PDA

View Full Version : DMing for One-Trick Ponies



BRC
2011-03-14, 04:47 PM
Inspired by another thread, and my own experience, I pose the question, how should a DM respond to a one-trick pony character.

For the purposes of this discussion, the "Trick" can be something rather general, like "Fighting enemies vulnerable to mind-affecting spells". What's important is that the character is highly focused on the "trick" to the exclusion of much else.

When faced with such a character, the DM must either play to the character's strengths, and as a result have the encounter be almost trivial (unless they are willing to pump up the difficulty to the point of having the rest of the party be useless), or work against that strength, and as a result have the character totally useless and the player feel slighted.

In your opinion, what should a DM do when faced with such a character?

Comet
2011-03-14, 04:53 PM
At first, say for the first three to five encounters, play to the character's strengths, throwing encounters at him that are, not easily but with a bit of effort, passable by relying solely on the aforementioned pony trick.

Then, when we've established that this character is good at what he does, proceed to throw encounters at him that are expressly designed to destroy him and bend the rules and the world until his trick is nearly useless, forcing him to scrape by with wits and adaptation.

That's the sort of game that I would expect, and enjoy, if I created my character to be a one-trick pony and the Game Master was aware of the fact.

Saph
2011-03-14, 05:00 PM
I've got this problem in my campaign at the moment.

One of my players is playing a class from Libris Mortis called Master of Shrouds. Basically, it's a Cleric prestige class that with early entry tricks can be qualified for by level 3. It lets you summon a ton of Shadows much earlier than PCs are supposed to be able to. In exchange you heavily penalise your casting to the tune of two lost caster levels.

The result is that you have a character with a bunch of incorporeal Strength-damaging summons that are completely invulnerable to and can effortlessly kill somewhere around 75% of the level-appropriate opponents in the Monster Manual. On the other hand, if you're fighting undead, constructs, or anything with immunity to summons, the main feature of the class is completely useless.

Real pain in the neck to DM for, let me tell you.

TurtleKing
2011-03-14, 05:19 PM
After having personal experience I would say give the player the warning of that trick may not always work. My DM did this to the one I built. He didn't survive long, but that was more me than him actively trying to kill my character. So warning the player to find some way of still being playable even if their trick no longer works. One famous example is the DM letting the group know that it will be an undead/construct/etc. heavy campaign were sneak attacks don't work. In that case the Complete Champion and Dungeonscape have an ACF for the rogue that lets them use some of their SA against undead.

Silus
2011-03-14, 05:59 PM
After having personal experience I would say give the player the warning of that trick may not always work. My DM did this to the one I built. He didn't survive long, but that was more me than him actively trying to kill my character. So warning the player to find some way of still being playable even if their trick no longer works. One famous example is the DM letting the group know that it will be an undead/construct/etc. heavy campaign were sneak attacks don't work. In that case the Complete Champion and Dungeonscape have an ACF for the rogue that lets them use some of their SA against undead.

Or monsters with blindsight/mindsight and one guy constantly making Hide/Move Silently munchkin characters?

Oracle_Hunter
2011-03-14, 06:11 PM
Design situations with their trick in mind.

Most of the time their trick should be helpful but not overwhelming. For the Master of Disguise, being able to impersonate a random guard will make it easy to get onto the Detention Level with "prisoners" but you'll still need something more (e.g. passwords) to get further or you'll have a fight on your hands.

Occasionally either make their tricks essential for a particular encounter (e.g. you need to impersonate the king to trick the assassin) or useless in an encounter. The "essential" ones are to make the One Trick Pony feel happy about their choice; the "useless" ones are to take pressure off the DM and to keep the other Players from getting jealous - and to perhaps encourage the One Trick Pony to diversify a bit :smallwink:

Echoes
2011-03-14, 06:18 PM
I think the trick is to design dungeons with a "moment to shine" philosophy. At least once in every subplot, there should be a chance for each character to use their 'special trick' to solve a challenge. It shouldn't be painfully obvious, nor the only way to solve it, but it helps to give characters a chance to feel useful if they can make use of their specialization somewhere in the session.

However, by the same token, you should also make situations where that person's special trick just doesn't work. If your party's blaster mage has cleared the last five fights with empowered maximized expanded fireballs, when they walk into the next room have them see barrels of oil/gunpowder along the back wall which would explode and kill them all if set on fire. Just as no one should feel useless throughout an entire dungeon, likewise no one should be able to clear an entire dungeon solo with a single trick. However, make sure these impediments are at least hinted at beforehand - nothing sucks more than figuring out an awesome solution, then hearing the DM negate it with something that sounds completely contrived.

Most important of all, go with the flow. DMs who design the entirety of their plots before the session risk alienating their players. If the blaster above hasn't used his 'trick' all day and is about to walk into the next room guns blazing, do not make it the gunpowder room, even if that's the way you originally wrote it. Remember, your players never get to read your magical DM journal, so not only should you feel permitted to change things within it, you should be responsible for doing so to make sure your game stays consistently hard enough to give them a challenge without being TPK deadly. A good DM will never let their entire party die because they 'jumped off the rails' and solved a challenge non-conventionally, even if it means making up an entire new direction for your adventure on the fly.

The Glyphstone
2011-03-14, 06:19 PM
There's always the option of mixed encounters - if you've got an enchantment specialist character, have the necromancer cultists leading a swarm of zombie minions that are ordered to ignore them, but that they can't control.

Pigkappa
2011-03-14, 06:31 PM
If the situation is really problematic, as for the guy who can summon a lot of shadows at level 3, the only solution is speaking to the player (possibly before he becomes a one-trick pony) and resolving this out of character.


If the situation isn't so problematic, I think the DM shouldn't care about his players abilities while building dungeons and preparing adventures. The world doesn't know what they can do after all.
I had 2 rogues in the party dealing a lot of sneak attack damage and using poisons. When they were fighting humans they did a lot of damage, when there were undead involved the party was in big trouble, but nobody ever complained. Eventually a mummy killed one of them (and infected the other :smallbiggrin:).

Sillycomic
2011-03-14, 06:47 PM
It depends on if the trick is game breaking or not.

If it isn't, then I would say as a Gm build your campaign normally. Maybe throw in some stuff that makes the one trick pony shine, and other stuff that they are completely useless against. But for the most part design the campaign without thinking too hard about this particular trick.

If it is game breaking? Yeah, then pull the player aside and say you as a GM really can't accommodate such a build. Thank him for being clever and awesome with his build, but it doesn't work in your game. Have him make another character that will be a little more in line with your skills as a GM.

Most of all make it feel like you as the GM can't do it, rather than he as a player made a mistake. It's not his fault for coming up with a good idea.

Infernalbargain
2011-03-14, 06:51 PM
Make encounters multi-faceted. Let him shine in his expertise, but you can construct things so that he doesn't mop up. Got an enchanter in the party? Mix up the encounter by throwing having some undead approach from one end and trolls from the other. Important people have constructs or undead for some of their minions, but also complements of normal people / monsters.

NichG
2011-03-14, 07:20 PM
I'd generally warn the player that on occasion, the trick won't work either because there are things that are just immune (like someone focused on mind-affecting spells), or because I have to house rule the mechanics to prevent this from being the win button for all situations (RAW diplomacy). After such a warning I'd let them do a free rebuild if they wanted, or otherwise give them some idea of how the trick might be limited.

I'd then generally expect him to absolutely curb-stomp a few situations with his trick and amplify those, flavoring it to make it seem more awesome than just numbers would suggest (e.g. he is a Bluff-o-mancer and ends up getting fanatical worshippers and a cult following from some of his best lies, rather than just having them succeed normally). However, when its down to the big thing that's supposed to be a challenge for the entire party, I'd try to preserve the feel of incremental success from his trick but prevent it from being a one-shot win button, possibly by introducing new mechanics or sub-goals or something along those lines.

For example, if someone were playing a Fear-based shut-down character (hit the enemy with three unresistable fear effects and they're unable to fight) I'd warn him that even if he's using Dread Witch or something, there are just some creatures who will be beyond his ability to affect with fear directly, and then have those creatures take Wis damage from the fear effects instead of actually having the fear statuses, or give them a special defense in that they have three minds simultaneously operating and fear can only shut down one at a time (reducing the effectiveness of their actions but not shutting them down completely) or whatever. But in the mean time I'd play up the fact that he's driving entire armies to flee from him, and try to make it awesome when it happens.

In other words, I think its more important to be fair to the enjoyment and participation of the party as a whole than to the one player. If that means making house rules to shut down the player's one trick, I'll warn them and try to let them have it occasionally but I absolutely won't let them end up making the other players irrelevant.

Kiero
2011-03-14, 07:23 PM
At first, say for the first three to five encounters, play to the character's strengths, throwing encounters at him that are, not easily but with a bit of effort, passable by relying solely on the aforementioned pony trick.

Then, when we've established that this character is good at what he does, proceed to throw encounters at him that are expressly designed to destroy him and bend the rules and the world until his trick is nearly useless, forcing him to scrape by with wits and adaptation.

That's the sort of game that I would expect, and enjoy, if I created my character to be a one-trick pony and the Game Master was aware of the fact.

So you enjoy a GM doing a bait-and-switch?

HappyBlanket
2011-03-14, 07:43 PM
Noticed you mentioned something about tailoring fights to the player. Don't. If I'm reading this correctly (other posts tell me otherwise), you might be worried about the player's build not working, which would result in grief for the player. If that's the case, it's not your fault. A player should be prepared for whatever threat he or she may face. You are no more obligated to tailor to the play styles of a one trick phony any more than you are obligated to give only combat orientated encounters to a group of blasters.

Basically: If all the players have is a hammer, you don't need to give them nails.


And... OK. That's it. I have to interject.

It's phony. A pony is a small horse. So unless the half dozen or so posters above me have unitedly and silently come to the conclusion that the player in question is playing a diminutive equine... I don't know. So long as the little horse's trick doesn't involve Anime Dead or something.

Sonofa-

Infernalbargain
2011-03-14, 07:46 PM
Noticed you mentioned something about tailoring fights to the player. Don't. If I'm reading this correctly (other posts tell me otherwise), you might be worried about the player's build not working, which would result in grief for the player. If that's the case, it's not your fault. A player should be prepared for whatever threat he or she may face. You are no more obligated to tailor to the play styles of a one trick phony any more than you are obligated to give only combat orientated encounters to a group of blasters.

Basically: If all the players have is a hammer, you don't need to give them nails.


And... OK. That's it. I have to interject.

It's phony. A pony is a small horse. So unless the half dozen or so posters above me have unitedly and silently come to the conclusion that the player in question is playing a diminutive equine... I don't know. So long as the little horse's trick doesn't involve Anime Dead or something.

Well the issue is whether they thing you're not giving them something to hammer.

Comet
2011-03-14, 07:48 PM
It's phony. A pony is a small horse. So unless the half dozen or so posters above me have unitedly and silently come to the conclusion that the player in question is playing a diminutive equine... I don't know. So long as the little horse's trick doesn't involve Anime Dead or something.

Yes, it's a small horse. A small horse that does one specific thing very well but cannot, for example, throw a teaparty for a group of friends. Unless she happens to be Pinkie Pie, but that's neither here nor there.

Echoes
2011-03-14, 07:52 PM
I agree that it might make the game feel a bit 'phony', but really, I feel like authenticity should take the back-seat to enjoyability. If you have four players sitting down to play a blaster hack-and-slash gorefest and you give them a game of political intrigue where stealthy skill rolls are going to be called for more often than attacks and saves, you're going to have four aggravated players who are thrashing at the walls of the ill-shaped cage you have chained them within. Like I wrote in my previous post, you don't have to give them neon signs saying "This challenge is for player X to use his favorite skill", but in your adventure there should be things that players can meet with their favored tactics. They're their favorite for a reason - they like using them.

Sillycomic
2011-03-14, 07:56 PM
It's phony. A pony is a small horse. So unless the half dozen or so posters above me have unitedly and silently come to the conclusion that the player in question is playing a diminutive equine... I don't know. So long as the little horse's trick doesn't involve Anime Dead or something.

I guess the Op wasn't clear on this.

A one trick pony is a character who's design concept is to do one thing in the game really really well. Better than any other character. Better than any of the bad guys. And it's nearly impossible for the average world of monsters and commoners to oppose said trick.

This could be something like bluffing, disguising or diplomacy. This could be something like tripping or disarming. This could even be something like a wizard that only casts metamagicked magic missiles. There's a bunch of different kinds of one trick pony builds.

One trick pony isn't literally a player playing a pony. It's just a character designed to do one thing so well that most of the time it's hard to oppose that action.

The Glyphstone
2011-03-14, 07:58 PM
I agree that it might make the game feel a bit 'phony', but really, I feel like authenticity should take the back-seat to enjoyability. If you have four players sitting down to play a blaster hack-and-slash gorefest and you give them a game of political intrigue where stealthy skill rolls are going to be called for more often than attacks and saves, you're going to have four aggravated players who are thrashing at the walls of the ill-shaped cage you have chained them within. Like I wrote in my previous post, you don't have to give them neon signs saying "This challenge is for player X to use his favorite skill", but in your adventure there should be things that players can meet with their favored tactics. They're their favorite for a reason - they like using them.

If you promised them a gorefest and you instead delivered intrigue, sure. But if you told them it would be an intrigue game upfront and beforehand, and they brought four hack and slashers expecting to be able to murder their way to victory, let them wallow in their failure for deliberately ignoring your campaign premise. This sort of thing is very, very dependent on whether or not they knew what they were getting into.

Zeofar
2011-03-14, 08:05 PM
And... OK. That's it. I have to interject.

It's phony. A pony is a small horse. So unless the half dozen or so posters above me have unitedly and silently come to the conclusion that the player in question is playing a diminutive equine... I don't know. So long as the little horse's trick doesn't involve Anime Dead or something.

Everyone has a blind (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1hC0nIagH4&feature=related) spots (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4yffKvkt_s), I guess.

Good luck with that. (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_meaning_of_%27one-trick_pony%27)

Echoes
2011-03-14, 08:11 PM
If you promised them a gorefest and you instead delivered intrigue, sure. But if you told them it would be an intrigue game upfront and beforehand, and they brought four hack and slashers expecting to be able to murder their way to victory, let them wallow in their failure for deliberately ignoring your campaign premise. This sort of thing is very, very dependent on whether or not they knew what they were getting into.

See, while on one front I agree with you that the players were really low in completely ignoring your directions, as someone who has been trained extensively in leadership techniques I can say that this is never a good idea. Every player's objective at a D&D table should be for everyone gathered to have a good time; therefore, no one should engage in actions which stand in direct conflict with this objective. If your players are ignoring you to the point that it is destructive to your own enjoyment, you should sit down with them for a sombre talk and, if they continue, find a new group. Everyone who has been a part of this forum more than a month has heard the advice 'find a new DM' at one point or another in threads where players lament bad DMs, but honestly, there are times when 'find new players' is just as sound.

Kiero
2011-03-14, 08:22 PM
See, while on one front I agree with you that the players were really low in completely ignoring your directions, as someone who has been trained extensively in leadership techniques I can say that this is never a good idea. Every player's objective at a D&D table should be for everyone gathered to have a good time; therefore, no one should engage in actions which stand in direct conflict with this objective. If your players are ignoring you to the point that it is destructive to your own enjoyment, you should sit down with them for a sombre talk and, if they continue, find a new group. Everyone who has been a part of this forum more than a month has heard the advice 'find a new DM' at one point or another in threads where players lament bad DMs, but honestly, there are times when 'find new players' is just as sound.

Echoes speaks much wisdom.

Infernalbargain
2011-03-14, 08:23 PM
See, while on one front I agree with you that the players were really low in completely ignoring your directions, as someone who has been trained extensively in leadership techniques I can say that this is never a good idea. Every player's objective at a D&D table should be for everyone gathered to have a good time; therefore, no one should engage in actions which stand in direct conflict with this objective. If your players are ignoring you to the point that it is destructive to your own enjoyment, you should sit down with them for a sombre talk and, if they continue, find a new group. Everyone who has been a part of this forum more than a month has heard the advice 'find a new DM' at one point or another in threads where players lament bad DMs, but honestly, there are times when 'find new players' is just as sound.

I prefer to think of it as them choosing to play it on "hard mode".

Thurbane
2011-03-14, 08:23 PM
As others have said, let his trick work for a while. Then, once word has a realistic amount of time to spread around, throw a few enemies at him that are very specifically designed to turn his advantages into serious disadvantages.

If (when) the player cries foul, say that his exploits are so successful, that word has gotten around. Like a Wild West gunslinger with a big rep, contenders are coming out of the woodwork trying to topple the "top dog".

I think it's perfectly fair and reasonable.

Amphetryon
2011-03-14, 08:29 PM
Interesting discussion. I've seen it explicitly argued elsewhere that to purposely expose the weakness(es) of a given group is Bad DMing and should be avoided. I've also seen it explicitly argued that purposely ignoring said weakness(es) is Bad DMing and should be avoided.

I look forward to the opinions on this forum.

mobdrazhar
2011-03-14, 08:33 PM
i would definately agree with mixing upwhat is in each encounter. As others have said some encounters should be playing into his strengths and others should be exploiting his weaknesses.

remember that the BBEG wouldn't just keep throwing mooks at the players that he would destroy without a second thought. He would be planning ways to topple the party and exploiting anything they can. please rmember though that this is not metagaming per say as the BBEG would have seen what they can do or have had reports of thier abilities.

Thurbane
2011-03-14, 08:41 PM
Interesting discussion. I've seen it explicitly argued elsewhere that to purposely expose the weakness(es) of a given group is Bad DMing and should be avoided. I've also seen it explicitly argued that purposely ignoring said weakness(es) is Bad DMing and should be avoided.
If it's done in a "meta" context, I agree. If there is a legitimate way some enemies will learn about the trick, I think it's all fair and above board.

The golden rule is generally that anything a player can cheese out, the DM can cheese out better. DMs don't have to worry about LA as much, only about CR...

...but, I hate to see games devolve into an "arms race" between DMs and players using "dirty" op-tricks. Once a game gets to this stage, I htink some frank discussions are in order.

Echoes
2011-03-14, 08:49 PM
...but, I hate to see games devolve into an "arms race" between DMs and players using "dirty" op-tricks. Once a game gets to this stage, I htink some frank discussions are in order.

Yes. This. A DM has the power of an army of level 10^9000 divine wizards at his fingertips, while players are limited to whatever pun-punny shenanigans the latest optimization thread has dragged in. Though the DM is on the opposite side of the battlefield as the players, in many ways D&D is a cooperative endeavor; when it becomes a contest to see who can 'beat' the other side, your game will rapidly fall into a deadlocked death spiral.

Infernalbargain
2011-03-14, 08:52 PM
Yes. This. A DM has the power of an army of level 10^9000

WHAT NINE THOUSAND!?!

Akal Saris
2011-03-14, 08:55 PM
I've got this problem in my campaign at the moment.

One of my players is playing a class from Libris Mortis called Master of Shrouds. Basically, it's a Cleric prestige class that with early entry tricks can be qualified for by level 3. It lets you summon a ton of Shadows much earlier than PCs are supposed to be able to. In exchange you heavily penalise your casting to the tune of two lost caster levels.

The result is that you have a character with a bunch of incorporeal Strength-damaging summons that are completely invulnerable to and can effortlessly kill somewhere around 75% of the level-appropriate opponents in the Monster Manual. On the other hand, if you're fighting undead, constructs, or anything with immunity to summons, the main feature of the class is completely useless.

Real pain in the neck to DM for, let me tell you.

Saph, can I ask what your solutions as a DM have been so far? I'm a big fan of the Master of Shrouds, and I respect you as a poster, so I'm interested in how a competent DM would work to challenge one as part of a party.


Interesting discussion. I've seen it explicitly argued elsewhere that to purposely expose the weakness(es) of a given group is Bad DMing and should be avoided. I've also seen it explicitly argued that purposely ignoring said weakness(es) is Bad DMing and should be avoided.

I look forward to the opinions on this forum.

My own view is that a good DM writes encounters that will challenge a party, and sometimes that means playing off a PC's weaknesses or directly crippling one of the PCs for that encounter.

My next encounter in a 16th level game will include a spellcaster with Waves of Exhaustion, which will likely make the party's mounted ubercharger almost useless for the fight unless the party wizard succeeds on a dispel magic instead of casting another spell. But the charger PC has single-handedly won the last several encounters - this one will be a fight where ranged attacks and AOE damage (probably from the party's warlock and ftr/wiz) will be key to the fight.

gbprime
2011-03-14, 08:55 PM
This is no different than a player who plays a spiked chain tripper. There will be times when a spiked chain is not the best weapon, times when it would be a major faux pas to whip it out, and times when the DM will simply take your toy away via disarm or sunder.

3/4 of the time the character should enjoy being great at what (s)he does. But 1/4 of the time, if they've painted themselves into a corner... you just have to let them live with that decision. The sneak attacker versus uncrittable things, the mentalist versus mindless things, the size huge grappler in a 5 foot ceiling dungeon, the jotunbred-monkeygrip-greatsword weilding maniac versus the formal dinner and dance...

Specialization comes at a price... sometimes you will be useless.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-14, 10:20 PM
My own view is that a good DM writes encounters that will challenge a party, and sometimes that means playing off a PC's weaknesses or directly crippling one of the PCs for that encounter.

I don't generally set out to cripple characters...but I do try not to cripple the same characters too often. You might get lucky, and the weakness you have will never be relevant. Depends how the game progresses. Or, you might run into something you are just not capable of handling.

This isn't generally crippling unless the entire party shares weaknesses...in which case they need to get creative quick. Most parties avoid this instinctively, though.

There's nothing wrong with specialization, but having some inexpensive fallback plans is not a terrible idea. Players in my groups frequently carry backup weapons, and almost invariably have a ranged weapon even if a melee character. A coupla well chosen potions are also common. None of this is prohibitively expensive, but they make the difference between "well, I'm not good at it, but it's helpful" and "guess I'll read while you guys solve it". I outright recommended such tactics to people that appear to be highly specialized, and I tend toward random loot, which makes such tactics easier.

sambo.
2011-03-14, 10:54 PM
i tend to discourage my players from building one-trick pony characters (uber-chargers for example).

if they insist/persist, well, that's their lookout.

i'll throw a few encounters at them where they get to use their +Yes I Win Button, and then i'll throw some encounters at the party where other characters strengths come into play and said one trick pony finds themselves reduced to throwing daggers.

the main aim, at my table anyways, is to have a laugh. so long as everyone is entertained, everything else is secondary.

forcing a one-trick pony character to use their wits rather than their I Win button to get through an encounter is a lot more fun for that player than them simply throwing a d20 on the table and saying "well, i critical hit him for +Lots amounts of damage x4"

BenTheJester
2011-03-14, 11:31 PM
I once had an incredibly good DM who let me play an ubercharger(I wouldn't have wanted to play one with any other DM)

Every encounter reminded me of a Shadow of the Colossus boss fight; I could kill any enemy in one hit, but in every encounter I had to figure out a way to get in line with the boss and use my charge.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-03-15, 12:03 AM
Interesting discussion. I've seen it explicitly argued elsewhere that to purposely expose the weakness(es) of a given group is Bad DMing and should be avoided. I've also seen it explicitly argued that purposely ignoring said weakness(es) is Bad DMing and should be avoided.

I look forward to the opinions on this forum.
There is a distinction between monsters ignoring/exploiting weaknesses and DMs doing so.

It is bad form for a DM to use metaknowledge (i.e. the information on a character sheet) to design encounters that make the game less fun for Players. In a game where building a character is a major part of the system it is bad form to constant assail a particular Player with encounters that nullify a major aspect of his build. For example, if a PC is a Wizard, it is rude to set the campaign in a giant Anti-Magic Zone.

It is, however, proper for DMs to use metaknowledge to design encounters that are fun for the Players as a whole. The most common method is for DMs to provide level-appropriate encounters to their PCs. One way to make things fun is to force PCs to operate outside of their comfort zone once in a while - whether by asking the Fighter to make a few Diplomacy checks or getting the Wizard involved in an obstacle course. Done correctly, the Players will find themselves more engaged in the game because the solution to the problem will require more than a few obvious die rolls.

Silus
2011-03-15, 12:23 AM
Personally, I'm in favor of throwing, well, lots of curveballs at the One-Trick-Pony person only when they won't play anything else. Guy in my group (If you're reading then, you know who you are) almost always (Like 90% of the time) plays a Hide/Move Silently character. Feth, even his Clerics have Hide/Move Silently maxed out and munchkined up. If I was DMing longer with the group (I'm moving away ;_; ), I'd start throwing non-sneak attackable, blind/mindsighted creatures as a not-so-subtle way of saying "Hey, buddy, change it up".

Only problem is that if you throw his character in a situation like that, then he whines about it. "Baww, I can't play my character, whine whine whine moan whine moan". Was like that when they fought against the fake-BBEG who had Mindsight (Guy was a Factotum/Mindbender/Wizard/Ur Priest at lvl 20 and decked out with more magic than would be right)(Fake as in everyone assumed he was the BBEG. Turned out to be a coworker of theirs)(Also, props to the guy in question for pushing him through the Stargate Portal thing. That was pretty awesome).

LordBlades
2011-03-15, 04:29 AM
Imho, if you, as a player are bringing a one-trick pony to the table, you should expect that sometimes your tricks will work well, other times not really. If you're playing an ubercharger, don't expect all monsters to be nicely lined up for a charge. Some will be smarter than that.

Of course, the DM should be nice. If your one trick isn't expected to see much use in his campaign, he should tell you beforehand. I've had that happen once with an ******* DM. Some dude built a pretty nice (for the low power level we were playign back then) Imp. feint rapier rogue. The DM failed to mention that the next 10-12 sessions were to be spent on an undead-infested island. Dude gave up and rolled a new char after 6 or 7 sessions passed without him finding even a single creature he could sneak attack.

Saph
2011-03-15, 05:06 AM
Saph, can I ask what your solutions as a DM have been so far? I'm a big fan of the Master of Shrouds, and I respect you as a poster, so I'm interested in how a competent DM would work to challenge one as part of a party.

So far the solution I'm leaning towards is to make no change to routine encounters, but adjust the 'special' ones. The idea is that he'll singlehandedly wipe out the odd low-CR random encounter or speedbump fight, but anything intended as a session boss will have some kind of special defence.

I had been thinking of having smarter enemies use protection from X or magic circle against X effects, but decided in the end against it. Instead I'm going to have them use stuff that boosts AC against incorporeal touch, like mage armour, shield, and scintillating scales - most of those have general-purpose utility apart from just being anti-undead.

At the moment, the only real limit on the character is that he's level 7 and only has 4 levels in MoS, meaning he only gets 2 shadows per summon. Once he hits level 9 he'll be able to summon 4 shadows per summon, doing an average of 4d6 Strength damage per round, meaning he'll be able to one-shot basically anything that isn't immune or heavily resistant to it. But I'll worry about that if and when it happens. :P

Heliomance
2011-03-15, 06:33 AM
Or monsters with blindsight/mindsight and one guy constantly making Hide/Move Silently munchkin characters?

Mindblank and Darkstalker take care of that quite nicely.

TBH, I really wouldn't worry about someone who likes playing stealthy characters, and munchkin carries some very negative connotations. What's wrong with a player only ever playing one archetype? Why does it bother you? If they've found a character concept that they like well enough to want to play it that much, good for them. D&D is about having fun, and if the way they have most fun is to play a stealthy skillmonkey, why does that offend you?

Silus
2011-03-15, 06:40 AM
Mindblank and Darkstalker take care of that quite nicely.

TBH, I really wouldn't worry about someone who likes playing stealthy characters, and munchkin carries some very negative connotations. What's wrong with a player only ever playing one archetype? Why does it bother you? If they've found a character concept that they like well enough to want to play it that much, good for them. D&D is about having fun, and if the way they have most fun is to play a stealthy skillmonkey, why does that offend you?

Simply because he never does anything different and because his "sneaky" characters, while "Chaotic Neutral", come off more "A**hole Evil". He plays them like backstabbing loot whores, and all but refuses to play anything different. And when he's told he is being restricted from playing a class for one reason or another (Or when someone seriously suggests branching out to, say, an arcane class for example), or when he can't be all sneaky and whatnot, he throws a hissy fit.

All in all, it's more of a personal issue rather than my having an issue with an archetype of character.

Amphetryon
2011-03-15, 07:36 AM
There is a distinction between monsters ignoring/exploiting weaknesses and DMs doing so.

It is bad form for a DM to use metaknowledge (i.e. the information on a character sheet) to design encounters that make the game less fun for Players. In a game where building a character is a major part of the system it is bad form to constant assail a particular Player with encounters that nullify a major aspect of his build. For example, if a PC is a Wizard, it is rude to set the campaign in a giant Anti-Magic Zone.

It is, however, proper for DMs to use metaknowledge to design encounters that are fun for the Players as a whole. The most common method is for DMs to provide level-appropriate encounters to their PCs. One way to make things fun is to force PCs to operate outside of their comfort zone once in a while - whether by asking the Fighter to make a few Diplomacy checks or getting the Wizard involved in an obstacle course. Done correctly, the Players will find themselves more engaged in the game because the solution to the problem will require more than a few obvious die rolls.

Given the normal paradigm where the DM controls the monsters, how does one differentiate between one using metaknowledge, and the other using metaknowledge? If a theoretical Sorcerer has ignored the host of magic/equipment-based ways to easily escape from a grapple, and the Troll the party fights grapples him, it happens because the DM decided it would (and the dice supported the decision). Sure, on the one hand, you could argue that the Troll chose to play huggy-bear with the squishy because it looked easier to the Troll than hugging the Warblade with the Spiked Chain/Spiked Armor combo, but isn't it equally valid to say that the Troll attacked the Sorcerer because the DM decided that was going to happen, knowing full well that the Sorcerer was ill-prepared to defend that tactic?

hewhosaysfish
2011-03-15, 07:44 AM
Simply because he never does anything different and because his "sneaky" characters, while "Chaotic Neutral", come off more "A**hole Evil". He plays them like backstabbing loot whores, and all but refuses to play anything different. And when he's told he is being restricted from playing a class for one reason or another (Or when someone seriously suggests branching out to, say, an arcane class for example), or when he can't be all sneaky and whatnot, he throws a hissy fit.

All in all, it's more of a personal issue rather than my having an issue with an archetype of character.

Then the issue is not that he always plays characters with a strong focus on Hide and Move Silently, but that he always plays treacherous, murderous, (team-killing?) greedy ones. And that's an issue for a different thread.

That said, if you don't want him to play a particular archetype then the correct reponse is not to say "Sure, you can build a rogue if you like. No problem" and then have 5 enounters in a row against LOLScrewYou'uts (a type of Inevitable which whose purpose is to anally violate Rogues with a clock-punk chainsaw). This is known as "passive-aggressive bull****".

The correct approach is to say "I'm getting really bored of your sneaky characters; could you please try playing something else?"

If that doesn't work (and you really feel that strongly) you could try saying "I'd rather not play with you at all than play with another of your sneaky characters; either roll-up something else or, as the DM, I will not permit you to join my game."

Tyndmyr
2011-03-15, 07:46 AM
Intelligent enemy tactics are determined by the information and fighting style that they have. Unintelligent tactics are determined by rote pattern. Unintelligent undead will tend to continue attacking the person in front of them, regardless of result, for example.

I typically have a loose idea of what sort of opponents I'm planning to use early in the planning stages, and while they aren't entirely specced out, they certainly aren't being pitted against specific weaknesses.

Trolls are not the brightest of creatures. I'd probably have them take relatively straightforward and uncomplicated tactics, focusing on whoever seems to be dangerous/annoying. If the caster starts chucking fire, well...he might get attention.


Oh, the chaotic stabby type? Yeah, nothing wrong with rogues. However, not working with the party and causing problems is a playstyle issue. I would suggest limiting alignment on creation to two steps from LG. Enforce a negative level for alignment shifts.

only1doug
2011-03-15, 07:48 AM
I have a PC who isn't a 1 trick pony but is slightly overpowering some encouters (ECL4 - he's a pixie who hasn't quite grown up yet, he'll be a pixie rogue soon). when he (scouting) encountered some more CR1 giant rats he faced 0 danger from them (his DR exceeds their maximum damage) so he (and the party) received no XP from him killing them.

No risk to PC = No XP

I was going to handwave the fight against the rats but the other party members joined in and as a result the entire party (including the soon to be rogue) gained XP (for the rats not killed by the pixie).

Want to have a single trick that will autowin every encounter? go ahead, but don't expect me to give you xp for an autowin.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-15, 07:49 AM
So...your PCs could level up by playing russian roulette?

only1doug
2011-03-15, 07:59 AM
Given the normal paradigm where the DM controls the monsters, how does one differentiate between one using metaknowledge, and the other using metaknowledge? If a theoretical Sorcerer has ignored the host of magic/equipment-based ways to easily escape from a grapple, and the Troll the party fights grapples him, it happens because the DM decided it would (and the dice supported the decision). Sure, on the one hand, you could argue that the Troll chose to play huggy-bear with the squishy because it looked easier to the Troll than hugging the Warblade with the Spiked Chain/Spiked Armor combo, but isn't it equally valid to say that the Troll attacked the Sorcerer because the DM decided that was going to happen, knowing full well that the Sorcerer was ill-prepared to defend that tactic?

To be frank, if the Troll is grappling the sorcerer he's made a suboptimal choice, the better decision would be Claw, Claw, Rend for sorcerers are squishy and normally fairly easy to hit.

As a GM my non-intelligent monsters tend to go for nearest target first then shift to most damaging if they notice it.
Hunting animals would go for weakest looking first but they are rarely targetting the party.
Intelligent monsters tend to go for the casters first, if they can reach them, just like the party would.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-03-15, 08:04 AM
Given the normal paradigm where the DM controls the monsters, how does one differentiate between one using metaknowledge, and the other using metaknowledge? If a theoretical Sorcerer has ignored the host of magic/equipment-based ways to easily escape from a grapple, and the Troll the party fights grapples him, it happens because the DM decided it would (and the dice supported the decision). Sure, on the one hand, you could argue that the Troll chose to play huggy-bear with the squishy because it looked easier to the Troll than hugging the Warblade with the Spiked Chain/Spiked Armor combo, but isn't it equally valid to say that the Troll attacked the Sorcerer because the DM decided that was going to happen, knowing full well that the Sorcerer was ill-prepared to defend that tactic?
The ability to distinguish DM use of metaknowledge and monster use of metaknowledge is one of the more important skills for a DM to have.
Monsters don't know the capabilities of the PCs. They can't know that Sally the Sorcerer is immune to fire or that Warren the Warblade can eviscerate grapplers 1/day. When you're playing out an Encounter you have to run monsters as though they don't know exactly what the strengths and weaknesses of your PCs are. Of course they can learn, but you must resist the temptation to make tactical decisions for the monsters in light of knowledge they cannot have.

This is, of course, more difficult when dealing with "thinking monsters" - creatures like Liches who are supposed to have tremendous intellect. However, it is still poor form for the DM to substitute his metaknowledge of the PCs' capabilities for "planning" on the part of the Lich - if for no other reason than it is intensely frustrating for Players when the monsters seem to be perfectly adapted to their strengths and weaknesses for no obvious reason aside from the fact that the DM knows them. Ignoring this lesson results in your Players hiding their planning from you and being less-than-forthcoming with updates to their builds; IMHO this builds bad chi around a table.

The easy case, as always, comes in "environmental design." DMs should not use metaknowledge to create worlds where Everything Is Trying To Kill You (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EverythingTryingToKillYou) - inexplicable hazards that just so happen to counter strengths and prey on weaknesses of the party. This frustrates Player intentions by invalidating their build choices for no in-game reason. Of course, you don't want to create campaigns where the PCs are not challenged either - walking this line is part of the Art of DMing.
However, the guidelines I placed in my last post can serve in lieu of a more nuanced approach. If your knowledge of Character Sheets is being used to hinder the PCs, don't do it; if your knowledge of Character Sheets is being used to engage the Players, do.

* * * *
In the specific case of the Troll you need to ask yourself first what the monster is thinking. Under "normal" logic, the man with the sword and armor should be the more threatening individual to a Troll - he is using the sorts of tools that the Troll sees most often in combat and can best understand. However, you can argue that a Troll who has spent any time in a 3.P game knows that "clothies" are always going to pose the greater threat to his well-being than idiots with swords - so geek the mage.

Ideally the DM should know more about the experiences of that given Troll than has been presented in the scenario: if the Troll regularly fights adventurers, he's going to eat the clothie first; if the Troll instead preys on farmers and knights he is going to eat the fighting man first. In situations where the DM doesn't trust his own opinions (or considers either outcome equally likely) I have a Player roll a d20. On a 10+ events progress in the manner more beneficial to the party; otherwise, they go the other way.

only1doug
2011-03-15, 08:07 AM
So...your PCs could level up by playing russian roulette?

Not come up, If they wanted to then if they came up with a convincing argument for 1/6 chance of dying and a roleplaying reason why they would want to then yes I'd probably let them gain some xp for trying it (but much less than 1/6th of a level worth of xp). Fail and die.

hewhosaysfish
2011-03-15, 08:08 AM
Given the normal paradigm where the DM controls the monsters, how does one differentiate between one using metaknowledge, and the other using metaknowledge? If a theoretical Sorcerer has ignored the host of magic/equipment-based ways to easily escape from a grapple, and the Troll the party fights grapples him, it happens because the DM decided it would (and the dice supported the decision). Sure, on the one hand, you could argue that the Troll chose to play huggy-bear with the squishy because it looked easier to the Troll than hugging the Warblade with the Spiked Chain/Spiked Armor combo, but isn't it equally valid to say that the Troll attacked the Sorcerer because the DM decided that was going to happen, knowing full well that the Sorcerer was ill-prepared to defend that tactic?

Who the troll grapples is indeed decided by the DM. The real question is: what decision is the DM making?

Is the DM asking himself "What would a troll do if it found itself in this situation" and reaching a conclusion based on what the troll would know?
On what the trolls sees, hears, smells? What it has experienced in the past, what it troll mommy told it when it was growing up, etc., etc?

Or is he asking himself "What should I do with my troll this turn?" and reaching a decision based on things the troll wouldn't know.
On what's written on the Sorceror's character sheet, or on the Warblade's? On what the players are talking about around the table? On the player's pitch of his character concept to the DM? On what the Sorceror did in fight versus the owlbears last session?

Gaius Marius
2011-03-15, 08:18 AM
What is the best course of action when your players come up with a combination/build that is totally overpowered and abuse it at every opportunity?

Show them they aren't the only clever smartass of the gameworld, obviously!

My players once liked to abuse Enlarge Person with a spiked-grappler dwarf would would always disable the biggest threat among the party they would be facing. I've let them have their fun, until they met an adventuring party.

With a minotaur party-member, who got Enlarged Person too (I don't care if it's not allowed by the rule). Ergo, the Large Dwarf was being pwned by the Huge Minotaur.

Taugh them I can abuse the rules too, and that no matter how powerful they are, I'll simply throw stronger things at them.

In the case of a single mind-control player who is utterly broken, I'd simply make it a Mind's Game (pun intended). Have the plot start to center around a rival mind-controller, and have them send pawns at each other, with the occasional specificly-immuned ennemies thrown once in a while, as long as it make SENSE there are specifically-immuned ennemies.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-03-15, 08:22 AM
Taugh them I can abuse the rules too, and that no matter how powerful they are, I'll simply throw stronger things at them.
Is that really the sort of lesson you want to give your Players? That you, the DM (with Power of Rule Zero) can abuse the system to their detriment? :smallconfused:

Admittedly this is a different topic for a different thread, but IMHO any DMing that encourages the Players to see things as an Arms Race (or Mutually Assured Destruction) situation is not going to be conducive to good gaming.

Y'know, unless that's the point of the system :smalltongue:

sonofzeal
2011-03-15, 08:22 AM
Who the troll grapples is indeed decided by the DM. The real question is: what decision is the DM making?

Is the DM asking himself "What would a troll do if it found itself in this situation" and reaching a conclusion based on what the troll would know?
On what the trolls sees, hears, smells? What it has experienced in the past, what it troll mommy told it when it was growing up, etc., etc?

Or is he asking himself "What should I do with my troll this turn?" and reaching a decision based on things the troll wouldn't know.
On what's written on the Sorceror's character sheet, or on the Warblade's? On what the players are talking about around the table? On the player's pitch of his character concept to the DM? On what the Sorceror did in fight versus the owlbears last session?
The DM should be asking himself that second question. His job is to make the game interesting, and fun, and challenging. This means that occasionally "what XYZ would do in this situation" isn't appropriate. If the bard has been grappled to oblivion three fights in a row, the DM shouldn't do it again even if it's what the monster would do.

There always has to be a balance between Gamist and Simulationist models. A perfectly Simulationist model just plain isn't fun. In a Simulationist world, enemy NPCs are going to be taking a Power Attack Coup De Grace with a Scythe to sleeping PCs that are foiling their plans. The party falls asleep at the inn, no sign of trouble, and suddenly the campaign's over because there's been a TPK. Yay. Fun.

This is the DM's job, to balance the two. And the question always is "what should I do with this monster this turn". Part of that includes narrative and verisimilitude concerns. Part also includes metaconcerns. Will this challenge the party? Will this frustrate them and ruin their fun? Will this make them think and improve and have more fun? Do they stand a fair change of victory? Is there any player who feels picked-on already?

DMs metagame. That's their job. I would never, ever, want to play with a DM who didn't.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-15, 08:43 AM
Is that really the sort of lesson you want to give your Players? That you, the DM (with Power of Rule Zero) can abuse the system to their detriment? :smallconfused:

Admittedly this is a different topic for a different thread, but IMHO any DMing that encourages the Players to see things as an Arms Race (or Mutually Assured Destruction) situation is not going to be conducive to good gaming.

Y'know, unless that's the point of the system :smalltongue:

There is a difference between having clever ideas to use in the game and them repeately abusing that clever trick.

I reward my players for outsmarting me and coming up with crazy strategies that work. If they start using the same thing again and again and again and again, I shall show them why it's a bad idea to abuse your trick.

At the 10th time of Enlarge abuse, I felt it was time for my players to get the message. They started to use alternate strategies and more variety. I was happy 'cause they came up with crazier stuff, and I think they liked it more when they get a NEW idea rather than just using the same stuff all the time.

"Escalation" isn't an alternative in itself. It's a temporary measure you use at the appropriate time. (saying that, they really had a hard time fighting the Enlarged Gargoyle Fighter-King.)

The Glyphstone
2011-03-15, 08:55 AM
Maybe it's just the optimizer in me, but I can't really feel happy to see someone whose solution to excessive one-trick ponyism is to, well, throw the rules away entirely. rather than just fiating the Enlarge into play, it could have been a Half-Minotaur (template leaves base creature type), or used Psionic Expansion, or a low-CL scroll of Giant Size via UMD, or have the other party use Freedom of Movement, or cast Grease on themselves. If your players had been knowledgable enough of the rules to realize Minotaurs can't normally be enlarged (to say nothing of Gargoyles), the only lesson you'd have taugh them was what Oracle said, that the GM can cheat whenever he wants to make them ineffective.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-15, 09:03 AM
Maybe it's just the optimizer in me, but I can't really feel happy to see someone whose solution to excessive one-trick ponyism is to, well, throw the rules away entirely. rather than just fiating the Enlarge into play, it could have been a Half-Minotaur (template leaves base creature type), or used Psionic Expansion, or a low-CL scroll of Giant Size via UMD, or have the other party use Freedom of Movement, or cast Grease on themselves. If your players had been knowledgable enough of the rules to realize Minotaurs can't normally be enlarged (to say nothing of Gargoyles), the only lesson you'd have taugh them was what Oracle said, that the GM can cheat whenever he wants to make them ineffective.

I don't like cheating by taking away stuff from my players.

Again, it's not a basic reaction on my part, it's simply so the players realise the consequence of abusing the same trick all the time. Optimise all you want, but be warned that I can pull the same tricks than you.

(and to be 100% honest, I completely forgot at the time that minotaurs couldn't be Enlarged, it only hit me 2 weeks later, and I decided to fiat it, and allow if it my players wanted to Enlarge humanoir monsters)

The point is, I try to keep my players on the edge, to have them keep try to be original and creative. If they are, I don't need to intervene. I still throw at them what I consider is a proper challenge, and there will always be fiat happening one way or the other when I feel the dice result is simply too sad.

(best example: at our final game, against aforementionned Gargoyle King, the entire party is almost wiped. Only stay there a very weak Drow Mystic Theurge and the party's assassin who's been studying the Gargoyle king for 3 rounds, ready to strike and save the party...

The man has insane hide/move silently check. He ALWAYS succeeded them. He rolled a bloody 1 on his move silenty to go and do the heroic thing to save the party. The whole party was in tear, and I simply fiated that "no way, you manage your move silently check". He did the sneak attack, the Gargoyle-King made his Fort save, but the sneak attack damage brough him to single-digit HP. Gargoyle reaps the Rogue a new hole, but the Theurge last her very final offensive spell, magic missile. Hair-thin victory for the party, with everybody erupting in cheers)

(GM fiat on a very, very, very bad dice moment = every had fun. It wasn't an autowin, I just gave them a fighting chance.)

panaikhan
2011-03-15, 09:06 AM
I gave the one-shot-pony PC in my group (and the group as a whole) a good thrubbing last session, and he took it on the chin like a professional.

He's been playing a thri-kreen fighter, with a rapier in each claw. He gets something stupid like 8 attacks in a full-attack round, with stupidly-easy critical chances (he even made a spreadsheet on his laptop to speed up combats).
Most melee combats are over in less than 4 rounds with Slice'n'Dice leading the way, backed up by the VoP Monk.

The last fight in the session, was against an air elemental. A max-HD air elemental. The thing had an AC that the melee chars needed high teens to hit, DR10/-, and 400+HP. It's attack bonus was equal to the thri-kreen's AC.
Now, the party's weakness is attacks at range, and the air elemental has a move of 100, and spring attack.

So from 40' in the air, it is jumping down, striking a random party member it can see (the arcane casters both have improved invis), and returning to the heavens. By the time they eventually drove it off (I had decided it would try to escape if reduced to <150HP), it had killed the rogue outright, and left the thri-kreen and two others on single figures.

stainboy
2011-03-15, 09:19 AM
@Saph: How much worse do you think it is than just a normal well-played cleric? It seems like you're in the same position as anyone dealing with clerics: the party wins when they can start a fight with their spells up, so you rely on ambushing them and putting them at a disadvantage before they can pull out their I-Win spells.

Admittedly summoning things that can walk through walls at level 5 is pretty nasty.

Also, wow, Master of Shrouds is really gated by Will save? I was ready to tell you to kill the character for dragonwrought kobold cheese, but I guess it's just stacking two classes with good Will. That's not so bad.

Choco
2011-03-15, 09:21 AM
The DM I first played under (and basically learned to DM from...) followed the philosophy of "the intelligent villains you are fighting WILL eventually figure out your weaknesses and seek to exploit them, and the world will not go out of its way to avoid accidentally doing so either (random encounters)". As such, one-trick ponies died off quickly in that group if they could not adapt, because once a villain figured out the one trick the pony had from then on they were sure to take that into account. Probably as a result of that, when I am a player all of my (usually martial) characters have some kind of contingency plan for all situations.

I guess the point is that, as an adventurer, you can't afford to be a one-trick pony unless your fellow party members are designed in a way to cover your weaknesses (which still has the problem of making you useless in certain situations though). You normally gotta plan for stuff like your weapon getting sundered/disarmed, being in an AMF, being cuffed and jailed, having various enemies get into melee range of you if you are a ranged/caster type (and I don't mean just having 1000 ways to stop enemies from getting close to you, I mean having plans to deal with them ONCE THEY DO, since if they really want to the DM/villains will always find a way to do it). These plans don't necessarily keep you just as useful as when you are able to perform to your strengths, but they keep you from being totally useless anyway. And IMO just keeping yourself alive is still useful if it occupies one or more powerful opponents that would otherwise be harassing the party after having killed you.

Basically I am sorry but my advice is probably bad for you and your group: DM like you normally do and let the players deal with the consequences of building a one-trick pony character. There is usually a high body count in the games I play and DM in (with the exception of 4e games), so none of us get particularly butthurt when our characters get killed, and that definitely colors our outlook.

Psyborg
2011-03-15, 10:07 AM
As far as my own characters go, I tend to build one-trick ponies with a defense against the obvious counter to that trick (but not all the possible counters), and then carry a Heward's Handy Haversack full of bizarre mundane, alchemical, and minor magic items for use when my trick is irrelevant or negated. I think my usual DM is more afraid of me opening the Haversack and doing something crazy than he is of the trick he knows to expect and deal with. *chuckle*

Anecdote:My crazy stunt was the one where we were fighting a Hammer Archon who was guarding a bridge over a chasm. The character with the good Tumble check kept him distracted, the healer kept him alive (because Tumble != heavy armor or DR), and the two of us with high move speeds took 450' of silk rope and ran circles around the fight in opposite directions, with our party member making Tumble checks each time to jump over/duck under the rope as it came around. After we'd wrapped about fourteen loops of rope around his legs, we pulled it taut, spiked the ends down (adamantine spikes, of course, for easy hammering into rock) and Bull-Rushed him over the edge. He couldn't make the Strength check to snap the many loops around his legs, so over he went. He did, however, weigh enough to snap the two strands of rope that were spiked down...

Lucky for him, he made his save to grab the edge as he went over (only his legs were tangled) and hung on for dear life with both hands (losing his hammer down the chasm in the process). With his legs still tangled, though, he was at enough of a penalty to Climb checks that he couldn't really make it up over the edge again.

This state of affairs gave more than enough of a Circumstance bonus to our Diplomacy checks that we were able to negotiate passage over the bridge. (It helped that he'd been stuck there for some few hundred boring years, and while he was Lawful, he was also Good and sick to death of keeping adventurers from cleansing the undead-infested city. Those who had assigned him there thought the city was too dangerous to risk anyone going into.)

We passed that way a few more times over the course of the campaign arc and got rather friendly; I even brought him back another huge warhammer when we came back that way, and he helped us out in the final boss fight (let's just say Bull Rushing the BBEG into the chasm was a lot easier with his Size and Str modifiers behind the attempt).


Like anything else, there's a whole spectrum of responses. Given a party of, say, mind-controllers, fear-effect users, and sneak-attackers, the DM could...

~Do a pure undead campaign. (Jerk.)
~Give the BBEG a ring of mind blank, a few Construct/Undead minions, and occasional Fortification and fear-immunity magic items on other minions. (Not bad.)
~Give the BBEG Fortification armor and a Paladin 2 / Cleric X cohort responsible for keeping them both mind blanked...but the cohort is vulnerable to sneak attack, say, and the BBEG is still subject to nonmagical fear. Or, the party could try dispeling the mind blank. (Better- "kill the cohort" sub-goal for the sneak-attacking party member enables his other party members to go into "mindrape pwnage mode".)
~Regarding Sneak Attack, have a significant proportion of crit-immune/resistant foes, but slip wands of grave/golem/vinestrike, etc. with 1-5 charges into the treasure on occasion, leaving the player with the tactical decision whether to use his charges now or save them for later. (Interesting.)
~Tell the rogue's player to take the Penetrating Strike ACF and the casters to learn fireball just in case, and run the campaign you had planned out before the players got around to making characters. (Not inherently bad, though could still get annoying. Still, if undead and constructs are immune to mind-affecting, most of them are guaranteed to fall for illusions. A creative Beguiler can be frightening.)
~Have only humans without mind blank, fortification armor, or Paladin levels. (Blecgh, boring curbstomp in every fight.)
~Have only Nimblewright Paladin 2 / Beguiler Xs as foes. (Jerk.)

Saph
2011-03-15, 10:15 AM
@Saph: How much worse do you think it is than just a normal well-played cleric? It seems like you're in the same position as anyone dealing with clerics: the party wins when they can start a fight with their spells up, so you rely on ambushing them and putting them at a disadvantage before they can pull out their I-Win spells.

Admittedly summoning things that can walk through walls at level 5 is pretty nasty.

The main issue is that incorporeal things are flat-out-immune to nonmagic forms of attack, and if you look through the Monster Manual, a surprisingly large number of enemies are nonmagical. So you have to decide - do you still use them, or not?

It wouldn't be a problem if it just boosted the rest of the party (the party Archivist goes in for buffing, and she multiplies the party's effectiveness very well) but since Shadows do Strength damage, it means there are effectively two battles going on: one between the monsters and the rest of the party where both sides can hit each other, and one between the monsters and the shadows where only one side can hit the other.

LibraryOgre
2011-03-15, 10:33 AM
I would say that, as much as possible, the trick should be useful but not sovereign. Maybe 60% of the time, the trick is great, 20% of the time partially useful, and 20% of the time it should be useless.

For example, if you've got a mind-focussed wizard, have bad guys use a mix of regular and undead minions. The wizard can't do anything against the undead, but he can work with the goblins (or whatever). If you've got a tripper, throw in some mounted foes... the relative +8 makes it harder for them to knock down.

If the trick is becoming abusive, then start fiddling with the ratios... and if they question why, point out that the opposition is going to start looking for ways to deal with this pernicious problem. While your mind-monkey may avoid undead-heavy jobs in order to maximize his effectiveness, his opponents aren't necessarily going to avoid undead to maximize the "hero's" effectiveness, too.

In short, by the second season of the anime, the perfect foil to the hero has always shown up. The hero has to grow, or the show becomes about how badly can he lose.

LordBlades
2011-03-15, 10:34 AM
The main issue is that incorporeal things are flat-out-immune to nonmagic forms of attack, and if you look through the Monster Manual, a surprisingly large number of enemies are nonmagical. So you have to decide - do you still use them, or not?

It wouldn't be a problem if it just boosted the rest of the party (the party Archivist goes in for buffing, and she multiplies the party's effectiveness very well) but since Shadows do Strength damage, it means there are effectively two battles going on: one between the monsters and the rest of the party where both sides can hit each other, and one between the monsters and the shadows where only one side can hit the other.

Having played (with) early-entry Master of Shrouds on quite a few occasions, I can say from experience it's not as bad as it looks in most long-term campaigns. He's very strong low level, but as you advance and most enemies become increasingly capable to deal with shadows he loses OOMPH quite fast, and at high level it's just a cleric that lost 2 caster levels.

The Glyphstone
2011-03-15, 10:34 AM
I don't like cheating by taking away stuff from my players.

Again, it's not a basic reaction on my part, it's simply so the players realise the consequence of abusing the same trick all the time. Optimise all you want, but be warned that I can pull the same tricks than you.

(and to be 100% honest, I completely forgot at the time that minotaurs couldn't be Enlarged, it only hit me 2 weeks later, and I decided to fiat it, and allow if it my players wanted to Enlarge humanoir monsters)

The point is, I try to keep my players on the edge, to have them keep try to be original and creative. If they are, I don't need to intervene. I still throw at them what I consider is a proper challenge, and there will always be fiat happening one way or the other when I feel the dice result is simply too sad.

(best example: at our final game, against aforementionned Gargoyle King, the entire party is almost wiped. Only stay there a very weak Drow Mystic Theurge and the party's assassin who's been studying the Gargoyle king for 3 rounds, ready to strike and save the party...

The man has insane hide/move silently check. He ALWAYS succeeded them. He rolled a bloody 1 on his move silenty to go and do the heroic thing to save the party. The whole party was in tear, and I simply fiated that "no way, you manage your move silently check". He did the sneak attack, the Gargoyle-King made his Fort save, but the sneak attack damage brough him to single-digit HP. Gargoyle reaps the Rogue a new hole, but the Theurge last her very final offensive spell, magic missile. Hair-thin victory for the party, with everybody erupting in cheers)

(GM fiat on a very, very, very bad dice moment = every had fun. It wasn't an autowin, I just gave them a fighting chance.)

If you turn it into a houserule (allowing all Monstrous Humanoids to be enlarged from that point on), that's better, though still a bit wobbly.

(though I;m curious on the second, more cheerful anecdote: Is is another local houserule that 1's are autofails on skill checks?)

Gaius Marius
2011-03-15, 10:43 AM
If you turn it into a houserule (allowing all Monstrous Humanoids to be enlarged from that point on), that's better, though still a bit wobbly.

(though I;m curious on the second, more cheerful anecdote: Is is another local houserule that 1's are autofails on skill checks?)

(If you want to call it a houserule. It's more a matter that we all accepted that 1s meant fumble and 20s were great achievement every time you rolled a dice. It was never actually spelled out. If a player had contested it, we would have had to reach an agreement on it, but everybody just went with it for the fun of it)

(You can't let the rules get in the way of having fun)

Saph
2011-03-15, 10:53 AM
Having played (with) early-entry Master of Shrouds on quite a few occasions, I can say from experience it's not as bad as it looks in most long-term campaigns. He's very strong low level, but as you advance and most enemies become increasingly capable to deal with shadows he loses OOMPH quite fast, and at high level it's just a cleric that lost 2 caster levels.

Oh, it's not the power that's the problem. It's that there are very few encounters for a Master of Shrouds that don't fall into the categories of "trivially easy" or "character is useless".

For instance, the main plot for the last session involved the party attempting to break an important NPC out of a prison. The prison was warded with a Forbiddance spell (because that's the kind of protection prisons have) meaning the Master of Shrouds' contribution during the fight was limited to using healing wands every turn. Which did help, but not all that much.

On the other hand, I did explicitly warn the player when he joined the game that this sort of thing would happen, so eh.

Amphetryon
2011-03-15, 10:54 AM
I would say that, as much as possible, the trick should be useful but not sovereign. Maybe 60% of the time, the trick is great, 20% of the time partially useful, and 20% of the time it should be useless.

For example, if you've got a mind-focussed wizard, have bad guys use a mix of regular and undead minions. The wizard can't do anything against the undead, but he can work with the goblins (or whatever). If you've got a tripper, throw in some mounted foes... the relative +8 makes it harder for them to knock down.

If the trick is becoming abusive, then start fiddling with the ratios... and if they question why, point out that the opposition is going to start looking for ways to deal with this pernicious problem. While your mind-monkey may avoid undead-heavy jobs in order to maximize his effectiveness, his opponents aren't necessarily going to avoid undead to maximize the "hero's" effectiveness, too.

In short, by the second season of the anime, the perfect foil to the hero has always shown up. The hero has to grow, or the show becomes about how badly can he lose.

Here's the thing I, personally, am trying to figure out about this. As soon as you throw things at the party that make a particular player's shtick ineffective - even once - you're likely to have that player upset about his main trick being made useless by some variety of DM Plotonium/Handwavium - and any time the players find their Achilles heel exposed or their favorite trick made useless, it is through some variety of DM Plotonium/Handwavium, malevolent or benign. There are two threads I can think of in the first four pages of this forum as I type this where a concern over this particular variety of encounter is the main focus. In both of those threads, multiple folks - but not a unanimous vox populi - have said that the DM's response was 'Bad DMing."

There must be some appropriate response to the situation that does not stir folk into thinking the DM messed up, mustn't there?

Oracle_Hunter
2011-03-15, 11:04 AM
Here's the thing I, personally, am trying to figure out about this. As soon as you throw things at the party that make a particular player's shtick ineffective - even once - you're likely to have that player upset about his main trick being made useless by some variety of DM Plotonium/Handwavium - and any time the players find their Achilles heel exposed or their favorite trick made useless, it is through some variety of DM Plotonium/Handwavium, malevolent or benign. There are two threads I can think of in the first four pages of this forum as I type this where a concern over this particular variety of encounter is the main focus. In both of those threads, multiple folks - but not a unanimous vox populi - have said that the DM's response was 'Bad DMing."

There must be some appropriate response to the situation that does not stir folk into thinking the DM messed up, mustn't there?
The correct response is to either make the "trick" less effective (e.g. mixed encounters) or to foreshadow that their trick is going to be less effective in the immediate future (e.g. "you must recover the MacGuffin from the undead horde"). This gives them time to take precautions against the new risk rather than being blindsided by it.

If Players bitch about their One Trick Pony being useless, feel free to point out that that the hazard of making a One Trick Pony is that that trick is not always going to be useful. Ideally that warning should come during character creation, of course.

LibraryOgre
2011-03-15, 11:07 AM
Here's the thing I, personally, am trying to figure out about this. As soon as you throw things at the party that make a particular player's shtick ineffective - even once - you're likely to have that player upset about his main trick being made useless by some variety of DM Plotonium/Handwavium - and any time the players find their Achilles heel exposed or their favorite trick made useless, it is through some variety of DM Plotonium/Handwavium, malevolent or benign. There are two threads I can think of in the first four pages of this forum as I type this where a concern over this particular variety of encounter is the main focus. In both of those threads, multiple folks - but not a unanimous vox populi - have said that the DM's response was 'Bad DMing."

There must be some appropriate response to the situation that does not stir folk into thinking the DM messed up, mustn't there?

Truthfully, if they're complaining about having their trick made occasionally ineffective, they're whiny. I can understand if their trick is ALWAYS ineffective. If they came to you with a build designed to maximize sneak attack dice and you didn't warn him "Dude, I'm thinking a lot of undead for this game." But, you know, sometimes you're the massive Arab swordsman, and sometimes you're Indiana Jones. Sometimes the trick you've maximized yourself around won't work. And that's the name of the game.

Choco
2011-03-15, 11:09 AM
There must be some appropriate response to the situation that does not stir folk into thinking the DM messed up, mustn't there?

Appropriate responses vary by group. Some players/groups don't handle ANY setback to their characters (no matter how logical or justified) well at all, others get annoyed when setbacks don't happen enough because they feel the DM is holding back too much.

Amphetryon
2011-03-15, 11:13 AM
The correct response is to either make the "trick" less effective (e.g. mixed encounters) or to foreshadow that their trick is going to be less effective in the immediate future (e.g. "you must recover the MacGuffin from the undead horde"). This gives them time to take precautions against the new risk rather than being blindsided by it.

If Players bitch about their One Trick Pony being useless, feel free to point out that that the hazard of making a One Trick Pony is that that trick is not always going to be useful. Ideally that warning should come during character creation, of course.
I think I'm missing something.

How is this advice different than what I quoted, and responded to, from Mark Hall?

This advice, as far as I can tell and based on personal experience, will still result in players complaining that the response was inappropriate, and will still result in posters calling it Bad DMing and WrongBadFun if posted for advice on the various D&D forums. So, again, if this is the wrong response, what's the right one?

Oracle_Hunter
2011-03-15, 11:22 AM
I think I'm missing something.

How is this advice different than what I quoted, and responded to, from Mark Hall?

This advice, as far as I can tell and based on personal experience, will still result in players complaining that the response was inappropriate, and will still result in posters calling it Bad DMing and WrongBadFun if posted for advice on the various D&D forums. So, again, if this is the wrong response, what's the right one?
DMing isn't Objective Truth. And you can find people saying anything on Teh Internetz.

What Mark & I have told you is the appropriate way to handle parties in general and One Trick Ponies in particular. While it is annoying to have your build choice invalidated by enemies or environment no DM can allow a party steamroll over every encounter - let alone a single PC.

DMing is a balancing act, and you can't please everyone all the time. When Players have complaints, there is a simple three-step process to follow:

(1) Ask the Player what is bothering them.
(2) See if you can accommodate the Player's requests without ruining your game
(3) Either implement the changes or inform the Player you cannot help them - and ask them to leave.

CubeB
2011-03-15, 11:27 AM
Encourage the player to diversify!

I too have played one trick ponies in the past. (In Mutants and Masterminds 2e, but the principle is the same).

I had a character that used the Mental Weapon power as his primary attack, and the GM (at first) loved throwing enemies immune or resistant to will saves at us. I was annoyed, so I eventually branched out into a traditional attack.

Then the GM started adding encounters where the Mental Weapon wasn't just useful, it was -incredibly- useful.

The early encounters forced me to diversify, and to learn how to use my other abilities to get around encounters.

When I -finally- got to use my trick, it felt SO GOOD.

obliged_salmon
2011-03-15, 11:42 AM
Hmm. If I ever DM'ed 3.5 again (unlikely), and a player came to the campaign with a one-trick pony character (like the master of shrouds mentioned by Saph), I would invariably ask why he wants to play that character.

If the answer is, "so I can do 4d6 strength damage per round at level 9, and very few monsters can actually do damage to my shadows!" I would nerf his character's abilities to keep him in line with the rest of the party. Possibly restore a cleric level to keep him versatile. I dunno. I'd make it clear that he wouldn't be able to steamroll through the majority of encounters. 3.5 is a combat-focused game, after all, and combat is fun when either side has a fighting chance.

If the answer is, "my dude can call upon the wraiths in the darkness to smite his enemies!" I would nerf the character's abilities to keep him in line with the rest of the party. Possibly restore a cleric level to keep him versatile. Also, I'd tie his powers in as much as possible with the overall arc of the campaign, and setting. Perhaps make the shadow creatures servants of an entity trying to break into the material world and wreak havoc. I dunno.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-15, 11:51 AM
Hmm. If I ever DM'ed 3.5 again (unlikely), and a player came to the campaign with a one-trick pony character (like the master of shrouds mentioned by Saph), I would invariably ask why he wants to play that character.

If the answer is, "so I can do 4d6 strength damage per round at level 9, and very few monsters can actually do damage to my shadows!" I would nerf his character's abilities to keep him in line with the rest of the party. Possibly restore a cleric level to keep him versatile. I dunno. I'd make it clear that he wouldn't be able to steamroll through the majority of encounters. 3.5 is a combat-focused game, after all, and combat is fun when either side has a fighting chance.

If the answer is, "my dude can call upon the wraiths in the darkness to smite his enemies!" I would nerf the character's abilities to keep him in line with the rest of the party. Possibly restore a cleric level to keep him versatile. Also, I'd tie his powers in as much as possible with the overall arc of the campaign, and setting. Perhaps make the shadow creatures servants of an entity trying to break into the material world and wreak havoc. I dunno.

Pretty much. It's sad, but I prefer a player who wants to go into a character's thematic rather than pure ruleplaying. Why? because the outcome is gonna be the same, but one will take it easier than the other.

Choco
2011-03-15, 12:20 PM
Pretty much. It's sad, but I prefer a player who wants to go into a character's thematic rather than pure ruleplaying. Why? because the outcome is gonna be the same, but one will take it easier than the other.

I don't powergame often, usually only when someone else in the group who thinks he is a powergamer/munchkin complains about my character's performance and needs to be put in his place, but when I do I make sure to come up with roleplay/backstory justification (that makes sense) for everything on the character sheet. Not only because it is more likely to get by a roleplay-loving DM, but because I find that more fun a challenge than the optimization itself.

But on the current topic, party imbalance is something that should be dealt with at the character creation phase. When you are given the character sheets for a batman wizard and a monk, that immediately should throw off some red flags. The players need to know the DM's expectations (and the other way around), that way if someone wants to be cute and sneak something broken past the DM, they have no right to complain when their character gets nerfed.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-15, 12:43 PM
Pretty much. It's sad, but I prefer a player who wants to go into a character's thematic rather than pure ruleplaying. Why? because the outcome is gonna be the same, but one will take it easier than the other.

Not always, I like a good balance.

You ever had one of those players that acts like even the most basic optimization is heresy, and ends up playing a fighter with no strength or con, and then spends his time trying to act contrary to the rest of the party who mostly wants to get on with the adventure? Thematic and/or roleplaying can be done badly, too.

There's nothing wrong at all with a bunch of guys who view it as a bunch of rules and don't bother to name their characters at all. There's also nothing wrong with the dude who shows up wearing cardboard "garb" and wants to roleplay his angst and love for elves for hours. But if you put these people in the same group, then something is going to end up terribly wrong.

Mulletmanalive
2011-03-15, 01:37 PM
There always has to be a balance between Gamist and Simulationist models. A perfectly Simulationist model just plain isn't fun. In a Simulationist world, enemy NPCs are going to be taking a Power Attack Coup De Grace with a Scythe to sleeping PCs that are foiling their plans. The party falls asleep at the inn, no sign of trouble, and suddenly the campaign's over because there's been a TPK. Yay. Fun.

Just thought i'd chip in that, accourding to our local gangster turned dinner speaker, that sort of plan is usually not a very good one as people have this annoying habit of surviving...

Apparently, not being able to tell that people are dead easily is detrimental to this, or something...

I didn't really glean much else, I was too busy throwing up my shrimp cocktail after he showed everyone his "wrecking hammer" complete with bloodstains.

BRC
2011-03-15, 02:24 PM
One thing I feel should be brought up, in terms of countering a "trick", is soft versus hard counters.

A Soft counter makes the trick less effective, or less worthwhile, for example, a good Will Save.
A Hard Counter completely negates the trick, making it not work at all, for example an immunity to mind effecting abilities.

When thinking about counters, it's also good to keep the rest of the party in mind. In my opinion, the best option is a Soft counter that dosn't really affect the rest of the party.

For example, my current party is only two people, a Beguiler and a Ranger (Well, gunslinger, it's a western campaign). The Beguiler has lots of ways to shut down enemies and has boosted his Save DC's quite high. To counter this, I frequently boost the Will Saves of my enemies (not too high), making it harder for the Beguiler to just shut down the enemies with one spell while not affecting the Gunslinger's ability to deal damage.

If the "Trick" is something like an Ubercharge, that just deals lots of damage, it's harder to soft counter this without hurting the rest of the party.

Another thing I did was intentionally expanded the Pony's set of tricks, in this case, I gave my Beguiler a magical knife that could be wielded by his mirror images (among other things),this gave him a way to attack enemies that were immune to his mind-effecting spells.

Firechanter
2011-03-22, 05:05 AM
*bump*
I just found this thread, missed it when it was burning.

Most things to be said about 1TPs have been brought up, and I think that the worst problem is that the tricks are mostly binary: either they are 100% effective or they don't work at all. For instance the turbocharger: either he one-shots the Great Red Wyrm on one round, or he is somehow denied the ability to charge and thus is rather useless.

Personally, I basically prefer playing "generalists", but in D&D that doesn't work so well. You must build on your strengths to perform well, it doesn't do to split up your resources on many tricks that you manage "okay". (Of course, unless you are a caster, then you can have many tricks and be awesome at all of them.)
And since you have to specialize anyway, you might as well do it in the most effective way you can think of. For instance, I am currently planning a Warblade. Originally I wanted to make him sort of a Chain Tripper / Knock-Down expert. Then I did some math and realized that this won't function well against many enemies -- any that are larger, have more legs, or are just stronger than a human can get. (First and foremost I design my characters by concept idea and not by stats, and in this case I want to play a human and not some Half-Minotaur Goliath or other monstrosity.) So eventually I decided to nix the feat-heavy Knockdown stuff and instead go for something that almost always works: dealing damage.

I guess a good way for the player is to arrange your Trick in "layers" (yes, like an onion... or an Ogre) with increasing effectiveness by circumstance. In ideal circumstances, you will just rock away everything, up to beating that Ancient Wyrm to pulp in a single round. In somewhat less ideal circumstances you may not put out quite as much damage but still be effective. The more adverse the circumstances get, the fewer parts of your default trick you can use, but a lot has to happen until you can't use it _at all_.
Also, there's a lot of truth in iirc Shneeky's Practical Optimization guide: you should always have some entirely different "fallback maneuvers" that kick in when your primary trick is not applicable.

This also plays well into the DMs hands, in a constructive way. Such a "layered" character the DM can accomodate by alternatively providing encounters that play to your strengths sometimes more, sometimes less. That way, the encounters are not "all or nothing", but rather along the lines of "100%, 70%, 40% effective, or fallback trick".
(Note, those figures are just exemplary)
As a DM, be sure to give your player the ability to shine 100% some of the time, but not too often. Maybe once every one or two sessions. Let him pull off a near-optimal trick (say, 70%) about once per encounter, and allow him to use the basic level of the trick ("40%") most of the time. Occasionally "force" him to use his fallback maneuver(s); in fact a player will appreciate _any_ instance where something he paid for comes to good use. Yes, this presumes the player has such a fallback. If he doesn't, then I guess it's tough luck.

Malevolence
2011-03-22, 06:42 AM
Inspired by another thread, and my own experience, I pose the question, how should a DM respond to a one-trick pony character.

For the purposes of this discussion, the "Trick" can be something rather general, like "Fighting enemies vulnerable to mind-affecting spells". What's important is that the character is highly focused on the "trick" to the exclusion of much else.

When faced with such a character, the DM must either play to the character's strengths, and as a result have the encounter be almost trivial (unless they are willing to pump up the difficulty to the point of having the rest of the party be useless), or work against that strength, and as a result have the character totally useless and the player feel slighted.

In your opinion, what should a DM do when faced with such a character?

Encourage the player to not play beatsticks.


I've got this problem in my campaign at the moment.

One of my players is playing a class from Libris Mortis called Master of Shrouds. Basically, it's a Cleric prestige class that with early entry tricks can be qualified for by level 3. It lets you summon a ton of Shadows much earlier than PCs are supposed to be able to. In exchange you heavily penalise your casting to the tune of two lost caster levels.

The result is that you have a character with a bunch of incorporeal Strength-damaging summons that are completely invulnerable to and can effortlessly kill somewhere around 75% of the level-appropriate opponents in the Monster Manual. On the other hand, if you're fighting undead, constructs, or anything with immunity to summons, the main feature of the class is completely useless.

Real pain in the neck to DM for, let me tell you.

I have one of those. My solution is simple.

At first, it works great. Because the enemies don't see it coming. Over time though they figure it out, and take increasing steps towards countering it. Boosting touch AC/incorporeal touch AC, Death Ward... He's still a Cleric, so I am not the slightest bit concerned about his ability to cope. He'll do fine.


The DM should be asking himself that second question. His job is to make the game interesting, and fun, and challenging. This means that occasionally "what XYZ would do in this situation" isn't appropriate. If the bard has been grappled to oblivion three fights in a row, the DM shouldn't do it again even if it's what the monster would do.

Countering grapples can be done by any number of means, most of which are very cheap, and available to Bards. If the Bard has been grappled to oblivion three times, and has not yet considered that maybe he should do something about that, then he will continue to be grabbed by tentacles until he does figure it out. Or maybe he likes that sort of thing.


There always has to be a balance between Gamist and Simulationist models. A perfectly Simulationist model just plain isn't fun. In a Simulationist world, enemy NPCs are going to be taking a Power Attack Coup De Grace with a Scythe to sleeping PCs that are foiling their plans. The party falls asleep at the inn, no sign of trouble, and suddenly the campaign's over because there's been a TPK. Yay. Fun.

What are they CdGing? The empty beds? The party is in a Rope Trick from level 5 on. Yes, you will be violently murdered in your sleep by intelligent enemies you are annoying, guards or no guards if you don't. That only applies if those enemies can get to you. Since this is an easy thing to counter, and a common sense one, they don't get to you. Unless they have Detect and Dispel Magic. In which case everyone falls out of the Rope Trick, wakes up, and fights the Scythe wielders. A much better deal than instant death overnight.

NecroRick
2011-03-22, 08:52 AM
Counters to a one trick pony Master of Shrouds type:

Traps

Ranged Weapons - his summoning doesn't last long, but when he casts it it is a full round thing, so have the monsters use him for archery practice when he tries it (it's okay, Concentration is a class skill for Master of Shrouds)

His summons don't last long - Have the monsters run away and regroup

Use a higher proportion of high strength monsters than you would have otherwise.

Send some area effect evocation magic lovin' right back at the party, the other players with love him long time for that. Fireball - not just for PCs.

Give the monsters the occasional divine caster backup - and swap in the feat that instead of turning the undead they do area effect multi-d6s. Goodbye Shadows.

Don't give XP for encounters where the players push an I win button.

I feel this one bears repeating, as too many people round here have blinders on. If the encounter isn't a challenge, it isn't worth a reward. It's like some of you lot think your job is to be a broken slot machine that pays out every time.

You can still give story XP, but if the player's begin to wonder why their advancement has slowed, you could drop a subtle hint...

----

As an aside, the player controls the Shadow. The Shadow controls any Shadows it creates. The first Shadow disappears after it's time wears off... what happens to the Shadows it created? That's right sparky! They become uncontrolled!!! YEEEHAAAAA!!! Open season on the Shroud Master.

Oh, what's that you hear? The sound of a rules lawyer getting their high dudgeon on? Well, guess what. *Technically* the first Shadow has just gone back where it came from, so it still controls the Shadows it created, and it has no reason to like the Shroud Master...

I'd have the group attacked a couple of times by lone Shadow spawn out for revenge. I'd drop hints that these were monster's they'd faced previously. Then I'd not have them attacked for a while. Then ambush them with a dozen or so of them.

The problem with that scenario is that of course the Shroud Master will use his Rebuke/Command ability to seize command of Player Level / 5 Shadows. And then he will run around creating a massive army of Shadows... but the problem then is that the more he gets the more devastating it will be when that one original Shadow somehow croaks, and the rest become uncontrolled and turn on the party.

Really, this is a setup for a TPK of epic proportions. Sufficient to reboot the campaign into a different storyline - e.g. some despicable evil Necromancer type raised a massive army of Shadows, and they are rampaging across the land, congratulations, your new characters are the graduating class of undead hunters (think Van Helsing) and each character must have at least one 'trick' that it uses to take out the undead...

Amphetryon
2011-03-22, 09:18 AM
Don't give XP for encounters where the players push an I win button.

I feel this one bears repeating, as too many people round here have blinders on. If the encounter isn't a challenge, it isn't worth a reward. It's like some of you lot think your job is to be a broken slot machine that pays out every time.

You can still give story XP, but if the player's begin to wonder why their advancement has slowed, you could drop a subtle hint...That reads, to me, as punishing players for building characters that are good at their jobs as professional adventurers. More power to you if that's what your group enjoys, but count me out.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-22, 09:59 AM
That reads, to me, as punishing players for building characters that are good at their jobs as professional adventurers. More power to you if that's what your group enjoys, but count me out.

If the players are spending more energy building their character than playing the game, then I'd believe they are doing something wrong.

Malevolence
2011-03-22, 10:08 AM
That reads, to me, as punishing players for building characters that are good at their jobs as professional adventurers. More power to you if that's what your group enjoys, but count me out.

Not to mention the moment his party catches on, they will become The Three Stooges, because it's the only way to get any rewards.

The goal in such a situation is to defeat the enemy. Let's say for the sake of argument the enemy is a Sorcerer.

If you storm the place, Detect/Dispel him out of the Rope Trick he is sleeping in, and kill him with readied actions before he gets a turn you defeat the Sorcerer.

If you walk in there normally, alert his guards, and have to fight him and all his minions and defeat him, you defeat the Sorcerer.

If you make a ton of noise, and the Sorcerer uses half his spell slots buffing himself and his minions, and the party wins anyways they defeat the Sorcerer.

No matter what, they get the same XP. The difference is that the good tactic allowed them to take out the Sorcerer quickly, before he could annihilate the party with devastating spells such as Stinking Cloud, Slow, and Glitterdust. The deliberately terrible tactic meant the enemies were well prepared for them and put up far more of a fight. The normal tactic was in between these two. Being smart about it is its own reward, because it means you are considerably less likely to die trying, and considerably more likely to succeed. This in turn encourages the party to play intelligently, which in turn means that they are roleplaying as no actual person would deliberately make things harder on themselves in a life or death situation.

Compare that to deliberately running around with your eyes closed, and the other ridiculous things that rule encourages, nay, demands.

Jay R
2011-03-22, 10:40 AM
I think one reason we aren't in agreement is that we are decribing (at least) three different situations.

1. The character who has one highly developed ability , but is otherwise a reasonable character.

2. The character who only has one ability, overpowering when it applies, and useless otherwise.

3. The player who wants to have a grossly unfair advantage.

The character in number one doesn't take away from the rest of the characters, and is always somewhat useful. Give her the occasional time when it works, and force her to do other things often enough for the game to be challenging. Also, watch to make sure the ability doesn't grow to game-warping levels

The person playing character 2 needs to be told -- up front -- that his character will be unplayable a lot of the time, and therefore this design is unacceptable. A single powerful ability is cool, but it can't become the whole campaign, so the character needs other skills too.

The player (not character) is the problem in number three. You have to tell him that he won't be allowed to overshadow the other players or the game. This will need to be enforced (in my experience, over and over again).

But until we agree on which one we're talking about, we can't have a useful discussion about what to do.

Amphetryon
2011-03-22, 10:42 AM
If the players are spending more energy building their character than playing the game, then I'd believe they are doing something wrong.

I'm not sure where you get that conclusion from my comment. However, if the players are truly spending more energy building their character than playing said character, that may indicate some combination of:

The player(s) in question are having difficulty with the creation process. The DM can help.
The DM prefers either one-shot adventures or games of such high lethality that characters are unlikely to last beyond a single 4 hour session, given an outside expectation of 5 solid, non-consecutive, hours spent making a character. If games are that lethal, players may well believe that taking extra care in character creation is warranted and required for a chance at playing the character for any length of time. If the games are one-shots, then XP rewards are generally moot anyway.
The player(s) find the creation process to be an enjoyable 'mini-game' in its own right. I know I do, as do many others who post to the Iron Chef contests here. Again, the DM response here reads as punishing the player for having fun.
The player(s) find it difficult to fully engage in the world in a meaningful way. A frank discussion between player and DM about expectations of the play session may be helpful.

Firechanter
2011-03-22, 12:20 PM
I might also add that in some games it's incredibly easy to make an "unbeatable" combo. For example, sticking close to D20, Conan is such one. Due to the modifications to D20 mechanics, all you need is a High Intitiative, Great-Cleaving Two Handed Power Attacker, typically a Barbarian. On the other hand, it is incredibly difficult making an effective combatant _without_ these feats. That's all Core, and if you allow Splats, that only makes it worse because that adds Reckless Attack, which effectively emulates Shock Trooper. In this case, the system is to be blamed, not the player, for being so terribly lopsided.

When we played Conan, we agreed on a few simple rule changes to level the playing field some: mostly, that 2-handed PA does not give double damage bonus, and there was a gentlemen's agreement not to use the most overpowered weapons (Bardiche and Greatsword).

Just adding this to point out that you don't always need to "put more energy into building than into playing" to make a nigh-unstoppable one-trick pony (and sometimes it doesn't even need to be so one-tricky).

Natael
2011-03-22, 01:41 PM
Or you set up your campaign to a point where it makes sense, without taking into account your players' powers. Oh hey, this treasure trove is guarded by a dragon that is an adult, regardless of when the players decide to show up. Or this king they're going to try to kill is a necromancer and has a warblade war adviser and has a bunch of undead, pimp it out as much as your players are pimped, but don't adjust that based on someone being a cleric.

If you're worried about XP, shift giving it out more toward role-playing and achieving goals through cleverness than specifically murdering everything.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-22, 02:15 PM
By Krom, you're saying that Conan is an optimizer?

Firechanter
2011-03-22, 02:48 PM
By Krom, you're saying that Conan is an optimizer?

Actually Conan probably cheated on char creation. His official stats say he basically rolled natural 17-18 on all abilities. ^^ His actual build isn't even so great, some rather hare-brained choices in there. ;)

NecroRick
2011-03-23, 09:32 AM
That reads, to me, as punishing players for building characters that are good at their jobs as professional adventurers. More power to you if that's what your group enjoys, but count me out.

You're reading it wrong. I'm not at all suggesting that players should be punished for designing good characters.

I am however suggesting that there should be logical consequences. That might involve asking some hard questions about what happens to all the low level monsters his shadows steamroll over. Well, according to RAW, they will come back to haunt him (sic). With judicious application of this, you might even get the party to the point where they don't even use the shadows against anything that they might kill to easily.

I also give some alternative ways to challenge the players (e.g. Traps). Okay, lets assume that they've pun-pun'ed their characters to the point where they easily win all level appropriate combat encounters... what do you do to keep them from falling asleep with boredom?

Not handing out xp for using their mighty stinky cheese to win without any effort is not punishing them for being good players.

Would you give experience points to a bunch of 20th level characters who go out and start randomly slaughtering helpless livestock?

No? Think about why not.

Or if the party has thoroughly optimised to beat an otherwise powerful opponent like a particular dragon, would you allow them to keeping raising the same dragon and pushing the 'free xp' button? Even if in the process they use up some scrolls, charges and potions and thus argue that they are 'spending resources'? (Assume for sake of argument they've cheesed some hypothetical way to get around the 'it only comes back if it wants to' problem of raise dead)

No? You wouldn't give them free xp for repeatedly killing the same dragon? Think about why not.

If the only reason that you don't let high level characters get xp for killing rabbits is because the DMG says not to, if you're so thoroughly blinkered and chained to the letter of the rules, whilst thoroughly ignoring the spirit of the rules, that if it didn't say not to you would...

...then there is something wrong with you.

----

You shouldn't just give XP for nothing, XP should be in response to actual genuine challenges. (Note they can still get story/goal bonus xp even if they cheese the encounters). Moreover, the amount of xp you give out should be proportional to the challenge. An EL 8 encounter that they steamroller over should give less XP than a nasty EL 6 encounter that they really struggle with.

But you will object that sometimes the players will prepare for the encounter to make it easier and then I'm punishing them. Not at all! If they prepare for an encounter to make it easier for themselves, but it is still a legitimate challenge (e.g. they aren't just pushing the same 'I win' button over and over again) then by all means give them normal xp.

You are the DUNGEON MASTER, not a broken slot machine for xp that always pays out big time.

Do you give players xp for making a successful "get out of bed check" in the morning? Do they get encounter xp for pouring cereal into a bowl? Cooking some bacon? After all, it is dangerous, they could get splattered with hot oil and that might hurt a tiny bit!! Now there's a campaign that would suck.

Some DMs seem to think they are morally obligated to hand out xp like candy, in effect paying the players for their time. I think it goes hand in hand with the 'allow cheese' flaw that some DMs seem to have where they will let any cheese through so long as there is even the flimsiest interpretation that supports it. If (for example) your campaign is broken the moment the players get their hands on wish, you're not just doing it wrong, you're actually going out of your way to support their blatant disregard of the guiding principles. If you haven't trained them properly, players will blatantly disregard the bits of the rules that don't support their pet cheese. They will happily ignore the 99 written instructions that it doesn't work that way if they can find even one that is ambiguously written that they can twist to halfway support their interpretation. Don't support them in this. Are you suffering from stockholm syndrome or something? Are the players holding your game hostage by threatening to walk if you don't let them cheese? If so, bad DM, no biscuit. Administers whacking on nose with rolled up newspaper.

-----

Moreover, presumably the player in this scenario is not unaware of what he is doing, hasn't he gone out of his way (by taking a bunch of different classes to level 1) in order to cheese around the willpower restriction so he can get shadows by level 5?

NecroRick
2011-03-23, 09:36 AM
Actually Conan probably cheated on char creation. His official stats say he basically rolled natural 17-18 on all abilities. ^^ His actual build isn't even so great, some rather hare-brained choices in there. ;)

There are a statistically remarkable number of PCs running around with stats like that.

That is the reason why even if the DM let you roll your stats away from the rest of the group I'd still insist on rolling percentile strength in front of the DM. Otherwise if you do fluke out and get that 18/00† you will always be under a cloud of suspicion.

†Old school stuff, young whippersnappers need not apply. Move along, nothing to see here. :D

Firechanter
2011-03-23, 10:17 AM
I haven't yet DMed for a group that was really good at optimization, so I can't really say what I'd do if the party walked all over level-appropriate encounters without any difficulties whatsoever. I guess it all depends on the amount of cheese present, although I'd do my best to prevent game-breaking cheese in the first place.


rolling percentile strength in front of the DM.

You had me going there for a moment. ^^ Haven't played AD&D in aaages.
That said, I and most players I know prefer point-buy. One psychological problem I have as a player, even if the DM is fine with stats rolled in his absence, and I roll well without cheating, I still have nagging thoughts like "These stats are so good, everyone will think I cheated" or "So if I had rolled poorly, would I actually use them, or pretend I was just warming up the dice and roll again 'for real'?"

Choco
2011-03-23, 10:22 AM
stuff

I gotta say I agree with this. I have always played in games where to get XP there has to be actual danger.

Though another solution (that admittedly will not work with a lot of players, you just gotta find the right group) is to not deal with XP at all. The most fun game I remember playing in, the DM just leveled us up arbitrarily when he thought we had earned it (usually after each major adventure in the campaign). Say what you want about that method, it did a GREAT job of stopping a lot of metagame decisions (hmmm, I could RP my character and negotiate with this guy, OR I could kill him for the XP...).

Tyndmyr
2011-03-23, 10:32 AM
Moreover, the amount of xp you give out should be proportional to the challenge. An EL 8 encounter that they steamroller over should give less XP than a nasty EL 6 encounter that they really struggle with.

This leads to the Three Stooges being the most powerful thing in the world.

Thus, I do not like this system.

wumpus
2011-03-23, 11:58 AM
I've mostly just skimmed the thread, but:

If this is a campaign:

How famous is the party? Plenty of encounters could/should involve the monsters/NPCs having the initiative and attacking the party. If the party members are known, expect a reasonable strategy.

Is there a BBEG? Does he know about the party yet? Once he knows a specific way to break the party, expect to see it on regular occasions. Obviously, the DM can convienently cause this information to leak to the BBEG in a number of ways.

Does the party have adversaries? Any group like the linear guild would quickly find out about any glass jaws the party might have. Expect the highest ECLs to nerf the special ability. This can be a huge problem with the BBEG showdown. The party can expect to have any weakness ruthless exploited, but should be able to have a plan to use their own strengths against the BBEG weaknesses. Presumably the party will have to burn plenty of consumables during the tougher fights and conserve when the pony stomps the monsters.

It looks like the above has to be on the table for all players. I suspect that if you made modifications to shorten the easy fights [in terms of play speed] and concentrate on the hard ones (as long as everybody has something to do) it will work.

If you insist on the gaming model used by the guy pushing 4e (in the preview): "there is a room in front of you, suddenly some monsters pop into existence for you to fight. After the fight, the only result of them ever existing will be the loot in your bags", you might as well let the pony pwn all. If your heroes are heroes (and have the fame to prove it), their enemies will make plans.

Amphetryon
2011-03-23, 01:38 PM
This leads to the Three Stooges being the most powerful thing in the world.

Thus, I do not like this system.

QFT. :smallsmile:

erikun
2011-03-23, 02:46 PM
One thing to consider is how much the single-trick overlaps or overshadows the rest of the party. If the single trick involves picking locks or forging letters, then the easiest solution would be to include senarios where those skills are useful but not necessary. Trying to gain access to a tomb under royal guard could involve sneaking past security or knocking them out with a Sleep spell... or forging the right documents allowing you inside. Assuming you know whose name you should forge. In these cases, it doesn't interrupt anything because everyone is able to contribute in other situations (including the one-trick pony) and the one players gets a chance to shine.

If the character overshadows other characters when they would otherwise shine, though, we have a slightly different set of problems. The optimized Ubercharger or the Diplomancer, for example, renders most other combat-oriented characters pointless. This is a bit more tricky. One solution for the Ubercharger would simply be more opponents, or additional dangerous targets that the charger can take out quickly and would cause a problem otherwise. The Necromancer with a horde of undead and an Iron Golem up front is going to be a lot of trouble if someone doesn't jump in and disable the golem quickly. (The Diplomancer is better served with working Diplomancy rules, along with some targets who can be diplomated and some who just cannot.)

Note that there is a difference between optimized one-trick ponies (Ubercharger) and optimizing versatility for power (say, dedicated Enchanters). Hamstringing someone who only has one method of combat - and who is useless otherwise - will quickly become boring. A Pyromancer can always turn off his abilities against a Fire Elemental or Red Dragon, but a Sorcerer dedicated to only fire-type spells cannot. While throwing in the occasional fire-resistant foe is okay, you should probably make several references to the fire-immune opponent before battle has begun. It's not much fun to be rendered completely impotent in what is supposed to be a climatic battle.

NichG
2011-03-23, 05:59 PM
This leads to the Three Stooges being the most powerful thing in the world.

Thus, I do not like this system.

This is only the case if XP and the CR system is actually an in-world thing for everyone, including NPCs.

I prefer the interpretation of XP as a way for the advancement of the campaign's power level to be quantified and controlled by the GM. It is not an in-character reward for the PCs. The reward for making a supremely competent PC is that you get to survive the encounter, or even be more powerful and capable than you should be given the structure of the campaign so far. The cost of doing so is that you may not gain power as quickly as if you needed help to keep up with the campaign's power curve. This is especially true if you have differential optimization in the party - to keep the low-optimization players capable of participating, it would make sense to give them larger XP awards to catch them up.

In practice, you won't get the three stooges because players like power. That's why they seek XP, because it leads to more power. So they won't play completely incompetent characters in order to horde XP, at least not over extended periods, since it goes counter to what they want and they'll always be fighting that urge to power up (but get on a slower XP track). What you may however get is people who do mid-optimization instead of high-optimization, or make other small alterations, and I think that can be a positive outcome for the stability of a game.

Amphetryon
2011-03-23, 09:46 PM
In practice, you won't get the three stooges because players like power. That's why they seek XP, because it leads to more power. So they won't play completely incompetent characters in order to horde XP, at least not over extended periods, since it goes counter to what they want and they'll always be fighting that urge to power up (but get on a slower XP track)My reading of the proposal is that it effectively punishes players for 'seeking XP' via D&D's traditional means of winning fights. The better a character is at combat, the worse his reward is for that ability. If you treat Character Level as in any way analogous to in-game constructs of rank, you end up with the least capable soldiers as the ones who most rapidly become Generals, the Rincewind-caliber Wizards as the heads of Unseen University, and so forth. That sounds like the Dilbert Principle, from here.

Again, there's nothing wrong with that playstyle, if it's what your group agrees upon and enjoys.

NichG
2011-03-24, 02:48 AM
My reading of the proposal is that it effectively punishes players for 'seeking XP' via D&D's traditional means of winning fights. The better a character is at combat, the worse his reward is for that ability. If you treat Character Level as in any way analogous to in-game constructs of rank, you end up with the least capable soldiers as the ones who most rapidly become Generals, the Rincewind-caliber Wizards as the heads of Unseen University, and so forth. That sounds like the Dilbert Principle, from here.

Again, there's nothing wrong with that playstyle, if it's what your group agrees upon and enjoys.

As I said in my post, for this to make sense NPCs should not be considered to use the XP system - XP becomes a purely metagame construct, not an in-world thing. Of course this also means that character levels are purely a metagame construct to some degree as well.

If you apply it properly, what you should end up with is a party of characters who, as played, are equally able to contribute to combat situations, and who are reasonably challenged by the scenarios they encounter. It is basically an adjustment for variances in system mastery among the group, so that system mastery is not explicitly rewarded. That way you end up supporting more player styles than just highest-op-dominates.

Malevolence
2011-03-24, 06:03 AM
What you promote is the lowest common denominator, where no one has any desire to strive and excel, because they are punished for doing so. In other words, the exact opposite of the meritocracy inherent to D&D.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-24, 06:09 AM
This is only the case if XP and the CR system is actually an in-world thing for everyone, including NPCs.

It is. Things like levels are transparently obvious in world in all sorts of ways. With the right build, you can, IC, know exactly what someones build is, including feat choices, etc. And by right build, I mean a few levels in a full casting prestige class that explicitly does this.


I prefer the interpretation of XP as a way for the advancement of the campaign's power level to be quantified and controlled by the GM. It is not an in-character reward for the PCs. The reward for making a supremely competent PC is that you get to survive the encounter, or even be more powerful and capable than you should be given the structure of the campaign so far. The cost of doing so is that you may not gain power as quickly as if you needed help to keep up with the campaign's power curve. This is especially true if you have differential optimization in the party - to keep the low-optimization players capable of participating, it would make sense to give them larger XP awards to catch them up.

So...now you have different players getting different xp amounts for behavior. I have nothing against that in general, but it makes it patently obvious to the PCs what behavior you're rewarding. That which you reward tends to be done more.

This is the entire logic behind roleplaying xp awards.


In practice, you won't get the three stooges because players like power. That's why they seek XP, because it leads to more power. So they won't play completely incompetent characters in order to horde XP, at least not over extended periods, since it goes counter to what they want and they'll always be fighting that urge to power up (but get on a slower XP track). What you may however get is people who do mid-optimization instead of high-optimization, or make other small alterations, and I think that can be a positive outcome for the stability of a game.

Players will do all sorts of things for power. Or for the lulz. I've seen players play the three stooges for no reason other than laughs. Laughs AND xp? Dear god, what have you done?

NichG
2011-03-24, 01:27 PM
It is. Things like levels are transparently obvious in world in all sorts of ways. With the right build, you can, IC, know exactly what someones build is, including feat choices, etc. And by right build, I mean a few levels in a full casting prestige class that explicitly does this.


This is a whole other kettle of fish, but basically, yes. If you assume that the rules of D&D are its physics (i.e. apply uniformly and reproducibly) and apply the scientific method to things you can basically deduce most of the ruleset of D&D in character, including the fact that randomization in the world uses regular polyhedra. Once you have the ability to do this and a DM with the mindset to allow it, it creates a fixed point attractor for all campaigns involving players with that inclination, namely they all end in the characters realizing they're inside a game and pursuing meta goals. That can make for an interesting campaign of course, but I don't think it should be the only campaign. Just like taking Wizards to the extreme logical limit always gets you to something like the Tippyverse.

So if I want to avoid that fixed point, all I need to do is say that such means of measuring metagame constructs fail due to things not modeled explicitly by the rules - that is, NPC have power sets that may look like feats and levels but if you look close enough won't give you consistent results that let you pin down what they are.



So...now you have different players getting different xp amounts for behavior. I have nothing against that in general, but it makes it patently obvious to the PCs what behavior you're rewarding. That which you reward tends to be done more.

This is the entire logic behind roleplaying xp awards.

Players will do all sorts of things for power. Or for the lulz. I've seen players play the three stooges for no reason other than laughs. Laughs AND xp? Dear god, what have you done?

Lets say for instance you have the rule: anyone who is effectively playing at a CR 5 above the current campaign power level gains zero xp. Game theoretically, that would encourage you to get as close to +5 as you think you can without the DM fluctuating and saying you've crossed threshold. There's no added advantage to going three-stooges. Thats just an example of course, but it gets closer to the original intent when this was proposed of stopping auto-win techniques from being applied by the party without making people start throwing alchemist flasks in an attempt to finagle xp. Essentially, you're enacting a soft penalty on behavior that has the potential to be disruptive.

I'd go further than that though. I play with a wide variety of player types - everything from people who like figuring out how to have caster level 20 at level 6, to people who will sit on 150000xp because they don't want to bother leveling up since it would force them to recompute their sheet and make mechanical choices (yes, I know you can't normally put off leveling up for multiple levels, this was a campaign specific thing).

To make that work in something like D&D its necessary to take steps so that every playstyle is equally competent at the table. Anything else will end in sadness for one group or the other. To do this, I want to remove the incentive to optimize unless one gains a secondary benefit from doing so (i.e. you enjoy optimizing). D&D as written highly rewards system mastery and punishes people who do things like take feats for purely RP reasons. A system like this basically provides a negative feedback that makes optimization less beneficial and reduces that gap.

Jay R
2011-03-24, 01:40 PM
Moreover, the amount of xp you give out should be proportional to the challenge. An EL 8 encounter that they steamroller over should give less XP than a nasty EL 6 encounter that they really struggle with.

Inigo: I want to duel him left-handed.
Vizzini: You know what a hurry we're in.
Inigo: Well, it's the only way I can get experience. If I use my right -- ch -- over too quickly.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-24, 01:47 PM
So if I want to avoid that fixed point, all I need to do is say that such means of measuring metagame constructs fail due to things not modeled explicitly by the rules - that is, NPC have power sets that may look like feats and levels but if you look close enough won't give you consistent results that let you pin down what they are.

So, how does that work with spell levels?

Frozen_Feet
2011-03-24, 02:21 PM
My approach to this has been simple: you let them win some and lose some. There's rarely just one pony to keep in mind anyway, so the pony with just one trick doesn't need to be foremost in your mind most often anyway.

You can put some obstacles on their way that need them to solve, and then put some others that need someone else to solve. You can make scenarios where the trick is useful yet not necessary, or scenarios that are utterly indifferent to the trick and the player both can and has to use something else to solve them.

That's all there is to it.

Talakeal
2011-03-24, 05:23 PM
This thread reminds me of one time in an oWoD game I was playing a mortal in a group of supernaturals. The only power I had was immunity to mind control, with the mind shield numina, max willpower, and the iron will and unbondable traits. Other than that all of my abilities were mundane and within the normal human range.
Very first encounter I got dominated by an NPC using a custom mind control power that doesnt count as mind control power and therefore bypasses all immunities.
Fun game. Short game.

NichG
2011-03-24, 05:57 PM
So, how does that work with spell levels?

I've been playing in games using Advanced d20 Magic (which has DCs to successfully cast spells, not levels) so I haven't had to think about this problem for awhile.

What I'd probably do is not bother with an explanation until a PC starts investigating it carefully. At which point I'd devise some complicated fluff about how magic really works or some wizardly academic ranking system such that something quantized like spell levels can fall out of it naturally, then say 'NPCs don't have levels, so just because he can cast spells of the fourth sphere doesn't mean he's a level 7 wizard, it means he's capable of casting spells of the fourth sphere'.

E.g.: spells are constructed by superimposing a number of discrete arcane component structures in one's mind in a sort of latticework. The human mind normally can only hold a certain discrete number of objects simultaneously in active memory (digits, letters, etc) equal to about 7. The different levels of spells correspond to spells which simply do not fit into a mind that is sufficiently untrained, but training can expand that number by teaching certain internal redundancies in the spell information that can compactify the spell to all fit at once. Because you're dealing with small numbers of discrete things, you get strong quantization effects which cause spells to roughly separate out into levels. Thus a level 1 spell is any that has 7 or fewer components, a level 2 spell has from 8 to 14, etc. Each level corresponds to the number of components you can reduce into one effective component.

Levels in PCs are ways of saying in a metagame sense when you've trained enough to achieve that result. For an NPC, you could have a frail old man with 4 hitpoints and +1 BAB who has in particular studied a certain spell to the point where he can cast it even if a level 2 wizard could not. Just like if I wanted the party to meet a master chef whose cooking is so spectacular it can reduce celestials to tears (total +40 cooking mod or something), he wouldn't necessarily have 10 BAB.

Gnaeus
2011-03-24, 06:48 PM
If the players are spending more energy building their character than playing the game, then I'd believe they are doing something wrong.

I have 2-4 weeks between each game session (I have a high-stress 60 hour a week job, and 2 small children). For every hour I have playing the game, I have 3-5 driving to/from work or on breaks from work, or sitting in court, hating my depressing job. I spend WAY more energy building my character than playing the game.

Your comment makes me so unbelievably angry that I had to walk away to avoid an insulting response. I'm playing the game wrong?!? The time I spend plotting out my character in detail is all that lets me keep my tenuous grip on sanity. I specifically pick characters with mechanics that take detailed work (like vancian casters, who plan their spell lists 3 levels ahead so that they will have the correct spell/feat combos to craft magic item x) just so that I can enjoy my hobby. Without the character-building minigame, there isn't enough left for me to make it worth the effort of bribing my wife for the one or or two afternoons a month I can play.

Firechanter
2011-03-24, 07:34 PM
Very first encounter I got dominated by an NPC using a custom mind control power that doesnt count as mind control power and therefore bypasses all immunities.

*facepalm*
I hope you did The Belkar on your Narrator, i.e. force-fed him, if not his intestines, then at least the rulebook, before you left the table.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-24, 08:23 PM
I've been playing in games using Advanced d20 Magic (which has DCs to successfully cast spells, not levels) so I haven't had to think about this problem for awhile.

What I'd probably do is not bother with an explanation until a PC starts investigating it carefully. At which point I'd devise some complicated fluff about how magic really works or some wizardly academic ranking system such that something quantized like spell levels can fall out of it naturally, then say 'NPCs don't have levels, so just because he can cast spells of the fourth sphere doesn't mean he's a level 7 wizard, it means he's capable of casting spells of the fourth sphere'.....stuff

So, you recognize that in character, it is trivial to recognize that more advanced wizards can cast the next level of spells. This, IC, gives you discrete knowledge of every two level jump.

Next, I bring to you...spells with a static HD cap. Like that core spell we all know...sleep. Consider, among wizards that can cast level 2 spells, they are either vulnerable to sleep, or not vulnerable to sleep. Rinse and repeat for other levels and classes with anything based off HD.

This gets us down to exact knowledge of levels using nothing but a wizard.

NichG
2011-03-24, 09:36 PM
So, you recognize that in character, it is trivial to recognize that more advanced wizards can cast the next level of spells. This, IC, gives you discrete knowledge of every two level jump.


Next, I bring to you...spells with a static HD cap. Like that core spell we all know...sleep. Consider, among wizards that can cast level 2 spells, they are either vulnerable to sleep, or not vulnerable to sleep. Rinse and repeat for other levels and classes with anything based off HD.

This gets us down to exact knowledge of levels using nothing but a wizard.


You're ignoring what I said here:



Levels in PCs are ways of saying in a metagame sense when you've trained enough to achieve that result. For an NPC, you could have a frail old man with 4 hitpoints and +1 BAB who has in particular studied a certain spell to the point where he can cast it even if a level 2 wizard could not. Just like if I wanted the party to meet a master chef whose cooking is so spectacular it can reduce celestials to tears (total +40 cooking mod or something), he wouldn't necessarily have 10 BAB.


What this means is, you could encounter a wizard who is susceptible to sleep but can cast 7th level spells. At best you'd be able to do things like say 'If they're susceptible to Sleep, then Cloudkill will kill them'.

Amphetryon
2011-03-24, 09:51 PM
A sleep spell causes a magical slumber to come upon 4 Hit Dice of creatures. Creatures with the fewest HD are affected first How is your Wizard 4th level or less and casting 7th level spells, outside of a scroll or other spell-completion item?

NichG
2011-03-25, 02:21 AM
How is your Wizard 4th level or less and casting 7th level spells, outside of a scroll or other spell-completion item?

I don't disagree that taking RAW to the logical conclusion leads to what Tyndmyr was talking about. I'm saying that one should deviate from RAW if a PC starts looking too closely at the flats that compose the background. You could of course just ask your friend to stop breaking the game or poking at the game physics - thats a reasonable approach. However, if you want to run a game that has a self-consistent feel but does not have this problem, you eventually will have to deviate from RAW. Basically, treat the rules as a model of a greater system, rather than the underlying physics. That way, when you go outside the regime of validity the model simply fails to predict what should happen (e.g. the player is surprised because they meet an NPC that is impossible by the rules, but the character has no reason to be surprised).

If you absolutely must have some sort of RAW-based precedent for a 4HD entity casting 7th level spells without SLAs or spell completion or spell trigger items, there are a number of creatures in the monster manuals that have 'casting as a 12th level X' but only, say, 8 HD. The wizard who can cast 7th level spells from 30 years of study but only has 4HD has gained a 'Studious Wizard' template that grants him the casting advancement without the levels (and if the players ask about getting it, tell them sure, it advances your casting a number of levels equal to the LA of the template and has a prerequisite of a certain number of years of study, so its strictly sub-optimal to take except in rare multiclassing situations and is likely not PC appropriate due to the time limitation).

Provengreil
2011-03-25, 02:45 AM
Given the normal paradigm where the DM controls the monsters, how does one differentiate between one using metaknowledge, and the other using metaknowledge? If a theoretical Sorcerer has ignored the host of magic/equipment-based ways to easily escape from a grapple, and the Troll the party fights grapples him, it happens because the DM decided it would (and the dice supported the decision). Sure, on the one hand, you could argue that the Troll chose to play huggy-bear with the squishy because it looked easier to the Troll than hugging the Warblade with the Spiked Chain/Spiked Armor combo, but isn't it equally valid to say that the Troll attacked the Sorcerer because the DM decided that was going to happen, knowing full well that the Sorcerer was ill-prepared to defend that tactic?

see, that's what I like to call the hole that don't end. If you're familiar with 40k, it looks like this:

massive thunderwolf cavalry squad? ok, here's 3 dakka preds, 2 sets of sternguard veterand, and some hammernators to take out anything that actually crosses the field.

not if my longfangs have anything to say!

well my thunderfire cannnon....

but neither of them has actually written a list yet, nor are they proposing legal armies at this point. (I apologize to anyone who is totally lost.)

basically, you've hit the point where it doesn't matter if the DM decides the troll liked it because the troll liked it or he knew it would work. the point is it happened, and now the sorceror is in trouble. let the dice hit the field and everyone roll with it, and in the end if everyone is smiling it's gone right.

Amphetryon
2011-03-25, 05:16 AM
If you absolutely must have some sort of RAW-based precedent for a 4HD entity casting 7th level spells without SLAs or spell completion or spell trigger items, there are a number of creatures in the monster manuals that have 'casting as a 12th level X' but only, say, 8 HD. The wizard who can cast 7th level spells from 30 years of study but only has 4HD has gained a 'Studious Wizard' template that grants him the casting advancement without the levels (and if the players ask about getting it, tell them sure, it advances your casting a number of levels equal to the LA of the template and has a prerequisite of a certain number of years of study, so its strictly sub-optimal to take except in rare multiclassing situations and is likely not PC appropriate due to the time limitation).First, 8HD would make said monsters immune to Sleep (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sleep.htm) as written. Second, I had not realized in making my response that our paradigm had shifted to discussing monsters and houserules. I read Tyndmyr's example of a Wizard casting Sleep (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sleep.htm) as based on the 3.5 rules as written/intended, with your rebuttal couched within that same framework. If the response, rather, was "I can provide a theoretical homebrew template that I can theoretically apply to a Wizard", well, yes you can, but now we're discussing dealing with your houserules, versus dealing with a player who has one really good shtick.

If your above quoted response is, instead, to be read in the larger framework of the DM being able to say "You can't do that because I said so, and I'm the DM"... you can do that, of course. You're the DM. It's your campaign. It's just a response that could well end up with fewer players at your table, when used indelicately, and as such one I don't personally advocate. If your players disagree, wonderful. Happy gaming.

NichG
2011-03-25, 04:41 PM
If your above quoted response is, instead, to be read in the larger framework of the DM being able to say "You can't do that because I said so, and I'm the DM"... you can do that, of course. You're the DM. It's your campaign. It's just a response that could well end up with fewer players at your table, when used indelicately, and as such one I don't personally advocate. If your players disagree, wonderful. Happy gaming.

My point was, if you want to avoid certain in-universe consequences of strict RAW reading, namely the inevitability of in-character discovery of the fact that the world is a game resolved by regular polyhedra, you can do so by having the rules be merely an approximation and metagame construct that tells players how to construct their PCs. The consequence of this is that you can encounter situations and NPCs in which when you investigate the rules governing them too closely, you discover that they are not constructed as per the RAW. This is beneficial if your intent is to not run a campaign about the metagame and you have a PC who insists on trying to make metagame knowledge in-character.

You can of course run a campaign that is about the metagame, which can be fun. But the problem is when every campaign becomes about the metagame.

If you want to stop that, you have two (ish) choices:

1. Ask the player to stop knocking down the cardboard flats that make up the world and institute a general policy of genre blindness amongst the table. No one notices it because they have a blind-spot about those facts. This can strain credulity.

2. Replace the game rules as written with some other self-consistent underlying ideas. I vastly prefer this, because it means there's something for the PC to discover (since he's bothering to look, one assumes that he'd have fun exploring that sort of thing) but that it doesn't necessarily lead to the 'my universe is a tabletop game' conclusion. To do this effectively, one must be willing to treat RAW as a model not as physics, and deviate from RAW when the players do experiments.