How to deal with this DM?

[Laendri]

Hi, I open this post to hear some opinions about how would you deal with my DM. I have no choice of other D&D group in my city so I must stay with him, but after reading a lot of threads about other groups I think my DM is kind "casual" or inconsistent. :smallbiggrin:

Massive complain following: First, he likes classic medieval D&D, he doesn't care if a wizard cast wish as many times as he wants, but he hates when a fighter ask to buy a magic item beyond+3. Last game my fighter (with a +1 sword and a +1 fullplate at level 5) tried to buy a +1 shield and he started a discussion about how we always want to be overpowered players.
He doesn't know about Tiers or if he does he doesn't care. He thinks a dual sword warrior is overpowered as well as all warlocks. (Infinite Blast? OVERPOWERED!) He lets you play Optimized Clerics of doom as long as you dont use PrCs but he is not agree if you try to make a barbarian/fighter/sorcerer he calls that kind of multiclassing overpowered too.
He kind of dictates that the group must have 1 cleric 1 mage 1 melee and 1 rogue, but he doesnt let us, for example, make a factotum or a specialized bard instead of the fkin* rogue.
He thinks druids sucks and he always punish players trying to use them making fun of them in-game. He forbids monks, samurais, and any asian like class.
When you try to take PrC he makes you pass "his approval" which basically is nerfing every single PrC out there to the point you no longer want it...

Well you get the idea.

I have already tried to talk to him about unbalance but he is not listening.So here is my question.
-Should I just abuse his opinion and just make clerics/wizards of unholy power and be the most powerful PC of our games? Or should I talk to the other party members about tiers and make secret meetings for optimizing their characters? Or should I just surrender and be the DM myself? Plz opinions, tips, beer or w/e.

PD: Btw, talking to the other party members about making more powerful PC could be dangerous, as the DM is also dropping too powerful monsters ( we are a 4 PC party with tier issues always, and I say ALWAYS killing monsters 2-4 CR higher than our highest lvl.) and could lead into heavy turtling or massive PC deaths. :smalleek:

[Hiro Protagonest]

Optimize a tier 1 caster to break the game, and see how your DM handles it. That should either teach him, or tell you to get a new DM.

[Mindfreak]

I say do this:
tell your DM that if he doesn't actually begin balancing in his campaign and listening to reason, that you and the other players will stop playing with him. You guys would just have to find a new player, and then you choose one of yourselves to be the DM. You should only try this if you get the other players to back you up though. But, the way you describes the DM
makes it sound like he is just horrible.

[Cog]

You could ask if he's happened to look at page 135 of the DMG, where it's laid out just how much gear the rules expect you to have at a given level.

[Geigan]

Alternatively beat him over the head with a printed out explanation of the reasons for the tier system. The only thing I can say for people who won't even listen is make them listen.

[Luckmann]

I don't have anyone to play with and I still wouldn't play in this man's group. I mean, it's not all bad (Asian classes? Get the hell out. Approval of PrC's? Perfectly reasonable).

But all the rest? Oh dear lord. :smalleek:

[Hiro Protagonest]

I say do this:
tell your DM that if he doesn't actually begin balancing in his campaign and listening to reason, that you and the other players will stop playing with him. You guys would just have to find a new player, and then you choose one of yourselves to be the DM. You should only try this if you get the other players to back you up though. But, the way you describes the DM
makes it sound like he is just horrible.

If the other players also think he's bad and don't like his play style, then yeah, have the rest of the group leave.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Honestly, throw him some reading. If he doesn't understand it, just send him here!:smallwink: Hell, do that now!

[Godskook]

1.Show him to our boards, particularly to stuff like Jaronk's tier list, Treantmonk's guide to wizards, the Stormwind Fallacy. Y'know, stuff like that.

2.Explain to him that while the DM is meant to be the 'referee', he is also expected to understand what he's refereeing. A basketball ref who thinks that 'dribbling' is OP, but is ok with punching other players is not really a good basketball ref(but should try to get into hockey).

3.He might not be the best DM for your group. See if someone else is willing to take to the other side of the DM board and try something a bit more 'typical' of D&D.

[Amphetryon]

You could try to join a game on the internet. For example, there's sometimes a PbP game going here at GitP. :smallbiggrin:

[Hiro Protagonest]

You could try to join a game on the internet. For example, there's always 50+ PbP games going here at GitP. :smallbiggrin:

Fixed that for ya.

[veven]

2.Explain to him that while the DM is meant to be the 'referee', he is also expected to understand what he's refereeing. A basketball ref who thinks that 'dribbling' is OP, but is ok with punching other players is not really a good basketball ref(but should try to get into hockey).




Mind if i sig this?

[Godskook]

Mind if i sig this?

Ok....sure. Didn't realize it was sig-worthy, so I guess a thanks is in order.

Thanks.

[Laendri]

Optimize a tier 1 caster to break the game, and see how your DM handles it. That should either teach him, or tell you to get a new DM.

If I make a character he comes to think is too OP he just BAN him. I once made a warrior that had AC 30 at lvl 12 only by feats adn shield and he just banned him from his game.

For all those who advise about taking the other players to play alone. I can't I'm the "new" one in the group and they will not follow me. They all have little expereince in RP games, they see "somtheing" is wrong but can see "what".

I wish I could send him here, but he can't read english.



2.Explain to him that while the DM is meant to be the 'referee', he is also expected to understand what he's refereeing. A basketball ref who thinks that 'dribbling' is OP, but is ok with punching other players is not really a good basketball ref(but should try to get into hockey).

3.He might not be the best DM for your group. See if someone else is willing to take to the other side of the DM board and try something a bit more 'typical' of D&D.

I tried to explain him the overview of the D&D system but he is so dense.
I see that me being DM could open the whole party mind to how D&D is usually played. But I'm afraid they will want me to DM everytime from then and I preffer playing as PC.
By writing all this stuff down I kind of see my options are few and simply dropping out his game will solve it. But damn, I love D&D and I hate living in a small city with no groups at all.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Alright, here's what you do.

Have him make a level 20 wizard that passes by his approval, and you make a level 20 fighter that he thinks is overpowered. Then, have the fighter and the wizard fight, starting something like 60-100 feet away, with some sort of terrain in between, with you controlling the fighter and him controlling the wizard.

If that doesn't work, either you DM, or just leave the group and play pbp.

[Godskook]

Have him make a level 20 wizard that passes by his approval, and you make a level 20 fighter that he thinks is overpowered. Then, have the fighter and the wizard fight, starting something like 60-100 feet away, with some sort of terrain in between, with you controlling the fighter and him controlling the wizard.

Nah, switch controls so that the DM is playing as the 'OP' fighter that Laendri made, while Laendri destroys him with a 'standard' wizard. Over and over again.

[Bovine Colonel]

If I make a character he comes to think is too OP he just BAN him. I once made a warrior that had AC 30 at lvl 12 only by feats adn shield and he just banned him from his game.

Optimize a druid out the wazoo and play him. When he gets banned, optimize a cleric out the wazoo and play that. Repeat ad infinitum.

[Laendri]

Alright, here's what you do.

Have him make a level 20 wizard that passes by his approval, and you make a level 20 fighter that he thinks is overpowered. Then, have the fighter and the wizard fight, starting something like 60-100 feet away, with some sort of terrain in between, with you controlling the fighter and him controlling the wizard.


And what If I kill the wizard? That will doom my chances forever :smallbiggrin:


Nah, switch controls so that the DM is playing as the 'OP' fighter that Laendri made, while Laendri destroys him with a 'standard' wizard. Over and over again.

I guess I could make a lvl20 OP fighter and give it to him, and take a standar lvl 15 sorcerer and Baneful-Polymorph him to ashes chiken.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Nah, switch controls so that the DM is playing as the 'OP' fighter that Laendri made, while Laendri destroys him with a 'standard' wizard. Over and over again.

Actually, do both. First time you control the wizard and he controls the fighter, then you switch.

Of course, he'll probably then say "it's not how it would really work" because the wizard is at full spells. If that happens, have it so half the wizard's spells from each level are spent, and repeat the exercise. If he complains about the fact that it's 20th level, do it at 10th level, or 5th, or 15th, for as long as it takes. But if you did this for all 20 levels, and he still hasn't moved an inch, then quit.

Edit:
And what If I kill the wizard? That will doom my chances forever :smallbiggrin:
I don't think it's possible that you'll kill the wizard, if he's using things like gate and time stop.

[HappyBlanket]

Of course, he'll probably then say "it's not how it would really work" because the wizard is at full spells. If that happens, have it so half the wizard's spells from each level are spent, and repeat the exercise. If he complains about the fact that it's 20th level, do it at 10th level, or 5th, or 15th, for as long as it takes. But if you did this for all 20 levels, and he still hasn't moved an inch, then quit.

Edit:
I don't think it's possible that you'll kill the wizard, if he's using things like gate and time stop.

Maybe not at the real low levels. Around level 3 or so, a straight Fighter can do some serious damage to Wizards with a Power Attack or two. But at the higher levels? A single Wizard can easily take down a party of Fighters.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Maybe not at the real low levels. Around level 3 or so, a straight Fighter can do some serious damage to Wizards with a Power Attack or two. But at the higher levels? A single Wizard can easily take down a party of Fighters.

Well, at the low levels there is a problem if the fighter wins initiative...

But that's why they're 60 feet apart with some kind of terrain in between.

[Zaq]

Yeah, I'd recommend running a campaign. Show him what the game is supposed to be like (no, there's no "one true way" to play, but I think we can all agree that what this GM is doing is not exactly how things should be). Don't be aggressive or acerbic about it, but it will, if he is not a totally unreasonable person, show him that a game without his ridiculous spasms attached to it is perfectly viable and fun.

I mean hell, you know how I got my group to adopt a pretty much all-books-open policy? I ran a game where traditional spellcasting was banned but everything else was open. Once they saw incarnum and ToB and psionics and whatever in play, they were a lot more open to allowing them. This is sort of the same thing from a different angle. Once he sees multiclassed characters and magic items and PrCs and general normal gameplay at the table for a month or two, if he's at all reasonable, he'll probably change the way he runs things. I doubt he'll do a total about-face and start running games exactly the way you do, but I bet he'll be more reasonable. Don't push the flavor thing too hard (or at all . . . we're trying to show him that giving the Fighter some magic bling doesn't change the flavor), since a lot of GMs get really unreasonably attached to flavor . . . but the mechanics are the real issue here.

If he still doesn't get it, eh, he's not going to get it. Either find a way to subvert his limitations (he ignores casters? Play a Druid. Don't go out of your way to destroy his game, but feel secure in knowing that he basically can't make you useless without publicly going against you personally and making himself look like an ass) or just don't play with him. But I think that leading through example is the best thing to do here.

[KoboldCleric]

Obviously I'm not actually there, so take this suggestion as you will, but perhaps instead of starting with the assumption that the DM's way is the wrong way and that only changing him can make the game fun, change instead that over which you do have control: you. What is it that you enjoy about d&d, that makes you keep coming back even though you're not having as much fun as you'd like? How can you bring that which you enjoy to the forefront of the game? Allow your expectations to alter your reality; see the game through rose coloured glasses.

If you like playing fighters with powerful magic equipment and a +1 sword doesn't seem powerful to you stop comparing it with the Holy Avenger you saw in a sourcebook somewhere and think about it in comparison to the mundane swords prevalent in you DM's game world.

If you like playing Sorcerers and your dm won't let you prc into something that actually gets class features focus on the fact that your charcter just shattered the laws of physics with that 3rd level spell he just cast.

Surely you can find a way to get more enjoyment out of changing your expectatons and playing than quitting and sulking about how it didn't stand up to expectations, no?

[Laendri]

Obviously I'm not actually there, so take this suggestion as you will, but perhaps instead of starting with the assumption that the DM's way is the wrong way and that only changing him can make the game fun, change instead that over which you do have control: you. What is it that you enjoy about d&d, that makes you keep coming back even though you're not having as much fun as you'd like? How can you bring that which you enjoy to the forefront of the game? Allow your expectations to alter your reality; see the game through rose coloured glasses.

If you like playing fighters with powerful magic equipment and a +1 sword doesn't seem powerful to you stop comparing it with the Holy Avenger you saw in a sourcebook somewhere and think about it in comparison to the mundane swords prevalent in you DM's game world.

If you like playing Sorcerers and your dm won't let you prc into something that actually gets class features focus on the fact that your charcter just shattered the laws of physics with that 3rd level spell he just cast.

Surely you can find a way to get more enjoyment out of changing your expectatons and playing than quitting and sulking about how it didn't stand up to expectations, no?

You have a point there, but its hard to think "My fighter is not weak, its just that all those wizards are so powerful they kill me everytime I meet one" xD
Once you have rolled dozens of characters because your DM kills you everytime and he doesn't seem to notice the fact "2 wizards of higher lvl than 1 fighter without magic items = instant rape" its hard to keep the "having fun" focus. I have been playing with this group for 1 year now. I'm not complaining about the DM playing differently as I would play. I complain about the fact that he is not noticing the unbalance I have to deal with just cause I like swords over spells.

Anyway, still a good advice.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

If you like playing fighters with powerful magic equipment and a +1 sword doesn't seem powerful to you stop comparing it with the Holy Avenger you saw in a sourcebook somewhere and think about it in comparison to the mundane swords prevalent in you DM's game world.

The issue with this is that the game assumes one plays relatively closely to Wealth by Level. If you don't have a greater than +1 sword after a certain point, that can be annoying. It can be exacerbated by a DM who doesn't let a +3 equivalent weapon but has no problems with +6 stat items and other miscellaneous caster-y gear.

[Leon]

1.Show him to our boards, particularly to stuff like Jaronk's tier list, Treantmonk's guide to wizards, the Stormwind Fallacy. Y'know, stuff like that.


Overhyped what all those are - you don't like how a DM runs his games so you try and change him.
Are the other people having fun, if not why are they still there. you may have a desire to play D&D but but its not your call to change how a DM runs his games if they are not to what you want to play.

Its you call to leave when its not your thing and to do so graciously and quietly start a new group up and have it meet your expectations from the start and maybe once you have a workable group you can share the role of DMing

[Godskook]

Overhyped what all those are - you don't like how a DM runs his games so you try and change him.

:smallconfused:

Exactly what do you mean by 'overhyped'? Cause speaking as someone who suckled through 3.5 on such readings, and then proceeded to walk into my first face-to-face tabletop experience as the DM, I'd say that they're core to understanding how D&D works. I have never had an issue challenging my PCs, and 90% of the time, I'm more familiar with the mechanics of their classes than they are, despite having 4 long-time tabletop gamers at my table, at least 3 of which have DMing experience.

[Thurbane]

Optimize a tier 1 caster to break the game, and see how your DM handles it. That should either teach him, or tell you to get a new DM.
It's really disappointing how often people post this in these kind of threads.

"Breaking the game" to teach the DM a lesson is generally not a good idea, and is likely to ruin the fun for the rest of the group. It's basically being a jerk.

1. Talk with the DM, explain your problems with his DMing style, see if the rest of group has similar issues, and try to reach a compromise. Just read that you already tried that...

2. If the DM and yourself can't reach common ground on what type of game you enjoy...vote with your feet. If this isn't an option (i.e. if it's the only game in town), ask the DM if you can take turns DMing, and if he agrees to this, run the game how you enjoy it when you are DM.

...we all know how easily even "core only" D&D can be broken...doing so to teach someone a lesson isn't particularly clever, IMHO.

[Veyr]

You leave. End of story. What's to discuss? This DM doesn't know what he's doing, and apparently thinks DMing is an excuse to have a power-trip over the other players. Nothing you do is ever going to make this an enjoyable experience. It's just not worth it. Join a PbP; they suck and it'll probably die, but maybe you'll get lucky. At the very least, it'll probably be good while it lasts and it won't be with this idiot, plus you won't be out very much effort/time when/if it dies.

Or join #giantitp on gamesurge.net and see if anyone's doing a real-time game with MapTool or something. It's kind of short on DMs at the moment but maybe you'll get lucky and Afro will go even more insane or something.

[Kaww]

Quit. Start your own game. Yes, it's that simple.

[Fable Wright]

My advice? Adapt to his game. Don't stock up on magic weapons and armors- use more generic things cleverly. The DM is afraid of bonuses and such, and probably ignores small items. Tanglefoot bags can be used to great effect- you automatically halve a creature's speed for around 5 rounds, and makes them suffer -2 to attack and AC. While the opponent won't often fail the save, there's still the chance they lose a full-round action getting stuck to the floor. If he doesn't give you enough money to chuck them around like there's no tomorrow, invest in a net- even if you're nonproficient, you're only making a touch attack for the same effect. Or work with the Wizard and get an animated rope for the same condition. For added fun, with Quick Draw, you can use several of these per round with your attack actions. Use smokesticks to avoid getting eaten- ready an action to drop one before an encounter, and when they begin attacking/charging, you ignite it and now have a miss chance. Move behind the beast/outside of the effect for the counterattack; you had partial or full concealment from their attack, and lose the penalty after that. For the best results, move back out of the range, around the creature, and then hit it with a tanglefoot bag or net before wading into melee again. Shortspears could be fun if you need to get attacks on the opponents from a range- you can still power attack with them and chuck them for decent damage- not as high as power attacking with a great sword, but if you want to keep the opponent at range, that's the way to go- and if you have Quick Draw, you can change between the two combat modes effortlessly; if you kill an opponent in melee, take your right hand off the sword and use the shortspears, and if the person you were shooting at range comes close, you can easily change to greatsword to up the damage, after using the spears to even the field. This is not making a character to shove the rules up the DM's throat, and don't try to play it like that- but you can use these tactics to survive in the game, would be slightly less dependent on magical gear, and (hopefully) not a "power gamer" from your DM's perspective.

[HalfDragonCube]

Someone else wrote this in another thread but I think 'bite the DM as hard as you can' is appropriate.

[MCerberus]

What we have here...
Is a failure to communicate.


The passive-agressive gestures almost never work. When they do work, you're throwing away your ability to get along with people.


Voice your concerns with calmness.

Don't:
Passive Agress

Have everyone with you for the first real discussion about this (usually people take this as "ganging up"

Offer to take over (you're trying to steal my game!)

[Geigan]

Wait you said you're the new guy but have been playing for a year now? I know that's not exactly long but unless your session frequency is about once a month or less I'd say you guys have been doing this long enough that you can legitimately complain if you're not having fun. How long have the other players been playing in comparison? If they've been gaming for a lot longer than a year I wouldn't think they're still "new" enough to RPGs to not listen to your beefs on balance in the game. Can you clarify your group's situation?

[Lord.Sorasen]

My advice? Adapt to his game. Don't stock up on magic weapons and armors- use more generic things cleverly. The DM is afraid of bonuses and such, and probably ignores small items. Tanglefoot bags can be used to great effect- you automatically halve a creature's speed for around 5 rounds, and makes them suffer -2 to attack and AC. While the opponent won't often fail the save, there's still the chance they lose a full-round action getting stuck to the floor. If he doesn't give you enough money to chuck them around like there's no tomorrow, invest in a net- even if you're nonproficient, you're only making a touch attack for the same effect. Or work with the Wizard and get an animated rope for the same condition. For added fun, with Quick Draw, you can use several of these per round with your attack actions. Use smokesticks to avoid getting eaten- ready an action to drop one before an encounter, and when they begin attacking/charging, you ignite it and now have a miss chance. Move behind the beast/outside of the effect for the counterattack; you had partial or full concealment from their attack, and lose the penalty after that. For the best results, move back out of the range, around the creature, and then hit it with a tanglefoot bag or net before wading into melee again. Shortspears could be fun if you need to get attacks on the opponents from a range- you can still power attack with them and chuck them for decent damage- not as high as power attacking with a great sword, but if you want to keep the opponent at range, that's the way to go- and if you have Quick Draw, you can change between the two combat modes effortlessly; if you kill an opponent in melee, take your right hand off the sword and use the shortspears, and if the person you were shooting at range comes close, you can easily change to greatsword to up the damage, after using the spears to even the field. This is not making a character to shove the rules up the DM's throat, and don't try to play it like that- but you can use these tactics to survive in the game, would be slightly less dependent on magical gear, and (hopefully) not a "power gamer" from your DM's perspective.

I fear that this sort of thing won't work either. He's a very, very, very, mundane type of dm. But what's big here is that he doesn't trust the game's rules to provide for a proper sense of balance (no one here does either, but it's a different type of distrust, if you can understand what I'm trying to say here). If you display what he considers to be power, it doesn't matter what source you use. Creatively using the source will be considered power gaming. He forces the party to fit a formula, and since he won't allow, for instance, a non-rogue to play the rogue-type, he probably expects the guy playing the fighter to hit things with a stick.

Now, if this guy isn't your friend in the real life, just leave, because it seems to me like you're not having fun at all. Showing him this board actually might be a good idea after all, because if his complaints are based on the fighter with better magic being imbalanced, this really could help him.

PS: Do your parties always have to have a cleric and a rogue? I mean, there seems to be no room for bards or archery types at all within his party requirements. Could you have a cleric be the spellcaster and another cleric be the cleric? How limited is his list? How does he feel about the spiked chain trip combo thing?

[Hiro Protagonest]

What we have here...
Is a failure to communicate.


The passive-agressive gestures almost never work. When they do work, you're throwing away your ability to get along with people.


Voice your concerns with calmness.

Don't:
Passive Agress

Have everyone with you for the first real discussion about this (usually people take this as "ganging up"

Offer to take over (you're trying to steal my game!)
Alright, he's said he tried talking to him already, and that this guy won't budge, so upfront and straightforward doesn't work.

Wait you said you're the new guy but have been playing for a year now? I know that's not exactly long but unless your session frequency is about once a month or less I'd say you guys have been doing this long enough that you can legitimately complain if you're not having fun. How long have the other players been playing in comparison? If they've been gaming for a lot longer than a year I wouldn't think they're still "new" enough to RPGs to not listen to your beefs on balance in the game. Can you clarify your group's situation?

Well, I'm pretty sure this guy is new in the sense that he's the newest in the group. The others, however, are all inexperienced and can't figure out the problem, they know there's a problem but they can't see it.

[Geigan]

Well, I'm pretty sure this guy is new in the sense that he's the newest in the group. The others, however, are all inexperienced and can't figure out the problem, they know there's a problem but they can't see it.

I'd really like to hear from the OP on this as I'd say he's got the right to be at least heard since he's not so new as to have just walked in and started complaining as if he was entitled to have the group conform to him. A player who wants to change something about the game that's keeping him from having fun isn't wrong just because he disagrees with the DMs rulings. Also is the reason he's not having fun due to his ineffectiveness weighing down the party, or is it because he just wants to be more powerful. He could just adapt to the game's power level if it's the latter, but if it's making him a burden then the DM is being ridiculous. Context is important.

[Laendri]

Well, I'm pretty sure this guy is new in the sense that he's the newest in the group. The others, however, are all inexperienced and can't figure out the problem, they know there's a problem but they can't see it.

Exactly, they are friends in RL and the group was formed about 6 years ago, I have been in their sessions for 1 year but I have been playing D&D for many years. The other party members don't.

So I'm new to the group, but the most experienced player. That means I can't really lead them to anything yet cause I'm the new guy, but also means I'm the one who notices whats going on. When they see some horribly played trap/monster/rule/whatever they just think the gameis that way, not that it's the DMs fault.

[Geigan]

Exactly, they are friends in RL and the group was formed about 6 years ago, I have been in their sessions for 1 year but I have been playing D&D for many years. The other party members don't.

So I'm new to the group, but the most experienced player. That means I can't really lead them to anything yet cause I'm the new guy, but also means I'm the one who notices whats going on. When they see some horribly played trap/monster/rule/whatever they just think the gameis that way, not that it's the DMs fault.

So you think any complaints made will just be seen as pissing and moaning because they've always played this way and they're fine with it? If you think you can't convince them otherwise no matter what you say then I'd say just deal with it or leave. Not much else you can do if you're not willing to challenge it. Either you change them, they change you, or you go your separate ways. Pick which one you are willing to accept.

[Fable Wright]

I fear that this sort of thing won't work either. He's a very, very, very, mundane type of dm. But what's big here is that he doesn't trust the game's rules to provide for a proper sense of balance (no one here does either, but it's a different type of distrust, if you can understand what I'm trying to say here). If you display what he considers to be power, it doesn't matter what source you use.

How does he feel about the spiked chain trip combo thing?

...:smallconfused:

[Bob the DM]

It sounds like you've tried a lot of approaches already. My advice would be to try to have a sit down with the DM, like a half hour before the next game and ask him what he wants from your character, how your character can fit into his plot/game. If you tell him that clearly since you're the one constantly dieing, you're not playing the fighter "correctly" for his game and ask his advice on how to fix it. By framing your approach from the angle like it's your current characters that are the issue and clearly you need his advise on how to fix them you might find him more helpful. If you can get him talking with you about the situation then you'll be one leg up and might be able to come to a agreement on the power level of your fighter. Show him the chart about player wealth and tell him that that is the starting point for how you've been building your characters. If you're both discussing the issue rationally, then you can try to compromise so you both have fun. But remember that like others have said, if you're not having fun then why play.

[Pigkappa]

Or should I just surrender and be the DM myself?

If you can do this, that's the solution. Show the party the way a game should be ran. If everyone will be evidently more involved in your campaign than in his, he'll likely understand what he was doing wrong.

I think can understand how that DM feels. When a Paladin or Fighter wants to join a PrC, that PrC will usually make him just more powerful than a regular Paladin or Fighter, and there's no reason why Paladin6/PrC1 should be much better than Paladin7. This is a really annoying design flaw.
An experienced DM will accept Paladin6/PrC1 because he knows that casters are just so much better at high levels that you can't play a Paladin forever, but it's not too easy to accept and digest this.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I think can understand how that DM feels. When a Paladin or Fighter wants to join a PrC, that PrC will usually make him just more powerful than a regular Paladin or Fighter, and there's no reason why Paladin6/PrC1 should be much better than Paladin7. This is a really annoying design flaw.
An experienced DM will accept Paladin6/PrC1 because he knows that casters are just so much better at high levels that you can't play a Paladin forever, but it's not too easy to accept and digest this.

And why is that? If a PrC didn't have prerequisites, I would understand, but you have to work for the PrC, take certain feats or skills, and sometimes be of a certain alignment.

[Silva Stormrage]

And why is that? If a PrC didn't have prerequisites, I would understand, but you have to work for the PrC, take certain feats or skills, and sometimes be of a certain alignment.

Well its mostly because it would be hard to make a prestige class that is worse than fighter monk or paladin. (Not saying there aren't any "COUGH" Arcane Archer "COUGH"). Most of the time burning a feat to have actual class features is better than the feat. Especially since the feat usually helps in some way as well.

[Veyr]

It's also largely because the "core mechanic" classes like Fighter or Monk don't have features to lose. Like, the features they have, they have, and that's it, and while they're giving up later features, they lack that scaling component in their features the way spellcasters do. So like, you can balance a PrC by losing a spellcasting level (though it doesn't usually work because of how absurdly powerful even one spellcasting level is), but there's no similar option for the core mechanic types.

[danzibr]

So I read most of the posts... to be honest, with people like this there usually isn't any hope. I've had terrible DM's that fudge dice rolls just to have **** happen how they want it. Like, ignoring the rules. Agh.

Anyways, I think you're kind of SOL. You can try to have him understand in many different ways, but I doubt subtlety will work whatsoever. I also doubt being open will work. Try to find another DM.

[NNescio]

If you can do this, that's the solution. Show the party the way a game should be ran. If everyone will be evidently more involved in your campaign than in his, he'll likely understand what he was doing wrong.

I think can understand how that DM feels. When a Paladin or Fighter wants to join a PrC, that PrC will usually make him just more powerful than a regular Paladin or Fighter, and there's no reason why Paladin6/PrC1 should be much better than Paladin7. This is a really annoying design flaw.
An experienced DM will accept Paladin6/PrC1 because he knows that casters are just so much better at high levels that you can't play a Paladin forever, but it's not too easy to accept and digest this.

Isn't a Prestige Class supposed* to improve upon the base class? Or at least let it specialize further in some area? I mean, they are called Prestige Classes for a reason you know.

(*Actual practice may vary significantly)

[Falin]

Okay, well let’s see, to begin with the "classic D&D setting" isn't medieval Europe. Allot of people will say it is, but it’s not. D&D’s setting is more closely related to pre-written myth and lore. Things like Beowulf, Gilgamesh, and Hercules. Notice that none of those are magicians. There are a couple reasons for this, first is that the field of examples I gave was too small. But more pertinently it’s because people literally thought that magicians were as common as, say, policemen or fire fighters. Druids were seriously the mystical guardians of the Celtic faith, and the romans believed their priests could call down the wrath of the gods.

Now, if you don’t know the stories of Beowulf, and Gilgamesh, let me tell you a couple things about what great warriors were thought to be able to do in myth. Beowulf, killed a dragon, single handed, when he was like ninety, and on his deathbed. And were not talking about and adolescent or young adult dragon, were talking about a full blown great wyrm. Now picture that. An epic level fighter going up against a great wyrm after have reached venerable age and almost reaching the maximum age the great DM in the sky rolled for him, and winning, on his own, sure he died in the encounter, but the dragon went down first.

And that what fighters should look like, try mentioning that.

But he wants medieval Europe, that’s cool too. Saint Gorge also killed a dragon singlehanded. Admittedly, his situation wasn’t quite as desperate as Beowulf’s but he did, and he definitely fits the paladin mold. I mean seriously if you look at the tales of BA fighting men in relation to the tales of powerful wizards you’re going to find allot more BA fighters. For social and cultural reasons I can’t get into for time reasons.

[Silva Stormrage]

Isn't a Prestige Class supposed* to improve upon the base class? Or at least let it specialize further in some area? I mean, they are called Prestige Classes for a reason you know.

(*Actual practice may vary significantly)

No actually I believe prestige classes were supposed to specialize the base classes. For example a rogue is can find traps, be a skill monkey, and kill people sneakily. The prestige class assassin makes it so rogue is more effective killing people sneakily (Or tries to make it so) at the expense of its trap finding and some of its skill monkeyness.

[Zaq]

Okay, well let’s see, to begin with the "classic D&D setting" isn't medieval Europe. Allot of people will say it is, but it’s not. D&D’s setting is more closely related to pre-written myth and lore. Things like Beowulf, Gilgamesh, and Hercules. Notice that none of those are magicians. There are a couple reasons for this, first is that the field of examples I gave was too small. But more pertinently it’s because people literally thought that magicians were as common as, say, policemen or fire fighters. Druids were seriously the mystical guardians of the Celtic faith, and the romans believed their priests could call down the wrath of the gods.

Now, if you don’t know the stories of Beowulf, and Gilgamesh, let me tell you a couple things about what great warriors were thought to be able to do in myth. Beowulf, killed a dragon, single handed, when he was like ninety, and on his deathbed. And were not talking about and adolescent or young adult dragon, were talking about a full blown great wyrm. Now picture that. An epic level fighter going up against a great wyrm after have reached venerable age and almost reaching the maximum age the great DM in the sky rolled for him, and winning, on his own, sure he died in the encounter, but the dragon went down first.

And that what fighters should look like, try mentioning that.

But he wants medieval Europe, that’s cool too. Saint Gorge also killed a dragon singlehanded. Admittedly, his situation wasn’t quite as desperate as Beowulf’s but he did, and he definitely fits the paladin mold. I mean seriously if you look at the tales of BA fighting men in relation to the tales of powerful wizards you’re going to find allot more BA fighters. For social and cultural reasons I can’t get into for time reasons.

Technically, he had one ally with him. Wiglaf stayed to help him, even when everyone else ran.

Not the point, I know. Still.

[Yahzi]

He kind of dictates that the group must have 1 cleric 1 mage 1 melee and 1 rogue, but he doesnt let us, for example, make a factotum or a specialized bard instead of the fkin* rogue.
He forbids monks, samurais, and any asian like class.
When you try to take PrC he makes you pass "his approval" which basically is nerfing every single PrC out there to the point you no longer want it...
There is nothing wrong with this. It is the DM's world. If there are no kung-fu masters in his world, then there are no kung-fu masters in his world. Coming up with an entire world is both hard and half the reward of being a DM; DMs are perfectly free to disallow any race, class, spell, or equipment they want, to create the flavor they want.

If you don't like his PrCs, don't take them. Your goal is to change the world, not the rules. You are playing your characters to make a difference in the gameworld, to be great heroes and figures of legend, not rules-lawyers.


the DM is also dropping too powerful monsters ( we are a 4 PC party with tier issues always, and I say ALWAYS killing monsters 2-4 CR higher than our highest lvl.
I rarely bother to run any encounter that isn't at least +4. After all, a +4 encounter means an encounter which is equal to the party's level. The whole idea that you should dole out bite-sized combats that the party basically can't lose has always struck me as absurd.


He thinks druids sucks and he always punish players trying to use them making fun of them in-game.
This, however, is not cool. Either allow the class, or don't; this passive-aggressive approach implies a whole range of other problems.

My suggestion is this: offer to run a game every other session. That's the fair thing to do, and you can teach by example.

[NecroRick]

Optimize a tier 1 caster to break the game, and see how your DM handles it. That should either teach him, or tell you to get a new DM.

Breaking the game and ruining a campaign doesn't prove that you are the better man. All you prove is that you are the better power-gamer. Also, if you get into a pissing contest with the DM via escalating power levels the likely casualties are your less optimised compatriots, as the DM ratchets up the challenge rating. I see you pushing the party towards a TPK - and the DM not understanding why it has happened.

You can build a wonderful (or crappy) sandcastle and then I can come along and kick it over... but that doesn't make me a great architect.

You may have some temporary satisfaction "I told you so" or "see, I'm right" from winning an argument and destroying the campaign, but it fades quickly.

And there can be perfectly justifiable reasons for the stuff you mentioned... Let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment:

The magical arms and armour I've often thought is an interesting one. Why on earth would a Mage spend _his_ hard earned experience to create magic items that he can't use? The vast abundance of items available to non-crafters is frankly one of the more retarded aspects of the typical fantasy 'monty-haul' ecosystem.

Dual sword is kind of retarded as well. It looks good on the movie screen, but in real life it didn't really happen - for a good reason.

Warlocks break the 'resource economy' by providing infinite amounts of whatever it is they've chosen to do. Now ultimately D&D is not really a resource management game, but it has all the trappings of one (Vancian magic for starters) so it is easy to slip into thinking that it is one, particularly if the DM is inclined towards history or economic thought.

Not allowing prestige classes is perfectly valid, as most of them are 'balanced' so as to provide better benefits than the base class. Prestige classes really have 'munchkin magnet' written all over them. I can see what the prestige class is supposed to do, it just doesn't do it in 3.5 - in the Incredibles there is a line that goes something like this "if everyone is special, then no one is special". If everyone has multiple prestige classes, they're not really prestigious anymore.

With respect to base classes, some of the ones you mention as being banned have the trappings of being associated with different cultures. Barbarian might fly under the radar because if it is a 'classic' (ie European) setting then the DM is subconsciously equating that to maybe Vikings. And then you want your Viking to suddenly morph into something else (fighter/sorceror) and stop being a Viking. You're probably pushing your DM's "this wouldn't happen 'in reality'" buttons.

As for the factotum or bard, those are very much non-traditional fantasy roles. Robin Hood had what we might call a Bard in his band of merry men, but it never describes him as breaking out in song in the middle of battle. The nordic style tradition of bard is more of a story-teller roll. Or go see the movie 300. Can you pick out which main character is the bard until right at the end? I don't think so. The D&D Bard is colossally retarded and silly, a fact which an enormous amount of the Order of the Stick comics bash you over the head with repeatedly.

It sounds like your DM has a particular idea or style for a home-brew campaign, and you're trying to beat him over the head with the D&D world as you see it.

Would it really kill you to play 'old-school' for a while?

Here's a thought experiment - what if the DM one day said that he was starting a new campaign, set in some medieval style fantasy setting, and the only classes are fighter, wizard, cleric and thief, and you can't pick feats, they are pre-determined by the class, and you can't switch classes, and there are no prestige classes, and the spell selection is extremely limited.

It sounds like you would kick up an enormous fuss, scream blue murder about how it was unplayable etc.

But the fact is... that is how D&D was when it started (okay, Elf and Dwarf and Halfling were classes too, but you get the idea). Plenty of people got enormous enjoyment out of it.

I suggest that if you _can't_ play without all the bells and whistles and power-gaming options, the problem isn't with the DM.


1.Show him to our boards, particularly to stuff like Jaronk's tier list, Treantmonk's guide to wizards, the Stormwind Fallacy. Y'know, stuff like that.


I'm not familiar (sic) with the Stormwind Fallacy, I've had a look at the tier list, and it makes some enormously bad assumptions, and people have the wrong kind of idea about it.

Firstly, I see people talking about it on the boards and they often equate power in the tier system as power on the battlefield, because we are mentally conditioned to treat D&D as a series of encounters. Over the years some of the emphasis has shifted away from just kicking in the door, burning the loot, ravishing the livestock and pillaging the women, but if you look at most modules they are still set up as a series of pitched battles, some of which you can talk your way out of (sometimes).

But if you read it carefully, you find that the classes at the top of the tier system are there not because of their combat prowess, but because of their ability to avoid combat entirely.

The second fallacy of the tiers, is that everyone starts at level 20. I have enormous respect for anyone that plays a D&D wizard up through the levels, starting at 1 and sticking to d4 hit point prestige classes throughout their career. But someone who just steps into the shoes of a level 20 wizard... you didn't earn it. If you want to balance the higher tiers there are only two things you need to do, and the first is to make them play from level 1 onwards.

The third fallacy of the tiers is that a Wizard has access to every single spell in the whole game. Or, more specifically, every single arcane spell on the wizard list of every sourcebook ever printed. To realise why that is such a colossal fallacy, consider this - wouldn't you consider it a little bit odd if there was a fighter who had every single magic item (and artifact) in the whole game, ever printed? The mage with every spell ever is just the same kind of silliness as the fighter with every item ever. And the fighter would be just as 'tier 1' as the mage - possibly even tier 0 (after all, the mage probably doesn't have spells X, Y and Z prepared, whereas the fighter just reaches into his hewards belt of portable holes and pulls out whatever it is he needs straight away).

Oh, but you say "the mage can just pop off to his demi-plane of infinitely speeded up time and do whatever research/spell learning he needs there". Well, okay, can your level 10 mage do that? No. See fallacy #2. Also, please note that you just ascribed the powers of a rank 16 god to the wizard, when based on the size of the demi-plane they're rank 2, tops.

Oh, but you say "the mage doesn't have _all_ the spells, that is silly, he just has the good ones". Well, okay then, the fighter doesn't have _all_ the items and artifacts in the game... just the good ones.

The second fix to the tier system is to address this fallacy. Don't just let the players bully you into doing whatever they want, learning whatever spell they want. Eberron is interesting in this regard, as the NPCs top out at level 7-10. And most of them are doing things like running cities, they don't have time to play "sure, go through my spell book and take whatever you want" with the players.

In Forgotten Realms if the DM has Elminster's Wandering Emporium of Spell Learning Delights pop up and open up a buffet to spell casters every time they go up a level, sure, you're Tier 1, congrats. On the other hand, if the DM maintains a tight rein on spell selection they're a solid Tier 4, tops.

Here's the sign that you have a problem player - they get to level 17, you say "congrats, here's your Wish spell", and they say "no thanks, casting Wish yourself is a sucker's bet, I want Gate instead".

The fourth fallacy is an overly generous interpretation of spells and their effects. Even with the Wish example, most people seem to forget two things:

(1) Even wish, however, has its limits.
(2) The minimum XP cost for casting wish is 5,000 XP.

-----

Anyway, the system isn't perfect, but the DM is _explicitly_ allowed to fix it. The DM is perfectly within his rights to create a custom world which cherry picks from the available books, and even within the books decide that some of the stuff is verboten. Coincidentally, the DM is perfectly within his bounds to say that in his world there's no Monks, or no Psionics, or that prestige classes are actually difficult to qualify for.
The DM is perfectly within his rights to water down prestige classes to prevent (or manage) power creep. It is also the DMs responsibility to determine what that power creep entails.

If you don't want the DM to fix the broken bits in the system then the DM isn't the problem.

If you want a campaign that perfectly matches all the sourcebooks and supplementary materials, then you will have to make it yourself. Don't try to force the DM to remodel the world according to your preferences! But if you allow _everything_ you're opening yourself up for a world of pain, because the more stuff you allow, the more brokenness there is.



2.Explain to him that while the DM is meant to be the 'referee', he is also expected to understand what he's refereeing. A basketball ref who thinks that 'dribbling' is OP, but is ok with punching other players is not really a good basketball ref(but should try to get into hockey).


I think that your analogy is wrong. A better analogy is you turn up, and the referee gets to choose the game you're playing. You, and the vast majority of other respondents seem to treat the books as some kind of bill of rights. By analogy, you're turning up with your basketball, and the DM says "okay, tonight we'll do boxing", and yet you insist on taking your ball into the boxing ring, complaining about the bounce co-efficient of the floor and the small size of the court, the large number of flagrant fouls from the opponent and the lack of hoops.

Again, in that scenario, the problem isn't the referee.

Even if you don't like my version of your analogy, in _real_ sports the players don't get to dictate the rules (and their interpretations) to the referee, and in most sports arguing with the referee about the rules carries penalties (e.g. red card, sin binned, sent off in disgrace).



3.He might not be the best DM for your group. See if someone else is willing to take to the other side of the DM board and try something a bit more 'typical' of D&D.

He needs to take a good long look in the mirror.

But I honestly don't think he has the required maturity. He thinks that D&D is 'about' arguing with the DM over rules and game balance, and has lost sight of the big picture.

The big picture is this:

The whole point of D&D is to have fun.

Okay, if he doesn't want to play "old-school" or "classical" D&D, then maybe he should start a 'mid-week' (ie alternate night) campaign of his own.

The way to _prove_ this DM wrong, is to run a campaign in the 3.5 style of anything goes, and _if_ the players have more fun in your game, congrats, you win.

However, in this case, the OP has let these relatively minor niggles about the game system _as applies to this particular campaign_ suck the fun out of the game for him.

The _mature_ and appropriate response is to just suck it up, realise that you've fallen into classic "princess and the pea" syndrome, and not be so delicate, and build a bridge and get over it.

The economic argument for why you should just get over it is that by ruining this guys campaign the opportunity cost is all the fun you could have had otherwise.

There are potential reputational costs as well - if you ruin this guys campaign, maybe you get a reputation as a power-gamer and a munchkin and (worst of all) a game wrecker. In that case... who will invite you to join the next campaign? (if there is one, if you don't totally put them off D&D).

I realise I'm presenting some extremes here, but you've got to recognise there are potential costs to following these people's blithe recommendations. It is easy for them to sit in their arm-chairs and tell you to wreck this 'stoopid DM', but they're not the ones that pay for it.

[Falin]

Technically, he had one ally with him. Wiglaf stayed to help him, even when everyone else ran.

Not the point, I know. Still.

Yeah, there was Wiglaf, but Wiglaf isn't really a fighter. So saying Beowulf had Wiglaf is actually saying an epic level fighter had a warrior (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Warrior) backing him up

[Solaris]

So I read most of the posts... to be honest, with people like this there usually isn't any hope. I've had terrible DM's that fudge dice rolls just to have **** happen how they want it. Like, ignoring the rules.

I fudge dice rolls all the time to have things go how I want them (you know, so the character doesn't get killed that often on account of making new ones is a pain) and ignore rules where my common sense dictates. Let's not be too general about our complaints. It's D&D, not a CPRG.

[Greenish]

There is nothing wrong with this. It is the DM's world.Nothing wrong with forcing every party to consist of mage/cleric/melee/rogue? Well, your mileage may vary, but I think that stinks.

[Falin]

So, I didn't really want to read that enormous wall of text before my post, but I felt compelled to do so, honor or something. So allow me to answer some of the more ridiculous of the longwinded and often wrong arguments above. Starting at the stuff about tiers because I don't care about what this GM says the setting is because that is, indeed, their prerogative.

First, no, the top tier classes aren’t there just because of their combat prowess, but neither are they there because of their ability to avoid battle. They’re there for their ability to do anything they damn well feel like. And don’t even try to say a wizard can’t do whatever he, or she, I only make equal opportunity rants, wants. Because any wizard who can’t do whatever they want pretty much from ninth level on is probably actually playing some other class but doesn’t realize it, or maybe they do but just like the flavor better, whatever, I’m just saying that wizards are insane when you’re playing a wizard and not, I don’t know, a warmage or something.

Now, let’s talk about the third fallacy you stated, there’s two things wrong with this one. First there actually are wizards who get all their spells, they’re called clerics. You know, those divine spell casters that get all the spells ever written for them just because. Secondly, and with less sarcasm, no, wizards don’t get all their spells, and no they can’t prepare all of them at the same time. But honestly, they CAN just choose all the good spells, and comparing a wizard getting all their good spells to a fighter having all the good magic items and artifacts is an enormous crock. Because wizards ONLY need a half decent int score, ranks in spellcraft, and the secret page spell and they can learn any spell they want for free, it’s not even hard. Whereas fighters have to face the hordes of the undead, or the legions of the gods, or some other crazy **** to get even one artifact, and that’s not even one good artifact the good ones you really have to work for.

Also, saying a fighter with all the items is as good as a wizard with all the spells is stupid, because fighter are fundamentally worse than wizards and there aren’t many who would argue that point against me.



The big picture is this:

The whole point of D&D is to have fun.

The _mature_ and appropriate response is to just suck it up, realise that you've fallen into classic "princess and the pea" syndrome, and not be so delicate, and build a bridge and get over it.

I’m just going to point out, you just said the whole point is to have fun, but that the mature thing would be to not have fun.

[danzibr]

I fudge dice rolls all the time to have things go how I want them (you know, so the character doesn't get killed that often on account of making new ones is a pain) and ignore rules where my common sense dictates. Let's not be too general about our complaints. It's D&D, not a CPRG.

Specifically, I'm talking about me casting Grease, the DM rolls a ref save, says the dire rat passes it, my brother saw the hidden roll, a 2. Fudging dice against the player just so the rats aren't grased.

Second, the ignoring rules comes from flyby attack being always able to get out of anything's reach. If you flyby an Orc with a composite longbow round after round and you should be within their range the Orc should be able to shoot, I'd think.

[NecroRick]

So, I didn't really want to read that enormous wall of text before my post, but I felt compelled to do so, honor or something.

Ha! The DC was too high! :D

I'll not reply to your opinions on the quality of my prose, you're entitled to believe what you like in that regard.



Now, let’s talk about the third fallacy you stated, there’s two things wrong with this one. First there actually are wizards who get all their spells, they’re called clerics.


Except that the DM has more fine grained control over what spells the player gets as a cleric*, plus the cleric spells don't get as much attention from the whole "I break your game seven times before breakfast" crowd, so I'm presuming there's less actual game breaking potential there.

*In 3.5 it doesn't explicitly state that Clerics get their spells vetted by the DM depending on the whim of their deity of choice, but it also doesn't say that the DM can't or _shouldn't_ vet this choice.

NB: I learned something today looking for the fine-print, Clerics get their spells back at a particular time of the day, so they can't just rest for 8 hours whenever they like and pick completely new spells.



Because wizards ONLY need a half decent int score, ranks in spellcraft, and the secret page spell and they can learn any spell they want for free, it’s not even hard.


Here we have a perfect example of one of the other fallacies. The one about interpreting spells in an overly broad manner. You are essentially arguing that Secret Page says that you can change the text of a page to the contents of spells that you don't know. E.g. at fifth level you could change Fireball to Dispel Magic, and then transcribe Dispel Magic into your Spellbook. But in that case, why not change them into _higher_ level spells?

Well, why stop there? After all, if we're interpreting spell descriptions in the broadest possible light, why not change the text on a cantrip scroll to a ninth level spell you don't know? Ta da! Instant Pun-pun at level 5, no levels of stinky kobold required.

Heck, let's just solve every challenge by changing the contents of a page of some random book to the contents of the module you're currently adventuring in. Or the last page of a book that you've never read in order to reveal the murderer (hint: it isn't always the butler).

How is this not ridiculous?

There are two MAJOR obstacles to this interpretation:

(1) how is it going to change it to the text of something you don't know? Whether that be a spell I don't know, the answer to some problem I have, or just a recipe for the perfect hamburger when I can't even cook.

Nowhere in the spell description does it indicate this amazing, godlike power.

(2) It says a single page. Spells take up 1 page per level of spell. So regardless of whatever interpretations you have it's not going to get you anything higher than a level 1 spell.

-----

Now, you obviously disagree, but surely a much more reasonable alternative to the whole turn one spell into another dilemma:

"The text of a spell can be changed to show even another spell."

Is that you can conceal your fireball or meteor swarm as a bunch of cantrips. Or alternately, save space in the spell book by doubling up the spells, two per page (or two per N pages.

I keep tripping over people on these forums who have the most amazingly liberal interpretations, usually hinging on inserting some powerful interpretation based on what _isn't_ said.

My rule of thumb is that if you're going to alter the power level of something based on what is omitted from the text of the rules, you should always go down, not up.




Whereas fighters have to face the hordes of the undead, or the legions of the gods, or some other crazy **** to get even one artifact, and that’s not even one good artifact the good ones you really have to work for.


AH... but here you are applying one set of rules for the wizards, and a different set of rules for everyone else. You have a massively liberal interpretation of a minor 3rd level spell that gives the wizard godlike powers, and yet technically there's no reason why a Fighter can't just trip out of bed and fall onto a new artifact every morning. It is no less ridiculous than your interpretation of Secret Page, and is based on exactly the same logic.

E.g. just because it doesn't say X doesn't mean X isn't true

just because it doesn't say that the Fighter gets a free artifact every morning doesn't mean it doesn't happen that way

just because it doesn't say that Secret Page can show you knowledge or spells you don't know doesn't mean it doesn't happen that way

Absence of X is not the same as permission for X



Also, saying a fighter with all the items is as good as a wizard with all the spells is stupid, because fighter are fundamentally worse than wizards and there aren’t many who would argue that point against me.


Surely a fighter with 'all the items' can effectively cast whatever he wants, as many times as he wants (or more than the wizard at any rate) hence is more powerful?




I’m just going to point out, you just said the whole point is to have fun, but that the mature thing would be to not have fun.

You're taking a different meaning of mature. E.g. the opposite of childish

Well, allow me to reciprocate. The _mature_ thing to do in this situation is not to ruin everyone else's fun. E.g. don't be selfish

Also, as pointed out in the post, plenty of adults play sport and do other things they don't get paid for - if not for financial gain and not for enjoyment, then what?

[Amphetryon]

Ha! The DC was too high! :D


You're taking a different meaning of mature. E.g. the opposite of childish

Well, allow me to reciprocate. The _mature_ thing to do in this situation is not to ruin everyone else's fun. E.g. don't be selfish

Also, as pointed out in the post, plenty of adults play sport and do other things they don't get paid for - if not for financial gain and not for enjoyment, then what?How does one go about this idea of 'don't be selfish' in this situation while still having fun? If the OP is a valuable party member - debatable from context, but still - then leaving detracts from their fun; if the OP expresses the concerns voiced here, tensions in the group will all but certainly rise, possibly leading to one or more person in the group taking a hiatus or permanently leaving, neither of which does anything to help everyone else's fun; if the OP continues as it is, suffering in silence, then the general mood of the OP is likely to suffer, which can be poisonous to the atmosphere of the gaming group.

"If not for financial gain and not for enjoyment, then what" reads as a false dichotomy. If you're not doing something for financial gain/necessity and not for personal enjoyment/fulfillment, you're probably doing something wrong. At best, you're probably doing something out of inertia, having formed a habit while performing the activity for one of the above reasons, and simply being too unmotivated to change.

[raxies94]

Guess I can only really repeat what others have said and encourage you to either talk to your DM or DM the game yourself. I'm thinking the second option would be the best honestly.

Alternately, are you allowed to use Tome of Battle? You could attempt to use a Warblade instead of a fighter. It doesn't sound like this would slide with your DM to me, but you could try. Perhaps you wouldn't die so much as a WarBlade?

[Solaris]

Specifically, I'm talking about me casting Grease, the DM rolls a ref save, says the dire rat passes it, my brother saw the hidden roll, a 2. Fudging dice against the player just so the rats aren't grased.

Second, the ignoring rules comes from flyby attack being always able to get out of anything's reach. If you flyby an Orc with a composite longbow round after round and you should be within their range the Orc should be able to shoot, I'd think.

Pretty pissant of him to do with just a dire rat, but the DM's the one running the game. I've run encounters without rolling the dice except for show (or perhaps sound), the monsters didn't even have stats, and it was essentially a scripted battle. The beatsticks and wizard were holding the monsters off until the rogue could finish working out how to destroy the keystone artifact animating the nigh-unstoppale enemies. Now, if he takes the attitude of "DM vs Player", that's a problem.

You mean it's the orc armed with a bow and you're flying, yes? Then yes, unless you have a ridiculous flight speed and/or it's dark out the orc can still shoot you. Alright, the DM you're talking about is an idiot. It doesn't even make logical sense.

[The_Admiral]

Nah I don't think his DM will accept remember he said his DM hates anything asian themed in his games

[Falin]

Except that the DM has more fine grained control over what spells the player gets as a cleric*, plus the cleric spells don't get as much attention from the whole "I break your game seven times before breakfast" crowd, so I'm presuming there's less actual game breaking potential there.

No, trust me when I say that clerics are made of chees and having access to any spell on their list that they want is a big part of that.

{Scrubbed}


Well, why stop there? After all, if we're interpreting spell descriptions in the broadest possible light, why not change the text on a cantrip scroll to a ninth level spell you don't know? Ta da! Instant Pun-pun at level 5, no levels of stinky kobold required.

Because the scroll wouldn’t work? Scrolls aren’t JUST magical incantations. They also account for the spell components of the spell. So you COULD replace a cantrip scroll’s spell with a fifth level spell using secret page, that’s not even hard to justify, but the visible spell wouldn’t work.


(2) It says a single page. Spells take up 1 page per level of spell. So regardless of whatever interpretations you have it's not going to get you anything higher than a level 1 spell.

Well that’s easy enough, cast the spell more than once, there, problem sloved.



Surely a fighter with 'all the items' can effectively cast whatever he wants, as many times as he wants (or more than the wizard at any rate) hence is more powerful?

A word to the wise, you may want to actually know the rules you’re talking about before arguing with me. In answer. No, the fighter can’t. Use magical device isn’t a fighter skill, which means that he has to spend two points to gain a single skill rank in use magical device to gain and can only have half the ranks that a character with use magical device as a class skill can have. Add to it that int is a second string attribute for a fighter and you get poor chances of the fighter making the required check to use a spell from an item is VERY slim. Oh and that’s IF the fighter actually has use magic device at all, which they probably don’t

[Firechanter]

I once played in a rather similar environment. I.e. uninformed DM, inexperienced fellow players. Luckily, I had followed my own number one advice for playing with unknown DMs: be a Cleric. (Druid would also work.)

Turns out the DM did a lot of the Don'ts, like assigning totally random loot, which resulted in wildly disparate wealth levels throughout the group. That was not the only problem but I'll leave it at that for the moment.

However, I didn't try to break the game... not for quite a while. I just used my Cleric power to keep from getting shafted. I played nice and low-key, even acted as heal-bot, and used long-term buffs to offset my gear deficiency. You could say I flew under the radar.

But not forever. At some point I just got tired of his style and started arguing, in what I hoped to be an objective and logical manner. Result: he didn't listen. Over the time, he instituted ever more idiotic houserules, which made it hard for me to stay calm. At that point, I actually decided to skill my character to break the game (read, DMM Persist), but before that took effect, we switched places and I started DMing for the group.

So, I guess I can make one prediction: arguing will get you nowhere. DMs like that are immune to reason. If you absolutely have to stay with that group, roll a Cleric and fly under the radar. And occasionally offer to "give the DM a break" and run the game yourself.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I suggest that if you _can't_ play without all the bells and whistles and power-gaming options, the problem isn't with the DM.

Powergaming? We're not talking about powergaming! We're talking about the thing essential to a fighter's survival, level appropriate magic items. This guy has nerfed one of the weakest classes in the game by restricting magic items, and you thinkbtrying to fix that is powergaming!?

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Except that the DM has more fine grained control over what spells the player gets as a cleric*, plus the cleric spells don't get as much attention from the whole "I break your game seven times before breakfast" crowd, so I'm presuming there's less actual game breaking potential there.

*In 3.5 it doesn't explicitly state that Clerics get their spells vetted by the DM depending on the whim of their deity of choice, but it also doesn't say that the DM can't or _shouldn't_ vet this choice.

Yeah, no. The same could be said for a wizard, sorcerer, or any other thing. Hell, why not have the DM decided which feats the fighter gains at level up based on what has happened so far? No, that is not a good idea. It is taking control away from the players over their character. It's one thing to say "You can't use spell X." It's another thing entirely to say "These are your spells for the day. Deal with it."


NB: I learned something today looking for the fine-print, Clerics get their spells back at a particular time of the day, so they can't just rest for 8 hours whenever they like and pick completely new spells.

Yeah, and? It's once per day like most other spellcasters. Wizard and archivists can leave slots open if the need arises, but that eats 15 minutes (usually).




Here we have a perfect example of one of the other fallacies. The one about interpreting spells in an overly broad manner. You are essentially arguing that Secret Page says that you can change the text of a page to the contents of spells that you don't know. E.g. at fifth level you could change Fireball to Dispel Magic, and then transcribe Dispel Magic into your Spellbook. But in that case, why not change them into _higher_ level spells?

This is one of the debatable uses of Secret Page. It can mimic any nonmagical text, of which a spell inscription certainly is that. The reason why you usually don't do higher level spells is because A) you probably can't cast those and B) they eat up more pages. That said, using it to create mundane duplicates of your spellbook for "just in case" is not a bad idea.


Well, why stop there? After all, if we're interpreting spell descriptions in the broadest possible light, why not change the text on a cantrip scroll to a ninth level spell you don't know? Ta da! Instant Pun-pun at level 5, no levels of stinky kobold required.

Wrong. You still can't prepare it or use it. It's just crazy letters and words on a page. Besides, Pun-Pun is doable at level one!:smallwink:


Heck, let's just solve every challenge by changing the contents of a page of some random book to the contents of the module you're currently adventuring in. Or the last page of a book that you've never read in order to reveal the murderer (hint: it isn't always the butler).

How is this not ridiculous?

You aren't doing that, though. As a crazy intelligent (and probably paranoid) wizard, saving yourself some trouble with spare spellbooks, either made with real ink or otherwise could save your life. This isn't "lolmetagaming," but rather an extension of a character with super human intelligence.


There are two MAJOR obstacles to this interpretation:

(1) how is it going to change it to the text of something you don't know? Whether that be a spell I don't know, the answer to some problem I have, or just a recipe for the perfect hamburger when I can't even cook.

Nowhere in the spell description does it indicate this amazing, godlike power.

Er, yes it does. If you have either seen it before or can make some high spellcraft checks, that's doable. It's nonmagical text, thus doable with the spell.


(2) It says a single page. Spells take up 1 page per level of spell. So regardless of whatever interpretations you have it's not going to get you anything higher than a level 1 spell.

You have more than one spell slot, right?


I keep tripping over people on these forums who have the most amazingly liberal interpretations, usually hinging on inserting some powerful interpretation based on what _isn't_ said.

It's an extrapolation of the spell text. Hell, it's the second sentence of the spell description, even! (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/secretPage.htm)


My rule of thumb is that if you're going to alter the power level of something based on what is omitted from the text of the rules, you should always go down, not up.

Too bad the spell already mentions doing this...





AH... but here you are applying one set of rules for the wizards, and a different set of rules for everyone else. You have a massively liberal interpretation of a minor 3rd level spell that gives the wizard godlike powers, and yet technically there's no reason why a Fighter can't just trip out of bed and fall onto a new artifact every morning. It is no less ridiculous than your interpretation of Secret Page, and is based on exactly the same logic.

Except that the wizard is actually using his godlike powers to do this rather than random chance befitting him. Yeah, it's rough for the fighter simply because there is a lot of "melee can't have nice things" within 3.5, but thes two things are in no way on the same scale.


E.g. just because it doesn't say X doesn't mean X isn't true

Nor does that mean that because it doesn't say X it is in support of X being true. That road goes both ways and makes for terrible, terrible arguments.

[Leon]

The simple solution is often the best.

Leave and found your own group to your own standards and stop trying to force yours on someone who is happy with how they work.

Play at a alternate time and you may get some of those that were playing along but don't outright steal his players - that just makes you a jerk all the more, after you get a group going you should be able to rotate the responsibility of being a DM.

If you cant manage to found a group then still leave the one that is not suiting you and take a break from the scene for a while. Maybe after a few months the Old DM may have mellowed or maybe he will be the same and you can make your judgment from then {{scrubbed}}

[Greenish]

Except that the DM has more fine grained control over what spells the player gets as a cleric*, plus the cleric spells don't get as much attention from the whole "I break your game seven times before breakfast" crowd, so I'm presuming there's less actual game breaking potential there.Eh, it's tier 1, it'll break the game before breakfast no problem.


*In 3.5 it doesn't explicitly state that Clerics get their spells vetted by the DM depending on the whim of their deity of choice, but it also doesn't say that the DM can't or _shouldn't_ vet this choice.What is that? Oh, right, the Oberoni fallacy.

Instant Pun-pun at level 5, no levels of stinky kobold required.Kobold is a race, not a class (and there's no racial class, either), so you can't take levels in it. :smalltongue:

Besides, you can get to Pun-Pun at level 1, without being a kobold.


Surely a fighter with 'all the items' can effectively cast whatever he wants, as many times as he wants (or more than the wizard at any rate) hence is more powerful?Does fighter get two artifacts each time they level up? (Four with a feat, five with another feat.)

[Leon]

Eh, it's tier 1, it'll break the game before breakfast no problem.


Classes don't break games - players do.

This is why the Tier system is a load of hogwash.
No class is more powerful than another until it is played well and the other class is played badly. Some are more prone to being taken to levels of broken than others but doesn't make those other classes any less of a good choice.

[Greenish]

Classes don't break games - players do.True, guns classes just make it trivially easy to do. You still have to pull the trigger.

[Veyr]

Classes don't break games - players do.

This is why the Tier system is a load of hogwash.
False, and vaguely insulting to everyone who considers them otherwise.

Contrary to what you may believe, 3.5's balance issues do come up in games full of well-meaning players who simply do not know better.

The Tier system is intended to be a tool used to understand and gauge 3.5's myriad balance problems. Is it sometimes misused on this forum? Yes. Is it "hogwash"? Absolutely not.

The problems with 3.5 are real. They may not crop up in every game, but they are issues that people have to deal with. And not being aware of them makes it that much harder to avoid them.

[Zaq]

Classes don't break games - players do.

This is why the Tier system is a load of hogwash.
No class is more powerful than another until it is played well and the other class is played badly. Some are more prone to being taken to levels of broken than others but doesn't make those other classes any less of a good choice.

The two sentences I bolded have nothing to do with one another.

[Geigan]

I think that your analogy is wrong. A better analogy is you turn up, and the referee gets to choose the game you're playing. You, and the vast majority of other respondents seem to treat the books as some kind of bill of rights. By analogy, you're turning up with your basketball, and the DM says "okay, tonight we'll do boxing", and yet you insist on taking your ball into the boxing ring, complaining about the bounce co-efficient of the floor and the small size of the court, the large number of flagrant fouls from the opponent and the lack of hoops.

Again, in that scenario, the problem isn't the referee.

Even if you don't like my version of your analogy, in _real_ sports the players don't get to dictate the rules (and their interpretations) to the referee, and in most sports arguing with the referee about the rules carries penalties (e.g. red card, sin binned, sent off in disgrace).

I don't know where you got this idea, but it's wrong. A group chooses the game because this is a team effort. The DM is most undoubtedly the leader of his own group and his position is important but it's not the most important thing there. The goal here is the group's fun.

If you as the referee want to play boxing and everyone agrees with you then that's fine, that's your group's playstyle. They've all agreed to play boxing and if one individual doesn't want to that's fine he can just not play, since he won't likely get along anyway.

Now lets take you and plop you down in a different group, one that you've never played with before, and you've never refereed before, and they are your only choice for a game of whatever sport. Now you try what you've always done and assert that this group will be playing boxing tonight. But no one wants to play boxing. Some have never played sports before and aren't sure what they want, a few actually want basketball, or baseball, or whatever. So you argue back and forth until most of the players have agreed to play basketball, and don't really care about boxing at all. But you're all set to referee for boxing and they should conform to what you want to do since your position is the most important. Well guess what? They're not going to bother and will probably just get a new referee because you're just one individual that doesn't want to play. That's fine you can just not play and be bored since there's no one else to ref for in your area.

Or you can suck it up and play as you've suggested earlier. But is it so wrong for you to want to play boxing once in a while? Maybe, just maybe, you could ask among the group if they'd like to maybe play boxing for once. Maybe they'll try it, and maybe they will or won't like it.

Now what I'd suggest to the OP is if his ref isn't willing to hear him out on his suggestion of basketball he should ask around among the group for a new game on the side. Most likely he will have to suck it up and ref himself since they likely do not know the rules for basketball. If they like basketball and want to continue on with it you'll most likely have to train a new ref yourself if you want to play.

So basically my point is, if he wants to play his way that's perfectly fine. He is not wrong for wanting that. He's just one guy though and if the rest of the group wants to continue playing this way because they enjoy it, then he will either have to sacrifice his dreams of basketball for the enjoyment of the group, try and see if maybe they'd enjoy a game of basketball as well, or he can not play at all since he apparently can't get another group out of his entire city. But this assertion that because he wants to play basketball and the reason it's wrong is because it conflicts with the ref sounds like a DM who's put his pride before the player's fun. And that sir, is no way I would ever DM.

[kardar233]

Also, NecroRick, the Wizard can start breaking the game at Level 1 with spells straight from the PHB. Colour Spray entirely disables a group of level-appropriate enemies for an average of 8.5 rounds. 5 of those they'll be unconscious, so the melee characters can coup de grace all they want for instant kills.

[Leon]

True, guns classes just make it trivially easy to do. You still have to pull the trigger.

Its a choice to do so.


False, and vaguely insulting to everyone who considers them otherwise.


Well good that its insulting, but its more true than you believe (or want to apparently)



Contrary to what you may believe, 3.5's balance issues do come up in games full of well-meaning players who simply do not know better.


As I'm aware that the game is not perfect but neither is a fan made list that is over-hyped to bring about the balance that seems to be sought.



The Tier system is intended to be a tool used to understand and gauge 3.5's myriad balance problems. Is it sometimes misused on this forum? Yes. Is it "hogwash"? Absolutely not.

The problems with 3.5 are real. They may not crop up in every game, but they are issues that people have to deal with. And not being aware of them makes it that much harder to avoid them.

Many problems that crop up in the game have very little to do with what a class can potentially do power wise and are more to do with wonky rules that don't interact with other wonky rules very well or in some cases fail to make sense at all.

Being aware of the problems means having read a lot of the material to know that these things exist and can be troublesome.

[NNescio]

Druid, first-time player, oh look here's a feat that seems designed for druids and can only be taken by them...

Not to mention having a class feature that can obsolete a decent chunk of unoptimised melee classes. Or rather, several of them.

"Foolish girl! I am a druid, I have special abilities that are more powerful than your entire class!"

[Geigan]

Being aware of the problems means having read a lot of the material to know that these things exist and can be troublesome.

Well that's what it's for. It's a resource that you can read so you may be aware of the problems. Some however look at it and pick their characters accordingly so as to try and sidestep some of the potential problems that the balance of the game might bring up otherwise. A low tiered class can be played well, but it's easier and less work on the DM's encounter balancing to pick something higher tiered that can do the same job while having enough options to be useful in more ways.

[HalfDragonCube]

Druid, first-time player, oh look here's a feat that seems designed for druids and can only be taken by them...

Not to mention having a class feature that can obsolete a decent chunk of unoptimised melee classes.

"Foolish girl! I am a druid, I have special abilities that are more powerful than your entire class!"

And then you end up with a budgie one-shotting everything.

[Tvtyrant]

Druid, first-time player, oh look here's a feat that seems designed for druids and can only be taken by them...

Not to mention having a class feature that can obsolete a decent chunk of unoptimised melee classes. Or rather, several of them.

"Foolish girl! I am a druid, I have special abilities that are more powerful than your entire class!"

Or even reasonably optimized melee characters... Weapon Specialization doesn't do much compared to T-Rex.

[Leon]

Left alone they will have some fun most likely and not break a game if they do not know what could be done with it.

and it has a easy fix "no you can use that feat choose another one"

[Tvtyrant]

Left alone they will have some fun most likely and not break a game if they do not know what could be done with it.

and it has a easy fix "no you can use that feat choose another one"

..And the Oberoni fallacy at play. "If you can fix it, it isn't a problem." Which involves having a DM well versed in the game to effectively accomplish, because otherwise they wouldn't know which abilities/feats are OP.

[Geigan]

Left alone they will have some fun most likely and not break a game if they do not know what could be done with it.

and it has a easy fix "no you can use that feat choose another one"

So you're essentially hoping they'll remain naive forever?:smalltongue:

[NNescio]

..And the Oberoni fallacy at play. "If you can fix it, it isn't a problem." Which involves having a DM well versed in the game to effectively accomplish, because otherwise they wouldn't know which abilities/feats are OP.

...Which they can get a good ballpark figure on if they know about the Tier List. Classes that are placed higher on the Tier List are more likely to have abilities/feat interactions that are OP.

So why exactly is the Tier System "a complete hogwash", Leon?

[HalfDragonCube]

So you're essentially hoping they'll remain naive forever?:smalltongue:

Better than presti-soiling and/or mindraping every NPC they come across.

[Geigan]

Better than presti-soiling and/or mindraping every NPC they come across.

Yeah, but it just strikes me as handing them the tools for them to do it and just hoping they'll never realize how to do it. I prefer educating them in the proper use of the tools so they will not abuse them.

[Leon]

Well that's what it's for. It's a resource that you can read so you may be aware of the problems. Some however look at it and pick their characters accordingly so as to try and sidestep some of the potential problems that the balance of the game might bring up otherwise. A low tiered class can be played well, but it's easier and less work on the DM's encounter balancing to pick something higher tiered that can do the same job while having enough options to be useful in more ways.

Some may do - that is their choice but over all there is no need for a specialized list that suggests that this is a bigger gun than the other one. When ultimately what makes a better character is important not its power level.

For the greater part of avoid balance problems i suppose it does help - Don't play those up levels as they are going to be harder to evenly balance encounters for then what a group of fighters and monks could potentially do.

But anyone who has looked at the spell lists for any of the caster classes could tell that without the need of a list

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Some may do - that is their choice but over all there is no need for a specialized list that suggests that this is a bigger gun than the other one. When ultimately what makes a better character is important not its power level.

For the greater part of avoid balance problems i suppose it does help - Don't play those up levels as they are going to be harder to evenly balance encounters for then what a group of fighters and monks could potentially do.

But anyone who has looked at the spell lists for any of the caster classes could tell that without the need of a list

The tier is less "I have a bigger gun!" and more "These classes can easily do more in more circumstances and scenarios then these classes."

[Leon]

..And the Oberoni fallacy at play. "If you can fix it, it isn't a problem." Which involves having a DM well versed in the game to effectively accomplish, because otherwise they wouldn't know which abilities/feats are OP.

The rules can be changed on the decision of the DM in charge of the game.

If noone is well versed on the game it wont be a issue - if some are its only a issue if they make it one.


So you're essentially hoping they'll remain naive forever?:smalltongue:

They will eventually find out more about the game and what can be or not be, most probably stumble onto these boards or another and start down the darker path of gaming.


Why is it Hogwash,
Because any sensible player is going to make a decision on what to play based of a idea that they have for a PC and ultimately weather that turns out to be a good PC comes down to "once again" the choices the Player makes - do they use this Spell that will break the game or make it un fun for others, do you ruin the play of another person be lording your class features over theirs.

Over all choice ultimately comes to the GM - if after play it has proven that these things not what the GM wants then they are full within their power as a GM to retire that class/Feat/Spell/etc.

[Tvtyrant]

The rules can be changed on the decision of the DM in charge of the game.

If noone is well versed on the game it wont be a issue - if some are its only a issue if they make it one.



They will eventually find out more about the game and what can be or not be, most probably stumble onto these boards or another and start down the darker path of gaming

:smallsigh: Yup, knowledge of the system is truly dark beyond compare. And your perfectly correct, if the DM knows the system and the players do not and the DM is allowed to alter their decisions there won't be any problems.

This is the sort of arguments that lead to the Hindenburg. "It works fine under optimal conditions" is not a good argument for the system working.

[Geigan]

Some may do - that is their choice but over all there is no need for a specialized list that suggests that this is a bigger gun than the other one. When ultimately what makes a better character is important not its power level.

For the greater part of avoid balance problems i suppose it does help - Don't play those up levels as they are going to be harder to evenly balance encounters for then what a group of fighters and monks could potentially do.

But anyone who has looked at the spell lists for any of the caster classes could tell that without the need of a list

And that's its purpose, to help avoid balance problems by pointing out the differences in balance. It's obvious the difference between power and versatility between say a tier 1 and a tier 5, but it's harder to spot why the tier 5 is feeling so down about what he doesn't know is a balance problem in a party of tier 3s. The difference is there and some people feel that difference, while others don't and are perfectly fine with it. The Tier system specifically points it out though, and it'll probably make them realize why they were feeling down. Whether they correct it is their prerogative, the tier system does not force you to play better or worse, it merely points out different levels of effectiveness.


They will eventually find out more about the game and what can be or not be, most probably stumble onto these boards or another and start down the darker path of gaming
Ah but this does not have to be so sir. You can show them what the class can do and warn them yourself of the dark path. Guide them toward the light to make use of their great powers only for the good of the party and the game as a whole and you will not be disappointed.

[Leon]

It may have some fleeting use i will concede but it is Still massively over-hyped in importance by these and other forums.

Final Word.

As this is no longer really what the topic is im leaving it be, ultimately the OP cant solve his issues with his DM personally and thus needs a cast of thousands to back him up on what should do.

My final advice is what Ive suggested twice before and what i am doing with this thread. Leave.

[Veyr]

massively over-hyped in importance by these and other forums.
False.

See, I can make unsupported assertions as easily as you. Easier, even, since all I have to do is say that you are wrong.

Which you are, but I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who can't even be bothered to defend his own arguments.

[Tvtyrant]

Insulting the Original Poster for asking a question on a forum before going off in a huff? Classy.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I was tempted to enter the pointless (http://xkcd.com/386/) tier debate, but I'll just throw my hat into the "tiers do exist, and it's not some character flaw to chafe under that DM" crowd and move on.

My suggestion to the OP... if you don't want to DM, why not suggest a different system? I've heard good things about Savage Worlds; if you want to stick with D&D, how about first edition, or a retroclone like Castles and Crusades? To be honest, I haven't played that, but there are posters here who have.

[NecroRick]

How does one go about this idea of 'don't be selfish' in this situation while still having fun?

That's easy. I refer you to DMofDarkness' comment at the top of page 2 of this thread.

Whether or not he has fun ... that is pretty much up to him. I'd start by getting over the fact that the DM is running "old-school" D&D instead of "3.5 buffet" D&D.

A bunch of the things he mentions have really easy work-arounds. No monks? Boo hoo, monks blow anyway. If you weren't planning on playing an Ogre Magi/Monk/Shgenja/Wu Jen ... does it really matter if they don't exist?

No two weapon fighting? Use a big two handed sword and go the cleave route instead.

There's some people who on being told that they can't have something, begin to desperately want it. Just don't be one of those people. Ta da! Instant happiness! :D

If you think that his changes to fighters ruin the fighters... just don't play a fighter. Don't sit there and cry about how fighters are ruined and clerics are awesome, if that is what you're worried about, just play a damn cleric.

[Geigan]

*snip*
Adapting to adversity is certainly in the spirit of d&d, so yeah I'd go along with these changes if they add to the game. Asian classes gone? Sure, fine, that cuts off unwanted influence from eastern fantasy, though if someone wanted to play them they could have easily been refluffed with a little work. I have to question of the nerfs to fighter. Warrior is such a broad archetype that it seems odd to make it even harder to play, unless you want a magic ruled setting. Changes are fine if they help the feel of the game, but I'd still question your purpose as otherwise they come off as a bit senseless.

[Drglenn]

That's easy. I refer you to DMofDarkness' comment at the top of page 2 of this thread.

Whether or not he has fun ... that is pretty much up to him. I'd start by getting over the fact that the DM is running "old-school" D&D instead of "3.5 buffet" D&D.
If he wanted to play old school D&D he'd do so, he is supposedly playing 3.5


A bunch of the things he mentions have really easy work-arounds. No monks? Boo hoo, monks blow anyway. If you weren't planning on playing an Ogre Magi/Monk/Shgenja/Wu Jen ... does it really matter if they don't exist?
It wasn't the lack of monk etc that was being complained about, it was the arbitrary extra gimping of melee characters when the DM is forcing one on the party etc.


No two weapon fighting? Use a big two handed sword and go the cleave route instead.
Normally I'd say this without the restrictions but no TWF also nerfs the rogue somewhat as he's losing attacks with which he could get SA.


There's some people who on being told that they can't have something, begin to desperately want it. Just don't be one of those people. Ta da! Instant happiness! :D
Yes because people can change their intrinsic nature on a whim...
Also he's not being unreasonable, he's trying to make the character he has had thrust upon him playable, as it is he's dieing often


If you think that his changes to fighters ruin the fighters... just don't play a fighter. Don't sit there and cry about how fighters are ruined and clerics are awesome, if that is what you're worried about, just play a damn cleric.
The 3.5 rules ruin fighters, these houserules just put a few more nails in that particular coffin. Also he has had the role of 'melee guy' thrust upon him and by the sounds of it the DM wouldn't let him play a cleric as there's already one in the party (most likely as a healbot not doing any buffing)

To the OP: my vote would be to show your DM this thread and see his reactions to his homerules being ridiculed

[DwarfFighter]

I glanced at the OP and spotted this:




(...) should I just surrender and be the DM myself? (...)



Yes, be the GM.

Seriously: Do it!

-DF

[Killer Angel]

If you think that his changes to fighters ruin the fighters... just don't play a fighter. Don't sit there and cry about how fighters are ruined and clerics are awesome, if that is what you're worried about, just play a damn cleric.

Very helpful, but I don't like playing clerics, I like to play a damn fighter, even if it's weaker than the cleric. :smallmad:
I could live with it, but if Clerzilla is OK, and the fighter cannot have a WBL magic weapon or a good AC, 'coz the fighter would be OMG overpowered, then we're playing a strange "old D&D".
Nerfing an already weak class and don't listen to players' objections, not knowing the mechanics of the system you're GMing and forcing players to play the way you want, is no good.