Bo9S really is Overpowering*

[KoboldCleric]

*When your group's power level tops out at around tier six and a half

So ... with one of the groups I play with (this one online over Skype/IRC, typically SWd20), ToB was finally placed on the list of allowed books. I missed the first two sessions and finally joined in earlier today. One of the other players was playing a Warblade already, so I figured jumping in as either a Swordsage or a Crusader would be fine. After talking to the DM and a couple of the other players I decided to go with Crusader to avoid it looking too magical as we're playing in FR, early Netheril. So unless you're an Elf (and the party is not) there is no arcane magic, and unless you're a Dwarf or a Hobgoblin (again, the party is not) there is no metal armor of any kind; whatever, that's fine with me.

So I roll up your standard Crusader 1: Human with Stone Power + Extra Granted Maneuver + Combat Reflexes (free GM feat) and a reach weapon; 14, 12, 17, 8, 8, 10 for abilities. The highlight combat of the session ends up being our party of 7 against a room full of 31 Hobgoblins. Well I'm level 2 by now (caught up with the party) ... and between Stone Power, Stone Bones, Martial Stance, Crusader's Strike, and the delayed damage pool I'm hovering just below max HP for most of the fight, even though I'm taking the brunt of the hits (15-20 attacks a round, lots of archers) and with my AC of 14.

The Battle lasted a total of 9 rounds. In round one, 5 of the 7 party members used total defense because they were scared to fight the Hobgoblins. By round five, 4 of the 7 have retreated out of the dungeon. Finally, in round 9, with 16 enemies still standing, I grab the -8HP Barbarian, eat a fistful of AOOs, sling him over my shoulder and run for it as well. I end the encounter with 22/26 HP. The DM now thinks Crusaders are the most broken thing in the game.

I get where he's coming from with it being annoying/somewhat powerful to shrug off all that damage, but it probably would have been a 2-3 round TPK without me ... and it's not as if I was spotlight stealing; I barely killed any of the enemies, just did some damage and soaked a lot more. Honestly, the great cleave fighter probably would have been great had he not used total defense in round 1, rolled poorly in 2 and 3, and bolted in round 4.

My Question is: Is there any way to salvage this? Or should I just talk with the DM, scrap the character, and roll a monk or something?

Current Party: two archer Rangers, one Great Cleave Aristocrat 1/Fighter 1, a Barbarian 2, a dart-throwing Rogue, the most poorly played Warblade I've ever seen, and myself: Crusader 1/Wolf Totem Barbarian 1

Note: I had no idea that party was so terrible when I rolled the character. I had talked to the DM, the Warblade, the Barbarian, and one of the Rangers before creating; the two halfway competent characters and the Warblade.

[Eldariel]

My Question is: Is there any way to salvage this? Or should I just talk with the DM, scrap the character, and roll a monk or something?

Talk it through is practically always the correct answer. Like you said, it would've probably been a TPK without you (why didn't you just run though?). Also, point out the fact that much of your survivability is actually Stone Power; without the Temp HP your self-restoration would've probably been overcome quite quickly.

Also point out that the tactically savvy Hobgoblins are fully capable of adapting ("Non-focused attacks on him are wasted! Kill the others and take him out alone!") and that they did indeed win that fight. Also, point out that much of your potency in the fight was the fact that you did not take a zero/negative-sum action (Total Defense; at best you take reduced damage - the problem is that since you're outputting nothing, any damage you take as input is more damage than you're dealing back and thus you'll lose the fight if you keep at it), and the fact that you took the limelight probably also has something to do with the actual mechanical play, not just the character build.


Or just reroll a Cleric; chances are the party could use a supporting force multiplier with the chance to become a beast if need be. Though frankly, I'm afraid you'll be OP no matter what you play if you play with a modicum of common sense. When the optimization level is such that people actually have to consciously go through the operation: "These guys are trying to kill me and my friends; do I fight back or wait and see if they would mystically stop attacking?" (especially without a groupwide retreat as an option; when the options are literally "fight" or "wait and die", I just...don't get it) there's precious little you can do to avoid being in the limelight.

[kharmakazy]

\
Aristocrat 1/Fighter 1

waitwhat?

Challenge him to a duel, kill him easily, and have him reroll something that isn't just plain god awful.

The only 2 solutions as I see it are as follows:
1)Reroll a character on par with the party
2)Help the party learn how to make better characters

Nobody in my group has ever used total defense, ever. If they are afraid to combat things are probably not going to improve. You can't have an entire party of cowardly adventurers... they would have just stayed home and grown vegetables in squalor. (except for the upper class brawler, naturally):smallamused:

Comedy answer: Roll a tibbit Dragonfire adept.:smallbiggrin:

[stainboy]

Five people taking Total Defense on round 1 isn't a class or build issue. I'm pretty sure if you did reroll a monk you'd still be overpowered.

I'd say just take the DM aside, and ask him to reserve judgment until the rest of the group gets a better feel for combat. And remind him that you're the only healer, unless the two rangers started this no-magic game with a bushel of cure sticks.

[Yora]

In this case your class had nothing to do with the situation. The rest of the party just decided not to do anything and hope the encouter solves itself without them contributing. Total defense is great to buy you some time in a tight spot, when you are waiting for an ally to reach you take some pressure of you.
But when almost everyone choses not to take any action, every character who does would see far more capable of handling thing. Just by trying to do anything. You could have played a monk and the situation would have turned out the same way, but with you and the barbarian dead. the Crusader is really not the problem here.

I think an easy solution would be to have the characters stick their heads together in-game and agree on some standard tactics how to react in a given situation. What they did was just standing there watching what happens, and that's always deadly. One step further would be to have the characters agree on a commander in battles, who is in charge with giving orders to attack or retreat, or to order party members to take out specific targets. It doesn't have to mean that that character (I'd nominate you) make all the descisions for the group and has total authority, just when it's about life and death, he brings order to chaotic fights to turn the situation around. And also make sure to explain that this is purely in-game and when a character decides to ignore an order, it's not the player ignoring the table-rules.
It's also one of the things that drags fights out the most, when everyone starts his turn with considering what his options are and deciding what he wants to do. When you agree on a shared tactic for the team, it speeds things up, and as a team, you become much more powerful than as individuals.

[Morph Bark]

I think an easy solution would be to have the characters stick their heads together in-game and agree on some standard tactics how to react in a given situation. What they did was just standing there watching what happens, and that's always deadly. One step further would be to have the characters agree on a commander in battles, who is in charge with giving orders to attack or retreat, or to order party members to take out specific targets. It doesn't have to mean that that character (I'd nominate you) make all the descisions for the group and has total authority, just when it's about life and death, he brings order to chaotic fights to turn the situation around. And also make sure to explain that this is purely in-game and when a character decides to ignore an order, it's not the player ignoring the table-rules.
It's also one of the things that drags fights out the most, when everyone starts his turn with considering what his options are and deciding what he wants to do. When you agree on a shared tactic for the team, it speeds things up, and as a team, you become much more powerful than as individuals.

This. In my group I have 4 players new to 3.5 and 2 experienced ones, the latter two playing a Warblade (who switched White Raven and Tiger Claw for Devoted Spirit) and a Swordsage. The Warblade is a powergamer and thus easily capable of putting out more damage than any other party member, but due to his experience he also knows a few things that he should not do unless the situation is appropriate for it (though there are still times when he charges in with 4 hp left to try and heal himself with healing strikes and stances).

Thanks to this and a bit of luck they've all managed to stay alive for nine sessions now and the four newcomers have become fully aware that I don't pull any punches. Now they take greater care with regards to traps and encounters than they did earlier. Well, except for the aforementioned Warblade...

[Darth Stabber]

In the land of the n00bs the man with half a clue is king.

If you played a cleric and put more than 2 seconds into your spell prep you would have still outperformed your current party. Actually, just roll core-only druid (take augment summoning and natural spell, then take whatever else you want, because those are the only feats a core druids need). That GM will never thing think that ToB is overpowered again once they see what is possible with core only. Honestly any time a GM runs a "low magic" game (which always means low magic item) the game balance gets screwy as you can't even pretend that the CR system works any more. Adding to it players with the tactical sense of a moldy banana, it is a recipe for disaster. We've all made these mistakes and many of us have grown past them, unfortunately for you this group hasn't yet. Between sessions talk strategy with your fellow players, you guys obviously need to work on that before anyone's build strength can be called into question.

[Sucrose]

Explain to your DM that, in spite of your terrible AC, your character really is built almost purely to survive blows, and help party members survive them via in-combat healing, so you surviving blows should not be an indication of your overall power.

Your barbarian compatriot, on the other hand, is built to deal damage, and it sounds like he did deal quite a bit of damage before being reduced to near-death.

Finally, as the others have mentioned, explain that when the rest of the party gives, at best, two rounds of the fight an actual chance at combat, they cannot reasonably be expected to contribute as much as those who do not sit on their hands and then run.

[kharmakazy]

My character is something of a tank in my current game, I run around the board trying to trigger AoOs from the enemies so my party can fight more safely. Maybe try some support tactics if that is possible. (besides, you know... rescuing nearly dead party members, that's so last year)

[Frozen_Feet]

Yeah... this is not about a class being overpowering. This is about most of the players being awful at tactics, which leads to the one guy with half a clue to outshine them all.

Explain this to your GM. This is your chance to say "I'm surrounded by idiots!" with all the ham and cheese you can muster, and you won't even be that wrong. Don't waste your chance. :smallwink:

[AllisterH]

Actually, you should inform the DM that THIS is the actual purpose of the Crusader.

To soak hits...as you pointed out, you're not going to be the damage dealer so you're not going tow in battles at all by yourself...

[137beth]

Honestly, if you rerolled up a COMMONER you'd be overpowered in your group, if you played like someone with intelligence>2. Remind the other players that total defense is not a good choice in round 1.

[dspeyer]

If they are afraid to combat things are probably not going to improve. You can't have an entire party of cowardly adventurers... they would have just stayed home and grown vegetables in squalor. (except for the upper class brawler, naturally):smallamused:


You could, if that's the sort of campaign you want. Cowards who are forced to adventure by desperate circumstances and hate it. The hobbits pretty much run and hide up until the barrow-wights. Most of Watership Down. Rincewind. Apropos.

You all need to boost your stealth and perception way up. Pick up trapmaking or something like it. Also, the dm will have to stop throwing random encounters at you.

[Seerow]

Honestly, if you rerolled up a COMMONER you'd be overpowered in your group, if you played like someone with intelligence>2. Remind the other players that total defense is not a good choice in round 1.

Or any round, really.

[potatocubed]

Hobgoblin tactics would have solved this: they had the numbers to overwhelm your AoOs with grapples, then they can just pin and coup de grace.

Basically, just point your GM at the various combat options available when direct attacks aren't working. It'll still be brutal because of your Combat Reflexes, but then again your character is built for this sort of situation - changing tactics gives the hobs a chance, not a win button.

[kharmakazy]

I played a kobold DFA once who would routinely attack and then dive into an adamantine chest that locked from the inside. It was surprisingly effective. I killed a dire bear of legend or some such from the inside after he decided to eat my chest.

Here is an idea, before your next game session run through some mock battles with the other players so that they can get a grasp on what their characters can do, and advise them on sound group tactics. I STILL have to remind my teammates of some of the most basic sound tactics like geek the mage, and targeting a single foe as a group instead of everyone chipping away at their own opponent individually. (you know, unless they have some good mechanic to support it)

[faceroll]

Crusader is overpowered for your group. I mean, you've got an aristocrat1/fighter1. You're playing T3, they're T5, and poorly played.

Of course there are problems.


Hobgoblin tactics would have solved this: they had the numbers to overwhelm your AoOs with grapples, then they can just pin and coup de grace.

Basically, just point your GM at the various combat options available when direct attacks aren't working. It'll still be brutal because of your Combat Reflexes, but then again your character is built for this sort of situation - changing tactics gives the hobs a chance, not a win button.

Pinned characters are pinned; not helpless. You can't coup d'grace them.

[potatocubed]

Pinned characters are pinned; not helpless. You can't coup d'grace them.

Really? Oh well. I'm sure there's a way to go from pinned to helpless, using some sort of 'tie them up' action. The basic principle stands: if straight damage isn't working, try something else.

[Metahuman1]

I'd go with the "Work with the other players and say "Ok, if were gonna get anywhere, we need to talk about tactics." thing. Do this in and out of character so that the players will see what they need to do and the characters will have good reason to work better, and your DM can't try to scream Metagaming.

Now, I would advise once you've done this you talk too the DM and say "Look, I admit I though the group was gonna have a stronger overall build when I put my character togeather, but I'm not over powered. I wasn't doing massive damage and I can't really do massive damage with my build, I'm there to heal, lock down an area, and SOAK UP massive damage. Also, if they had changed tactics, the Hobgoblins would have killed the whole party. If they had used those tactics and I wasn't in the party they would have TPK'd them.

Now, were talking tactics now, so let us get a few levels under our belts and get everyone more comfortable with the combat tactical options before you make a judgment call.

Some other things might include suggesting DungeonCrasher builds for the Fighter.

Showing the Warblade some of the better stances and Maneuvers and a couple of good build options, I like Diamond Mind with a bit of a branch out for Punishing Stances and Iron Heart Surge myself as it's simple to go "Max out your too hit bonus and your Concentration skill check bonus, and use the stuff that lets you swap saves and Damage for Concentration checks, then use Iron Heart Surge to get out of really sticky situations, and Punishing stance to get the most out of your Maneuvers and attacks of opportunity/full attacks to reset those maneuvers." (Hint: Robilars Gambit and some healing support form Items or from the rangers and/or you is great for this because it lets them get extra attacks off while making sure they have there maneuvers handy when there turn rolls around.

Showing the Rogue Good use of the master Thrower PRC.

Showing the Barbarian stuff like Runescarred and Frenzyed Brezerker and Spirit Lion totem.

And showing stuff like Mystic Ranger and Swift hunter to the Rangers.

Help the whole party up there power level a Teir or two.

[MammonAzrael]

Mechanically, you will likely remain the strongest for a good while to come (and that's assuming your group gets a clue and starts looking into practical optimization). While you should explain (not show by rolling a core-only druid) what your character does, and how the bulk of your survivability was from Stone Power, that is not the most important part.

You need to talk with your DM, probably privately, about how you seemed so strong because of the complete lack of actions your party members took. Eldariel and Yora said it well.

[Darth Stabber]

Showing the Barbarian stuff like Runescarred and Frenzyed Brezerker and Spirit Lion totem.

Do not suggest FB, there is a very strong chance of that leading to multiple dead characters after an encounter. Bear warrior + improved unarmed strike OTOH is both fun and steps up the barbarians game. But frenzied berzerker in a n00b party is TROUBLE.

[stainboy]

The frenzied berserker will make you look even more OP anyway. Guess who gets to tank him when he turns on the party?

[Mordokai]

There a chance for a Stand Still to really shine :smallbiggrin:

[The Rabbler]

I think you should talk to the DM about the scale of encounters. 31 hobgoblins is a little overkill. Aside from that, ask him if you can help the party with their character builds. They need to learn.

or, show them giantitp. thats how I learned to do stuff right.

[The Glyphstone]

Indeed...that's an EL8 fight for a group of ECL2 characters (effective overall party level of 3.6). Maybe you were supposed to lose and get captured, and the DM is upset because you were tough enough to hold the horde back while the others ran away?

[GoblinArchmage]

Great Cleave Aristocrat 1/Fighter 1


waitwhat?

Challenge him to a duel, kill him easily, and have him reroll something that isn't just plain god awful.


So, I'm guessing that player was thinking, "I want my character to come from a rich family, so he needs to have a level of Aristocrat."

So a guy walks into a talent agent's office and says, "I've got an act that you might be interested in..."

[Dralnu]

My Question is: Is there any way to salvage this? Or should I just talk with the DM, scrap the character, and roll a monk or something?

Current Party: two archer Rangers, one Great Cleave Aristocrat 1/Fighter 1, a Barbarian 2, a dart-throwing Rogue, the most poorly played Warblade I've ever seen, and myself: Crusader 1/Wolf Totem Barbarian 1

Note: I had no idea that party was so terrible when I rolled the character. I had talked to the DM, the Warblade, the Barbarian, and one of the Rangers before creating; the two halfway competent characters and the Warblade.

Yes, your character is way overpowered for your current situation. No, you can't really salvage it when you're with unoptimized PHB classes (even an Aristocrat!). Yes, you really should consider picking a weaker class. You're even going for the battle control nightmare crusader with the wolf totem barbarian dip. I have no clue how your Warblade isn't causing troubles either.

I love ToB. But if I was your DM and was suddenly confronted with this I'd be throwing books at you. Look at what he's comfortable DM'ing for (unoptimized PHB) and look at what you're making him have to deal with.

Yes yes, the DM can challenge you, blahblah player sense of entitlement, honestly it doesn't matter and if you want to give your DM a break, swap to "a monk or something." It's not like you'll be struggling to compete with the dart-throwing rogue anyway.

EDIT: I'm shocked at the responses from people saying the DM is throwing "too hard" encounters and that somehow justifies everything. Where does it say anywhere that the DM must throw CR-appropriate encounters that you must be able to defeat? What happened to things like diplomacy, stealth, and retreat? What if he wanted to have you captured? If you spot the Tarrasque rampaging around the area at level 1 and you decide to attack it head-on, I'd love to hear you complain after the TPK how it wasn't CR-appropriate.

[Flickerdart]

Yes yes, the DM can challenge you, blahblah player sense of entitlement, honestly it doesn't matter and if you want to give your DM a break, swap to "a monk or something." It's not like you'll be struggling to compete with the dart-throwing rogue anyway.
Did you read the part where they lost the encounter and ran away? I'm pretty sure the DM has no trouble at all challenging them.

[Dralnu]

Did you read the part where they lost the encounter and ran away? I'm pretty sure the DM has no trouble at all challenging them.

He said he ended the encounter at almost full HP despite taking the most hits by far. In contrast, the majority of his party was (rightfully) too afraid to even attack. Yeah, at level 2, you should be afraid of 31 hobgoblins for most normal games. Crusader is strong, very strong, and obviously too powerful for this group.

[The Glyphstone]

A Commoner 1/Truenamer 1 with no ranks in Truespeak would be too powerful for this group, unfortunately - you can't win battles of any size if you just refuse to fight. The issue is only half party optimization levels - the other half is their bizzare in-combat behavior.

[137beth]

Or any round, really.

There are a few (rather rare) situations where it could be helpful. However, more than half the party using TD is never a good idea, unless all but one party member is a trapped commoner, and the other person is a fully optimized wizard.

[Flickerdart]

He said he ended the encounter at almost full HP despite taking the most hits by far. In contrast, the majority of his party was (rightfully) too afraid to even attack. Yeah, at level 2, you should be afraid of 31 hobgoblins for most normal games. Crusader is strong, very strong, and obviously too powerful for this group.
He didn't "end the encounter", he lost it and ran the hell away to save the life of his ally. A "challenging" encounter is one you win with difficulty, not flee from in shame.

[Eldariel]

He said he ended the encounter at almost full HP despite taking the most hits by far. In contrast, the majority of his party was (rightfully) too afraid to even attack.

Uh, what? There's a difference between not attacking, and running away. They were doing the former. If you're faced with enemies you cannot defeat, you RUN and don't friggin' wait for them to kill you. I mean, what the hell? And when you're a party, you don't just run alone and leave others to fight, you agree to bail or fight and then you do that to the best of your ability.

Of course he's at full HP at the end of an encounter; that's what healing does. And yes, the Crusader is strong. But that's obviously not the issue here. He'd be too strong regardless of what he plays. If he played a Commoner with a modicum of common sense he'd still be too strong. What does it matter what he plays? There's no way to blend in a party full of characters too stupid to live. I could totally see a game like this where the DM and the players agreed on a one-shot with a bunch of arrogant, overconfident fools trying their hands on adventuring and realizing they're not cut out for it and dying at the end of the session. But by the sound of it that was not the case. What they did was walk into a room full of hostile Hobgoblins and let 'em attack the party for 5 rounds straight before they finally ran away one by one, somehow alive and none the wiser.


Oh, and the Aristocrat? Betting he picked the class for the massive starting gold :smallwink:

[Darth Stabber]

This thread should probably be renamed "is putting thought into how you go about fighting over powered".

[KoboldCleric]

Thanks for the responses everyone, and sorry for tricking you into the thread in the first place :smallamused:

It's nice to hear that I'm not the only one who thought the entire situation was nuts. I'm not sure if it was a numbers thing that scared them all into going Total Defense or what, because the first handful of encounters of the day against smaller numbers (2, 8, 6, 5) were easily dispatched. I also just found out the DM is very experienced with AD&D, but this is his first experience DMing 3e, so that explains a bit about the mentality I suppose.

In any case, I'm definitely rebuilding the character to be much weaker, and I guess the question didn't come across so clearly in the OP ... but I'd really love some advice on how to bridge the gap, so to speak, between the level at which we're playing and the solid tier 3/4 level of which I'm personally pretty fond. I'm not sure how to go about changing those sorts of tactics without usurping the the leadership role of the group ... and I'd rather avoid trying to look like I'm dominating that aspect of the game as will, since it apparently already seems as if I'll have the strongest character without trying.

Or else advice on how to play down into their level better. Without trying to be arrogant about it, I'm used to DMing for much more clever players. For example, early on in the campaign I'm running currently I was able to throw a unmodified Stone Golem at the party of 5 level 1's with a reasonable expectation that they could win the encounter ... which they did, near-flawlessly (no PC deaths at any rate).

tl;dr How do I either introduce smart tactics to the party without being the leader and/or make ansolutely stupid decisions, yet still enjoy it?

[Amphetryon]

tl;dr How do I either introduce smart tactics to the party without being the leader and/or make ansolutely stupid decisions, yet still enjoy it?
If you're rebuilding, can you use a Dragon Shaman or some other party buffer? The selection of small buffs you'd be able to use - barring DFI and such - would improve the rest of the party's abilities enough that they may feel less inclined to turtle up.

Be forewarned, though, that this approach with a particularly old-school style DM could lead to you falling behind the XP curve.

[kharmakazy]

tl;dr How do I either introduce smart tactics to the party without being the leader and/or make ansolutely stupid decisions, yet still enjoy it?

As I said, run some mock battles and explain some basic tactics. Geek the mage, and consolodated attacks seem to be the most obvious.

[potatocubed]

Go Batman wizard, maybe? You can spend your spells to make the others look good and perform more effectively, without having to lecture anyone about anything.

[Frozen_Feet]

Go Batman wizard, maybe? You can spend your spells to make the others look good and perform more effectively, without having to lecture anyone about anything.

Not gonna work if they're too stupid to hit the enemy. Though for those cases, prestidigitation for golden hair, overland flight and fireball. :smallbiggrin:

[PollyOliver]

A Commoner 1/Truenamer 1 with no ranks in Truespeak would be too powerful for this group, unfortunately - you can't win battles of any size if you just refuse to fight. The issue is only half party optimization levels - the other half is their bizzare in-combat behavior.

Indeed. In this case the fact that the rest of the party is extremely unoptimized is not the first problem, it's the second problem. The first problem is that the rest of the party refuses to fight their opponents and just hopes they'll...magically go away? If the whole party is taking total defense actions, anyone who dares to make an attack roll is going to look overpowered. At this point, it doesn't really matter what you play.

If the party had the same composition and was actually using offensive actions in combat and this problem resulted...sure, go play "a monk or something". But right now that won't fix anything, because if he has the audacity to make the monk gasp attack something, he's going to be right back at square one.

Edit: whoops, missed the second page somehow.

Honestly, my suggestion would be (assuming you can get people to actually attack enemies) to play a buffer--cleric, or a bard using inspire courage and buff spells (and grease, for the bizarre dart-wielding rogue), would hopefully increase your party's effectiveness without putting you in the spotlight.

[MammonAzrael]

tl;dr How do I either introduce smart tactics to the party without being the leader and/or make ansolutely stupid decisions, yet still enjoy it?

Talk to the players. Take some time, if they're willing to learn, to explain why total defense and similar inaction is very poor tactically, and what an be done to improve things. Offer to help them refine their characters - system knowledge should not be vilified.

[PollyOliver]

Talk to the players. Take some time, if they're willing to learn, to explain why total defense and similar inaction is very poor tactically, and what an be done to improve things. Offer to help them refine their characters - system knowledge should not be vilified.

This.

But also, can you just point out that unless you know someone else is coming to help you, the only way to end an encounter is to 1) win it, 2) run away, or 3)die or be captured? Obviously the third option is to be avoided. Unless you are waiting on the cavalry to save the day or are a very specific type of damage-soaking build in a party with a lot of glass cannons (or involved in a suicidal last stand), total defense does not help you do either of the first two, and instead just marginally delays the third. Otherwise, if you're in a situation so unwinnable that you need to be taking total defense actions, you should run (or, barring that possibility, surrender). If you're not, you should be using your actions to actually fight the enemy.

[The Rabbler]

I'm going to second the batman wizard idea. If they think the crusader that does nothing but sit there and soak damage is overpowered, instead spend your time buffing the party and absolutely wrecking the enemies through any number of strong spells.

And, at level 1, you can use the excuse that yea, you're powerful, but a single hit from a commoner's longsword could bring you down (and that's if you roll your HD well).


aside from all of that, you may want to give the DM some pointers about DMing 3.5. 31 hobgoblins is a TPK for just about any unoptimized level 1 group (sure, color spray/web stomps it flat, but still) and the fact that your DM threw them at you in the middle of a day's worth of encounters tells us that he doesn't have all that solid a grasp on how to balance things appropriately.

[PollyOliver]

I dunno. I don't think showing up with something more powerful just to show them that what you were using wasn't that bad is necessarily a good idea. It's one thing to point out to a mature group that you were actually holding back and explain what you could have done. But if we're talking abot a DM/group that cannot understand that the fundamental problem with that encounter was not your build but rather the fact that almost everyone else did nothing, they probably won't understand the point that a crusader is comparatively weak and instead will jump straight to "OMG ur such a munchkin, you break everything!" Which is counterproductive.

I'd recommend showing up with a buffer, if you still want to play with these people.

Edit: This might be because I'm on a bard kick recently, but given a few sources for inspire courage optimization, you should be giving them +2/2 now and +3 in a level or so (or +2 or 3d6 if you can use dfi). Grease will give the rogue his sneak attack and make it still easier for others to hit, as will targeting ray for all your ranged attackers. Later, pick up bull's strength, maybe invisibility for your rogue, and of course haste. Glitterdust and/or sleep only as backups to prevent TPK. Then, you can cover knowledges and social situations out of battle, and in battle stand back and let them feel like they're doing all the work. The only real danger might be that they'll complain you're not contributing enough.

[Dralnu]

Of course he's at full HP at the end of an encounter; that's what healing does. And yes, the Crusader is strong. But that's obviously not the issue here. He'd be too strong regardless of what he plays. If he played a Commoner with a modicum of common sense he'd still be too strong. What does it matter what he plays? There's no way to blend in a party full of characters too stupid to live. I could totally see a game like this where the DM and the players agreed on a one-shot with a bunch of arrogant, overconfident fools trying their hands on adventuring and realizing they're not cut out for it and dying at the end of the session. But by the sound of it that was not the case. What they did was walk into a room full of hostile Hobgoblins and let 'em attack the party for 5 rounds straight before they finally ran away one by one, somehow alive and none the wiser.

It's true, the party's fighting strategy was terrible. You're right that they should either flee or fight as a team and not be indecisive. They're new, they'll work on it. But trying to argue "it's not the class it's the strategy" when you're playing a class that is nigh-invincible in the face of overwhelming odds doesn't help your argument at all. Even if they were playing their classes properly, the optimized Crusader is still going to be significantly more powerful than the rest. This translates into more work for the DM to set up fair encounters that challenge what will soon be a tanky lockdown beast while not demolishing everyone else in the process. You don't know if the DM wants/can do that, and from the looks of what he's had to challenge before the OP stepped in, I'll bet he'd much rather not have to deal with it.

Now, you start outshining the rest of the party as a commoner2 and then point out it's not your class but your tactics? Yeah, I think they'd be more open to listening to you.

My advice still stands to the OP. You know your class is multiple tiers above everyone else except for the Warblade. You've said it yourself. You're even taking extra steps to optimize it. You know the answer but you're asking GiTP, which is notoriously pro-optimize and pro-Player Entitlement, to change your mind. Talk to the DM. See what his thoughts are on this, have an intelligent discussion, and work something out. That's all I have to say on the matter.

[The Rabbler]

I dunno. I don't think showing up with something more powerful just to show them that what you were using wasn't that bad is necessarily a good idea. It's one thing to point out to a mature group that you were actually holding back and explain what you could have done. But if we're talking abot a DM/group that cannot understand that the fundamental problem with that encounter was not your build but rather the fact that almost everyone else did nothing, they probably won't understand the point that a crusader is comparatively weak and instead will jump straight to "OMG ur such a munchkin, you break everything!" Which is counterproductive.
I wasn't suggesting bringing batman to the table to show them how tame the crusader was; I suggested it because his party is in dire need of some actual power and it's much easier to lay low while being powerful in a group that values big, shiny numbers over actual results. The crusader was deemed OP because he didn't lose any of his HP. If, instead, a wizard had been played and a single color spray had knocked out the 31 hobgoblins, the rest of the party would go on a killing spree and everyone would be happy. The DM might get slightly miffed that the encounter was defeated so easily, but that's when you explain just how retardedly hard of an encounter that was and that no one would've gotten out alive without the color spray.


I'd recommend showing up with a buffer, if you still want to play with these people.

batman buffs people. A buffbot, on the other hand, tends to be overly boring to play; the first round or two is spent buffing the party, then the combat is over and you do the same for the next encounter.


Edit: This might be because I'm on a bard kick recently, but given a few sources for inspire courage optimization, you should be giving them +2/2 now and +3 in a level or so (or +2 or 3d6 if you can use dfi). Grease will give the rogue his sneak attack and make it still easier for others to hit, as will targeting ray for all your ranged attackers. Later, pick up bull's strength, maybe invisibility for your rogue, and of course haste. Glitterdust and/or sleep only as backups to prevent TPK. Then, you can cover knowledges and social situations out of battle, and in battle stand back and let them feel like they're doing all the work. The only real danger might be that they'll complain you're not contributing enough.
This is almost exactly the same advice as I gave, except we suggested a different method of being passive while sitting on all of the big guns.

EDIT:

It's true, the party's fighting strategy was terrible. You're right that they should either flee or fight as a team and not be indecisive. They're new, they'll work on it. But trying to argue "it's not the class it's the strategy" when you're playing a class that is nigh-invincible in the face of overwhelming odds doesn't help your argument at all. Even if they were playing their classes properly, the optimized Crusader is still going to be significantly more powerful than the rest. This translates into more work for the DM to set up fair encounters that challenge what will soon be a tanky lockdown beast while not demolishing everyone else in the process. You don't know if the DM wants/can do that, and from the looks of what he's had to challenge before the OP stepped in, I'll bet he'd much rather not have to deal with it.

Now, you start outshining the rest of the party as a commoner2 and then point out it's not your class but your tactics? Yeah, I think they'd be more open to listening to you.

My advice still stands to the OP. You know your class is multiple tiers above everyone else except for the Warblade. You've said it yourself. You're even taking extra steps to optimize it. You know the answer but you're asking GiTP, which is notoriously pro-optimize and pro-Player Entitlement, to change your mind. Talk to the DM. See what his thoughts are on this, have an intelligent discussion, and work something out. That's all I have to say on the matter.

the problem with this is that the crusader wasn't all that optimized; Stone Power was practically made for the crusader's early levels. The crusader was built around staying alive, not dealing damage, and, from what I read in the OP, it seems like the crusader wasn't significantly more powerful than anyone else. The other characters were played downright stupidly, sure, but its not like the OP solo'd the overwhelming encounter without losing a drop of blood.

As far as tier balance goes, tiers are not the same as power. The barbarian should've been much more powerful in a room full of fodder than the crusader, but the barbarian (and the rest of the party) wussed out and decided to take the worst possible course of action instead of having the field day that they should've been having. Say what you will, this does come down to a stupid use of actions by new players. I'll say it again, OP's crusader did not come even close to soloing the encounter, despite his spotless pool of health. This is a case of an inexperienced DM throwing an impossible task at a (mostly) inexperienced party and the only player who knew the smart (mathmatically justifiable, in case you want to argue it) decision came out untouched.

[Fox Box Socks]

Newsflash: Character built to take lots of damage shocks DM by taking lots of damage.

Film at 11.

[PollyOliver]

I wasn't suggesting bringing batman to the table to show them how tame the crusader was; I suggested it because his party is in dire need of some actual power and it's much easier to lay low while being powerful in a group that values big, shiny numbers over actual results. The crusader was deemed OP because he didn't lose any of his HP. If, instead, a wizard had been played and a single color spray had knocked out the 31 hobgoblins, the rest of the party would go on a killing spree and everyone would be happy. The DM might get slightly miffed that the encounter was defeated so easily, but that's when you explain just how retardedly hard of an encounter that was and that no one would've gotten out alive without the color spray.

batman buffs people. A buffbot, on the other hand, tends to be overly boring to play; the first round or two is spent buffing the party, then the combat is over and you do the same for the next encounter.

This is almost exactly the same advice as I gave, except we suggested a different method of being passive while sitting on all of the big guns.

Okay, I agree with a lot of that. I was mostly reacting to the


absolutely wrecking the enemies through any number of strong spells.

part. Because if they think just standing around not dying is overpowered, glitterdusting or color spraying an entire encounter is probably going to get you called a munchkin--but may still be preferable to the tpk, which is why I said told hold it back. Maybe you're right and a room full of enemies being knocked unconscious with a single first level spell would've gone unnoticed because there's no HP damage and everyone else is doing the actual killing, but I think it's just as likely that you do that and the DM then declares you to have broken the game again--and frankly, a lot more justifiably this time, even if he doesn't understand the difference. If you think it'll be more acceptable to the group, then yeah, go for it, but he was asking for ways to tone it down a little (though I will admit bard is on the same tier, just that this version focuses on making others shine), not to crank it up two tiers without it being noticed.

Also, spending most of your combats using the actions I mentioned isn't really being a "bot" or even necessarily boring--and what character types are fun and what are boring is completely subjective. Sure, you probably start each combat off with an inspire courage, but after that your options are varied, and some of the spells I listed do more than just buff (grease, for example). Plus you're incredibly versatile out of combat, where they're less likely to jump on you about it.

Agree with your edit totally, though.

[The Rabbler]

Okay, I agree with a lot of that. I was mostly reacting to the

absolutely wrecking the enemies through any number of strong spells.

part.

It sounded a lot better in my sleep deprived head when I posted that.


Because if they think just standing around not dying is overpowered, glitterdusting or color spraying an entire encounter is probably going to get you called a munchkin--but may still be preferable to the tpk, which is why I said told hold it back. Maybe you're right and a room full of enemies being knocked unconscious with a single first level spell would've gone unnoticed because there's no HP damage and everyone else is doing the actual killing, but I think it's just as likely that you do that and the DM then declares you to have broken the game again--and frankly, a lot more justifiably this time, even if he doesn't understand the difference. If you think it'll be more acceptable to the group, then yeah, go for it, but he was asking for ways to tone it down a little (though I will admit bard is on the same tier, just that this version focuses on making others shine), not to crank it up two tiers without it being noticed.

Maybe a single damage spell should stay prepared to fuel that damage-based reserve feat, then. It would make it seem like the OP simply chose a good way to do damage all day with his new character.

The point of my post (because I can't seem to put it into words) was that batman would be a useful addition to the group to answer any more of these "whoopsie" moments on the DM's part. Sure, he's new, but a TPK just after leveling up would've made me a little sad.


Also, spending most of your combats using the actions I mentioned isn't really being a "bot" or even necessarily boring--and what character types are fun and what are boring is completely subjective. Sure, you probably start each combat off with an inspire courage, but after that your options are varied, and some of the spells I listed do more than just buff (grease, for example). Plus you're incredibly versatile out of combat, where they're less likely to jump on you about it.

I was mostly answering your suggestion of a buffer character. An optimized bard certainly isn't a buffbot, but it isn't really a buffer either. An optimized bard can buff, but it's much more effective to do it's one party-wide buff and then proceed to act like a scaled-down batman.

[Grendus]

I would be tempted to try one of the following:

-Bard, focusing on buffing the party and dealing with social challenges.
-Beguiler, focusing on crowd control. Drop illusions, charms, and other ways to control the enemies. Once your enemies think they're all sealed inside of steel boxes or are convinced you're their long lost siblings, your party will have the confidence to fight the battle straight.
-Dragon Shaman tank. You get some nice auras, the fast healing (albeit to 50% hp) will give them some confidence, and the d10 hit dice means you can still fill the tanking role the party probably desperately needs.
-Archivist loaded down with buffing spells. Dark Knowledge and cleric/druid buffs will make the party absurdly powerful.

Essentially, you don't want to take a frontline role anymore, at least if you want to play a T3/T4 class. You want to be a supporter, making your party confident enough to actually do their damn jobs (seriously, total defense? Only do that if you have a good source of passive damage and your enemy has a reason not to simply go five feet around you).

[Fox Box Socks]

The party lacks some sort of formalized caster.

I say roll Cleric under the guise of buffing everyone up, then go Divine Metamagic and start tearing the roof off the campaign.

[PollyOliver]

The point of my post (because I can't seem to put it into words) was that batman would be a useful addition to the group to answer any more of these "whoopsie" moments on the DM's part. Sure, he's new, but a TPK just after leveling up would've made me a little sad.

Okay, yeah, that I understand. That number of hobgoblins, against that unoptimized a group, was...ill-advised. If he's okay holding back on the batman unless they wind up in an encounter with a totally inappropriate challenge rating, that works. I just didn't think waltzing in and one-shotting everything with some variation on color spray, sleep, glitterdust, and web was a good answer to the problem of being perceived as overpowered. But I think we essentially agree and I'm just not making any sense. :smallredface: It's one of those days.

[faceroll]

As far as tier balance goes, tiers are not the same as power. The barbarian should've been much more powerful in a room full of fodder than the crusader, but the barbarian (and the rest of the party) wussed out and decided to take the worst possible course of action instead of having the field day that they should've been having. Say what you will, this does come down to a stupid use of actions by new players. I'll say it again, OP's crusader did not come even close to soloing the encounter, despite his spotless pool of health. This is a case of an inexperienced DM throwing an impossible task at a (mostly) inexperienced party and the only player who knew the smart (mathmatically justifiable, in case you want to argue it) decision came out untouched.

Dude, the Crusader is a notoriously tanky class at low levels, when anyone experienced in pre-ToB play expects a game of rocket tag. It's very out of line with non-ToB base classes in terms of taking hits.

And you're saying there's no class balance issues when there's an aristocrat1/fighter1 in the party?

[The Rabbler]

Dude, the Crusader is a notoriously tanky class at low levels, when anyone experienced in pre-ToB play expects a game of rocket tag. It's very out of line with non-ToB base classes in terms of taking hits.

And you're saying there's no class balance issues when there's an aristocrat1/fighter1 in the party?

Of course there are some issues, but those problems are warning labels compared to the billboard-sized neon sign advertising that "This s**t needs fixing!". The players and the DM are both extremely inexperienced and both of those problems happened to clash in the form of one encounter, a situation in which the OP's crusader (almost) uniquely shines.

The DM desperately needs to learn how to balance encounters and the players desperately need to learn how to use the characters that they made. Both of those need to happen far more and far sooner than a party rebalancing.

[Dralnu]

the problem with this is that the crusader wasn't all that optimized; Stone Power was practically made for the crusader's early levels.

So is Stone Bones, Martial Spirit, Iron Guard's Glare, Crusader Strike, etc. They're all made for low levels. And they're level 2.


The crusader was built around staying alive, not dealing damage, and, from what I read in the OP, it seems like the crusader wasn't significantly more powerful than anyone else.

OP said:

two archer Rangers, one Great Cleave Aristocrat 1/Fighter 1, a Barbarian 2, a dart-throwing Rogue, the most poorly played Warblade I've ever seen, and myself: Crusader 1/Wolf Totem Barbarian 1

Are you serious? Not significantly more powerful than anyone else? Really?


The other characters were played downright stupidly, sure, but its not like the OP solo'd the overwhelming encounter without losing a drop of blood.

OP said:

between Stone Power, Stone Bones, Martial Stance, Crusader's Strike, and the delayed damage pool I'm hovering just below max HP for most of the fight, even though I'm taking the brunt of the hits (15-20 attacks a round, lots of archers) and with my AC of 14.

...

Finally, in round 9, with 16 enemies still standing, I grab the -8HP Barbarian, eat a fistful of AOOs, sling him over my shoulder and run for it as well. I end the encounter with 22/26 HP.

He's taking 15-20 attacks per round, he decides to retreat to save his dying Barbarian buddy, eats a fistful of AoO's, and leaves with only 4 HP missing.

Really, not OP compared to the rest of the group?

... Seriously?


As far as tier balance goes, tiers are not the same as power. The barbarian should've been much more powerful in a room full of fodder than the crusader

Really? You know what Barbarian 2 has over Barbarian1 / Crusader 1? Uncanny Dodge and a d12 instead of d10.

You know what the Barbarian1/Crusader1 has over Barbarian 2? Delayed damage pool, furious counterstrike, stone bones, crusader strike, martial spirit, and more.

What, exactly, is our Barbarian2 friend doing that is so much more powerful here? Maybe he has Power Attack and Cleave? So what, he's going to deal 3 more points of damage in round 1, maybe if he's lucky he can cleave too, and then what? He'll get KO'd when the hobgoblins attack. And he did.


but the barbarian (and the rest of the party) wussed out and decided to take the worst possible course of action instead of having the field day that they should've been having. Say what you will, this does come down to a stupid use of actions by new players.

31 Hobgoblins at level 2. Have a field day? You attack once, then eat a bunch of attacks and die. They should've ran. Going all out and attacking would've been suicide. Funnily enough, you're criticizing new players on their tactics but then, with the luxury of hindsight and unlimited time to choose an option, you'd choose the one that gets them killed the fastest.


I'll say it again, OP's crusader did not come even close to soloing the encounter, despite his spotless pool of health. This is a case of an inexperienced DM throwing an impossible task at a (mostly) inexperienced party and the only player who knew the smart (mathmatically justifiable, in case you want to argue it) decision came out untouched.

Absolutely not. The only "smart" decision there is to retreat. He didn't even do that till the very end. And, considering how he was taking the vast majority of the attacks and was still unharmed, it sounds like he could've stuck around much longer too. Totally balanced with the rest of the party, right?



Of course there are some issues, but those problems are warning labels compared to the billboard-sized neon sign advertising that "This s**t needs fixing!". The players and the DM are both extremely inexperienced and both of those problems happened to clash in the form of one encounter, a situation in which the OP's crusader (almost) uniquely shines.

The DM desperately needs to learn how to balance encounters and the players desperately need to learn how to use the characters that they made. Both of those need to happen far more and far sooner than a party rebalancing.

Every time I read something like this I want to punch a catgirl.

What a selfish thought process. The DM and players are inexperienced, so what? If they're both inexperienced but it's working and they are having a good time, why the heck must they suddenly learn to play "better" when you waltz in with a way more powerful character? Everyone has to adapt themselves to you, huh? Not the other way around?

[Flickerdart]

Every time I read something like this I want to punch a catgirl.

What a selfish thought process. The DM and players are inexperienced, so what? If they're both inexperienced but it's working and they are having a good time, why the heck must they suddenly learn to play "better" when you waltz in with a way more powerful character? Everyone has to adapt themselves to you, huh? Not the other way around?
Who was having a good time in this encounter, exactly?

[Dralnu]

Who was having a good time in this encounter, exactly?

Could've been everyone or no one. We don't have such information. I'm making the assumption based on the OP's information that, before he brought in his Crusader to the group, everyone was at least content with their characters including the DM, considering this was session 3. Now it's very clear that the DM isn't happy with this Crusader, and the rebuttal is, "Well, it's everyone else who needs to change!" :smallconfused:

[Flickerdart]

It's session 3 of a new campaign with players that may never have seen D&D before. Assuming that they're happy with the circumstances is downright absurd. The OP brought in a character built competently, and I'm willing to bet good money that he was having the most fun, since he was, you know, doing something as opposed to nothing and then dying. I would not be surprised if some or all of the players approach him and say "that was cool the way you didn't suck and die, can you teach me how".

[Fox Box Socks]

The lot of them took a total defense in lieu of attacking during the first round, for fear of getting mauled by hobgoblins. Several of them fled when things were turning south. Hell, the Barbarian ended the encounter at -8.

This doesn't sound like a fun encounter, this sounds like an encounter where everything that could have went wrong did.

[The Rabbler]

So is Stone Bones, Martial Spirit, Iron Guard's Glare, Crusader Strike, etc. They're all made for low levels. And they're level 2.

Then it should be no surprise that they caused him to do well in the situation.


Are you serious? Not significantly more powerful than anyone else? Really?

No, he isn't. He can stand up to a lot more, but he isn't destroying encounters. He isn't walking in, taking all 31 hobgoblins alone, beating them all up, and waltzing away untouched. He took their attacks and dealt a little damage, but he wasn't significantly more powerful than anyone.


He's taking 15-20 attacks per round, he decides to retreat to save his dying Barbarian buddy, eats a fistful of AoO's, and leaves with only 4 HP missing.

hey look, I can quote the OP too!


The Battle lasted a total of 9 rounds. In round one, 5 of the 7 party members used total defense because they were scared to fight the Hobgoblins. By round five, 4 of the 7 have retreated out of the dungeon.

The party was doing damage. They were killing things too (and probably much faster). The only difference is that the "OP" crusader took a lot less damage while doing it.


Really, not OP compared to the rest of the group?

... Seriously?

Seriously. He was built around taking damage and that's almost all that he did. He built his character well, but there is still no way that he could've walked into that room alone and killed every single one of those hobgoblins.


Really? You know what Barbarian 2 has over Barbarian1 / Crusader 1? Uncanny Dodge and a d12 instead of d10.

You know what the Barbarian1/Crusader1 has over Barbarian 2? Delayed damage pool, furious counterstrike, stone bones, crusader strike, martial spirit, and more.

What, exactly, is our Barbarian2 friend doing that is so much more powerful here? Maybe he has Power Attack and Cleave? So what, he's going to deal 3 more points of damage in round 1, maybe if he's lucky he can cleave too, and then what? He'll get KO'd when the hobgoblins attack. And he did.

He will be doing his job. A barbarian 2, while not mechanically superior, will be trying to kill the hobgoblins, whereas our crusader 1/barbarian 1 friend spent all of his time trying to take damage and heal back damage. Martial spirit heals him, crusader strike heals him, and stone bones gives him temporary HP while the barbarian will be raging and attacking for as much damage as possible the whole time.


31 Hobgoblins at level 2. Have a field day? You attack once, then eat a bunch of attacks and die. They should've ran. Going all out and attacking would've been suicide. Funnily enough, you're criticizing new players on their tactics but then, with the luxury of hindsight and unlimited time to choose an option, you'd choose the one that gets them killed the fastest.

Oh please. The party decided to run and hide before fighting. Remember how there were only 3 people still fighting for the last 4 rounds? Of course one character is going to take a bunch of damage if there are only three targets and half of your team is already attacking one of them. Had the entire party stayed for the entire fight, they probably would have won the fight. Sure, it would've been because of the crusader's ability to stay alive, but they still would have won. At that point you would address the DM's choice to send 31 hobgoblins after the PCs at the end of an adventuring day. The DM screwed up first, but the other PCs could have easily changed the outcome of that fight.


Absolutely not.

He was the reason they made it to round 9, but he didn't single-handedly win the fight.


Every time I read something like this I want to punch a catgirl.

What a selfish thought process. The DM and players are inexperienced, so what? If they're both inexperienced but it's working and they are having a good time, why the heck must they suddenly learn to play "better" when you waltz in with a way more powerful character? Everyone has to adapt themselves to you, huh? Not the other way around?

Obviously it isn't working. A DM that's got a working system with his players doesn't suddenly send a challenge that could only really be answered by optimization at a group that doesn't even know how to play at a basic level.

As far as bringing in a more powerful character, the OP established that he didn't know the optimization level was so ridiculously low when he entered the campaign. And be honest; Look at the roster and tell me that a level 1 crusader is "way more powerful" than the rest of the party.

Do you really not see how much of a screwup this is on both the DM's and the rest of the party's parts? One member of the party took on a good half of the incoming damage and stood firm while the rest of the party ran away with their tails between their legs. On the other hand, the DM threw 31 hobgoblins at a ridiculously low-op group. Both parties screwed up and the fact that the OP did a half-decent job at salvaging the encounter put him square in the limelight and in the center of blame. Is it really a selfish thought process to want to make sure that there isn't a TPK in the making at the end of every adventuring day or to make sure that the rest of the party knows what to do if there is?

[Flame of Anor]

Newsflash: Character built to take lots of damage shocks DM by taking lots of damage.

Film at 11.

Extra! Extra! Characters who do not attack do no damage.


The party lacks some sort of formalized caster.

I say roll Cleric under the guise of buffing everyone up, then go Divine Metamagic and start tearing the roof off the campaign.

:smallbiggrin:

[NecroRick]

I'm going to take the contrarian position here. The OP is not some heroic bastion of all that is good and right with the world (I'm not saying he's bad or anything, just that the ticker-tape parade y'all have been throwing in his honour is... a bit over the top).

DR 5 is absolutely genuinely HUGELY overpowered at levels 1 and 2.

Yes they printed it. Doesn't mean it isn't overpowered.

Here's the thing though, in order to get the DR/5 he's got to successfully attack right? So some rounds it's on, some it's not... right? Nope. Somehow he's managing to hit with his BAB 2 *every round* against a bunch of monsters in metal armour. He's got... what... a 40% chance of hitting AC 14? Even with a strength bonus, you can't keep that up forever, and as soon as it drops you're pincushioned.

But wait... isn't he combining it with Stone Power in order to gain massive (temporary) hit points? And doesn't Stone Power require you to take a hit [sic] to your to hit rolls?

I think some chicanery/cheating is possibly afoot.

Possibly he overlooked the limit to how many hit points he could gain. (no more than twice BAB or four)
Possibly he's fudging the to hit rolls.
Possibly he's persuaded the DM to somehow give him lots of Attacks of Opportunity, and then Stone Powering multiple times per round from all the AoOs (he did say that the Hobos were using bows?)

???

For reference: the DR granted by Barbarian, Dread Necro and Warlock is a better gauge of what is appropriate at low levels. (The Barbarian gets less because he's a lot less squishy).

If you mentally take the DR, and multiply it by two or three, and then add it on to the hit dice the class is using, this gives an idea of relative power. E.g. DR 1 turns a d6 hit dice into (approximately) d8.

Slapping DR 5 onto a Crusader (approximately) gives him d20s for hit dice.*

*Except of course it's non-linear, DR 5 is more than five times better than DR 1, since for early encounters (where monsters are doing d6s) most attacks just bounce off. He could I think (for instance) stand in most low level swarms and ignore them...

[Glimbur]

Crusaders don't get the maneuver they want every round. With Extra Granted maneuver he could start with 3 maneuvers, draw #4 round two, draw #5 round three, and restart with 3 on round four. Therefore he could have DR 5/Adamantine once every four rounds, at most.

Stone Power is much more reliable, but 4 hp a round isn't very much either. Possibly the hobgoblins were splitting their fire across the party.

[Amphetryon]

DR 5 is absolutely genuinely HUGELY overpowered at levels 1 and 2.

While this may represent a valid viewpoint for a particular style of play, I'd say it's far from a blanket truth. . . .

[kharmakazy]

I take mineral warrior pretty much every game. DR 8/adamantine makes you tough as nails at level 2, but pried goeth before the fall. Try and soak a few hits and you die. Get critted, you die. DR is usefull, but its not OP

[Flickerdart]

Here's the thing though, in order to get the DR/5 he's got to successfully attack right? So some rounds it's on, some it's not... right? Nope. Somehow he's managing to hit with his BAB 2 *every round* against a bunch of monsters in metal armour.
Except for the fact that he wasn't just going LOL STONE BONES GUYS. He has four other class features put into not dying to keep him alive during the many rounds Stone Bones isn't around to shield his ass. Your math is also hilariously off - STR 14 and BAB+2 means he has a 50% chance of hitting AC14, 10% more than you suggest, and that's assuming no other bonuses in play (like a masterwork weapon).

The Barbarian's DR is as far from a "gauge of what is appropriate" as Stuttgart, Germany is far from the Andromeda Galaxy. At the level that DR comes into play it does less than nothing, because it wastes you the pencil lead necessary to write it on your character sheet.

I'm not sure you understand how DR works, either, because suggesting it is in any way related to hit dice is preposterous. Let's see your d20 hit die Crusader stand up to a hearty helping of Scorching Ray except oh wait, he's dead because DR has nothing to do with hit points.

[kharmakazy]

because DR has nothing to do with hit points.

Well, it kind of does... I mean.. it prevents hit point loss. While I disagree with necros analysis I think his point was that DR prevents some damage from most attacks witch sort of translates into a kind of de facto HP bonus. Meaning if you have DR 1/- every time you are hit you lose one less HP than you normally would (assuming DR applies).

Mind you it is in no way a good way to measure anything as the usefulness is terribly erratic at best.

[Flickerdart]

That's not hit points though, that's damage received, which is a different kind of animal. You would not, for example, say that AC is related to hit points because it makes you avoid some attacks, or that miss chance is related to hit points, or that staying out of range of that guy's sword is related to hit points. DR is just one of many defenses between your soft flesh and horrible death, and it's far from being the best of them. I mean sure, in an encounter with creatures that are far your inferiors, and can't vary their attacks when they see them ineffective, DR is nice (and even then, the hobbos should have clued in after a while that their enemy stopped taking damage at certain times but not all the time). But against energy attacks? Magic attacks? Flasks of acid or fire? Attacks that target saves? Tripping, grappling, disarming, fall damage? DR is as useless as a Monk.

[kharmakazy]

I agree with everything you are saying, except it not being related to HP. It is clearly related to hp since the only thing it does is reduce hp damage. I think we may all be operating under a different definition of the word "related".

[Flickerdart]

AC reduces HP damage (less times you are hit = less HP damage). Saves reduce HP damage (by half, in fact). Miss chance reduces damage. At the end, the result of all of these numbers is the same - you take less overall damage than you otherwise would.

[kharmakazy]

Yup. And if I were necro, I might try and come up with some weird inaccurate scale that translated each of those into virtual Hp. But I'm not, so I won't.

[NecroRick]

Yup. And if I were necro, I might try and come up with some weird inaccurate scale that translated each of those into virtual Hp. But I'm not, so I won't.

Given the large caveats I liberally plastered all over it, you're being unfair.

[The Rabbler]

Given the large caveats I liberally plastered all over it, you're being unfair.

And you insulted more than a couple people simply because we're taking the OP's side on this argument. Your reasoning behind that insult was proven several times to be wrong/pointless. The OP built a strong character and it ended up being many times stronger than the rest of the party because the rest of the party had no idea what it was doing. He didn't destroy the encounter because he relied on an "OP" maneuver and by many people's standards (by mine at least) he did the best he could under trying circumstances. I'd say you're being more unfair than the rest of us are.

[Heatwizard]

Much as I don't think people should be punished for playing well, it does look like this Crusader build is just a little too much for this group. If they're open to getting help with more effective builds/tactics, then sure, go for it; but otherwise, they've picked how they want to play. *shrug*

[Killer Angel]

Or he could play a wizard. Or a druid.
They'll accuse him to be overpowered but, at least, they'll have some reason.

[Midnight_v]

Hmm... perhaps, or perhaps they've chosen to play that way because they haven't had any other option presented to them.
I read above someone get kind ranty and insulting, and dismissive, about "blahblablah" player entitlement, well, pretty much all I do is Dm and I think thats kinda wrong to present the party with "vastly overated Cr encounter" I'm amazed at the thought process behind peoples logic can be?
Dm entitlement: So you think you're God?
Is how some people sound, the cool thing about the crusader being introduced to this party is that it'll open they eyes of some people one way or the other. Clearly the barbarian wants to do what they do and its cool to me that the crusader did what its supposed to do. The easiest person to get to agree with you will be the barb and maybe the warblade and then you have at least a few people who are willing to conduct combate in a similar style as you.
Here's the deal, teach the players how to play, mechanically, and encourage roleplaying. Thing is learning to optimize is inevitable... its the tide you can't stop, from the moment someone starts looking at the book and going "Wow, option 1 is way better than option 2!" you're looking at ending up knowing how to make a fighter that works and a God Wizard. Intro to the tob just accelerates whats going to happen anyway.
Good luck and keep gaming.

[The Glyphstone]

Wait, does this mean that DR 3/- counts as infinite HP, because you might be attacked by a Small creature wielding a dagger?

[Gnaeus]

Wait, does this mean that DR 3/- counts as infinite HP, because you might be attacked by a Small creature wielding a dagger?

Nah, because the small creature could crit:smallwink:

[The Rabbler]

Nah, because the small creature could crit:smallwink:

it still counts as infinite hp; what if a cat tries to attack you?

[Gnaeus]

it still counts as infinite hp; what if a cat tries to attack you?

Then you are already dead:smallbiggrin:

[Morph Bark]

Then you are already dead:smallbiggrin:

http://i51.tinypic.com/34fd0f9.jpg

=

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FA3pTLcDQRU/TclNTBr5qCI/AAAAAAAAAU8/pil2sjxFjaE/s1600/hokuto_kenshiro01.jpg

[Gametime]

I'm going to take the contrarian position here. The OP is not some heroic bastion of all that is good and right with the world (I'm not saying he's bad or anything, just that the ticker-tape parade y'all have been throwing in his honour is... a bit over the top).

Well, thank goodness you're prepared to counter our outrageous display of support with some good old-fashioned toned down rhetoric. It would've been pretty silly for you to say everyone else was being over the top while simultaneously engaging in hyperbole and misrepresentation yourself. :smalltongue:


I think some chicanery/cheating is possibly afoot.

Just so I understand your position: Are you of the opinion that Crusader as a class is not overpowered for this group, but the OP is still in the wrong because he must've cheated to achieve the results he did?

[KoboldCleric]

Sorry if it came across as otherwise, but I was never asking if I should keep playing the Crusader. Obviously it was a little too powerful given the other PCs in the game; even if it wasn't, the DM asked if I would re-build and I most certainly will just because he asked.

I was trying to ask if the sort of game the Bo9S assumes is something that can be introduced to the group or if it's too soon to think about that do to the Crusader experience I described in the OP.

As to the question of cheating, we roll entirely in the open due to the nature or rolling via an IRC bot. It's difficult to get used to, but even things like spot checks and search checks are done in the open and it falls on us as players not to metagame that we all just watched the rogue roll a nat 1 while searching the obviously trapped corridor.

I didn't believe the Crusader could be such a tank at low levels either until I played my first one this weekend. I remember reading other campaign journals and things on this forum and thinking that my best approximation of the mechanics fall way short of what was described. All I can offer is that you try it; you'll be surprised.

As far as the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" argument goes, I doubt I'll ever understand that. While it's true that the group has a good time playing such a low-op game, it's not as if they've tried high-op and decided they liked low-op better; they've never known anything else. They're in it mostly for the role-playing and less for the mechanics ... but then again, so am I.

[The Rabbler]

I was trying to ask if the sort of game the Bo9S assumes is something that can be introduced to the group or if it's too soon to think about that do to the Crusader experience I described in the OP.

The thing I like about the Bo9S is that (at least in my experience) it puts player learning on fast forward. Because a melee-er's goal in life is usually to do damage and because ToB gives you so many ways of doing damage (which get switched up every time you level up) it lets players experiment on their methods for dealing damage. This generally allows a player to understand what they most enjoy playing and also what tends to be the most effective way of doing it.

If a person rolls up a warblade, tries out a bunch of maneuvers, and finds that he really likes tiger claw, he gets to pick the tiger claw prestige class and be really good at fighting with two weapons. The same goes for any of the disciplines, though some like RKV and JPM require some forethought.



As far as the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" argument goes, I doubt I'll ever understand that. While it's true that the group has a good time playing such a low-op game, it's not as if they've tried high-op and decided they liked low-op better; they've never known anything else. They're in it mostly for the role-playing and less for the mechanics ... but then again, so am I.

Does this mean you will try to help them with the mechanics of the game or not? The wording is a bit confusing.

[KoboldCleric]

It means that yes, I do intend to do so.

[The Rabbler]

It means that yes, I do intend to do so.

Hip Hip Hooray!

[Qwertystop]

Tell us what happens, please! I like learning-stories. They cheer me up.