My group says I'm a habitual power-gamer.

[3drinks]

Hi guys. Just kinda signed up here. I/we play D&D v3.5 via Skype fairly often, but my group says I "power game the [expletive] out of everything" when I play a combat class. Even in other circumstances, they're like "Well, you'd just find a way to power game and break [option X] too".

I mean, sure, I am a rules-lawyer "book nazi" by virtue of reading the books multiple times through out the years, so all of my broken shenanigans are legit, but it still doesn't make me as much fun to game with(rules lawyering doesn't help the stigma of enjoyment, much). Well, I want to get in on the games more, without breaking stuff, but how would I stop myself from naturally gravitating towards the stuff that I would be familiar with?

Like, we're doing a Gestalt campaign, and I tried this, making a Rogue/Wizard(Evocation specialist) and I just felt kinda drowned out, like I wasn't too relevant in the campaign as a whole. Not to mention, I didn't really feel the character, couldn't get into it I guess.

So I guess what I need help with, is what kind of class/feat selections can I take to make myself relevant to the campaign while keeping my interest on the character, but without making myself "broken" in their eyes. they usually don't let me play combat roles because I "monopolize combat". They view using Power Attack with a Greataxe as a Barbarian over-powered even though I am trying to build archetypes around certain styles of fighter types(such as the Barbarian who is all about raging as a style i.e. fill up on stuff like extend/extra rage, etc) and then using that to flesh out my character's personality...while I'm in the view of "Excel at what my class and build are supposed to excel at". I mean, I'm a competitive person at heart(I get pretty competitive with Magic so it kinda goes with the territory of wanting to, I don't know, "win" if that even makes sense in D&D.

Sorry. Just had all this I've been thinking about for a pretty long time. I just don't know how to fit into the group, I guess.

[Talya]

Like, we're doing a Gestalt campaign


Okay, look at your thread title. Then look at the quoted material.

Any group that chooses to play Gestalt has no business complaining about cheese. Gestalt is all about cheese.

[Tyndmyr]

Okay, look at your thread title. Then look at the quoted material.

Any group that chooses to play Gestalt has no business complaining about cheese. Gestalt is all about cheese.

I would agree. If you want a simple game with simple builds and a lack of cheese, Gestalt is not really your #1 choice.

Also, Power Attack/Greataxe is not particularly broken. It's pretty standard. I tend to favor Greatswords myself, and Shock Trooper tends to get added on. Along with Powerful Charge and so on.

The easiest thing to do might be to pick particularly hard classes to play well.

[Darth Stabber]

When they get up in your grill just say: "I upped my characters competence, up yours"

[Mr. Zolrane]

Gestalt, eh? I'm thinking Truenamer/CW Samurai...

[Zale]

I'd second that. Highly effective. :smallcool:

[Talya]

Gestalt, eh? I'm thinking Truenamer/CW Samurai...

Just because one is really bad at cheese, doesn't make the concept less cheesy. :)

[HappyBlanket]

I mean, sure, I am a rules-lawyer "book nazi" by virtue of reading the books multiple times through out the years, so all of my broken shenanigans are legit, but it still doesn't make me as much fun to game with(rules lawyering doesn't help the stigma of enjoyment, much).

What do you mean by broken? Are we talking CoDzilla broken? Or is that Barbarian example not hypothetical?

And, obviously, rules lawyering is an easy way to make yourself a target. You're there to play a game and have fun, not experience bureaucracy.

I haven't done Gestalt, so I wouldn't be able to comment on that.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Just because one is really bad at cheese, doesn't make the concept less cheesy. :)

But of course, Gestalt is made of cheese just as surely as the moon on Wallace and Gromit. I was just thinking of the two most universally reviled classes of all time, and well, y'know...

[3drinks]

Sure. I know Power Attack with two-handed weapons aren't ZOMG amazing, but this is really what I am using. And them saying woahmygod broken power monopolize combat. I've even mentioned that I could show them what true broken really is and their only replies are "No what you have here is broke already. We don't want to see super-broke".

I mean, like they want me to play something of suckitude, but then I'm ridiculed for "playing a bad, underwhelming class".

This seems weird though because I know how much these "combat super builds" as they would call them fail at higher levels when wizards reign supreme but they really don't see/understand that. Though they've mentioned they never play wizards because "in their experience" wizards die too quickly and never do anything relevant.

And on the Gestalt thing. I even told them if you want me to scale back, then that's fine...but Gestalt isn't what you want me to play in, if you want to control power gaming.

[Mr. Zolrane]

I've even mentioned that I could show them what true broken really is and their only replies are "No what you have here is broke already. We don't want to see super-broke".

There's someone on these forums whose sig reads something like "What I consider sound building, you may consider cheese. What I consider cheese would probably cause you physical pain."

You should use that. Just sayin'.

[Tvtyrant]

Play a buff/control build. Some people just see the number of d6s being rolled, so casting Entangle is going to make them less upset.

[jmelesky]

Offer to play a non-gestalt character, on the condition that they can no longer complain about your character's power level.

[Talya]

Do none of them ever play a druid?

[3drinks]

What do you mean by broken? Are we talking CoDzilla broken? Or is that Barbarian example not hypothetical?

And, obviously, rules lawyering is an easy way to make yourself a target. You're there to play a game and have fun, not experience bureaucracy.

I haven't done Gestalt, so I wouldn't be able to comment on that.

Nothing too amazing really. I haven't gone Druid/Wizard/Arcane Hierophant with them(though I've mentioned doing it before). They just truly don't like or whatever how I can get so much damage out of weapons in combat. Or at least, they don't like the synergy I generate with the Power Attack-Cleave, or using Improved Trip with a Spiked Chain. Nothing a true "veteran" of the game would really consider broken, just decent enough to get by as "cute".

[Talya]

Nothing too amazing really. I haven't gone Druid/Wizard/Arcane Hierophant with them(though I've mentioned doing it before). They just truly don't like or whatever how I can get so much damage out of weapons in combat. Or at least, they don't like the synergy I generate with the Power Attack-Cleave, or using Improved Trip with a Spiked Chain. Nothing a true "veteran" of the game would really consider broken, just decent enough to get by as "cute".

Your group strikes me as a bit inexperienced.

[Ruinix]

Do none of them ever play a druid?

or a core cleric, or core wizard ?! :smallannoyed:

[3drinks]

Do none of them ever play a druid?

Nope. Lots of Samurai, Ninja, Warlock, Ranger, Paladin(usually Chaotic Good variant from Unearthed Arcana), Fighter, Dragon Shaman, etc, etc.


Offer to play a non-gestalt character, on the condition that they can no longer complain about your character's power level.

This is great. I will try this.


Play a buff/control build. Some people just see the number of d6s being rolled, so casting Entangle is going to make them less upset.

I'm not much on the buffer style of character, by that I mean I have no real experience with it. But it is certainly a suggestion that is worth consideration as well.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Your group strikes me as a bit inexperienced.

This. I was just thinking that the stuff he described only sounds "broken" for a newb's definition of broken. Which is to say, baseline competent.

^Swordsage'd: Wow, Ninja? Samurai? Well bloody heck, that's why they suck! They're playing the DnD equivalent of an elderly woman with gangrene who is currently in the process of being devoured by hungry wolverines.

[Talya]

or a core cleric, or core wizard ?! :smallannoyed:

I picked druid because an inexperienced player can play a core wizard or cleric without dominating play, and even appear somewhat useless.

It's very difficult for a druid to be less than effective.

[Tvtyrant]

Those have a learning curve though; its not like ToB or Binders where you automatically get a feel for it when playing.

[3drinks]

Your group strikes me as a bit inexperienced.

They are. Though they wouldn't admit it. In their campaigns IRL(we live in different states) they roll d20 for their stats, even when I showed them in the PHB that the proper method to stat determining is the 4d6 method. And then I showed them variants on the d6 methods(from the DMG) on creating characters more suited for a high powered campaign, and I even offered to take the default array of stats in 15 14 13 12 10 8 while they roll(they say these numbers are "too low" and make them feel like "they're playing weak, underpowered characters").

[Mr. Zolrane]

I picked druid because an inexperienced player can play a core wizard or cleric without dominating play, and even appear somewhat useless.

It's very difficult for a druid to be less than effective.

When a new player discovers that wizard's in fact AREN'T worthless and are in fact better than the Fighter (I'll take my Understatement of the Year Award, now, thanks) it's like watching a little kid who just learned Santa Claus and Slash aren't real. :smalltongue:

[Gametime]

So... just two-handed Power Attack is broken? Not Shock Trooper or mounted charging or anything, just Power Attack?

That's a pretty low ceiling.

I'd recommend playing a buffing character, in that case, if you can see yourself enjoying that. Bards work well. So do Beguilers, if PHII is allowed. Being creative with illusions is less likely to draw cries of "Powergamer!" than being effective in combat, in my experience, even though it's often far more powerful.

[Othniel Edden]

I picked druid because an inexperienced player can play a core wizard or cleric without dominating play, and even appear somewhat useless.

It's very difficult for a druid to be less than effective.
In my group druids=bards=bad and everything else is viewed as equal... not exactly sure how that happened.

[Taelas]

The problem is that they don't understand how to play the game, which is why someone who actually does seems overpowered. :smallamused:

Not much you can do except tell them.

[Ephiel]

You sound like my pal Ravi.

You're not Ravi are you?

[Tvtyrant]

In my group druids=bards=bad and everything else is viewed as equal... not exactly sure how that happened.

Probably because they are fifth columns, which tend to be seen as not doing anything. Same thing with Monk (which really doesn't do anything).

[veven]

I would recommend playing a character that compliments the party more than anything else. If you want to kill two birds with one stone you could play a wizard and simultaneously prove their effectiveness and make your party better at what they do. Just glitterdust and black tentacles your way into their hearts.

If you wanna go for something with less tempting options you could make a pretty nasty support bard (maybe not less tempting...there are some brutal bard builds out there). An optimized inspire courage makes your mundanes feel awesome. If you want them to feel especially awesome (and possibly frustrate your DM) you could go the Dragon Fire Inspiration route. When each of their attacks has +5d6 (pitifully easy to get) fire damage stacked on to them they might think differently about your "power gaming". This is a bit off topic but I am playing a DFI bard in an E6 campaign and my DM let the party burn a building down by punching it.

The impression I get (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that your group views physical damage as a method of determining brokenness (which is silly). If you still want to go melee, there are a lot of fun options that aren't based around power attacking or charges. Goliath Wolf totem Barbarian w/ racial sub level 2/Crusader x with a guisarme can make for an awesome trip/lock down build. 20 foot reach is awesome. This could easily be seen as power gaming I suppose but you are more of a disabler (although your damage can still be impressively high) than anything. You make enemies easier for your team to kill.

For a long time my group basically thought that the more alternative class features and racial subs you use the more of a munchkin you are, eventually they were convinced that that is not the case. Maybe you can someday show your group how fun it is to play something that is really really good at what it does.

[3drinks]

So... just two-handed Power Attack is broken? Not Shock Trooper or mounted charging or anything, just Power Attack?

That's a pretty low ceiling.

I'd recommend playing a buffing character, in that case, if you can see yourself enjoying that. Bards work well. So do Beguilers, if PHII is allowed. Being creative with illusions is less likely to draw cries of "Powergamer!" than being effective in combat, in my experience, even though it's often far more powerful.

Yeah, PHB 2 is allowed, in fact it's where I was got the idea for my Duskblade/Dragon Disciple "combo". I've actually thought about using playing a Bard and taking a role of support (they laugh and mock because they think "Bards suck"). I was gonna just hang back with the Bard, and go into Arcane Archer with it...though there is that part of my spellcasting being nigh obsolete when I finish AA(18th level character, casting as a 6th level Bard).

[Mr. Zolrane]

I would recommend playing a character that compliments the party more than anything else. If you want to kill two birds with one stone you could play a wizard and simultaneously prove their effectiveness and make your party better at what they do. Just glitterdust and black tentacles your way into their hearts.

If you wanna go for something with less tempting options you could make a pretty nasty support bard (maybe not less tempting...there are some brutal bard builds out there). An optimized inspire courage makes your mundanes feel awesome. If you want them to feel especially awesome (and possibly frustrate your DM) you could go the Dragon Fire Inspiration route. When each of their attacks has +5d6 (pitifully easy to get) fire damage stacked on to them they might think differently about your "power gaming". This is a bit off topic but I am playing a DFI bard in an E6 campaign and my DM let the party burn a building down by punching it.


Indeed. Everyone loves the buffer. My group last spring surely did. Hoo boy, were we knocked off balance when she turned out to be the final boss. Yes, we got the "bad ending" for that campaign.

[Talya]

Probably because they are fifth columns, which tend to be seen as not doing anything. Same thing with Monk (which really doesn't do anything).

With the monk, they'd be right.

Bard and druid are the opposite of not doing anything. They do everything. (For the druid, this may be a balance issue. For the bard...I really think they hit the sweet spot for balance. You can pick any one role for the bard and it will perform it well. It can also do just about anything else competently.)

[Tvtyrant]

With the monk, they'd be right.

Bard and druid are the opposite of not doing anything. They do everything. (For the druid, this may be a balance issue. For the bard...I really think they hit the sweet spot for balance. You can pick any one role for the bard and it will perform it well. It can also do just about anything else competently.)

Exactly! Druid is too hot, Monk is too cold, Bard is just right. Wildshape Ranger is another form of just right, along with all of Tier 3.

[3drinks]

You sound like my pal Ravi.

You're not Ravi are you?

??? Not sure I understand what a Ravi is. Unless you're using my situation to compare similarity to a friend of yours?


The problem is that they don't understand how to play the game, which is why someone who actually does seems overpowered.

Not much you can do except tell them.

Not sure how to tell them "Hey, you guys suck. get better!" Without offending anyone(I must have a -5 on any Diplomacy checks I make) >_>.

From the way things sound here, Bard, non-gestalt in their Gestalt campaign sounds like what I need to do to fit in.

[Othniel Edden]

With the monk, they'd be right.

Bard and druid are the opposite of not doing anything. They do everything. (For the druid, this may be a balance issue. For the bard...I really think they hit the sweet spot for balance. You can pick any one role for the bard and it will perform it well. It can also do just about anything else competently.)

I think thats their problem is they spread their focus to thin while attempting to play one. I believe there is a bias against hybrids.

[Corolinth]

Though they've mentioned they never play wizards because "in their experience" wizards die too quickly and never do anything relevant.This is historically what has balanced wizards in D&D, going back to the 1970s. Most have died before they were ever able to cast level 2 spells.

[3drinks]

Exactly! Druid is too hot, Monk is too cold, Bard is just right. Wildshape Ranger is another form of just right, along with all of Tier 3.

Tier 3...I saw some other posts earlier today before I made this one that talked about tiers. Any chance a guy can get a link to one of these? I mean, I do have a general idea of some tiers, but it'd be a nice reference to have.

[Salbazier]

I... don't know what to say. Power attack is OP... sheesh. This isn't even funny.

Actually, I want to say to find another group but if you stick with them likely you can't or have reason to play with them. Perhaps tell us more about the personality of your group so we can offer more relevant suggestion? Because, begging your pardon, I have this nagging feeling this is not about power or inexperience but bad attitude of your group.

For one thing, I'm curious, if they are inexperienced how they dare to claim something is overpowered or even 'know' the term powergamer?

On class advice, I support the idea of Bard. Supposedly people don't complain when someone else made them awesome.

EDIT: some idea: playing some build that focus on doing unique things rather than power. Nothing came to mind right now but there's supposedly many that show up in this board from time to time. Some may be entertaining to watch in action. Though it carry the risk of another muchkin accusation if you are seen as selectively picking feats and ACF, even if you are taking weak ones.

[Gnaeus]

Tier 3...I saw some other posts earlier today before I made this one that talked about tiers. Any chance a guy can get a link to one of these? I mean, I do have a general idea of some tiers, but it'd be a nice reference to have.

Basic system:

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293

With some extra explanation & commentary

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5256.0

[Kaeso]

So... just two-handed Power Attack is broken? Not Shock Trooper or mounted charging or anything, just Power Attack?

That's a pretty low ceiling.

I'd recommend playing a buffing character, in that case, if you can see yourself enjoying that. Bards work well. So do Beguilers, if PHII is allowed. Being creative with illusions is less likely to draw cries of "Powergamer!" than being effective in combat, in my experience, even though it's often far more powerful.

How is a Beguiler a buffer? Their spelllist has mostly illusions and some battlefield controll.

[3drinks]

I... don't know what to say. Power attack is OP... sheesh. This isn't even funny.

Actually, I want to say to find another group but if you stick with them likely you can't or have reason to play with them. Perhaps tell us more about the personality of your group so we can offer more relevant suggestion? Because, begging your pardon, I have this nagging feeling this is not about power or inexperience but bad attitude of your group.

For one thing, I'm curious, if they are inexperienced how they dare to claim something is overpowered or even 'know' the term powergamer?

On class advice, I support the idea of Bard. Supposedly people don't complain when someone else made them awesome.

EDIT: some idea: playing some build that focus on doing unique things rather than power. Nothing came to mind right now but there's supposedly many that show up in this board from time to time. Some may be entertaining to watch in action. Though it carry the risk of another muchkin accusation if you are seen as selectively picking feats and ACF, even if you are taking weak ones.

I think they call me a power gamer, because all of my characters I gear for efficiency(well, not really, just linear for the vision I have of them). I suspect it's more a case of "Wow, you can do a lot of damage!!111!!!1!". Which is mind boggling as someone else pointed out, that dealing damage in combat = zomgsupergood. Of course, they are also of the variety of card player(Magic/Yugioh) that complain about "netdecking and creativity" versus playing what is good, and what wins. Naturally, I am on the other end of that spectrum.

[Greenish]

feel like "they're playing weak, underpowered characters").Looking at their list of favoured classes, I'd claim that is indeed the case. Or well, if they're all playing those, and the DM adjusts the difficulty down, they're about right.

(they laugh and mock because they think "Bards suck").Makes sense, since bard requires some expertise to play well. You could play a single-classed non-gestalt bard and beat them all, but that wouldn't really help with their cries of "powergamer". Buffer-style bard is a much neater option, and you can mix some decent melee power in, since it seems to be the only thing they respect.

And Arcane Archer (at least more than two levels) is a trap, so you could take it, but that probably wouldn't open their eyes to the brilliance that is bard.

[Tvtyrant]

Tier 3...I saw some other posts earlier today before I made this one that talked about tiers. Any chance a guy can get a link to one of these? I mean, I do have a general idea of some tiers, but it'd be a nice reference to have.

There (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293)is a (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293)d6 chance (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293)that the (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293)link is (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293)the right (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293)one. Actually they are all right :P

[Darth Stabber]

This is one of the reasons I GM. Most of the people I play with think evocation is a pretty good school, and that doing 100 damage on a charge is rediculous at lvl 10. I GM because I a) have the best system knowledge, b) I get really testy when I build a character to their listed specifications, they say it doesn't work according to the rules I point out where is does, and they reply "not anymore". Like "pounce only works with natural weapons", "at no point is there any reference to natural weapons in the entry for pounce", "well now it does".

Your real choice is Buffbot, ditch newbs, GM

[Mr. Zolrane]

And Arcane Archer (at least more than two levels) is a trap, so you could take it, but that probably wouldn't open their eyes to the brilliance that is bard.

I never could understand why people always feel the need to get their Akbar on every time the Arcane Archer is mentioned. It doesn't even look good on paper.

[Salbazier]

I think they call me a power gamer, because all of my characters I gear for efficiency(well, not really, just linear for the vision I have of them). I suspect it's more a case of "Wow, you can do a lot of damage!!111!!!1!". Which is mind boggling as someone else pointed out, that dealing damage in combat = zomgsupergood. Of course, they are also of the variety of card player(Magic/Yugioh) that complain about "netdecking and creativity" versus playing what is good, and what wins. Naturally, I am on the other end of that spectrum.

I see.... *sigh* I'm sorry, I don't have good advice to offer. I guess without system mastery it is possible to see Power attack like some overpowered card.

[Rixx]

Pathfinder Arcane Archer, however, is delicious, delicious candy.

[3drinks]

I see.... *sigh* I'm sorry, I don't have good advice to offer. I guess without system mastery it is possible to see Power attack like some overpowered card.

It's okay. I guess I'll save my combat characters for other campaigns(if I can find online campaigns if that's possible O_o) and just take my role of support. Oh well.

[Greenish]

It's okay. I guess I'll save my combat characters for other campaigns(if I can find online campaigns if that's possible O_o) and just take my role of support. Oh well.I'm usually on the opinion that showing people up when you think they're wrong is bad gaming etiquette, but in the case of someone thinking bards are weak, I make an exception.

Make a bard. Show 'em.

[Quietus]

I never could understand why people always feel the need to get their Akbar on every time the Arcane Archer is mentioned. It doesn't even look good on paper.

It did to me, when I first started playing. "Oh wow, free pluses and I can shoot fireballs with my bow, COOL!" - Yeah, I've learned more since then. :smalltongue:

[3drinks]

I'm usually on the opinion that showing people up when you think they're wrong is bad gaming etiquette, but in the case of someone thinking bards are weak, I make an exception.

Make a bard. Show 'em.

Will do! And I'll use the resources here to make the best damned Bard I can make, too!

[Darth Stabber]

I think they call me a power gamer, because all of my characters I gear for efficiency(well, not really, just linear for the vision I have of them). I suspect it's more a case of "Wow, you can do a lot of damage!!111!!!1!". Which is mind boggling as someone else pointed out, that dealing damage in combat = zomgsupergood. Of course, they are also of the variety of card player(Magic/Yugioh) that complain about "netdecking and creativity" versus playing what is good, and what wins. Naturally, I am on the other end of that spectrum.

Honestly, it seems you are stuck with a group that does not match your style at all. This is a battle as old as gaming. I could see their point if you were DMMing it up, or playing a mailman sorc, but you're not. They clearly don't understand character competency. To even keep up with reasonably CRd encounters you need to focus some of your efforts on your character being good at what they do. Do you have an example build for your compatriots, because from the sound of it, they would be getting there butts handed to them by appropriate CR encounters. Actually, you might do well to teach them a touch of optimization if they will listen. If they are the kind of players that they sound like from this conversation they probably object to any feat that makes you character better at what it's supposed to do. I've been in groups where I was laughed at for my lvl 8 sorcerer no knowing fireball, then when i dropped a Black Tentacles they banned it, I don't play with these folks anymore.

[veven]

It's okay. I guess I'll save my combat characters for other campaigns(if I can find online campaigns if that's possible O_o).

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=51


Will do! And I'll use the resources here to make the best damned Bard I can make, too!

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19870498/The_Bards_Handbook

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869994/Bard_Inspire_Courage_Optimization


There you are, good sir.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Ok, so something you might do -

If you're playing Gestalt, I'm fond of going Bard//Fighter (well, Bard//Hit-and-Run Zhentarim Fighter) - the bonus feats are helpful, as is the full BAB, good Fort save, and better HD. Additionally, the Fighter side is primarily passive, giving you bonus feats for combat styles, which I primarily go with Two Weapon Fighting, the Spring Attack line (though that is five feats total, and not a very good investment in a high-optimization environment), Weapon Finesse (since you already need a high Dex for TWF and AC, and you don't need Str because you're getting damage from other sources, though this will be superseded if you use the Slippers of Battledancing), and Combat Reflexes + Karmic Strike + Robilar's Gambit. The Bard side is where you really do damage.

First, I would read the Bard's Guide (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=8284.0). With the information contained therein, you will be able to add +10 to hit and damage for you and all your friends, or +10d6 elemental damage, or both for a limited time (about a minute, using Lingering Song). Additionally, you'll be able to find feats and items which set your to hit off of Cha, get you Cha to hit, and Cha to damage. There's also a sword, the Crystal Echoblade, which gives you half your Bard level to damage. If you can convince your DM to allow Snowflake Wardance (from Frostburn, which gives you Cha to hit) to work with piercing weapons, and convert the Crystal Echoblade to a Rapier from a Longsword, make it Keen, and that +10 from Inspire Courage and that +10 from being a level 20 Bard will be +20 each with some frequency (not much, in the grand scheme of things, but it's a nice little bonus). Then, if you've gone with two weapon fighting, I would see if your DM will allow you a Crystal Echoblade Kukri, and make that keen as well.

You take Robilar's Gambit and Karmic strike to provoke AoOs when you are attacked, which makes you less likely to be attacked, assuming intelligent enemies. The Spring Attack line (Spring Attack, Bounding Assault, Rapid Blitz, natch) let you be an effective skirmisher (especially with all the bonus damage you get from Inspire Courage/Dragonfire Inspiration).

But you don't need any of that, so long as you're an effective buffer (via Inspire Courage). You can sit there and sing/dance/play and everyone benefits.

On top of all that, out of combat you've got 6+Int skills, Cha synergy for social skills, Fascinate/Suggestion, etc. It's a very fun build to play.

----

Wow, that's a bit rambly, isn't it. Let me see if I can recap:

Bard 20//Zhentarim Hit-and-Run Fighter 20

Pros:
- D10 Hit Dice
- All Good Saves
- Full BAB
- 6+Int skills
- Bardic Music
- Bardic Knowledge (or Bardic Knack, which I tend to prefer)
- Spellcasting (yeah, you don't get ninth level spells, but I get the feeling that ninth level spells used well would terrify your group)
- Bonus Feats
- Dex to Damage (from Hit-and-Run Fighter)
- Effective Intimidator (High Cha + Zhentarim Fighter)
- So good it gets listed twice: Inspire Courage/Dragonfire Inspiration

Cons:
- A little MAD (requires high Dex, Con, Int, and Cha to really shine)
- Might be too strong on its own for your group and your purposes
- Requires access to a lot of books
- Requires access to several specific magic items to really shine

[Talya]

Bard//Fighter gestalt would actually be...really really fun. The sum is more than its parts, by far.

[Greenish]

And Warlock is "greatly under rated". He can't understand how Bards > Warlocks.Is it better to do Xd6 damage as a standard action, or to make everyone's every attack deal an extra Yd6 damage (where X<Y)? :smalltongue:

[Gametime]

How is a Beguiler a buffer? Their spelllist has mostly illusions and some battlefield controll.

I suppose the more generic label of "support character" would make more sense, but in a group that views two-handed Power Attack as too much, you don't want to overdo even basic buffs. Haste and Greater Invisibility can be pretty huge contributions to a weak party all by themselves. Combine that with a bit of battlefield control and you've got a great enabler.

[erikun]

He says he can't understand why Cleric is Tier 1. And Warlock is "greatly under rated". He can't understand how Bards > Warlocks.
Well, to be fair, Warlocks are very obvious how they can be good. At-will flight, at-will invisibility, and at-will ranged touch attacks? Bards need a few supplements to be combat monsters.

That said, if your players want you to get rid of your "overpowered" Barbarian and play an "unimpressive" Bard, then Snowflake Wardance + Dragonfire Inspiration should make them regret that decision. :smalltongue:

You could also show them a combat cleric.


I'll agree with other people, though. It sounds like the big problem is the difference between how you play and how your party plays. They apparently want to play mundane sword-slashers who rely primarily on d20+BAB to deal damage. I'd think any Wizard with a single reserve feat would look overpowered in that group. You'll need to decide if you want to tone things down or look for another group, or perhaps search for another decision. (Act as DM yourself, perhaps?) They don't seem to want to optimize, or even consider the options, on their own.

[3drinks]

Well, to be fair, Warlocks are very obvious how they can be good. At-will flight, at-will invisibility, and at-will ranged touch attacks? Bards need a few supplements to be combat monsters.

That said, if your players want you to get rid of your "overpowered" Barbarian and play an "unimpressive" Bard, then Snowflake Wardance + Dragonfire Inspiration should make them regret that decision. :smalltongue:

You could also show them a combat cleric.


I'll agree with other people, though. It sounds like the big problem is the difference between how you play and how your party plays. They apparently want to play mundane sword-slashers who rely primarily on d20+BAB to deal damage. I'd think any Wizard with a single reserve feat would look overpowered in that group. You'll need to decide if you want to tone things down or look for another group, or perhaps search for another decision. (Act as DM yourself, perhaps?) They don't seem to want to optimize, or even consider the options, on their own.

I do have a campaign I run. But I've just been a might bit lazy to get an NPC crafted for this next part. Not really lazy, but just more unsure how I want to build the character(I have a vision of him that I'm having a hard time incorporating into game terms).

[Greenish]

(I have a vision of him that I'm having a hard time incorporating into game terms).Shoot. :smallcool:

[Edit]: You can remove your extra posts by clicking "Edit" on lower right corner of the post, then selecting "Delete message" from the first options that come up and confirming with "Delete the Message".

[Mr. Zolrane]

Pathfinder Arcane Archer, however, is delicious, delicious candy.

Is it? Three dead levels and whatnot... is there something I overlooked? Explain this to me. Not trying to be snarky at all; genuine curiosity here.


I'm usually on the opinion that showing people up when you think they're wrong is bad gaming etiquette, but in the case of someone thinking bards are weak, I make an exception.

Make a bard. Show 'em.

By all means.

[Sylivin]

Your DM is likely having issues balancing the encounter well with your high damage hit capacity. The way to fix this issue is more. Not more hit points, but more mobs. Encounter calls for one dragon? Send two. 3 ogres? 5 ogres. You can go off and solo your heart out while the rest of the group gets their own time to shine. Power gaming is all about spotlight and not optimization. "Look at me, I'm amazing!" gets really old really fast for group members that are more skill based or RP based.

There are ways around this of course. One is naturally to tone down your own play. Focus instead on defense (tripping, grappling, etc) while the rest of the party does the killing. Focus on killing distance foes (archers, etc) while the rest of the party deals with the meat and potatoes mobs.

Another way is via the DM - more mobs. Steal the 4th edition idea of minions - mobs that die on a successful attack roll and have there be a bunch of them. Suddenly everyone is useful. You might have more kills but the rest of them still make a good dent... heck even makes two weapon fighting useful.

Focus less on combat. Suggest an idea for a murder mystery in the capital and have the evidence point to a party member. Avoiding combat is now the goal as they try to clear their name and rush against time. More talky talky (and make sure the rest of the group are the ones doing the talking - not you) and less combat means more attention is on everyone else. Sure, when a fight ends up breaking out you'll bust some heads, but for now staying in the shadows lets the rest shine.

Finally, as a last resort, help everyone else optimize their characters. Some people just don't like to do this, but it can turn out pretty useful. Good tactics + some decent power gaming means the DM can start pushing up the encounter level and making fights more deadly and more interesting.

In the end though D&D is a social game. It's nerd's board game with a third of the time spent BSing, a third of the time RPin' and a third of the time dice rolling. The idea is that everyone has fun at the end. If the rest of the group just ends up annoyed at your shinanigans then it is best to try to change it in a way that you have fun and now they have fun as well.

[CTrees]

My current (pathfinder) group thought I was powergaming when my single-classed fighter was hitting for about thirty damage a swing at level five. They also insisted wizards were terrible and (straight-blasty, no metamagic) sorcerors were awesome. Thus, my current character is a de/buff utility wizard. Haste the party, save-or-suck the enemy, and everyone is appreciative. No accusations of powergaming (except from our dm, who really hates my +15init at lvl nine...), and they've accepted wizards as a solid class. Plus, I've not taken a single point of damage so far. Worked out well as a solution in a situation that seems similar (our biggest powerhouse is a paladin/inquisitor/holy vindicator, and one of our players is a rogue/bard looking to eventually go arcane trickster, for an indication of power level...)

Point is, being a buffer is definitely worth a try, from what I've seen (even if you won't get a lot of credit, in a group like that...)

[MrRigger]

In your case, where Two Handed Power Attack is considered overpowered (in your first post, I seriously thought you were talking uber-charger, then I read the rest of the thread, and I had to shake my head), you might be better off staying away from any kind of direct combat class. Bard is a good choice for going a buff route, but if your DM decides he doesn't like the spells you pick or how pumped your Inspire Courage, that Bard just got really rough to play. Personally, I suggest going with a Transmuter Wizard (or a non-specialist), dropping Evocation (the "damage" school) and Necromancy (so you aren't tempted to make an undead army), and focusing on buffing the rest of the party. The first time you Polymorph the party rogue into a Hydra and he gets Sneak Attack on all his heads as a standard action, he'll love you for it (your DM might not, though). At an earlier level, the party Fighter(s) will love the Enlarge Person you just hit him with.

The advantage a Transmuter Wizard has over a buffing Bard is that if the DM decides to nerf the spells you chose, you can just go scribe some more spells in your spellbook, whereas the Bard does not have that kind of option.

MrRigger

[Lord.Sorasen]

One time some new guy came to watch my group's D&D game. I was playing a bard. He asked about the previous game and I told him I was a cleric. He seemed to think I enjoyed providing "things no one cares about".

In different groups different things are required.

If your group worries that you're a habitual power gamer, do something that denies you that opportunity. I'd say "play a low tier class" but they seem to view whatever you do, regardless of base, as power gaming. Your understanding of rules just eats theres.

So I'd suggest something really different. Something truly extreme, I mean. Play a venerable halfling barbarian. Play a commoner. Take the worst character in your last campaign, and play that. Play a straight sorcerer with 11 charisma. If you are like me and you want challenge, at least; play a different game entirely. Make the challenge not making a build but using what you have, and give yourself humorously little. If they complain about this then there's nothing you can do.

[Darth Stabber]

Build a full power diplomancer, then play him as though he were the most cruel and savage barbarian. Only take single levels from any class and avoid anything that has a chance of continuing a spell progression (I've done this and it is fun, you get a metric ton of crappy abilities. You opponents never know what to expect except that it won't hurt much).

Also do not show this group ToB, when they see that melee can have nice things, their heads will asplode.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I give full support to doing a buffbard, maxing Inspire Courage as the guides say. Other options include going with a War Weaver wizard to spread the love that is personal only spells to the entire party, but I imagine they'd frown on that.

As such, since Tome of Battle would probably be banned in a heartbeat by your group (:smallsigh:), I'd run Bard X//Barbarian or Fighter or really anything for full BAB and decent class features X, maybe using this side of the gestalt to go Dragon Disciple or Arcane Archer, if possible.

[Greenish]

As such, since Tome of Battle would probably be banned in a heartbeat by your group (:smallsigh:), I'd run Bard X//Barbarian or Fighter or really anything for full BAB and decent class features X, maybe using this side of the gestalt to go Dragon Disciple or Arcane Archer, if possible.I wouldn't run gestalt at all.

Just pure bard.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I wouldn't run gestalt at all.

Just pure bard.

Oh yeah. Fist, you'll play what they think is the weak class. Then, you'll give yourself a serious handicap. Then, you'll show them how effective it is compared to their characters. :smallamused:

[HappyBlanket]

Oh yeah. Fist, you'll play what they think is the weak class. Then, you'll give yourself a serious handicap. Then, you'll show them how effective it is compared to their characters. :smalltongue:

"Well, you just found a way to power game and break non-gestalt bards too".
See what I did there?

[Thrice Dead Cat]

"Well, you just found a way to power game and break non-gestalt bards too".
See what I did there?


Yeah, but stupid is as stupid does. He could play anything they thought was weak and they'd always just go "Well, yeah you did well, cuz YOU made it!"

[Hiro Protagonest]

Yeah, but stupid is as stupid does. He could play anything they thought was weak and they'd always just go "Well, yeah you did well, cuz YOU made it!"

Yeah. And if that happens, leave the group and don't look back. Play PbP on GitP if you can't find a new group.

[Rei_Jin]

Sadly, my group is the same as this poor fellows is.

My current PC is a Monk/Fighter heading into Order of the Bow Initiate (I homebrewed a fix for it, which my DM accepted). He's the most powerful member of the group, and also the tank. It's... sad beyond words.

The rest of the party is a Ninja, a Cloistered Cleric who is afraid of taking part in combat to do anything beyond healing, a Barbarian who refuses to rage UNTIL he's taken damage, and a Ranger who is cross-classing all his skills into social skills and dual wields gauntlets.

I suggested ToB to them, because they always whinged that I was breaking the game with my spellcasters (OMG, a Spirit Shaman, so overpowered!). I thought it would be good for melee to have nice things. Then they said that "Core is core for a reason, don't bring in things that break the game."

Yeah. Work that one out.

[Bovine Colonel]

Rei Jin, 3drinks, have you guys shown your groups the tier lists and associated literature? Or pointed them to this very thread, for that matter?

[Greenish]

I suggested ToB to them, because they always whinged that I was breaking the game with my spellcasters (OMG, a Spirit Shaman, so overpowered!). I thought it would be good for melee to have nice things. Then they said that "Core is core for a reason, don't bring in things that break the game."Spirit Shaman is no druid, but it is a tier 2, with some arguing for tier 1 status.

That can be overpowered in tier 4 and below party, and probably is in one with such low optimization.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Rei Jin, 3drinks, have you guys shown your groups the tier lists and associated literature? Or pointed them to this very thread, for that matter?

They'll call all of us powergamers too. And I had no idea druids were overpowered and sword n' board was bad before coming here. Though I play in a pretty low-op group where my half-orc fighter with the light shield and bastard sword beat the party druid in a PvP portion where we had some sort of illusion so we thought we were enemies.

[Rei_Jin]

The DM knows all about the tier system. He understands it, and shakes his head at the others and their lack of understanding. The others have told me that I'm just trying to make excuses and take away their fun, or call me a cheeseweasel.

I gave up trying to get them to see things my way a while ago. Now I pick weak characters and do my damndest to show them up still.


EDIT: Which I didn't try to do before. Kinda hard not to show up a Swashbuckler and a human pure class monk with no ACF when you're using a spellcaster of any sort.

[Bovine Colonel]

Then they said that "Core is core for a reason, don't bring in things that break the game."

Yeah. Work that one out.

Have you tried something along the lines of the following?

Core is core for a reason, yes. It's core 'cause it's the first stuff published. Before there was core, there was not any sort of community or any other way to truly find out what's balanced and what's not. Therefore, splatbooks (for the most part) can be assumed to be better balanced than core books, 'cause after they made core books they got stuff to help them make splatbooks. Which they did not have when they made core books.

[MrRigger]

Rei Jin, 3drinks, you guys definitely have my sympathies. Your groups remind me of the guy I played with who had so little system mastery, that after multiple characters, still couldn't figure out BAB (not even fractional, just regular BAB), and in a level 20 melee build (CW Samurai17/Ronin3), didn't take Power Attack. Or, you know, anything helpful at all.

MrRigger

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Indeed. Everyone loves the buffer. My group last spring surely did. Hoo boy, were we knocked off balance when she turned out to be the final boss. Yes, we got the "bad ending" for that campaign.

Same happened in my last campaign, funnily enough, though in my case I was the buffer. Spoilered for off-topicness:
My character had a cleric base, then cheesed his way into Hathran, War Weaver, Prestige Bard, and Spellguard of Silverymoon via a Dragonsblood Pool, and (ab)used Magic of the Land, an acorn of far travel, and bloodlines to drop any 9 buffs from the cleric list (which I cast spontaneously) on the party to make them basically invulnerable, on top of cheesed-out Dragonfire Inspiration for offensive buffs. Basically, as someone quoted earlier, what I consider cheese would cause most players physical pain. :smallamused: To ensure that I didn't personally obliterate encounters, I agreed to play an exalted-to-the-Nth-degree character with the Vow of Nonviolence who refused to do anything besides buff the party in combat and provide healing/utility out of it.

Then, at 18th level, I was hit by a no-save alignment-reversal effect (DM fiat on that, but I didn't mind, I'd been meaning to retire him anyway as I wanted to try a more "active" buld). The round after he dropped to chaotic evil consisted of a miracle to duplicate psychic reformation to spec for metamagic, followed by a greater celerity, followed by a DMM-twinned sudden-extended sudden-maximized sudden-empowered time stop, during which everything within a mile of my character (except the party; I was feeling nice) became a volcano (including several thousand civilians we'd been trying to save). The character then took some levels in Tainted Scholar (yay effective 200 Wis!), psychic reformed back to a buffer spec, and came back with an army of balors. :smalleek:
On topic, the one way I've found as my group's resident rules-lawyer to not overshadow people is to focus on buffing and utility, as others here have said. However, as HappyBlanket noted, playing an effective bard will just make the other players complain that you cheesed out the bard rather than making them either appreciate a bard's power or see their own problems.

Instead, I would second Lord.Sorasen's suggestion: Take something so terribly suboptimal, so incredibly weak, that in any normal game it would be an active detriment to the party and optimize it up to the power level of your party. The funniest option would probably be a grapple-focused venerable gnome monk. Overcoming Small size penalties and Str penalties to make an effective grappler should provide plenty of entertainment for you, but the end result shouldn't (hopefully) overshadow the party. Other options are...well, anything sucky, really. Be creative.

[Rei_Jin]

Thanks for the suggestions guys, but I'm in one of those situations where the only reasonable solution is to either put up with it, or stop playing with them. And as the group is mostly friends I've known for ages...

*Shrugs*

I've tried everything short of making their characters for them, and I either get laughed at, insulted, or threatened (depending on who I'm talking to. My friends are not subtle). They like the game the way they play it, and it's so far from how others know the game to work as to be nigh unrecognisable.

It does give me some amusement though, when they put forward that the monk is the single most powerful PC class there is.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

It does give me some amusement though, when they put forward that the monk is the single most powerful PC class there is.

Send them here, then. Should be fun.:smallamused:

[PairO'Dice Lost]

It does give me some amusement though, when they put forward that the monk is the single most powerful PC class there is.

...so trying to optimize a Small venerable monk for grappling for kicks and giggles won't work, because they'll see you choosing what is obviously the best class in the PHB as powergaming. :smallsigh: I do not envy you in the slightest.

[Rei_Jin]

It gets worse. You picked a gnome.

Gnomes are OP and clearly evil. They kill all gnomes on sight, simply on principle.

Except for Whispergnomes. They're okay.

No. I don't get it either.

[Hiro Protagonest]

...so trying to optimize a Small venerable monk for grappling for kicks and giggles won't work, because they'll see you choosing what is obviously the best class in the PHB as powergaming. :smallsigh: I do not envy you in the slightest.

What about a small venerable barbarian?

Edit:
It gets worse. You picked a gnome.

Gnomes are OP and clearly evil. They kill all gnomes on sight, simply on principle.

Except for Whispergnomes. They're okay.

No. I don't get it either.
This group is terrible. Direct every single person in it to these forums. Before I came to the forums, I didn't know monks were weak, druids were OP, and sword n' board is awful.

[Strife Warzeal]

I think someone from the playground needs to school them in the finer points of power-gaming to show that what was going on before seem like low-op.

[Rei_Jin]

It's that bad, that they got upset when I made a Human Dragonborn (yes, it lost all its human bonuses) Fighter with Improved Unarmed Strike, Superior Unarmed Strike, and the ACF that gives the Dragonscale Husk. They actively plotted the death of that PC, and when I was away for a session, the next session they re-introduced him by deciding that "he was in prison and had all his things stolen" which they mysteriously recovered and took for themselves.

Yeah, I took a 12 month break from gaming with them after that particular one. It just wasn't worth it.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

It's that bad, that they got upset when I made a Human Dragonborn (yes, it lost all its human bonuses) Fighter with Improved Unarmed Strike, Superior Unarmed Strike, and the ACF that gives the Dragonscale Husk. They actively plotted the death of that PC, and when I was away for a session, the next session they re-introduced him by deciding that "he was in prison and had all his things stolen" which they mysteriously recovered and took for themselves.

Yeah, I took a 12 month break from gaming with them after that particular one. It just wasn't worth it.

That is just petty, really. I'm definitely of the opinion that they should all be brought to these forums for a well needed debate.:smallbiggrin:

[Hiro Protagonest]

It's that bad, that they got upset when I made a Human Dragonborn (yes, it lost all its human bonuses) Fighter with Improved Unarmed Strike, Superior Unarmed Strike, and the ACF that gives the Dragonscale Husk. They actively plotted the death of that PC, and when I was away for a session, the next session they re-introduced him by deciding that "he was in prison and had all his things stolen" which they mysteriously recovered and took for themselves.

Yeah, I took a 12 month break from gaming with them after that particular one. It just wasn't worth it.

These people aren't your friends. They're playing a game with you, and you say they laugh at you, insult you, and threaten you. Anyone who does that because of a game is not your friend.

Send these people to these forums. If they still don't learn, then leave and don't look back.

[Sir Homeslice]

It's that bad, that they got upset when I made a Human Dragonborn (yes, it lost all its human bonuses) Fighter with Improved Unarmed Strike, Superior Unarmed Strike, and the ACF that gives the Dragonscale Husk. They actively plotted the death of that PC, and when I was away for a session, the next session they re-introduced him by deciding that "he was in prison and had all his things stolen" which they mysteriously recovered and took for themselves.

Yeah, I took a 12 month break from gaming with them after that particular one. It just wasn't worth it.

These people aren't your friends, they're petty backstabbing children.

[Rei_Jin]

It's weird. They only do it at the gaming table, not in anything else.

Hence why I call them friends. Two of them I've known for more than 16 years. One of them I'd trust with my life... they're just jerks when playing D&D.

[Hiro Protagonest]

These people aren't your friends, they're petty backstabbing children.

Yeah, like I said, anyone who threatens you, insults you, or laughs at you isn't your friend.

[Hiro Protagonest]

It's weird. They only do it at the gaming table, not in anything else.

Hence why I call them friends. Two of them I've known for more than 16 years. One of them I'd trust with my life... they're just jerks when playing D&D.

Still, you should guide them to the forums. Before I joined the forums, I didn't know a single thing about optimization or what a solid character is. I thought sword n' board was as good as two handed weapon, power attack wasn't worth the attack penalty, and didn't know monks sucked.

[Divide by Zero]

It's weird. They only do it at the gaming table, not in anything else.

Hence why I call them friends. Two of them I've known for more than 16 years. One of them I'd trust with my life... they're just jerks when playing D&D.

Then don't play D&D with them.

[Road_Runner]

Meh dude you're not even close to my party's power-gamer. I envy your DM :smallfurious:

[Freylorn]

I'm also the resident power-gamer in my group - fortunately, I'm not vilified for it. It's just sort of accepted that I'm the most combat-capable. That and I'm usually asked to help people create characters in regards to feat selection and the like.

In your case, though, you have my sympathies. Everyone has already said the usual suggestions I would give, so I'll offer an alternative: have you tried getting them to try something besides D&D? It couldn't hurt to try, and there's no denying that D&D (3.5 especially!) is a very optimization and build-focused game. Perhaps something a little more rules-medium or rules-light could work?

[Temotei]

monks sucked.

Sir Giacomo is about the only one who frequently fights against this sentiment here. That is, of course, unless you're speaking of dipping into monk.

Also, I empathize. I'm joining a real-life gaming group for the first time soon. It turns out that they're afraid of me breaking the game because I know how to and I've said many things on how to, but I also specifically said that I've never done it and I never will because I don't do that. Hm. Ah well.

[Divide by Zero]

In your case, though, you have my sympathies. Everyone has already said the usual suggestions I would give, so I'll offer an alternative: have you tried getting them to try something besides D&D? It couldn't hurt to try, and there's no denying that D&D (3.5 especially!) is a very optimization and build-focused game. Perhaps something a little more rules-medium or rules-light could work?

Moreover, if it's a system you're not already familiar with, then you'll be pretty much on the same level as the rest of the players, so they really can't complain about powergaming.

[Tvtyrant]

Sir Giacomo is about the only one who frequently fights against this sentiment here. That is, of course, unless you're speaking of dipping into monk.

I believe he got banned around the time I joined. So no one around here argues for them, except on Monkday.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Sir Giacomo is about the only one who frequently fights against this sentiment here. That is, of course, unless you're speaking of dipping into monk.

My bad, that was an error on my part. I meant I didn't know monks sucked, I edited my post.

[Temotei]

I believe he got banned around the time I joined. So no one around here argues for them, except on Monkday.

Oh. :smalleek:

Of course, there are the new people that are all, "Why do monks suck?" I did that, too. I got some snippy replies, not knowing that there had been a billion before me. :smalltongue:

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Oh. :smalleek:

Of course, there are the new people that are all, "Why do monks suck?" I did that, too. I got some snippy replies, not knowing that there had been a billion before me. :smalltongue:

Yeah, I almost think there ought to be a sticky thread that goes over some of the basics. A place for everyone to point to when some of the more common questions get asked.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Another option could be running the games as DM instead. That way, you can just toy with monsters and make them grow to respect you instead.:smallwink:

[Freylorn]

Another option could be running the games as DM instead. That way, you can just toy with monsters and make them grow to respect you instead.:smallwink:

Doubt it'd work - he'd just be "breaking the monsters" or "using DM fiat to screw them over."

[Hiro Protagonest]

Another option could be running the games as DM instead. That way, you can just toy with monsters and make them grow to respect you instead.:smallwink:

No. If he optimizes the monsters any better than as presented in the MM (replacing the orc's alertness with weapon focus or power attack? Unheard of!), they'll call him a killer DM.

Edit: swordsage'd.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Doubt it'd work - he'd just be "breaking the monsters" or "using DM fiat to screw them over."


No. If he optimizes the monsters any better than as presented in the MM (replacing the orc's alertness with weapon focus or power attack? Unheard of!), they'll call him a killer DM.

Edit: swordsage'd.

Offer to teach them, then? Or say "well, this is blah." Or start them off lightly and just play smart...

[Mr. Zolrane]

Send them here, then. Should be fun.:smallamused:

Yes, oh please, please, please! Mr. Z needs some quality entertainment!


These people aren't your friends, they're petty backstabbing children.

Yeah, that's the impression I got.


Yeah, I almost think there ought to be a sticky thread that goes over some of the basics. A place for everyone to point to when some of the more common questions get asked.

This. SO MUCH THIS!!!

[Hiro Protagonest]

This. SO MUCH THIS!!!

So who's gonna ask a mod to sticky this?

[Kalaska'Agathas]

So who's gonna ask a mod to sticky this?

Well, we'd have to write the thread first. Maybe then we ask Glyph or Average Joe to put on their mod pants.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Well, we'd have to write the thread first. Maybe then we ask Glyph or Average Joe to put on their mod pants.

We should start a new thread that is like this to get stickier, and then whenever someone gets a problem like this, they post in it.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Well, we'd have to write the thread first. Maybe then we ask Glyph or Average Joe to put on their mod pants.

I'm all for convening a committee. First we'd need to figure out what stuff should be on there. The tier list stuff, obviously, but what else?

[Kalaska'Agathas]

We should start a new thread that is like this to get stickier, and then whenever someone gets a problem like this, they post in it.

Thread started here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11127699#post11127699).

[Mr. Zolrane]

Thread started here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11127699#post11127699).

Thank you kindly.

[NineThePuma]

@Title: I have the same issue! I keep getting called a power gamer, and to be frank it's annoying. "Stop trying to Meta, and just play a character you want to play!" "Jeeze, why are you so focused on the numbers? Can't you have fun?"

:smallannoyed: I don't think they're familiar with the storm wind fallacy.

Worth noting, I deliberately avoid playing Casters because casters are boring. "Sure, I can end a fight in one round, but it's not fun."

[Mr. Zolrane]

:smallannoyed: I don't think they're familiar with the storm wind fallacy.


There's one for our Basic FAQ thread, Kalaska. The Stormwind Fallacy should definitely be discussed.

[NineThePuma]

The best part is that I'm actually playing horribly unoptimized builds and still getting picked at.

(For example, my last character was a lizard folk. No class, just racial hit dice and a level adjustment.)

[Lord.Sorasen]

I know this sounds really weird, but if one person is overpowering the rest of the group and they're not having fun, then it's a problem. If they aren't the type to go on a forum board and learn about more powerful tactics, and you are, then you have incompatible play styles. But as everyone states always, it's silly to try and argue that one way of playing a game is better than another.

If you pick something bizarre or weak and then destroy them with it, then you're playing an op character. That's the definition of an overpowered character. It doesn't matter if your build is nothing compared to this board. If you bring a gun to a knife fight, you're way too ridiculous. It doesn't matter to them that there are a lot of people who use far superior guns. The fact is they don't, and they don't like that you do. You can throw this board's might at them forever, but it won't change the fact that they don't want to play the kind of game you want to. And if that bothers you a lot, you either adapt, adapt them, or quit. I'd suggest adapting or quitting because they don't seem likely to change.

Actually... I don't know if this is true or not, but I heard 4e is significantly better balanced. Maybe the best option would be to switch to a game in which power-gaming makes less of an impact, or a game in which the options are more clearly available to you.

I feel like we all forget on this board that not everyone who plays D&D is as interested in the mechanics as we are. A great many people simply focus on what seems cool: they trust the game system to keep things in check. Many of them have no interest in what they would consider exploiting the system.

The video game Smash Bros Melee is a decent example for those who know of it. A lot of people, really casual types like myself who inevitably switched to Brawl, pressed random instead of selecting a character with good counters and a high tier. They play with items, on a random stage, which is considered sacrilege to those who play more competitively. So many of these people consider it to be unfair when a more competitive player brings in the knowledge of the metagame. It doesn't matter that all his online friends consider that the best way to play the game. When the casuals play with someone way better, it stops being fun. The competitive could play as Link or Ness, and he'd still be killing. Not because of his character's power, but because of his knowledge of the meta-game.

Note: seriously, I'm playing Devil's advocate. This could easily not be my opinion.

[Tvtyrant]

Sorasen, you make a good point. As an avid Smash Bros fan I can attest to exactly what your talking about; having people come over for parties and all the other people being on a team against you just isn't going to work with D&D :P

[Gametime]

There's "tone it down, this is a low-op group," and then there's "Power Attack is overpowered." I used to have basically no system mastery of 3.5, but I still can't remember a time when it wasn't obvious that someone using a two-handed weapon takes Power Attack. Heck, within core, what else do you even take for that fighting style?

There's overpowered compared to the group and then there's overpowered compared to the system. Since the DM can always shift things around, it often makes more sense to worry about the group's power level. At a certain point, though, your party of monks and truenamers is going to have a tough time tackling anything more potent than a gang of arthritic orcs. At a certain point, asking people to "tone it down" - you know, lower than Power Attack - just becomes more unreasonable than expecting the party to keep up.

[Greenish]

I know this sounds really weird, but if one person is overpowering the rest of the group and they're not having fun, then it's a problem.How is that weird? Bloody obvious, that's what it is. :smallamused:

[Salbazier]

Sorasen. True enough, but there are better way to express one's concern about powergaming. Being forbidden from a role, laughed at, or to go with examples other than from OP's case, insulted, threatened and backstabbed is even more unfun that seeing your character rendered to uselessness by some Batman. That's why I said the problem may lies in player attitude rather than power or experience.

I mean, I want to say for the OP (and anyone with similiar problem) to taught them about optimization to at least understand if a combo is too powerful for the campaign/party is not necessarily the brokenest thing in the world, but what use is that if they don't even willing to listen and just go calling names?

[a_humble_lich]

Thank you Sorasen, I was wanting to write something similar, but you did it far more eloquently.

The thing is for very low op groups, power attack is overpowered. If the rest of the party is a two weapon paladin, a sword and board fighter, a monk, and a multiclassed healbot cleric/baster sorcerer and greatsword with power attack will be really strong. Remember the example fighter had Weapon Focus and EWP(bastard sword) for feats. And this is not to say that that party is stupid, or inexperienced, or doesn't know how to play. It is just a different style of playing.

Now the original poster seems to have other problems with his group making fun of him etc.

[Rei_Jin]

Doubt it'd work - he'd just be "breaking the monsters" or "using DM fiat to screw them over."

That... is why I don't DM for them anymore. I played dragons as too intelligent, and monsters who live in the same environment who have reason to, work together. For example, a Tendriculous (sp?) with Shocker Lizards riding on it.

Another group I DMed for once tried to break the game, I broke them for it. It was a case of "Other DM quit, can you finish the campaign?". Turns out the other DM left cos of how bad he messed it up.

I did evil nasty things with template stacking to end up with a CR 5 critter with massive amounts of Hitdice, stats, abilities, and immunities. When they bitched at me about it, I pointed out how they were flaunting the rules, and how they'd been allowed access to OP things (OA Samurai with Spellfire and gear at four times WBL and a Warlock cohort, etc) and that if they weren't going to play nice, then neither was I.

Since then, people don't want to let me DM, for fear that I'll actually be a competant DM who won't let them get away with shenanigans.

[Gametime]

And this is not to say that that party is stupid, or inexperienced, or doesn't know how to play. It is just a different style of playing.



Or they might be inexperienced or stupid. That sounds a lot more judgemental than I mean it to be, so I should clarify that there's nothing wrong with being inexperienced or stupid with regard to a game. It's a game; some people take it seriously (and that's fine), some people don't want to invest that much time into it (also fine!). But that doesn't mean it isn't inexperienced or stupid to take feats like that.

Mind, an experienced player might intentionally take those feats, knowing full well that they are pretty terrible, but that's not really the vibe I'm getting from the OP.

[Freylorn]

Honestly, it's always been a major point of contention to me that people argue against the concept of optimization.

At base, what is leveling up? Becoming stronger. So why would I not make choices to, y'know... make myself stronger?

Mind you, that's only tangentially related to the topic at hand, but it just gives you some insight into where I'm coming from here. Still, it can be difficult to work with people that are acting like the gamers in these stories. Either you tone yourself down to complete obsolescence - in which case you have no fun - or you play the way you like to, and make intelligent character design choices, in which case they have no fun.

I think the situation is legitimately unsolvable - at least, in regards to 3.5 D&D. Maybe if the group were more willing to discuss things, but with the insults and so on that have been mentioned, it doesn't seem like agreeing at a middle ground is going to happen. Either one of three things is going to happen here:

1) The optimizer sucks it up and has no fun
2) The optimizer stops playing with the group
3) The group agrees to try a different system

1 and 2 are clearly not good options, and (from what I can tell) discussing the power level rationally seems to be implausible, which is why I suggested option 3 in the first place.

[Lord.Sorasen]

How is that weird? Bloody obvious, that's what it is. :smallamused:

It sounds obvious that way, but what I mean is that people often assume there's an objective way of looking at who is doing it right. Since it's not a goal oriented game, there's not. It's all about how much one enjoys it.

I still stick to my theory that the only way to play in this group properly is to switch to a far more balanced system, or stop playing a character for the sake of power at all. Compared to them, you're too good at the game. Nothing you try to do will change that because you can't forget what you know. So make a different game, one of the limitations. Roll for literally everything, from stats to race to class to skills to feats. Take the most bizarre character possible and try to make it your own. For instance, I have just rolled randomly and run into

Silvanesti Scout//Swordsage 13 str, 13 dex, 15 con, 12 int, 15 wis, 15 cha. My first level feat is Noble Born, from Dragon Magazine.

Second attempt lands me...

Jungle Half-Elf Spirit Shaman//Warblade 12 str, 15 dex, 14 con, 5 int, 10 wis, 11 cha I haven't seen Spirit Shaman but I'm almost certain I have no casting. My feat is Born under the Crescent Moon [birth].

Of course, this is a terrible suggestion. My point is you have to intentionally ruin your character in order to play with this group. And to have fun doing that you'll need to take control of the situation yourself somehow.

[Rei_Jin]

Option 3 would work, if they weren't lazy and unwilling to try an alternate system. Every time I've suggested one, they say that they're happy with what they have. The only alternate they will accept, is Traveller, a system I have zero interest in.

[GeminiVeil]

I'm pretty sure that my group is kinda like Rei_Jins and 3drinks. One of the people that often DM for us in particular is kinda like 3drinks DM. For reasons I won't go into, he thinks that monks are completely overpowered. Then, after finally hearing it enough from him, I told him that I knew how to REALLY be overpowered, and told him about the Pun-Pun combo. He doesn't think that monks are AS OP anymore. :smallsigh:
I've tried to refer him to these forums. Huge irony, he knew about them already, but only because of OOTS, and refuses to read any of the forums or anything. double :smallsigh:
I agree with Rei_Jin and 3drinks. If these are the only people to play with, it is marginally better than nothing at all. Most of the time. But it also makes me seriously conside taking a break a lot of the time. . .

[Lord.Sorasen]

ALTERNATE THEORY: On a side note, last week during D&D my group, including a psychic warrior, a druid/scout, and a dragonfire adept enter battle with 10 monsters. Druid casts rogue wave in order to bull rush into his previously casted sleet storm, psychic warrior becomes gargantuan and smashes faces, dragonfire adept runs around being immune to things. After the battle, the druid looks at me and says "Ah I see now. You were right, magic is overpowered." What I'm trying to say is it's not enough to show them sometimes that monk isn't op. Sometimes you have to experience it firsthand from your own character to really understand. Perhaps because it feels bad to be useless against better abilities, but it feels really awesome to be powerful beyond what you ever expected.

Which reveals another option. See if you can't make them play druids, wizards, clerics (evil clerics so they don't turn into healers) or even beguilers or something they don't have to work with. I have a friend who was annoyed with the fact that the premade character he was given (he wasn't going to be in the campaign, it'd be just that day) was too weak. It was a beguiler. To him, damage was all that mattered. He ended up picking the premade sword and board paladin instead. One has to be able to feel that sort of power to get it.

[Rei_Jin]

Hehehe, the theory is sound, the reality... not so much so. Spellcasters are too much work for them, they get bored easily and want to go back to hitting things with sticks.

Another example...

In a previous game, one of the players liked the flavour of the Warlock, and the Beguiler, but he couldn't see a way to play both. So I introduced him to the Eldritch Theurge. Showed him how to build one, gave him suggestions for invocations, feats, skills, etc. Even built him some epic spells and showed him how to work them. He had a blast.

This game, he's playing a Whispergnome Ninja. He'll be grabbing the Dark Template, a Vampire Template (With complete LA buy off at level 20), and other fun things. He's also using my homebrewed alchemy system, and loving it. The others in the party call him "a cheesy bastard" but they tend to leave him alone because his PC has 6 strength and a 15 AC at level 6... he deliberately gimped himself for combat and thus they don't see him as being powerful in the least. He's probably learnt the most from me about building PCs.

Because my current PC is good in combat (On average, dealing 20 damage a round at level 6 is good in this group) I'm OP, and clearly in need of a good thrashing. Because his PC does no damage in combat, but has good battlefield control without using spells and a hide check in the 30s, he's not OP.

[3drinks]

Wow. This forum moves incredibly fast. I left for a few hours to play Commander/EDH at the local shop, and it explodes into five pages. Makes for great reading to catch up on.


Rei Jin, 3drinks, have you guys shown your groups the tier lists and associated literature? Or pointed them to this very thread, for that matter?

I actually just showed them the tier lists last night, and they scoffed, and said Tier lists are crap that don't mean anything. Hell, I could fart, and if they're down-wind of it, I'm over-powered.

[NineThePuma]

... Get your AC way way up there, and focus everything you can into being able to stand there and survive, to the point that the party starts trying to cast emanations on you?

Shield Specialization, Shield Ward, Improved Initiative, Shield Wall, Heavy Armor Optimization, Active Shield Defense; just a set of feats I had on a Kobold PsyWar build, the AC is something like [AC 26(+10 Armor, +4 Shield, +1 Size, +1 Natural), touch 15, flat-footed 26]. Over powered? Maybe. So survivable that no one else will ever come near you? Yup.

Possessions: +1 Full Plate, +1 Heavy Steel Shield,

[NNescio]

... Get your AC way way up there, and focus everything you can into being able to stand there and survive, to the point that the party starts trying to cast emanations on you?

Shield Specialization, Shield Ward, Improved Initiative, Shield Wall, Heavy Armor Optimization, Active Shield Defense; just a set of feats I had on a Kobold PsyWar build, the AC is something like [AC 26(+10 Armor, +4 Shield, +1 Size, +1 Natural), touch 15, flat-footed 26]. Over powered? Maybe. So survivable that no one else will ever come near you? Yup.

Possessions: +1 Full Plate, +1 Heavy Steel Shield,

...Doesn't that scream "OP" to most inexperienced players while not actually being very effective? Seems like the worst of both worlds.

I may be mistaken, but there's probably a reason why monks seem to be overvalued among novice players. That plus the good saves and 'delicious'-looking abilities, of course.

[paddyfool]

The problem here is the other players. However, you know the best way in the world to silence your critics? Stuff their mouths with gold. So go build a buffbot. Although I'd suggest the simpler the better, i.e. with least splatbooks or other "alternative" options, and also that abjuring gestalt yourself might just be showing off, and once again, might make your character too different from theirs. Give yourself good RP reasons for being a buffer, and enjoy the RP at the same time of enjoying the chessmaster-like role of doing more to shape what their characters do than they do (although don't overdo this; it may even be worth asking people if there's any particular buffs their characters would like, and not sniffing at their choice too much, if they come back with "Bear's Endurance for my too-fragile ninja" or something similar). Because everybody loves somebody who gives them free stuff.

One example of this might be a Bard//[Wizard, Sorcerer or Favoured Soul] combat-shy social type. Be the party face, allowing you to play the negotiation/investigation game, and in combat, step to the back and buff, buff, buff some more, maybe with the odd bit of battlefield modification and save-or-lose thrown in. "I step behind Bob the Samurai as the Orcs charge, and cast Enlarge Person on him. `Show them pain!' I shout, as I prepare to go into a stream of oratory [Inspire Courage] next turn."

[Killer Angel]

Note: seriously, I'm playing Devil's advocate. This could easily not be my opinion.

Good to know. :smallsmile:


I know this sounds really weird, but if one person is overpowering the rest of the group and they're not having fun, then it's a problem. If they aren't the type to go on a forum board and learn about more powerful tactics, and you are, then you have incompatible play styles.

It doesn't matter if your build is nothing compared to this board. If you bring a gun to a knife fight, you're way too ridiculous. It doesn't matter to them that there are a lot of people who use far superior guns. The fact is they don't, and they don't like that you do.


Even if I could agree on this, I don't think it applies to the OP's situation.
Here, we're not talking 'bout a group that likes core, and a player using hulking hurlers or exploiting shock trooper tactics.
We're talking about a good use of PA. A basic core feat.
There's a difference between not going on forums to optimize a build, and not understanding that haste is better than fireball.
If in a group, the fighter with PA is overpowered, you should realize that the other characters are highly ineffective, and could be done better. Or, at least, realize that you shouldn't blame the "optimizer".

[riddles]

I second (third) the buffbot. It is pitifully easy to get a bard's inspire courage to +5. Make it dfi (as they don't use power attack) and take suitable out of combat skills.

If they're still ridiculing you for beating just a bard, stop inspiring for a combat or two.

[Retech]

Nay, I think your group's concern is damage. So promise them: I will play a non-Gestalt character and deal absolutely NO DAMAGE unless they require you to, say because there is a difficult boss.

Then play a wizard/sorcerer stacked with huge amounts of color spray, glitterdust, web, teleports, etc. Proceed utter destruction of anything that comes your way.

[Dusk Eclipse]

@Title: I have the same issue! I keep getting called a power gamer, and to be frank it's annoying. "Stop trying to Meta, and just play a character you want to play!" "Jeeze, why are you so focused on the numbers? Can't you have fun?"

:smallannoyed: I don't think they're familiar with the storm wind fallacy.

Worth noting, I deliberately avoid playing Casters because casters are boring. "Sure, I can end a fight in one round, but it's not fun."

:smallfurious: I Freaking HATE that argument, can't they see I am having fun by crunching numbers? Sure I enjoy RP as much as the next guy; but character building and seeing how far I can push the system is a great source of fun and entertainment for me.

Another resident power-gamer here, not as bad as the others as my group doesn't mock me or plot my character's death; but is still bad when you bring a rogue who uses UMD ans cry OMGZ OP!!! :smallsigh:

[Quietus]

Also, I empathize. I'm joining a real-life gaming group for the first time soon. It turns out that they're afraid of me breaking the game because I know how to and I've said many things on how to, but I also specifically said that I've never done it and I never will because I don't do that. Hm. Ah well.

This is where I am with my primary group of friends. I know the game, and the splats, far better than they do - mostly because of the time I spend on this forum. I've made the mistake in the past of showing off this knowledge by telling them about some of the more overpowered builds, when they already had a dislike for the "Complete Cheater" line of books, as they call it. I reinforced their perceptions, because it's more entertaining to go "LOL WARHULKING HURLER" than it is to go "Haha, Samurai sucks". As a result, that group doesn't allow stuff from.. well, almost anything outside core, really. It's also ended up with other characters getting special perks while mine doesn't, because "They need the perks to keep up with your system knowledge". Which.. well, I take as a compliment, really. :smalltongue:

[Darth Stabber]

This is where I am with my primary group of friends. I know the game, and the splats, far better than they do - mostly because of the time I spend on this forum. I've made the mistake in the past of showing off this knowledge by telling them about some of the more overpowered builds, when they already had a dislike for the "Complete Cheater" line of books, as they call it. I reinforced their perceptions, because it's more entertaining to go "LOL WARHULKING HURLER" than it is to go "Haha, Samurai sucks". As a result, that group doesn't allow stuff from.. well, almost anything outside core, really. It's also ended up with other characters getting special perks while mine doesn't, because "They need the perks to keep up with your system knowledge". Which.. well, I take as a compliment, really. :smalltongue:

Membership in forums seems to be the bane of the "monks rock" crowd. I have a hard time finding a group to PLAY 3.5 in, but I tend to be liked as a GM as I help those who are playing with their characters. When I try to help with players as another player it seems to just annoy people. It could be making fun of players who's good clerics prepare cure spells (and lack an ACF that would preclude conversion). Either way, even if I do get to play I'm not allowed play any full caster. So I run games, and I get to run players through strange encounters that push them to want to get better at playing and building. Great encounter for that, a mass of goblin fighter2s with spiked chains, some method of fire resistance (to prevent simple fireballing), combat reflexes, and improved trip (doable with a flaw). Unoptimized characters will have a rough time chewing through them, but the whole fight ends easily to intelligent battlefield control. 10 of them is a CR 9 encounter (assuming a 3rd lvl cleric commander), so an 8th or 9th lvl party should have no problem, but I know of several groups of players i could TPK with it.

[onthetown]

Offer to optimize them for one session. Give them whatever "super-broke" builds you can think of, and then play as a slightly less broken build that will take a back seat for the session.

They will realize that you're just awesome by nature, and soon enough you'll have sessions upon sessions of being efficient and power-gamey together! :smallbiggrin:

Seriously though, I would try to find a slightly more experienced group. They might feel left out by your knowledge of the game and your experience, not just your characters. Power Attack with a certain weapon is pretty standard, not broken -- I can't think of any melee class I or anybody I know has played without it.

And I'm with the above posters, where membership here and in other places has made me too knowledgeable for my own good. :smalltongue: I've steadily gone from single class no prestige class characters to more and more complicated builds with feats and spells to optimize them to maximum efficiency. My DM knows when I've been lurking here if we're leveling up and I start going on about how I think I'm finally figuring out this optimization stuff.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Wow, I feel sorry for you. I'm fortunate enough to be bringing up a group on my own level (or thereabouts) since most of them haven't had another DM (apart from a short d20 Modern game) and the one that has wants to optimise (as does the rest of the group, apart from the one guy who's happy hitting stuff - who has to have characters made for him anyway - and the guy who likes Druids - which optimises itself, really).

But really, thinking Power Attack is overpowered? What feats were they taking, Skill Focus? I am baffled as to how their characters have survived any encounter with a CR higher than their level.

[Bovine Colonel]

I actually just showed them the tier lists last night, and they scoffed, and said Tier lists are crap that don't mean anything. Hell, I could fart, and if they're down-wind of it, I'm over-powered.

What.

WHAT! :smallfurious:

*shudders*

A-alright. How's this. Point out that the tier list and stuff are the result of people all over the world playing DnD for what, a decade?

[Tavar]

That's not going to help. The other gamers seem to be willfully ignorant, which is the worse kind.

[Greenish]

My DM knows when I've been lurking here if we're leveling up and I start going on about how I think I'm finally figuring out this optimization stuff.What, you haven't full level 20 build sketched up already? :smalltongue:

[Hiro Protagonest]

That's not going to help. The other gamers seem to be willfully ignorant, which is the worse kind.

Yeah, it sounds like they think the tier system is just one person's opinion, and they think that person is wrong.

[PollyOliver]

Which is why I think it's silly to say "well, they're just playing the game how they want to and this is equally valid". If they were at least receptive to facts and still wanted to play at a low level of optimization, that would be totally cool. Blaster wizard and sword and board fighter and healer cleric is a fun way to play the game for some people (or, even for me, as long as its not all the time). But that's not what's happening here. These people are actively denying reality, characterizing choices that aren't even nearly optimized so much as almost baseline competent as "overpowered", and then teasing, tormenting, and berating players who disagree with them by *gasp* presenting facts. And then waiting for them to leave and stealing their characters' stuff.

We aren't talking about rational, mature adults who want to play at the op level of their choosing. Were talking about people who think their way is right, everyone else's way is wrong, won't entertain any ideas to the contrary, and in fact actively torment people who try to present them.

[3drinks]

Wow, I feel sorry for you. I'm fortunate enough to be bringing up a group on my own level (or thereabouts) since most of them haven't had another DM (apart from a short d20 Modern game) and the one that has wants to optimise (as does the rest of the group, apart from the one guy who's happy hitting stuff - who has to have characters made for him anyway - and the guy who likes Druids - which optimises itself, really).

But really, thinking Power Attack is overpowered? What feats were they taking, Skill Focus? I am baffled as to how their characters have survived any encounter with a CR higher than their level.

I think it's more of a sticker shock "zomg you hit too hard! the other player's can't keep up with you! if i make the encounter stronger for you, then the others have no chance!"

To this I told them allow me to be the melee beast, and why don't you guys play support to me. A great wizard, and maybe a cleric or druid(of course they'd rather hit things with a rock than play "weak" spellcasters...and then continue to say my simple Barbarian is OP).


Offer to optimize them for one session. Give them whatever "super-broke" builds you can think of, and then play as a slightly less broken build that will take a back seat for the session.

Yeah, that's not gonna happen. They want to make a character of their own. And if I give them tips they "don't want to be a power gamer like me". I swear I'm starting to think running my campaign is a better choice. Of course, they can't believe I fixed up the Monster Manual Orc(my campaign is pretty Orc-heavy) to replace their falchions with a Greataxe instead. I tried Power Attack, but I one-shotted a player with it. Yes, a lv 1 Orc one-shotted someone. So I took power attack away from them.

And then continuing on their society, I gave some a Orcs a couple levels of Rogue, armed with a short sword, and a Great Crossbow with the Rapid Reload feat. 1d12 from 150 feet away...yeah, you can guess how that went for them. I play them with tactics too, they're constantly moving around, getting a good vantage point, so naturally they don't like my Rogue Orcs. :smallbiggrin:

[Mr. Zolrane]

There's "tone it down, this is a low-op group," and then there's "Power Attack is overpowered." I used to have basically no system mastery of 3.5, but I still can't remember a time when it wasn't obvious that someone using a two-handed weapon takes Power Attack. Heck, within core, what else do you even take for that fighting style?

There's overpowered compared to the group and then there's overpowered compared to the system. Since the DM can always shift things around, it often makes more sense to worry about the group's power level. At a certain point, though, your party of monks and truenamers is going to have a tough time tackling anything more potent than a gang of arthritic orcs. At a certain point, asking people to "tone it down" - you know, lower than Power Attack - just becomes more unreasonable than expecting the party to keep up.

Thank you, I was trying to come up with a good way to explain this point last night, but I was too bloody tired.

[Greenish]

Yes, a lv 1 Orc one-shotted someone.Low levels are like that, it's not really surprising.

[3drinks]

Yeah, it sounds like they think the tier system is just one person's opinion, and they think that person is wrong.

Yes. Absolutely. You've hit the nail on the head. Like I mentioned before, they have a very "anti-meta" stigma about them. Card games, role-playing, you name it.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Honestly, it's always been a major point of contention to me that people argue against the concept of optimization.

At base, what is leveling up? Becoming stronger. So why would I not make choices to, y'know... make myself stronger?

I agree with you for the most part, but there's optimization and then there is cheese. Cheese, true, 100% farm-fresh cheese takes advantage of vaguely worded rules to achieve levels of optimization far beyond what was ever intended. Such is the nature of an open-ended system like 3.5. Again, I see your point, but I felt your statement was overly broad.


Wow. This forum moves incredibly fast. I left for a few hours to play Commander/EDH at the local shop, and it explodes into five pages. Makes for great reading to catch up on.



I actually just showed them the tier lists last night, and they scoffed, and said Tier lists are crap that don't mean anything. Hell, I could fart, and if they're down-wind of it, I'm over-powered.

Yeah, we do that :smalltongue:

Ugh... just... I don't know what to say about that. Even in core, without all that divine metagamgic, turn attempt cheese that Complete Divine and Libris Mortis brough to the table, clerics are pretty busted. I know I'm restating the obvious; a well-known fact... I guess I'm just trying to help myself cope here...


Low levels are fail, it's not really surprising.

Fixed that for ya :smalltongue:

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I agree with you for the most part, but there's optimization and then there is cheese. Cheese, true, 100% farm-fresh cheese takes advantage of vaguely worded rules to achieve levels of optimization far beyond what was ever intended. Such is the nature of an open-ended system like 3.5. Again, I see your point, but I felt your statement was overly broad.

Much as people complain about vague wordings being the cause of most RAW abuses, that really isn't the case. Incantatrix, Planar Shepherd, Tainted Scholar...the list of things which are quite clearly worded but nevertheless tend to snap game balance in half is definitely longer than the list of things which kinda sorta maybe if read in one particular way screw up game balance.

[Hiro Protagonest]

How do these people act when they're around you outside of D&D?

[Salbazier]

Yes. Absolutely. You've hit the nail on the head. Like I mentioned before, they have a very "anti-meta" stigma about them. Card games, role-playing, you name it.

Uh.. How can you not be meta when playing TCG?

[Darth Stabber]

Uh.. How can you not be meta when playing TCG?

Build your decks in a vacuum. (not literally, just without any consideration of what other people play)

[Mr. Zolrane]

Build your decks in a vacuum. (not literally, just without any consideration of what other people play)

This. Not a TCG guy myself, but a good buddy of mine who is more or less explained this concept to me. Also, building your deck in an actual vacuum would be ill-advised as well, because vacuum bags are dark, and it'd be hard to read the card text.

[Salbazier]

I see. I was under the wrong understanding of the term 'meta'.

[3drinks]

How do these people act when they're around you outside of D&D?

They seem fine and all, really. Just in the game I get all the tired cries.


Uh.. How can you not be meta when playing TCG?

They don't use the stuff that is proven to be viable and competitive, instead just choosing to play their favorite/pet cards. They're very anti-tournament types.

[Zale]

Cat-girl genocide in this thread. :smallannoyed:

[Hiro Protagonest]

Cat-girl genocide in this thread. :smallannoyed:

Death to catgirls! Show no mercy!

[Dusk Eclipse]

Cat-girl genocide in this thread. :smallannoyed:

....How?:confused: I don't see any talks about physics >_> <_<

[Hiro Protagonest]

....How?:confused: I don't see any talks about physics >_> <_<

I was wondering that as well. But anyway, death to catgirls! Show no mercy!

[Zale]

This thread is on this forum. This forum is on the Internet. The Internet was made by humans. Humans live by the laws of physics.

Therefore, This thread is about physics!

:amused:

[Dusk Eclipse]

I was wondering that as well. But anyway, death to catgirls! Show no mercy!

I love talking about physics as much as the next guy; but
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u299/Maxmaz/phsyicscatgirl11011763000974ri.gif
I couldn't find the D&D centric one...>_<

[Darth Stabber]

This thread is on this forum. This forum is on the Internet. The Internet was made by humans. Humans live by the laws of physics.

Therefore, This thread is about physics!

:amused:

There are several logical fallacies there, i would point them out, but I think there is a strong chance you are already aware of them. So instead :facepalm:

[Zale]

But of course. :smallcool:


It's so funny when people take what I say seriously. Also, I'm invisible! @.@

[Dusk Eclipse]

But of course. :smallcool:


It's so funny when people take what I say seriously. Also, I'm invisible! @.@

No you are not :smalltongue:

[Zale]

D:


MAGIC! BURN THE WITCH!! :furious:

[Darth Stabber]

D:


MAGIC! BURN THE WITCH!! :furious:

Your the one trying to turn invisible, I say burn both witches! Where's that Evoker, oh wait...

[Hiro Protagonest]

Your the one trying to turn invisible, I say burn both witches! Where's that Evoker, oh wait...

Get out the swordsages and firebenders! They'll!—wait... they have supernatural abilities, burn them too!

[Zale]

Ring of Fire Resistance. >:D

[dragonsamurai77]

Searing Spell.

[Tvtyrant]

Searing Spell.

Your going to burn witches with magic? I smell hypocrisy!

[MrRigger]

Your going to burn witches with magic? I smell hypocrisy!

Well, you see, witches are horrible, unnatural, heretical creatures. Wizards are devoted to science and understanding how things work. So it's perfectly fine for a Wizard to burn a witch.

MrRigger

[Hiro Protagonest]

Well, you see, witches are horrible, unnatural, heretical creatures. Wizards are devoted to science and understanding how things work. So it's perfectly fine for a Wizard to burn a witch.

MrRigger

Yes, and the isn't the sentence, it's the trial. If the person burns, she was clearly innocent, if she escapes, she is clearly a witch and will be hunted and killed.

Either way, they die. Good times all around!

[navar100]

When they get up in your grill just say: "I upped my characters competence, up yours"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[gomipile]

Yes. Absolutely. You've hit the nail on the head. Like I mentioned before, they have a very "anti-meta" stigma about them. Card games, role-playing, you name it.

The two DMs of the first group of gamers I played D&D with equated all metagaming with the mindset of the type of people who can't tell fantasy from reality and show up one day with a broadsword and murder their gaming group.

I do not mean this as a joke, these two DMs were literally against all metagaming for that exact reason.

[Darth Stabber]

The two DMs of the first group of gamers I played D&D with equated all metagaming with the mindset of the type of people who can't tell fantasy from reality and show up one day with a broadsword and murder their gaming group.

I do not mean this as a joke, these two DMs were literally against all metagaming for that exact reason.

So your GMs were BADD members?

[NineThePuma]

Remember folks! D&D promotes Satanism!


Yeah, people are... odd.

[Darth Stabber]

Remember folks! D&D promotes Satanism!


Yeah, people are... odd.

So wait, I'm not a charming singer who's music causes people to fight better? Because last time I was at a bar and started singing, I coulda swore that guy had a morale bonus om hitting me in the head with that beer bottle!

[Talya]

This thread weighs the same as a duck.

[Seerow]

So wait, I'm not a charming singer who's music causes people to fight better? Because last time I was at a bar and started singing, I coulda swore that guy had a morale bonus om hitting me in the head with that beer bottle!

That means you're a knight, your Knight's Challenge is triggered by singing.

[Darth Stabber]

That means you're a knight, your Knight's Challenge is triggered by singing.

I didn't even know I was lawful!

[Greenish]

They don't use the stuff that is proven to be viable and competitive, instead just choosing to play their favorite/pet cards. They're very anti-tournament types.In a competitive game, isn't metagame as much part of the game as the rest of the game?

[3drinks]

In a competitive game, isn't metagame as much part of the game as the rest of the game?

Yes it is. I'm not sure which direction your post is going though? It sounds liek you're re-enforcing my point? Or did I miss something?

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Yes it is. I'm not sure which direction your post is going though? It sounds liek you're re-enforcing my point? Or did I miss something?

I think Greenish is just clarifying that not all metagaming is the same. For a tabletop game, metagaming is using out of character information to make in-character judgments that otherwise wouldn't be made. For tournament card games and video games, the metagame is about who is playing what and what the counters are to it. If someone is playing Zerg a certain way in Starcraft 2 and it is crushing everything out there, the obvious metagame is to try to counter that strategy with whatever of the three races you yourself will play. Same bit goes more so for Magic: the Gathering and other card games.

[Divide by Zero]

In a competitive game, isn't metagame as much part of the game as the rest of the game?

But if they're not involved in the competitive aspect (for example, they only play with their friends who similarly do not care about the competitive aspect), then they can probably just use whatever they want, because there's no top threats to consider, and they probably aren't going to be trying to specifically counter their friends' decks.

It only becomes a problem when those two groups intersect, because the competitive-level decks are typically simply better than anything anyone who hasn't analyzed the competitive community can come up with.

[Darth Stabber]

But if they're not involved in the competitive aspect (for example, they only play with their friends who similarly do not care about the competitive aspect), then they can probably just use whatever they want, because there's no top threats to consider, and they probably aren't going to be trying to specifically counter their friends' decks.

It only becomes a problem when those two groups intersect, because the competitive-level decks are typically simply better than anything anyone who hasn't analyzed the competitive community can come up with.

The usual method for competative folks to get along with the "kitchen table" crowd is self restricting yourself to certain self enforced build criteria. Unfortunately you are in a group that is so unoptimized that you would outclass them with a commoner. And don't game with these people. When they ask you why, tell them that gaming with them is a giant pain in the rectum, and you might consider rejoining them if they agree to stop being such a-holes at the table. Also tell them you understand the idea of holding back, but the degree to which you would need to, to be even with them, would require a lobotomy.

[soir8]

I was going to suggest build ideas for fitting in with a low-op group better, but it looks to me like they're the ones at fault, not you. The best thing would probably be to build anything that isn't damage-focused. You could build a hi-op Wizard and play him as a support character, just throwing in buffs & control spells when they're needed, and your group would likely be happier than if you played a core-only barbarian who's only strength is the ability to kill things faster than their ****ty characters. But limiting yourself because of their willful ignorance doesn't sound fun to me.

I'm inclined to advise you to play whatever the hell you like, and tell those whiny clueless friends of yours to suck it. You're not a power-gamer, you're a competent gamer, it's not your fault that they're not.

[Greenish]

But if they're not involved in the competitive aspect (for example, they only play with their friends who similarly do not care about the competitive aspect), then they can probably just use whatever they want, because there's no top threats to consider, and they probably aren't going to be trying to specifically counter their friends' decks.…Weird. But then I've never played TCGs or similar.

Why would you play a competitive game without trying to win? I mean, yeah, it's a fun way to pass the time, and I won't stress about getting most points in Carcassonne (say), but how is actively sabotaging yourself making the game more fun?

[Hiro Protagonest]

…Weird. But then I've never played TCGs or similar.

Why would you play a competitive game without trying to win? I mean, yeah, it's a fun way to pass the time, and I won't stress about getting most points in Carcassonne (say), but how is actively sabotaging yourself making the game more fun?

Yeah, take Magic: the Gathering. If your favorite cards are all different colors and therefore require different mana, even the most casual player wouldn't play that unless he's an expert at pulling off 4-5 color decks.

[Seerow]

…Weird. But then I've never played TCGs or similar.

Why would you play a competitive game without trying to win? I mean, yeah, it's a fun way to pass the time, and I won't stress about getting most points in Carcassonne (say), but how is actively sabotaging yourself making the game more fun?

I never played magic, but I played Yu-gi-oh for years, and one of my favorite decks was one that would be completely non-viable in tournaments. It basically revolved around a lot of high defense monsters, and traps that made enemies take more damage from hitting me. Lining up the right traps I could force an enemy to one shot himself by attacking me. In a real tournament however, the main decks all had direct counters, stuff that stopped all traps, easily summoned monsters with more attack than my defense, etc. But playing against friends, it was decent enough for me to play and have fun with.

Like I said, I am completely unfamiliar with magic, but it's that sort of thing that he's trying to make an example of I think. Making a deck that feels good to you, ignoring what's actually good in the metagame. This is strictly different from what tabletop rpgs consider metagaming. In a TCG metagaming is almost required, in a tabletop, metagaming is frowned upon.


edit: I just thought of another way to put it. Imagine for a moment that TCGs are D&D 3.5. The low end decks people put together for fun are things like the tier 5-6 classes, they work, they typically have one trick they can do well, and they can be fun to play when you are playing with other people in the same tier.

The trouble arises when you try to play with those decks in an environment with players who prefer tier 1-2 classes, or in the TCG, the tournament competitive decks, that typically are considered tournament competitive because they have several simultaneous tricks they can use (or one unbeatable trick that gets banned quickly), while also countering a lot of other tricks itself. It's another perfectly valid way of playing, but some people get bored of playing the same few competitive decks every time, and enjoy going back and playing with weirder combinations that you don't see in tournaments, even if it's not as strong. Just like some people get bored playing only Wizards and CoDzilla, and decide to do their best to optimize lower tier classes instead.

[Divide by Zero]

…Weird. But then I've never played TCGs or similar.

Why would you play a competitive game without trying to win? I mean, yeah, it's a fun way to pass the time, and I won't stress about getting most points in Carcassonne (say), but how is actively sabotaging yourself making the game more fun?

It's not really "actively sabotaging yourself." If the players are unaware of the competitive metagame (whether deliberately or not), then they probably won't know what the strongest options are unless they figure it all out on their own. So they'll likely just play with their favorites or whatever looks cool. And if all their friends are doing the same, then there's not going to be a problem.

The problem in this particular case is that the players are at such a ridiculously low power level that even stuff that most people take for granted is too strong for them. Calling Power Attack overpowered would be like calling a generic mono-color deck overpowered.

[Greenish]

Eh, maybe it's different in games where you have to buy everything for yourself. Still sounds really weird, like not putting your followers on fields in Carcassonne because you're "not big on agriculture", or not backstabbing anyone low on bullets because you're "honourable" renegade in Bang!. :smallamused:

[Divide by Zero]

or not backstabbing anyone low on bullets because you're "honourable" renegade in Bang!. :smallamused:

If you're not backstabbing everyone regardless of role, you're not playing Bang! properly.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

If you're not backstabbing everyone regardless of role, you're not playing Bang! properly.

It is every deputy's duty to open up attacking the sheriff, after all!:smallwink:

[Divide by Zero]

It is every deputy's duty to open up attacking the sheriff, after all!:smallwink:

Of course. How else are you going to trick the other outlaws into supporting you so you can backstab them later? :smallbiggrin:

[Jeebers]

It's very difficult for a druid to be less than effective.

(trying not to laugh) I totally disagree. They tend to be the most useless out of all the spellcasters in the long run, having sacrificed most of the decent spells for shapechanging. And since lots of groups spend some serious time in the dungeon, doing close quarters combat in an unnatural setting, almost all of the Druid's skills are pointless. They might make a decent 5th man, but they sure as heck should NEVER be the primary healer/buff caster in the party! Worse, their armor and weaponry tends to suck, so all they have is crappy spells and some shapechanging. Yuck.

Gimme a standard Cleric any day of the week as a part member over a Druid.




BTW, did you know that I was once considered a cheater for taking a 1st ed basic D&D 1st level dwarf, and giving him 2 attacks per round thanks to having a spiked shield and an axe (totally legit according to the game rules AND the GM, btw)? I got even more flak for standing in a doorway blocking off a room full of skeletons from getting at the party, and the same guy who accused me of cheese before did it again. I simply replied that I was keeping the others from getting smashed up. All he had to do is stand behind me and heal on occasion. Since the Skeletons were dumb and would continue mindlessly attacking, I figured I could get away with it since I had the best AC out of the group.

Another time I was playing a Paladin with a different group, and I got accused of violating the class code of conduct for playing a game of cards for pebbles, and when I lost to the Rogue I had him whip a few of the pebbles at him. NOTHING in any of the books says anything about gambling, nothing about playing for PEBBLES for crying out loud, and besides, my PC was an 18 year old and was bound to be immature!

Just play the game according to the rules in the book, and if the other players object, tell them to take it up with the GM because you're playing by the stated rules. Don't do any rules lawyering by quoting game rules to the GM in the midst of the game. If the GM asks you what's up, then show him/her the page of the book that you're using, and ask for the GM's interpretation of the rules. If it conforms to what you are doing, you aren't doing anything wrong. Chill.

[Hiro Protagonest]

(trying not to laugh) I totally disagree. They tend to be the most useless out of all the spellcasters in the long run, having sacrificed most of the decent spells for shapechanging. And since lots of groups spend some serious time in the dungeon, doing close quarters combat in an unnatural setting, almost all of the Druid's skills are pointless. They might make a decent 5th man, but they sure as heck should NEVER be the primary healer/buff caster in the party! Worse, their armor and weaponry tends to suck, so all they have is crappy spells and some shapechanging. Yuck.

Gimme a standard Cleric any day of the week as a part member over a Druid.

Are you being sarcastic? The Dungeonscape druid ACF helps with being in dungeons rather than forests. Plus, there's pretty much an animal form for everything mundane, whether you want to be a melee powerhouse or a sneaky scout.

[NineThePuma]

Druids have Wildshape and Animal Companion. They can replace the Fighter while the Cleric does the clericy stuff.

[Jeebers]

Are you being sarcastic? The Dungeonscape druid ACF helps with being in dungeons rather than forests. Plus, there's pretty much an animal form for everything mundane, whether you want to be a melee powerhouse or a sneaky scout.

Said animal forms are pretty underpowered for the Druid's level, and Animal Summoning spells tend to be pointless since their low BAB etc results in never being able to hit anything. Healing is also pretty substandard too, compared to the Cleric or maybe even a Paladin.

As for "Dungeonscape ACF", I have no idea what that is. I am going by both the Pathfinder core book and the D&D3.5 core book.

Again, I am comparing a Druid to a Cleric in a standard 4 man group. NOBODY would be dumb enough to take a Druid when the rest of the group doesn't have some sort of supplemental healing capability. Taking a Paladin instead of a Fighter would help.

As for dungeon crawling, kids, I've been up and down those Druid spell lists, and combined with crappy armor, some low power shapechanging, and crappy weapons, the Druid just doesn't have the firepower to last in the dungeon. They'd make an okay 5th man in a group, but not unless there was already a Cleric present.

[NineThePuma]

Take a fighter. Have it fight a Druid of equal level. After about level 3, the Druid wins. Every. Time. ESPECIALLY after level 5.

[Jeebers]

Take a fighter. Have it fight a Druid of equal level. After about level 3, the Druid wins. Every. Time. ESPECIALLY after level 5.

Wrong. I've had more than a few Fighters completely destroy a Druid any day of the week. Unless you start offering evidence instead of opinion, I'm going to continue disagreeing with you categorically.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Wrong. I've had more than a few Fighters completely destroy a Druid any day of the week. Unless you start offering evidence instead of opinion, I'm going to continue disagreeing with you categorically.

Shillelagh. Seriously, level 1 Druids have about -3 to hit when compared to fighter. They also have a spell that boosts that by 1, and an animal companion to flank with. They also deal 1d10+str+1 damage with their quarterstaff.

Entangle works as well, fighters have bad reflex saves.

Once they hit 5th level, they can become a wolf, who gets free trip attempts. They also have a wolf animal companion with free trip attempts.

[olentu]

Wrong. I've had more than a few Fighters completely destroy a Druid any day of the week. Unless you start offering evidence instead of opinion, I'm going to continue disagreeing with you categorically.

I have had seen a multitude of druids utterly destroy fighters. That should be sufficient evidence.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Wrong. I've had more than a few Fighters completely destroy a Druid any day of the week. Unless you start offering evidence instead of opinion, I'm going to continue disagreeing with you categorically.

Except that the animal can distract the fighter while the druid turns into another animal and a third is summoned...

[NineThePuma]

Assuming the Standard Array (15, 13, 12, 11, 10, 8), Human, and level 1, along with average rolls. Core only.

Fighter probably went with Power Attack, Weapon Focus (Great Axe), and... Oh, say, Cleave at first level. He knows a thing or two about D&D and he went for the optimized move. Abilities are 15, 12, 13, 10, 11, 8. He picked up a Great Axe and Chainmail with his gold, cause he doesn't exactly have many options.

The Druid, not particularly desiring to focus on summoning, and not being particularly Martial, has picked up Improved Initiative and... How about Toughness? Abilities are probably going to go 8, 11, 10, 12, 15, 13. Some basic leather, a quarter staff, and a sling round out the Druid. I'd give him a Hawk Animal companion, but my example would make the hawk too useful. Instead, it's a Wolf. Cause we all like doggies, right?

Start them 40 ft apart or so, cause, really, that's fair, right?

Druid has a 65% chance of going first. Not exactly SUPER AWESOME chances of going first, but lets assume he does, for the sake of the argument. Throws an entangle spell down, the opposing fighter inside of it, but with most of it between them. Fighter has to make a reflex save (DC 13, so only a 45% chance of passing it) in order to avoid being entangled. We assume he rolled well, and managed to avoid becoming entangled. But, now he's got a lot of difficult terrain between him and the druid. And he can't actually close with the druid easily, and would have to go around or through it.

In the mean time, the druid draws his sling and starts launching sling bullets at him. Even only assuming he gets 4 shots off, one shot hits (30% accuracy) that's almost a quarter of his HP gone (2.5 damage on average; round down to 2 tho, to be nice). The wolf sits itself nicely between the Fighter and the Druid. Fighter has a 45% chance to hit it, and if he ignores, the Wolf pulls off an AoO. AoO has a 45% chance to hit, and if it does, has a 45% chance of knocking the fighter prone.

Once prone, the fighter's kinda... stuck. The druid and the wolf just keep smacking it.

[veven]

There are seriously no words for what is going on in this thread.

Jeebers, have you ever heard of the tier system? If so I know that it is not a measure of who will win in a fight every time but you should check it out either way.

Any moderately well built and well played druid will beat any moderately well built and played fighter 99% of the time. Core only or all the splats in the world.

[Taelas]

Wrong. I've had more than a few Fighters completely destroy a Druid any day of the week. Unless you start offering evidence instead of opinion, I'm going to continue disagreeing with you categorically.

Will direct evidence suffice? I volunteer to play a Druid of any level you choose above 3rd, and I'll let you play a Fighter three levels higher.

[Gametime]

Said animal forms are pretty underpowered for the Druid's level

Absolutely untrue. You mentioned Pathfinder, which may have changed things, but in 3.5? Turning into an animal gets you free stats. Once you get large animals at level 8, your strength will easily be on par with a martial class of similar level, except where they had to invest point buy and gold into boosting it, you got it for free while still being able to keep up your primary casting stat. Also, you get pounce in a variety of forms without having to invest feats, items, or levels.

This is aside from being able to fly, swim, and burrow without devoting spell slots or items to it at low levels. Seriously, wild shape is one of the best single class features in 3.5.


As for dungeon crawling, kids, I've been up and down those Druid spell lists, and combined with crappy armor, some low power shapechanging, and crappy weapons, the Druid just doesn't have the firepower to last in the dungeon. They'd make an okay 5th man in a group, but not unless there was already a Cleric present.

I don't know what's not to like about the druid spell list. They get some pretty good blasting and solid battlefield control. There's a good list here (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19868802/Druid_Handbook_revived).

[Big Fau]

Wrong. I've had more than a few Fighters completely destroy a Druid any day of the week. Unless you start offering evidence instead of opinion, I'm going to continue disagreeing with you categorically.

I will gladly run that scenario with you, if you don't mind me playing the Druid.

[only1doug]

…Weird. But then I've never played TCGs or similar.

Why would you play a competitive game without trying to win? I mean, yeah, it's a fun way to pass the time, and I won't stress about getting most points in Carcassonne (say), but how is actively sabotaging yourself making the game more fun?

Several years ago I used to play a lot of Multiplayer Magic, My favorite deck was my BFM deck. (BFM was from the unglued set, deliberately broken).
It's nearly impossible to win a multiplayer game with a BFM (and fairly rare to even get one into play) but its great fun trying to do so (and amazing on the rare occasions that you actually pull it off).

BFM stats: 99/99, 15 black mana to cast, special:cannot be blocked by less than 2 creatures
Deck construction: BFM
(I don't remember all the details unfortunately)
left side BFM card x 2
Right side BFM card x 2
Dark Ritual x 4
unglued sorcery card: sacrifice a creature to gain 4 black mana
unglued sorcery card: sacrifice any number of creatures to gain 2 black mana / sacrifice.
Breeding Pit x 4
black cleric card: sacrifice this creature to gain to black mana
Drain life x2
15 swamps

[Dragonsoul]

Absolutely untrue. You mentioned Pathfinder, which may have changed things, but in 3.5? Turning into an animal gets you free stats. Once you get large animals at level 8, your strength will easily be on par with a martial class of similar level, except where they had to invest point buy and gold into boosting it, you got it for free while still being able to keep up your primary casting stat. Also, you get pounce in a variety of forms without having to invest feats, items, or levels.

This is aside from being able to fly, swim, and burrow without devoting spell slots or items to it at low levels. Seriously, wild shape is one of the best single class features in 3.5.



I don't know what's not to like about the druid spell list. They get some pretty good blasting and solid battlefield control. There's a good list here (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19868802/Druid_Handbook_revived).

Pathfinder did change things, instead of gaining the Statblock of the creature, you now gain modifiers to your existing stats meaning Wild shape no longer turns you into a combat monster, of course you still get fly, swim and burrow, but its a nerf.

[MrRigger]

Yeah, Pathfinder changed things so Druids got heavily nerfed. Of course, this ends up with them still being two and a half classes in one instead of three classes in one.

More information here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7609693).

MrRigger