle (they're more powerful, but play nice with each other.) Or Arcane Magic. Or Divine Magic. Or Incarnum. Or Binders. Or Warlocks. Or Dragonfire Adepts. (See: Psionics.) Or Rituals. Truenaming is non-functional.

So... I mean.

I guess they're broken compared to what? Core-only rogues? Monks? Weapon Specialization? CW Samurai? The Marshal?

[The Glyphstone]

Thing is, when people say "Psionics is broken", it's usually with the unspoken "but Magic is balanced, cause it's not psionic".:smallyuk: Psions are indeed overpowered - they're Tier 2 full 'casters', on par with the sorcerer, but inferior to the wizard.

[Ecalsneerg]

Seriously? A level 20 psion versus a level 20 warlock? And the Warlock is the broken one? I mean, I like psionics, I don't like the "OMGBROKEN" attitude, but it is by no means weak. And warlocks? Dragonfire adepts (except perhaps with Entangling Exhalation)? Seriously?

[AstralFire]

And the rest of the XPH is weaker - PsyWars are T3, IIRC, and Wilders are strictly inferior though pretty cool in their own right. Then there's the Soulknife.



Seriously? A level 20 psion versus a level 20 warlock? And the Warlock is the broken one? I mean, I like psionics, I don't like the "OMGBROKEN" attitude, but it is by no means weak. And warlocks? Dragonfire adepts (except perhaps with Entangling Exhalation)? Seriously?


I wasn't saying the warlock is broken. I was saying that they're of comparable enough power levels to be in the same campaign. I listed things that a psion can play nice with, my goal was not so much to pick out things specifically more powerful than it.

[Emmerask]

A bit of help, here.

I'm playing a ECL 12 game, but the DM has a ...skewed... view on character builds.

i.e, His version of how powerful the core classes are is;

Monk > Cleric > Wizard > Druid > Fighter > Barbarian > Ranger > Bard.

So yeah.

On top of this, he views anything Psionic as broken as hell. Period.

How do I make him both understand the Core classes, and convince him that Psionics are [reasonably] balanced?


Hm from the sounds of it your dm played in very low opt games with the typical blaster (nothing else) wizard a healbot cleric etc
In that particular scenario I could see the psion being very powerful

They had their 1 or maybe 2 fights / day the psion nova´d them down with energy burst or energy missile, both of which are in my opinion more powerful then the wizards counterparts so of course he felt that psions are overpowered compared to the blaster wizards blasty spells (remember low opt so no metamagic reducers, I doubt even any good blasty metamagic etc ^^)

The monk is kind of fun there ^^ My guess would be that there was one person who was actually good at optimizing so he took the monk and optimized him to the nth degree :smallbiggrin:

Anyway the only way to convince him would be to dm for him and give advice ho to optimize to each player, then again the person seems not very nice with his spellthieve... So I don´t know if I would go to such length

[Splodge]

The Monk thing is partly my fault.

We were playing Ravenloft, and the DM allowed all 3.5, including BoED.

I took Vow of Poverty, and Touch of Golden Ice, and put everything I could into listen.

I could one-shot anything with a flurry of blows, and I could tell the subtype of anything within 40'.

[Quietus]

Sounds to me like a mixed problem between basing power on survivability (Monks, Clerics, and Wizards are all fairly good at surviving things, for different reasons - it's just that Monks and non-optimized Clerics don't do much in the way of offense), plus a general knee-jerk reaction to unfamiliar mechanics. This is probably the same sort of DM who would freak out at the idea of a level 20 Warlock doing 9d6 damage as a ranged touch at will.

Ultimately, though, I have to ask.. why does it matter? Outside of "I want to play a psionic character", what's it matter if the DM thinks that the guy playing a Monk will show up the Druid? Play what you want, from within core+whatever the DM allows. If you play something powerful, he'll eventually come to recognize the difference. But for god's sake, don't just make a ridiculously powergamed character just to show him how powerful a Bard can be when it adds Xd6 fire damage to all attacks everyone makes at level 3.

[AstralFire]

I just want to know why you would play with a guy who purposely sabotaged someone else's character.

[The Glyphstone]

yeah, that's a huge warning sign of "trash this guy like last week's beef". Find another game group, or check out PbP, otherwise you'll inevitably end up as the next featured guest on Jerry SpringerGiantITP.

[Eldariel]

That's the problem - he won't allow me to roll Psionic.

In another campaign, he was with a Psion, and he went as a Psithief and stole all his power points until he rerolled.

In my books, if someone tries to steal my power points, I'm justified in disabling said person in self-defense. And leaving him in comatose for the rest of the campaign, or until the player wise ups and stops being an *******.


How can you explain such things though? Well, the easiest thing to do is to point out why Monk would not belong so high up the hierarchy: look at Monk class features, compare them to spells. Dimension Door 1/day on level Infinite? Nice, casters have had it for 7 levels. Feather Fall usable next to walls on level 20? Cool, it's a level 1 spell! Save-or-die 1/week on level 15? Really nice, casters have only had those since level 9 (for e.g. Baleful Polymorph)! Spell Resistance? Well, point out its drawbacks and the fact that casters have had that too since level 9. And theirs is higher.


Then take Flurry of Blows, point out how the fact that Monks have medium BAB means Flurry leads to them on average hitting as often as a full BAB type (20/15/10/5 vs. 15/15/15/10/5) and that the difference is only excarbated by extra attacks like Haste since full BAB types get those at 20, while Monks get those at 15; finally, their unarmed strike damage still doesn't make up for the fact that they can't use decent two-handed weapons, nor get reach.

Oh, and point out that their AC is like 14 on level 1 (14 Dex, 14 Wis) without obscene stats and won't rise meaningfully without magic gear or spells, while normal martial types with 12 Dex have 21 as soon as they get Fullplate & Heavy Shield (level 2-3). Comparatively, the class does not have high enough AC or damage to be a frontliner and very, very limited array of spell-likes where casters clearly just outdo him. He has both, but again, those 1/day and 1/week abilities are just too rare to really factor in. Really, that comparison is quite simple to do; of course, some people may be too stubborn to even consider anything but what they know, so...


Then, comparing Fighter to Barbarian, well, it's simple enough to bring up Tripping being an opposed Str-check and very efficient, Barbarians' Fast Movement and extra skill points vs. the pointless nature of the excess feats Fighter gets and the lack of real class features down the line in the class. Meh, it all really seems elementary.


Comparing Psion to Caster, it's quite simple to compare the powers to spells and simply note that:
1) Psions don't get all the key spells at once due to forced specializations.
2) Psions don't get the most powerful spells (Planar Bindings, Simulacrums, Disjunction, et cetera. and just simple Glitterdusts, Webs and company).
3) Psions have to deal with Psionic Focus for e.g. Metapsionics, making various Metastacks undoable.

In other words, Psions are like casters except with less powerful options. Psions are simply less campaign changing, though certainly potent.

[Quietus]

yeah, that's a huge warning sign of "trash this guy like last week's beef". Find another game group, or check out PbP, otherwise you'll inevitably end up as the next featured guest on Jerry SpringerGiantITP.

Wait a minute here. All we know about this DM is :

1) He has a skewed view of class power levels. Pretty common to people who don't scour the internet for information on the game, and subject to personal experience.
1b) At the very least, the OP *actively contributed to this*, and may be the reason the Monk is at the top of that list, by optimizing a Monk beyond what was expected/normal for his group

And

2) This DM assumes psionics to be broken, based on some weird interactions - apparently derived from him playing a psionic character and stealing PP from a party member. Thus, does not allow them.


And your advice is not to play with him? Hell, with #1, that doesn't even matter. So what if the DM in question thinks Player 1's Monk is going to kick Player 2's Druid's ass? And as for Psionics, a DM is well within his right to say "I don't like X, so it's not in my game.", something that I do for my games because while I have a vague understanding of the psionics system, they simply don't fit my campaign world. I think it's jumping the gun when one minor disagreement between player and DM gets "Well the DM is trash, go find a real group".

[AstralFire]

Uh. We're not citing the Player/DM disagreement, we're confused about why you would want to play under a DM who used a character to do nothing but harass another player.

[Quietus]

Uh. We're not citing the Player/DM disagreement, we're confused about why you would want to play under a DM who used a character to do nothing but harass another player.

Because he's not running a PC here, and therefore any jerkass that steals my class's abilities becomes a bag of XP?

[Greenish]

Wait a minute here. All we know about this DM is :You forgot #3: He's a jerk who deliberately tried to ruin someone's game because he didn't like the magic system the person's character was using.

That's why people have suggested not playing with him.

[AstralFire]

Because he's not running a PC here, and therefore any jerkass that steals my class's abilities becomes a bag of XP?

Yes... but it exhibits a willingness to antagonize on a whim. I don't really want to game with someone like that, personally speaking, much less a DM - since if a DM really wants to screw you over, odds are stacked against you.

[Kaww]

A bit of help, here.

I'm playing a ECL 12 game, but the DM has a ...skewed... view on character builds.

i.e, His version of how powerful the core classes are is;

Monk > Cleric > Wizard > Druid > Fighter > Barbarian > Ranger > Bard.

So yeah.

On top of this, he views anything Psionic as broken as hell. Period.

How do I make him both understand the Core classes, and convince him that Psionics are [reasonably] balanced?

The easy way: tell him to make a lvl 12 monk and crush him with a lvl 12 druid

The mediocre way: tell him to make a lvl 12 monk and crush him with a lvl 10 bard/lvl 2 Sublime Chord.

The hard way: tell him to make a lvl 12 monk and hit him on the head with the DMG, tell him to read the tier system and if he still complains then use an easier way...

[AstralFire]

Arenas really don't solve anything with the truly determined. The best solution is, in my experience, to have them play in an actual game under a very good DM.

[Quietus]

Ah, I see. Well, given that, I can see the situation.. but I'd still be willing to give this a non-psionic try. I mean, the DM is still a .. pain, shall we say, for lack of more colorful language.. for doing something like that to another player's character, but that could just be the psionic deal. Not justifying the action, but we don't know if that's how this person is all the time, we have only a single situation where this was the case.

Still, outside of that, which wasn't a part of the OP.. I'm wondering what the OP's problem is, exactly, and why it matters to him so much that this DM thinks Monks are so strong.

[AstralFire]

If I had to hazard a guess from past experience with a DM who reminds me of this, even if the DM allows you to play something he doesn't like, he'll give you hell about it. I had an issue when I was new to D&D with a DM like this who would insult me regularly for playing a cheesy Eldritch Knight instead of a "perfectly balanced" Sor 10/Fighter 10.

[Gnaritas]

Wait a minute here. All we know about this DM is :

1) He has a skewed view of class power levels. Pretty common to people who don't scour the internet for information on the game, and subject to personal experience.
1b) At the very least, the OP *actively contributed to this*, and may be the reason the Monk is at the top of that list, by optimizing a Monk beyond what was expected/normal for his group

And

2) This DM assumes psionics to be broken, based on some weird interactions - apparently derived from him playing a psionic character and stealing PP from a party member. Thus, does not allow them.


And your advice is not to play with him? Hell, with #1, that doesn't even matter. So what if the DM in question thinks Player 1's Monk is going to kick Player 2's Druid's ass? And as for Psionics, a DM is well within his right to say "I don't like X, so it's not in my game.", something that I do for my games because while I have a vague understanding of the psionics system, they simply don't fit my campaign world. I think it's jumping the gun when one minor disagreement between player and DM gets "Well the DM is trash, go find a real group".

I think you missed this part.


In another campaign, he was with a Psion, and he went as a Psithief and stole all his power points until he rerolled.

If i read this correctly, he was a player and he deliberately took down another players character because he felt he shouldn't play it.
If i read this incorrectly he did so as a DM.

Either way, this is not good.

If he was a smart guy, he would just have said he felt Psionics are not the right flavor for his campaign and be done with it.

[Keld Denar]

I hate to say it, but your DM sounds kinda like a troll. I suggest fire or acid, or perhaps billy goats. Stay out of full attack range so he can't get rend damage.

[Emmerask]

Ah, I see. Well, given that, I can see the situation.. but I'd still be willing to give this a non-psionic try. I mean, the DM is still a .. pain, shall we say, for lack of more colorful language.. for doing something like that to another player's character, but that could just be the psionic deal. Not justifying the action, but we don't know if that's how this person is all the time, we have only a single situation where this was the case.

Still, outside of that, which wasn't a part of the OP.. I'm wondering what the OP's problem is, exactly, and why it matters to him so much that this DM thinks Monks are so strong.

I tend to agree to give it at least a shot, especially if it´s not easy to find another game in your town/city, pbp just is not the same and very rarely sees more then a month of play after which the people simply don´t post anymore.

Play a sorcerer instead of the psion and give it a try, if it sucks... well its only one day :smallwink:



If i read this correctly, he was a player and he deliberately took down another players character because he felt he shouldn't play it.


you are reading it correctly I think, but while this is a strong indicator that he may be a bad dm it is not for certain.
Especially since we don´t know all the circumstances :smallwink:

[Foryn Gilnith]

As Quietus said, it's rather unclear why OP should care. GM has a skewed perception of classes and doesn't like psionics. At least he acknowledges casters > fighter/barbarian/ranger. Why do you care? The only reason (from the information given) this is bad for you is because you allow yourself to be annoyed. His ignorance is unimportant and mentioning it has little purpose except rallying the optimization-savvy giantitp population.

The psithief incident is more troubling, but given that it wasn't originally brought up, it evidently is less important than the originally posed problem, so the calls to leave the gaming group are rather excessive.

[Kaww]

Still, outside of that, which wasn't a part of the OP.. I'm wondering what the OP's problem is, exactly, and why it matters to him so much that this DM thinks Monks are so strong.

Monks must be publicly declared as sucky, any attempt to justify for their lack of abilities as being broken must be snuffed out. A good reason as any to start a thread i guess...

[Psyren]

His DM isn't totally far off. Sure he knows jack about psionics and has a unusually high view of monks, but he at least knows that wizards, clerics and druids share the same ballpark and rank above the others.

[LibraryOgre]

Assuming you've decided to play with this guy anyway...

Generally, I've found that people do not lightly change their views on things, especially stuff as important as D&D*, save by a personal experience. He's unlikely to play fair with psionics, so it's a poor choice to play a psionic class in his game. Find something you're comfortable playing, and play the game. If all you can picture is playing a psionic character, then don't play the game, because he won't allow it (or he'll effectively not allow it).

What is the necessity of changing his views? Mathematically, he's pretty wrong, but folks are wrong about a lot of stuff. Trying to change his views seems like trying to teach the proverbial pig to sing.

*I'm not even sure how facetious I'm being there.

[Quietus]

If I had to hazard a guess from past experience with a DM who reminds me of this, even if the DM allows you to play something he doesn't like, he'll give you hell about it. I had an issue when I was new to D&D with a DM like this who would insult me regularly for playing a cheesy Eldritch Knight instead of a "perfectly balanced" Sor 10/Fighter 10.

That.. wow. Because a caster wearing armor (or a melee frontliner in Mage Armor) isn't penalty enough, plus lost caster levels on a spontaneous caster.. gross.



I think you missed this part.



If i read this correctly, he was a player and he deliberately took down another players character because he felt he shouldn't play it.
If i read this incorrectly he did so as a DM.

Either way, this is not good.

If he was a smart guy, he would just have said he felt Psionics are not the right flavor for his campaign and be done with it.


I read that as "Random other guy was playing a psion, DM was a player and rolled a psithief to be a PKer", myself. Either way it was a jerk move, I agree. But it could just be some irrational thing against psionics (bad experience with 2e/3e?), and not some general "He's a terrible person" going on.

[Gnaritas]

I read that as "Random other guy was playing a psion, DM was a player and rolled a psithief to be a PKer", myself. Either way it was a jerk move, I agree. But it could just be some irrational thing against psionics (bad experience with 2e/3e?), and not some general "He's a terrible person" going on.

You don't see that as a problem? As a DM i would have a serious talk with that guy and he better well listen and say "amen" very quickly or he can find a new group.

That is assuming there is no side-story here like the Psion challenging him to take him down or something.

It is one thing to force your opinions on others as a DM, i feel he has every right to "ban" psionics even for the wrong reasons. But to force your opinion on other players as a player is beyond me.

[Quietus]

You don't see that as a problem? As a DM i would have a serious talk with that guy and he better well listen and say "amen" very quickly or he can find a new group.

That is assuming there is no side-story here like the Psion challenging him to take him down or something.

It is one thing to force your opinions on others as a DM, i feel he has every right to "ban" psionics even for the wrong reasons. But to force your opinion on other players as a player is beyond me.

I've tried to make this clear in my posts, but it seems to always get buried, as is the nature of the internet.

I do not agree with anyone who takes actions like that against another PC over irrational crap, and yes, were I DMing for people like that, I would step in after the first game where it happened, talk to both players involved, and if there was any issue between them over it, solve the problem.

What I'm SAYING is that if it's an issue restricted to some crazy irrational bullcrap over Psionics, then simply *not playing a psionic character in a game where the DM clearly dislikes psionics* would solve it. If the guy's a jerkass in general, then hey, he's a jerkass. But the OP didn't come to us saying "Help, my DM is a jerkass". He came to us saying "Help, my DM thinks Monks rule and doesn't like psionics", to which my response is : So what?

[Gnaritas]

True to that.

Even if you convince your DM to let you play a Psionic, he won't like the character and it will influence the campaign.

[Splodge]

Just finished a session with said DM.

Wizard cast Fly, Mass in order to get everyone out of the city as quickly as possible.

They were then all hit by Dispel Magic Elementals.


Cleric summoned an Air Elemental with his reserve feat, and as he spoke Auran, decided to use it for scouting ahead, as we had to proceed on foot.

Hit by a lightning bolt.


Wizard cast Find the Path. Dispel Magic Elemental.


In an unavoidable combat, against unbuffed enemies that none of us could detect, Cleric was DME'd for Reduce Person, Mass.

The Wizard, using a Metamagic Rod, was rules-lawyered because he did not have 2 hands free to cast, as had to have the material component in one hand, and the other free to cast the spell, so that he could not use an Empowered Chain Lightning.

Also, the enemies gained Electricity Resistance because he argued.


The Monk got targetted first by all enemies, no matter what he did. The PC was playing it to show that casters were better.

The Psion died 10 min in.

The session lasted 2h 15.


EDIT: I'm leaving this campaign.

[LibraryOgre]

I think that's wisest. He seems to be a bit of a "gotcha" DM, setting a high power level and then ruthlessly nerfing people.

[Greenish]

They were then all hit by Dispel Magic Elementals.Huh, hasn't he heard of Living Spells? :smallcool:

[AstralFire]

Yes, calls for him to leave this DM were definitely uncalled for. >_>

[Quietus]

DM Fiat by another name.

This also changes much of my advice. This guy's an idiot, and I wholeheartedly agree with leaving his game.

[Angry Bob]

... The hell.

How does he think metamagic rods are supposed to work?

[AstralFire]

... The hell.

How does he think metamagic rods are supposed to work?

Vancian-operated boyfriends, maybe.

[Ernir]

EDIT: I'm leaving this campaign.

*Pats on back*

Wise choice, I think. =/

[Kaww]

EDIT: I'm leaving this campaign.

Good call...

[Tiki Snakes]

Good call...

Thirded/Fourthed/Nthed.

Complete train wreck.

[Keld Denar]

Vancian-operated boyfriends, maybe.

I didn't know that metamagic rods vibrated...

Oh BoEF, where would we be without thee?

[Force]

I didn't know that metamagic rods vibrated...

Oh BoEF, where would we be without thee?

That would explain why "Extend" and "Maximize" rods are so popular...

[Koury]

That would explain why "Extend" and "Maximize" rods are so popular...

And why everyone seems so dissatisfied when I pull out my "Quicken" rod.

[Seatbelt]

How *do* metamagic rods work? I had a wizard who bought a couple and I always "used" them to prepare a metamagik'd spell ahead of time. I imagined it as the rod storing the excess thought energy from memorizing an expanded spell. Nobody ever asked me how I used them since it was the last session and I was given carte blanche, so I made the most powerful character our group has ever seen to date...

[Psyren]

How *do* metamagic rods work? I had a wizard who bought a couple and I always "used" them to prepare a metamagik'd spell ahead of time. I imagined it as the rod storing the excess thought energy from memorizing an expanded spell. Nobody ever asked me how I used them since it was the last session and I was given carte blanche, so I made the most powerful character our group has ever seen to date...

Actually, you don't use them during preparation - you cast the spell and apply the rod to it just before it fires, allowing you to benefit from metamagic on the fly (like a sorcerer) without needing the feat itself or increasing casting time (if you're a wizard.)

[JonRG]

Possession of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated feat on the owner, only the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day.

So you wouldn't be able to prepare spells with the feat, just alter them as they were cast. Kinda like Autotuning a song rather than being the awesomest singer ever.

More info at http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rods.htm.

[Marnath]

How *do* metamagic rods work? I had a wizard who bought a couple and I always "used" them to prepare a metamagik'd spell ahead of time. I imagined it as the rod storing the excess thought energy from memorizing an expanded spell. Nobody ever asked me how I used them since it was the last session and I was given carte blanche, so I made the most powerful character our group has ever seen to date...

I always assumed you either held the rod and the material component in one hand and cast with the other, or wave the rod around Potter style since you don't have a hand free.

[Ecalsneerg]

I don't think leaving the campaign is the best course of action.

Leave the campaign, after burning all his books so as not to inflict him on anyone else.

[Antonok]

Leave the campaign, after burning all his books so as not to inflict him on anyone else.

Now now, the books never hurt anyone. just how the person used them. I vote brand him traitor with fire then take the books for the group.

[Grendus]

Steal his books and sell them to someone more worthy.

[Psyren]

I always assumed you either held the rod and the material component in one hand and cast with the other, or wave the rod around Potter style since you don't have a hand free.

By RAW, rods don't actually have to be in your hand to work unless the description specifies such.

This is naturally what leads to Nightstick abuse :smalltongue:

[Eldariel]

By RAW, rods don't actually have to be in your hand to work unless the description specifies such.

This is naturally what leads to Nightstick abuse :smalltongue:

You could still hold two Nightsticks and Persist even if you had to hold 'em. Or hold one and burn each one's turn attempts while using 3 of your inherent ones each time; either way, it's not really much of an issue DMM-abusewise.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: While the DM in question is pretty bad from the OP's reports, knock off the suggestions of illegal things to do to him and his property.

[Starbuck_II]

Agreed, never punish a human being.


Even if he fails as a DM badly.
You could have had him play a monk and fight your Bard of same level: when you crush him (and you will): maybe he will finally not see Bards as weakest.

[gdiddy]

Why not send him a well-thought-out polite critique letter of his game?

Write it over the course of two days. On the second day, concentrate on editing out anything mean or incendiary. People often have to apologize on Tuesday for comments they thought were clever on Monday.

Use examples, and explain your issues with how his game is run, and maybe even direct him to the Giant. We're much nicer when our conversation is not behind someone's back. (Just like real life.)

We, despite some overreaction and nerd-rage, are devoted to the best game possible.

[Grelna the Blue]

My usual solution, especially when the DM is being a child, is to offer to play what they think is over powered then when they shut it down, i play what they consider an underpowered class and optimize every thing into oblivion.

So i say you play a bard(seeker of the song, fylucan lyreist, the works) and blow his head off. It's childish but at least it's spitefull too:smallyuk:

Bard/Fighter/Dragon Disciple is actually a very very scary combo in 3.5 Ed. In Pathfinder, it's even worse.

[AstralFire]

Bard/Fighter/Dragon Disciple is actually a very very scary combo in 3.5 Ed. In Pathfinder, it's even worse.

The only things scary about your average Dragon Disciple build are that people think the idea of the class is cool, and that people think it's remotely well-designed.

[Grelna the Blue]

Heck, I won't deny there are nastier builds out there, but Bard 4/Fighter 2/DD from there is unimpeachably legal (no splatbooks needed), but can deal very respectable damage, esp. if you give the bard some decent self-buffing spells (Heroism, Enlarge Person, etc). I had no problem acting as the party tank, and even off-healed a little. Like the GM complained of, I also used to think bards were the weakest class except as support (where everyone knows they shine), but now I believe they multiclass quite well. And DDs are weak with sorcerors because of the loss of BAB, but it's not that much an issue with bards.

[AstralFire]

Heck, I won't deny there are nastier builds out there, but Bard 4/Fighter 2/DD from there is unimpeachably legal (no splatbooks needed), but can deal very respectable damage, esp. if you give the bard some decent self-buffing spells (Heroism, Enlarge Person, etc). I had no problem acting as the party tank, and even off-healed a little. Like the GM complained of, I also used to think bards were the weakest class except as support (where everyone knows they shine), but now I believe they multiclass quite well. And DDs are weak with sorcerors because of the loss of BAB, but it's not that much an issue with bards.

Eh. You spend 10 levels at 3/4 BAB to get a d12 HD and a +3 LA template. DD shines in gestalt, but at level 16 with the build you've described, you're running around with level 2 spells, +1 inspire courage that's barely worth optimizing, no bardic lore, and a tiny skill pool.

Straight Bard blows it out of the water - with good Inspire Courage/Dragonfire Inspiration optimization, it can even do so in straight melee. Bards are a great class, and not just for support, but they're already dabblers - multiclassing doesn't often give them a lot of benefits if it's not a PrC intended for bard entry.

Personally, I find straight bard more flavorful, more fun mechanistically, and also more competent.

[WeLoveFireballs]

Pyromancers are broken. period. I have played with them but I don't know about the rest.

The concept of psionics in fantasy doesn't make sense. Psionics is the Sci-Fi magic so it shouldn't be brought back and act differently. I would be fine letting players play psionics (with the exception of pyromancers) as long as they came up with magic names for all the psi stuff and called it magic.

[AstralFire]

Pyromancers are broken. period. I have played with them but I don't know about the rest.

The concept of psionics in fantasy doesn't make sense. Psionics is the Sci-Fi magic so it shouldn't be brought back and act differently. I would be fine letting players play psionics (with the exception of pyromancers) as long as they came up with magic names for all the psi stuff and called it magic.

You're thinking of the class Pyrokineticist, which is interesting, but generally on the weak side.

Psionics don't actually originate in Sci-Fi. Traditionally - before D&D - psychic powers were the usual source of supernatural artillery, and magic had a more eldritch and weird and unnatural and non-combat sense to it.

[WeLoveFireballs]

"The first role-playing game to use the term psionics was Traveller, published by GDW in 1977, and published in different licensed versions to this day."

Straight from Wikipedia. I have played classic traveller (It is an awesome game) it is definitely sci-fi.

Every mention on Wikipedia of psionics related fiction were sci-fi or modern and start in 1961 with Heinlein's sci-fi.

[AstralFire]

"The first role-playing game to use the term psionics was Traveller, published by GDW in 1977, and published in different licensed versions to this day."

Straight from Wikipedia. I have played classic traveller (It is an awesome game) it is definitely sci-fi.

The idea that psychic powers are definitively more sciency and belong only in science-fiction is a relatively new concept.

[WeLoveFireballs]

What is the first mention of psionics in fantasy? I'm pretty sure it is later than 1961. Psionics is not specific to sci-fi but was used in sci-fi long before it was used in fantasy.
I think more than 3 versions of magic is excessive. There's already Wizard mental, magic scorcerer blood magic and cleric begging for magic, psi is kinda a repeat of wizard.

[Angry Bob]

Just out of curiosity, did you mean pyromancer or pyrokineticist? If kineticist, what build? How hard did it own?

[AstralFire]

What is the first mention of psionics in fantasy? I'm pretty sure it is later than 1961. Psionics is not specific to sci-fi but was used in sci-fi long before it was used in fantasy.

The word psychic has its modern-day basis in spiritualism - not science - and simply denoted a stronger association with the mind as opposed to ritual. I'd go into deeper discussion here, but I'm on a gag order, so just go to wikipedia.

Psionics has more similarity to sorcerer magic than wizard magic. Wizards suffer from being the template upon which all other types of magic were designed (and very slightly deviated from, initially) rather than getting the full benefit of their unique system.

[WeLoveFireballs]

Just out of curiosity, did you mean pyromancer or pyrokineticist? If kineticist, what build? How hard did it own?

Yeah i meant kinetecist. Crusader 5 pyro from then on. He did like 3d8+5 dmg at level 6. I don't know how.

[Tael]

Pyromancers are broken. period. I have played with them but I don't know about the rest.

The concept of psionics in fantasy doesn't make sense. Psionics is the Sci-Fi magic so it shouldn't be brought back and act differently. I would be fine letting players play psionics (with the exception of pyromancers) as long as they came up with magic names for all the psi stuff and called it magic.

You are wrong. Period. I have played with Pyrokineticists and know a lot about psionics.

The concept of psionics in fantasy makes much more sense than vancian magic. Psionics is about manipulating things with your willpower alone, and is very different from vancian flavor-wise. I would be complete fine and encourage players to play psionics (especially Pyrokineticists, as they are less powerful than most optimized Psions) because it is much more balanced than Arcane magic.

[AstralFire]

Yeah i meant kinetecist. Crusader 5 pyro from then on. He did like 3d8+5 dmg at level 6. I don't know how.

...A rogue flanking someone while using a rapier and no attempt at optimization is doing 3d6+1d8 at that level. For comparison, a Greatsword Barbarian with a 16 Strength + 4 Rage is dealing 2d6+7 damage from two attacks, for 4d6+14.

3d8+5 is not that much for a martial adept to be dealing via a strike.

[Koury]

He did like 3d8+5 dmg at level 6.

:smallconfused: So what was the problem then? A Warforged in my group runs around doing 2d4+8 + 1d6 on his most basic of attacks. He tops out at 2d4+20+5d6.

Sheet in question (http://www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=42062).

[Tael]

Yeah i meant kinetecist. Crusader 5 pyro from then on. He did like 3d8+5 dmg at level 6. I don't know how.

... what. You think doing 3d8+5 damage at level 6 is overpowered? That's not even that great.

[Angry Bob]

He was part crusader. How was he doing that little?

[WeLoveFireballs]

Better than anyone who played in that game.

[WeLoveFireballs]

Wait now i remember it was the 2 free attacks he got every time anyone attacked him that was OP. Make that 9d8+15.

[AstralFire]

Wait now i remember it was the 2 free attacks he got every time anyone attacked him that was OP. Make that 9d8+15.

There's no stance that a Crusader can get by level 6 which gives AoOs for being attacked, IIRC. Much less two for each attack. There are some hard to qualify feats that give you -one- attack when you're attacked, and you eat up your AoOs fast that way. And even if there was, that's certainly not indicative of the Pyrokineticist part whatsoever.

[tyckspoon]

There's no stance that a Crusader can get by level 6 which gives AoOs for being attacked, IIRC. Much less two for each attack. There are some hard to qualify feats that give you -one- attack when you're attacked, and you eat up your AoOs fast that way. And even if there was, that's certainly not indicative of the Pyrokineticist part whatsoever.

In other words, this particular Crusader/Pyrokineticist was 'overpowered' because he was at worst cheating and at best using some really powerful homebrew. There *are* feats that will let you double-AoO somebody when you get attacked, but IIRC you have to be at least like level 12 to qualify for them as they have pretty significant BAB prereqs.

Edit: And even if you are using the Karmic+Robilar's combo.. well, the best part of Pyrokineticist is the touch attacks from the Flame Lash. Which you can't use with Karmic/Robilar's, because being based on a whip, it doesn't actually threaten any area and thus can't be used to make Attacks of Opportunity.

[Grelna the Blue]

Eh. You spend 10 levels at 3/4 BAB to get a d12 HD and a +3 LA template. DD shines in gestalt, but at level 16 with the build you've described, you're running around with level 2 spells, +1 inspire courage that's barely worth optimizing, no bardic lore, and a tiny skill pool.

Straight Bard blows it out of the water - with good Inspire Courage/Dragonfire Inspiration optimization, it can even do so in straight melee. Bards are a great class, and not just for support, but they're already dabblers - multiclassing doesn't often give them a lot of benefits if it's not a PrC intended for bard entry.

Personally, I find straight bard more flavorful, more fun mechanistically, and also more competent.

You clearly know bards far better than I do, and I won't dispute anything you've said about them. My favored class choice is wizard. The one campaign I played the described class combo I described above my interest had originally been primarily in roleplaying the slow descent into evil as the character became more (red) draconic. His goal (impossible by the rules) was to eventually become a dragon. He was actually a lot of fun, esp. as I normally play NG or LG types and playing a semi-monstrous door-opener was a pleasant change of pace. In addition to the roleplay, I was pleased to discover that the character was quite combat effective, but I'll admit that the campaign never went past 10th level (at which point my character was still Neutral, although the bloody writing in the wall was all caps).

In passing, it's worth mentioning that the Pathfinder DD is considerably more effective than the 3.5 one, having 7 levels of actual spell progression.

[absolmorph]

Yeah i meant kinetecist. Crusader 5 pyro from then on. He did like 3d8+5 dmg at level 6. I don't know how.
That's, uh, really low power. That's only an average of 18.5 damage per hit.
Comparatively, a Barbarian with 18 Strength with a greatsword.
We'll give him Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush and Shock Trooper.
2d6 (greatsword) +9 (Strength) +12 (full PA): 2d6+21, average of 28 damage. He has two uses of rage per day. Not raging, it drops to 2d6+18, averaging at 25 damage. At will. All day. Every day. Without being attacked. With no magic, multiclassing, Tome of Battle or even using full optimization. I didn't use flaws or get an extra racial feat.

On the other hand, 9d8+15 is 55.5 average damage. Of course, requiring being attacked is a major downside.
Lets go full out optimization for our melee: Goliath Fighter 4/Barbarian 2 (Lion Totem ACF). LA bought off, of course. Base Strength 18, +4 from Goliath, total 23.
Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack, Knockback... I don't know what other feats would be handy.
Here's the damage breakdown for each charge attack while raging (or you have Bull's Strength on you): 3d6 (weapon) +12 (Strength) + 18 (full Power Attack). That's 3d6+30 per attack (avg. 40.5), and two attacks with a +14 and +9 to-hit bonus. So long as there is an enemy 10 feet away (and you're getting a free bull rush with each attack, which just pushes them back), you do this every round.
Care to explain why 9d8+15 when you're attacked is so powerful? Not in the specific group, but in an optimized level 6 game.

[Dracons]

Gah. Play with my players. They slaughter any type of arcane user with their psions. Sure, they have less /spells/, but they can cast what they want as much as they want til they run out of PP, which is usually fairly high in numbers. So sure, the 19th level wizard can cast his 9th spells 6 times. The psion can do his three times that easily.

My players are good though. It's just much harder to challenge them when they play psions then if they play a wizard or two.

[Grelna the Blue]

Gah. Play with my players. They slaughter any type of arcane user with their psions. Sure, they have less /spells/, but they can cast what they want as much as they want til they run out of PP, which is usually fairly high in numbers. So sure, the 19th level wizard can cast his 9th spells 6 times. The psion can do his three times that easily.

My players are good though. It's just much harder to challenge them when they play psions then if they play a wizard or two.

Sure, but wizards of that level have the flexibility to do nearly anything. A psion is very good at a limited number of things, but wizards can prepare spells for nearly any eventuality. No, it doesn't make sense for them to try to compete with psions or other energy projectors as blasters. Heck, sorcerors make better blasters than mages do and warlocks never run out of oomph. But wizards have more spells potentially available to them than any other class. If there is a role they cannot use those spells to fill, I cannot think of it. See Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards: Being a God (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19873034/Treantmonks_guide_to_Wizards:_Being_a_God).

[LibraryOgre]

The concept of psionics in fantasy doesn't make sense. Psionics is the Sci-Fi magic so it shouldn't be brought back and act differently. I would be fine letting players play psionics (with the exception of pyromancers) as long as they came up with magic names for all the psi stuff and called it magic.

I disagree, and would cite Steven Brust's Dragera series, and Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar series. Both have fairly prominent psychic powers, with it being a major science in Valdemar.

One thing that strikes me about a lot of fantasy psionics is that they tend to put everything in pseudo-scientific terms. What do they call "set something on fire with your mind"? In most psionics systems, it gets called "pyrokinesis". In Valdemar, they call it "firestarting". Valemarians consider it a subset of "Fetching", which is moving things from place to place with your mind. Most worlds would call that "telekinesis". Seeing things before they happen? Foreseeing, instead of clairvoyance or precognition. Seeing things far away? Farseeing, instead of remote sensing (or, sometimes, clairvoyance).

When your system embraces pseudo-scientific terminology, it's not surprising that people see it as sci-fi.

[WeLoveFireballs]

In other words, this particular Crusader/Pyrokineticist was 'overpowered' because he was at worst cheating and at best using some really powerful homebrew. There *are* feats that will let you double-AoO somebody when you get attacked, but IIRC you have to be at least like level 12 to qualify for them as they have pretty significant BAB prereqs.

Edit: And even if you are using the Karmic+Robilar's combo.. well, the best part of Pyrokineticist is the touch attacks from the Flame Lash. Which you can't use with Karmic/Robilar's, because being based on a whip, it doesn't actually threaten any area and thus can't be used to make Attacks of Opportunity.

No it was the fifteen foot reach and combat reflexes. He had 4 AoO every turn son any 2 mooks that moved up to him got 2 touch attacks dealing 3d8+5 and then he would attack each of them once on his turn. Plus he healed 2 hp for every attack. Unless he was swarmed by 5+ 20 hp mooks he was unstoppable in melee.

[AstralFire]

No it was the fifteen foot reach and combat reflexes. He had 4 AoO every turn son any 2 mooks that moved up to him got 2 touch attacks dealing 3d8+5 and then he would attack each of them once on his turn. Plus he healed 2 hp for every attack. Unless he was swarmed by 5+ 20 hp mooks he was unstoppable in melee.

Whips don't threaten despite their reach. They don't threaten precisely for this reason.

[WeLoveFireballs]

Whips don't threaten despite their reach. They don't threaten precisely for this reason.

I never knew that. I suppose he was cheating then though I doubt he knew it, this player was very uncomfortable about breaking any rules. (one time he refused to let me copy down 4 words from a book he had because he was worried about the legalities)

I now withdraw my statement about them being broken.

[Sir Swindle89]

Yeah i meant kinetecist. Crusader 5 pyro from then on. He did like 3d8+5 dmg at level 6. I don't know how.

He was a Goliath Fighter 1 with a full blade?

[Greenish]

Heck, sorcerors make better blasters than mages do and warlocks never run out of oomph.Warlocks run out of oomph after the lowest levels, unless they go for glaive, hellfire or both. :smallamused:

No it was the fifteen foot reach and combat reflexes. He had 4 AoO every turn son any 2 mooks that moved up to him got 2 touch attacksMovement only provokes one AoO, even if you used a weapon that threatens (for example, Meteor Hammer for 15' reach).

[true_shinken]

Warlocks run out of oomph after the lowest levels, unless they go for glaive, hellfire or both. :smallamused:
Actually, you need glaive, hellfire and cheese to keep up on damage alone. :smallbiggrin:

[Grelna the Blue]

Warlocks run out of oomph after the lowest levels, unless they go for glaive, hellfire or both. :smallamused:



Actually, you need glaive, hellfire and cheese to keep up on damage alone. :smallbiggrin:

Well, Dracons conceded that wizards have more abilities than psions; his complaint was over daily damage output of arcane casters vs. psions. My comment re: warlocks was in the nature of a "Yes, but damage output isn't the only thing." If you're playing a lock there's no reason not to cheese it up, because damage is almost their only utility. I don't care much for warlocks except as villains precisely for that reason.

[Sir Swindle89]

Well, Dracons conceded that wizards have more abilities than psions; his complaint was over daily damage output of arcane casters vs. psions. My comment re: warlocks was in the nature of a "Yes, but damage output isn't the only thing." If you're playing a lock there's no reason not to cheese it up, because damage is almost their only utility. I don't care much for warlocks except as villains precisely for that reason.

Warlocks= awsome caster minions

[true_shinken]

Well, Dracons conceded that wizards have more abilities than psions; his complaint was over daily damage output of arcane casters vs. psions. My comment re: warlocks was in the nature of a "Yes, but damage output isn't the only thing." If you're playing a lock there's no reason not to cheese it up, because damage is almost their only utility. I don't care much for warlocks except as villains precisely for that reason.

Taking 10 with UMD and crafting any items they need? I'd say no, Warlocks can be pretty versatile.