Stronger than our DM?

[Rossebay]

Our DM only has experience with low-level campaigns and situations where we feel the need to be creative. That is to say, when my leap-attacking pounce barbarian wielding a fullblade shows up, he's dumbfounded. Or when my mailman sorcerer shows up, he gets angry because he can't challenge us.

Three out of us five players in our group have to actually scale back our builds to make it fun for the DM, and for everyone else, but at times we look at our characters and our options, and then look at each other and sigh.
I was about to run a half-dragon Barbarian/Fighter with TWF, Leap Attack, Pounce, PA, Shock Trooper... A less optimized version of a usual Shock Trooper fighter. When I told the DM about the build, be almost hung up on me because he didn't want to deal with it...
So, really, I'm in a dilemma.

What do I do? Do I continue to scale back my character, or do I make him deal with a powerful character or two in order to teach him how to cope with a situation? Am I supposed to train him on how to run a challenging campaign, or do I continue to tell my party to scale back their characters because the DM won't be able to handle powerhouses and I want to make sure he has fun too?

EDIT: 3.5 was a system that wasn't designed to have low-power characters fight high-power enemies. We're MEANT to be heroes, so that's the main cause of my dilemma.

[Rei_Jin]

D&D is not a contest between a player and a DM.

D&D is a social game, where people gather to have fun together.

If both sides are not having fun, then something is wrong.

If your DM is low-op, and you want to play high-op or mid-op, then talk to him and perhaps offer to DM in his place for a game or two, so that he can play and you can run the mid to high op game you like.

If he comes on board with it, then you've got a good resolution.

If both sides cannot reach an agreement, then perhaps you need to look for a new DM, and he needs to look for new players.

[NikitaDarkstar]

My suggestion here would be talk to the DM about the situation, and offer to take over the DM role for a bit (you or any of the other players) and while doing that teach your DM how to deal with characters like this. But this requires one of you to actually be patient enough to really teach him how to handle odd situations, how you normally keep track of powerhouse characters and so on. Hopefully he'll understand and be willing to learn.

If not, tell him that he either needs to deal with it or someone else will have to DM since you're already scaling back and making accommodations for him, but you guys want to be able to have fun too, and scaling back even more will prevent you from having fun.

[Deimess]

When I first started DMing, and some of the players didn't know all the rules, it was easy going and fine. Once their ATL reached 10ish I quickly realized that DMing was going to get harder, as encounters that normally lasted 3 hours, took 2 rounds. For a long time my players went unchallenged, and developed a better grasp on tactics.

Eventually, however, I learned how to challenge them because their tactics became repetitive. It is now fun to see them thinking and doing new things.

For awhile though, I threw monsters with CRs 3 or 4 higher than their ATL at them, and they got spanked. I realized that it wasn't the CR that mattered, but the mob's array of abilities. Now I throw appropriate CRs that chllenge their abilities.

How long has he DMed your uber characters? has he had time to learn?

[rubycona]

I'm actually in a similar position as your DM. I'm a very RP DM - you want to randomly talk to NPCs, I can pull backstories, random adventure hooks, you name it, out of my rear. One of my best individual sessions ever was an adventure that was entirely spun on the fly out of the players chatting up the random shopkeeper. They loved it, referenced it for ages afterwards.

But combat? Holy hell, do I suck at it. That great game had lots of running from the guards, lots of diplomacy, lots of oh-hell moments, but scarcely an ounce of combat.

One of my biggest semi-failures was I'd set up this enemy so well that the wizard of the party seriously considered bailing, she was so scared. Just insinuation, suggestion, and I had them quivering in their boots. Battle time came? They won in like 2 rounds, I felt like an idiot.

At least I understand the situation, if from the other side. I'm going to try my best, they're wanting me to DM again, and they know not to expect great things if they try to kill stuff... but I'm hoping, maybe by lurking on these forums, I might pick up some good ideas.

If he's like me - honestly wanting to do his best, but hopelessly outmatched - then maybe giving him some tips on how to create challenging stuff, maybe playtesting some combat stuff for practice... talk to him, and see what he's good for.

Wish you the best of luck :)

[Rossebay]

I'm actually in a similar position as your DM. I'm a very RP DM - you want to randomly talk to NPCs, I can pull backstories, random adventure hooks, you name it, out of my rear. One of my best individual sessions ever was an adventure that was entirely spun on the fly out of the players chatting up the random shopkeeper. They loved it, referenced it for ages afterwards.

But combat? Holy hell, do I suck at it. That great game had lots of running from the guards, lots of diplomacy, lots of oh-hell moments, but scarcely an ounce of combat.

One of my biggest semi-failures was I'd set up this enemy so well that the wizard of the party seriously considered bailing, she was so scared. Just insinuation, suggestion, and I had them quivering in their boots. Battle time came? They won in like 2 rounds, I felt like an idiot.

At least I understand the situation, if from the other side. I'm going to try my best, they're wanting me to DM again, and they know not to expect great things if they try to kill stuff... but I'm hoping, maybe by lurking on these forums, I might pick up some good ideas.

If he's like me - honestly wanting to do his best, but hopelessly outmatched - then maybe giving him some tips on how to create challenging stuff, maybe playtesting some combat stuff for practice... talk to him, and see what he's good for.

Wish you the best of luck :)

He definitely is a LOT like you. He's VERY involved in the story. He made a huge map, has worked the gods in from a story perspective, three kingdoms, each with their own cities, their own types of people, and their own ways. He's got a pretty massive universe that we get to explore, but... We enter combat, and I sigh. He's been getting a lot better, but he just needs to continue to challenge us creatively. He looks at CR to figure out the challenge level, when that's not right at all. I guess I've never addressed it with him (the CR bit, anyway)...

The main problem is that he has yet to read through chapter 8 of PHB: Combat. There's that, and he hasn't read the spell list much, and he reeally needs to read the DM guide's more obscure sections. I mean, he's FANTASTIC with story, NPC personalities, and even creating the shapes of a dungeon. The issue is that combat isn't substantial...

I don't know. He's done some pretty cool things, but he tends to not read up on the abilities of monsters. he's learning....

The issue is that we've done 2 or 3 campaigns that have gone from levels 5-12 with him, and he's just now deciding to read up on the rules.
I've already thrown in a couple of powerhouses, and he's been completely unable to deal with them.

I'll give him a couple more sessions before I break out the big guns, I guess.

[Rei_Jin]

Alternatively, have you considered the idea of having two DMs?

If he's so good at story, then get someone who is good at mechanics to engineer and run the combat. Then everyone can be happy.

[Gensh]

EDIT: 3.5 was a system that wasn't designed to have low-power characters fight high-power enemies. We're MEANT to be heroes, so that's the main cause of my dilemma.

See, here's your problem. It was designed to be played the way your DM is running it. Regardless of the fact it doesn't run remotely like that, that's the game your DM and those other two players signed up to play. It it's really such a big deal, then one of you three high-op guys must either take over DM duties or just suffer in silence because you're ruining it for the other half of the group. Of course the DM is angry - it takes forever to set things up, and you're trying to play a character whose genre-inappropriate power level blows an entire night's worth of planning (or more) out of the water. You might say that it's also not fair for yourself and the other two high-op players, but you're not the one spending all that time on the game. A character is a onetime investment, whereas an actual game world is quite cumbersome. Again, D&D is a social game, and half the group is playing exactly the way they want to. Even if the DM learns how to manage more powerful characters (which is kind of an undertaking), that isn't necessarily how he or the others want to play the game. Talk to your DM and ask him about it. If he wants you to show him the world of high-op or let you be DM, then fine; if he wants to give you a knuckle sandwich, technically, you kinda deserve it.

[Rossebay]

Alternatively, have you considered the idea of having two DMs?

If he's so good at story, then get someone who is good at mechanics to engineer and run the combat. Then everyone can be happy.

At this point, I sort of do play that role.



See, here's your problem. It was designed to be played the way your DM is running it. Regardless of the fact it doesn't run remotely like that, that's the game your DM and those other two players signed up to play. It it's really such a big deal, then one of you three high-op guys must either take over DM duties or just suffer in silence because you're ruining it for the other half of the group. Of course the DM is angry - it takes forever to set things up, and you're trying to play a character whose genre-inappropriate power level blows an entire night's worth of planning (or more) out of the water. You might say that it's also not fair for yourself and the other two high-op players, but you're not the one spending all that time on the game. A character is a onetime investment, whereas an actual game world is quite cumbersome. Again, D&D is a social game, and half the group is playing exactly the way they want to. Even if the DM learns how to manage more powerful characters (which is kind of an undertaking), that isn't necessarily how he or the others want to play the game. Talk to your DM and ask him about it. If he wants you to show him the world of high-op or let you be DM, then fine; if he wants to give you a knuckle sandwich, technically, you kinda deserve it.

That would be true in any other situation, I'm sure. And I didn't want to say this, because I didn't want to start a flame-fest against my DM, but...

This guy has problems with a level 7 sorcerer casting an empowered shocking grasp. He claims that is too powerful.
7d6. Too strong. My FIREBALL deals that amount of damage, which he ALSO claims is too powerful. To compensate, he throws random enemies of MUCH higher CR at us, causing us to take HUGE amounts of damage from said enemies. I've lost 3 characters to such things. I plan my characters to be low-OP, but he still gets frustrated with some barebones class abilities and ends up killing me. We had three level 8 characters in our party, and he sent us up against a frost worm. My drow swash/fighter/psion was SLAUGHTERED. How am I supposed to plan for that happening? I finally make a cool build that isn't OP, and he obliterates it. I do a high-OP build, and we're put against a bunch of Kobolds or some crap.
Honestly, I can't plan my character around his game world, he doesn't tell us things like that.

He doesn't have enough know-how, but he should have picked it up by now. My question is how to I beat DM-Sense into this guy? He likes DMing, but isn't able to keep up with us.

[Rei_Jin]

See, that's a very different issue to "I like mid-high op and my DM is low op". What you're talking about now is a lack of system knowledge.

Your DM needs to learn how the system works. Until he has an understanding of that, there's no point even being in a game he DMs under the D&D mechanics. You might as well be playing Candyland.

[begooler]

1. It is part of your DM's responsibility to know the rules, and to provide challenging combat. Even if his story and setting are awesome, he still needs to devote attention to those things.

2. Your responsibilities include making a character that can contribute in combat (check!) AND making a character. Now, I'm sure you've come up with a back story for your half-dragon lion totem leap attack shock trooper. But where did you start? You decided half dragons were a good match for the setting, and it would make a lot of sense for your half dragon to begin his training as a barbarian, also he just happens to worship lions?
I doubt that lion-totem shock troopers have a specific place in your DM's world, aside from the significance you've tacked on to your character. Why not start with a character that has an origin that strongly tied into the setting and try to optimize that?
How do you optimize a goblin farmhand with a pet pony? A member of an order of knights that is required to have certain skills not related to combat? An ex-druid (that continues with levels in another class) who has decided to go throughout the world teaching his secret language at the expense of his powers?
Start with a character concept that might be difficult to optimize, then optimize as much as you can with that. This way you don't have to 'scale back' to fit with the party, you're actually building THAT character to be as powerful as it can be.

[Rossebay]

1. It is part of your DM's responsibility to know the rules, and to provide challenging combat. Even if his story and setting are awesome, he still needs to devote attention to those things.

2. Your responsibilities include making a character that can contribute in combat (check!) AND making a character. Now, I'm sure you've come up with a back story for your half-dragon lion totem leap attack shock trooper. But where did you start? You decided half dragons were a good match for the setting, and it would make a lot of sense for your half dragon to begin his training as a barbarian, also he just happens to worship lions?
I doubt that lion-totem shock troopers have a specific place in your DM's world, aside from the significance you've tacked on to your character. Why not start with a character that has an origin that strongly tied into the setting and try to optimize that?
How do you optimize a goblin farmhand with a pet pony? A member of an order of knights that is required to have certain skills not related to combat? An ex-druid (that continues with levels in another class) who has decided to go throughout the world teaching his secret language at the expense of his powers?
Start with a character concept that might be difficult to optimize, then optimize as much as you can with that. This way you don't have to 'scale back' to fit with the party, you're actually building THAT character to be as powerful as it can be.

It's funny, I'm always considering 2, and I never do it. I guess I'm really not helping him learn the relative scales of combat if I'm throwing a high-powered character into one of his campaigns... Especially when they don't fit the campaign setting very well.
I get really excited about builds, so I usually want to try them out, but I guess I need to let him adapt first, yeah?
:\
And, yes, I'd love to go play Candyland, but I'd rather we train up a DM to be something useful in the future.

[begooler]

Yeah, hands down your DM needs to learn mechanics and how to use them effectively at all. However, I think one of the best ways you can convince him to invest time in doing so is to demonstrate that both of you are actually interested in playing the same game.

[NichG]

Considering you talked about bringing in an ubercharger and a mailman, you're talking about the level of optimization where I feel that the DM can do no wrong with the challenges he throws at you.

3.5 D&D is a game where you can literally be infinitely powerful (at least in certain ways) at level 1. I've seen 1st level builds dealing thousands of damage without even using any Pun-Pun style tricks. If you know how to do this, and you want to play a game where you can get as close to that knife edge as possible without making the game pointless, then either the DM also pulls out that kind of build, or the DM throws CR 12+ things at you, or you just win and combat is there to let you show off.

I'd say if you know the DM is going to throw overpowered things at you because of your own power level and you're losing characters to them, try optimizing for survivability. It's less gamebreaking for the DM and it also doesn't overshadow non-optimized characters as much.

I guess what I'm saying is, at that level of optimization I personally know I can provide an interesting game for players if I disregard either the balance assumptions or the rules or both. But if I were trying to do a by-the-book, roughly equal CR fight against characters with 'named' builds, I wouldn't really have the patience to spend hours each week building something elaborate when really its meant to die in 4 rounds, nor honestly the ability to seriously challenge them. There are some DMs who can, but in my experience they're rarer than players who can optimize, since a player who optimizes just has to build their own character and that just once, whereas the DM has to build a new thing every week.

So when I DM, I offer to the players: I can run a lower-powered by the book game if you keep optimization in check, but I prefer to just wing monster mechanics and do really weird fights, but you can do anything you want to barring nigh-infinite stuff like Pun-Pun, and I'll just ad-hoc adjust the difficulty of things so they're appropriately challenging without a care for CR or legal monster builds or whatever.

[Jude_H]

I'd support the suggestions to have someone else run for a while, make a game that's fun and suitably min-maxed. Don't build a character for him, or set him up with someone else's build; point him at some handbooks and let him build his own character (using another person's build or combo is horrendously stifling; many handbooks convey the principles needed to build something powerful independently, and present enough options that piecing something together can at least feel somewhat personalized).



But honestly, I'd recommend a different system. D&D 3e breaks down in a huge way when powergaming expectations clash - the spread between 'optimized' and lackadaisical Stealthy/Weapon Focus characters is just too broad. It sounds like the DM isn't into min-maxing and the OP's not into holding back. A game like Dungeon World or Agon might seem simplistic, but wouldn't have the same goals clash.

[opticalshadow]

try playing basic characters. you said your dm is new and use to lo op, yet your using custom built champs. even if you play them scaled way down, they will be more then he can handle.

[Divide by Zero]

try playing basic characters. you said your dm is new and use to lo op, yet your using custom built champs. even if you play them scaled way down, they will be more then he can handle.

He said he tried that, and the DM threw overpowering encounters at him. The problem isn't the op-level, it's that the DM doesn't understand game balance.

[faceroll]

D&D is not a contest between a player and a DM.

Except when it is.
You trying to tell me how to have fun? :smallconfused:

[Avalon2099]

If your DM is low-op, and you want to play high-op or mid-op, then talk to him and perhaps offer to DM in his place for a game or two, so that he can play and you can run the mid to high op game you like.



Playing and Running Mid/High OP games are two very different things, I know because I run them, but I never get to play in them.

Always the DM and rarely the player syndrome in and of itself sucks, but when your the only DM who allows or can handle OP games, it gets a little annoying. Everyone else gets the cake and eats it, I just serve the cake.

[ILM]

But honestly, I'd recommend a different system.
Yeah, I was going to say the same. Try to find a simpler system - both because it'll be easier for him to learn the ropes, and because it'll force you to start from scratch.
If you really want to keep doing high-op stuff in 3.5e, you'll need to find a new DM. He can't very well be expected to pore through the books like it was a university course just because you know them all by heart (not that it's a bad thing, you know). Your DM simply doesn't understand what your characters can do, he doesn't understand what the monsters can do, how could he possibly balance encounters? You could just try telling him to assume you're 4 or 5 CR above what you should be when he picks stuff from the MM, but even then it's a poor man's fix.


Except when it is.
You trying to tell me how to have fun? :smallconfused:
Pretty sure there wasn't an argument in this thread, why would you go fishing for one? It's not a contest because the DM automatically wins. "Oh look, a flight of Great Wyrm Reds! You all die a miserable death."

[Fenryr]

I have this bvery exact problem with my DM. But for him, OP starts in Pathfinder with the Anti-Hero Option (extra feat instead of Hero Points). He is great with the stories, the rolplay and NPCs. But he tends to limit us a lot, specially throwing creatures with a higher CR (sometimes 4) and giving poor treasure.

'm gonna give a small campaign and try to teach him how to deal with strong players. Use more ambushes, surprises and special abilities. Or combine enemy forces and the like... Wish me luck!

[Sucrose]

Pretty sure there wasn't an argument in this thread, why would you go fishing for one? It's not a contest because the DM automatically wins. "Oh look, a flight of Great Wyrm Reds! You all die a miserable death."

Arguable. I'd say that that would be more akin to tipping over the game board because you can't be bothered to try to win legitimately. It's about as sensible a victory as Pun-Pun. A DM who tries to create level-appropriate encounters that are not purely anti-PC, but nonetheless will stomp the party, can create a rather fun game, if not one particularly conducive to roleplaying, so much as wargaming.

On-topic, while I can't fault him too much for not wanting to learn to deal with your standard OHKO-charger, or other somewhat powergamey builds (setting aside for the moment that anyone with an ounce of optimization competence can learn ways to deal with the charger, at least), refusing basic class options (Fireball? Really?) because they're 'overpowered,' and seemingly random monster placement indicate that he has no understanding of the mechanics underlying the system. Leaving the planning of fights to one of the three optimization-competent players, as a sort of Assistant DM, seems like a good approach here.

Edit: Reread the thread; it seems that the problem is more a total lack of understanding of game balance. If he shows no interest in getting better (if he doesn't mind the PCs getting slaughtered through no fault of their own through unbalanced monsters), then I'd say that's its own problem (and willful ignorance of something useful to something you spend time on is a rather significant flaw), but at least he's not what I was thinking initially.

[Dream_Merchant]

I am inclined with your DM and would probably do either of three things:

(a) Tell you to quit uber-optimising. Yes DnD is about heroes, but heroes are not made of mechanics, they are made of adventure. The DM built a world, build your character from the stuff the world is made of. Optimisation with constraints.

(b) Never mind the world, adventures or role-playing and have each of the uber-optimised players have a grand melee fight against each other in arena like demiplane with random high CR creatures and traps thrown in for fun. The sole survivor is crowned Winner of Mortal Kombat and Savior of Earthrealm. Roll new characters.

(c) Ask you to find a new DM who would tolerate such nonsensical shenanigans or a new game all together (World of Warcraft comes to mind). True knowledge of the rules is important, but understanding the spirit of the game is even more important. Rules are meant to serve the spirit, not the spirit the rules.

[ILM]

(c) Ask you to find a new DM who would tolerate such nonsensical shenanigans or a new game all together (World of Warcraft comes to mind). True knowledge of the rules is important, but understanding the spirit of the game is even more important. Rules are meant to serve the spirit, not the spirit the rules.
True in general, but this breaks down when the DM thinks a 7d6 Fireball - pretty much the iconic example of magic in D&D after Magic Missile - is overpowered. Yes, maybe some people need to curb their min-maxing, but clearly the DM should also know the system better than he does.

[Merk]

How about playing a straight-classed Marshal (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20030906b)? You'll be in a party face / support role, so not obviously overpowered, and with your optimization skills you can still probably do very well. You might have better ideas, but here's some to get started:


Knowledge Devotion (you have all knowledge skills in class)
Imperious Command + various ways to boost intimidate and fear effects
Travel Devotion
Trick out Handle Animal and Ride for an able companion/mount
Mount + Lance + Spirited Charge
Combat Panache from PHB II

[Andorax]

This example shows two extremes (players using some of the most optimized builds that aren't completely absurd, DM who's house-ruling away basic fundamental abilities). However, even inside the boundaries of these extremes there's still room enough to have huge amounts of friction.


As a long-time DM, who does understand the rules and system quite well, I've seen builds and concepts batted around on this board that would result in a session going something like this:

Player X: Pleased to meet you. Thanks for inviting me to your gaming group. You're playing level 8 characters, right? Great...I've got this setup that lets me turn anything with less than 400 hp into a grease stain in one round...it'll be a great addition to the group.

Me: Sorry you spent the gas to drive out here. Here's your "I won D&D" button. Have a nice evening.



It seems to me that "High OP" is, as often as not, one (or both) of two things:

1) Taking advantage of poorly worded abilities, or meshing them together across highly dispirate sources in ways that were never intended. "I found a loophole in the rules, now I'm driving my "Four Wheels of Fury" through that loophole and crushing your campaign without mercy.

To take one component of the classic Pun Pun for example...does it make SENSE to you for your familiar and you to take turns arbitrarially elevating your base ability score (not a bonus or modifier, just moving the base) upwards in a repeating loop? I'm not asking if RAW allows it, I'm asking if on any fundamental level it actually makes sense to you that the ability to do that should exist in the game.


2) Repeatedly stacking up multiple sources that were intended to be alternate ways to accomplish the same thing...not ways to add the same bonus on top of itself over and over again. Some of the key elements of the Uber-charger come to mind here, where you might have a class feature that lets you double damage, an armor that lets you double damage on a charge, or a feat that lets you double damage on a charge. To my mind, these were presented as alternate means to the same goal, not "let's get ALL of them and stack them up".

I also think about situations like the powerful-build, monkey grip, WOW, platinum bastard sword wielder.



It's not that I *can't* build a campaign to challenge players who build their characters like this...it's just that I find it a hollow, pointless mental exercise. I'd rather tell a good story than exhaust myself pouring over books to find a way to close every loophole.

Note to the Batman Wizard:

Pun Pun rose to power a century before you were born, and used diviniations to forsee your eventual existance. Determining that it was a threat to the cosmic order, he has had your parents executed during their childhood. Please find a fresh character sheet and try again.

[Erloas]

It sounds like the OP is building his own deaths. The game was designed around a fairly low level of optimization. By doing extreme optimization on a fairly new DM not only are you forcing him to learn the system as its designed you are also forcing him to learn the system as its been broken at the same time.
And by switching from mid optimization to high and back you are giving him a new target to shoot for every time he messes up.

One of the things that *seems* (its not my thing, thats now how I play) to generally be the case with high optimization is that it is mostly offensively based, going off the general assumption that the best defense is a good offense, kill it before it gets a chance to do anything. You might have the offensive power of a 10th level character but you've only got the HPs and equipment of a 6th level character, and in general defenses don't scale up as fast. They tend to be all or nothing sorts of things, where you are essentially immune from some types of opponents. The problem is when the enemies are scaled up in a level manner (rather then an optimization manner) to survive your super firepower they are also at the point where their offense is at the point of being able to kill you in just a few hits. Or a creature that has the ability to get past your normal method of defense (such as being incorporeal or just flying out of range, or against saves you can't boost to high levels) just ends up killing you.

If you're playing the game for the story it shouldn't matter how optimized your character is and just optimize to what the DM is running. If you want to beat things up with super characters then get a DM that runs that way.

[Vandicus]

2) Repeatedly stacking up multiple sources that were intended to be alternate ways to accomplish the same thing...not ways to add the same bonus on top of itself over and over again. Some of the key elements of the Uber-charger come to mind here, where you might have a class feature that lets you double damage, an armor that lets you double damage on a charge, or a feat that lets you double damage on a charge. To my mind, these were presented as alternate means to the same goal, not "let's get ALL of them and stack them up".




Actually WoTC has rules for stacking multipliers like that, and some of the items explicitly mention that they follow those stacking rules, indicating they were meant to be stacked.

Also, uberchargers have some serious drawbacks. Inability to fight effectively while flying, ease of interrupting a charge with a readied action, still not a caster etc.

[Rossebay]

He said he tried that, and the DM threw overpowering encounters at him. The problem isn't the op-level, it's that the DM doesn't understand game balance.

Thank you. This is the main problem. He knows clearly when my characters aren't optimized, but... You know, he throws us level 8 standard characters against a Frost Worm, and we get trampled.

My real question is, what is a great way to show him how to balance encounters?
I know we could switch DM's for a bit, but none of us really want to DM, and he doesn't like playing, he likes DMing. I just need a few examples of, "Well, in order to teach so-and-so this, I did this..." Or something like that.


Actually WoTC has rules for stacking multipliers like that, and some of the items explicitly mention that they follow those stacking rules, indicating they were meant to be stacked.

Also, uberchargers have some serious drawbacks. Inability to fight effectively while flying, ease of interrupting a charge with a readied action, still not a caster etc.

And that's what he isn't taking advantage of. He looks at monsters purely by CR and throws them at us, without bothering to figure out whether their abilities will give them an edge or not.

I can scour the MM's and figure out some creatures that will fare well against us, then tell him to copy that strategy, though. I'll try that, and if it doesn't work, oh well.

[Kornilios]

1) Taking advantage of poorly worded abilities, or meshing them together across highly dispirate sources in ways that were never intended.

But are many things that are cleary OP and not poorly worded at all.For example a druid that casts bite of the werebear when he is in another form from wildshape or shapechange,or Gate an Solar angel.In my opinon noone of these cases are bad worded or something,just they meant to be this way.
As a Dm you it isn't easy too come up with OP PCRS.You may ban things like unlimited free wishes,but you can't stop someone call a powerfull outsider or stop the druid to do his buffs.
The only think you is if your player's use heavy optimization,make heavely optimized enemys(with RAW CR etc) and after some really tough sessions(and maybe some deaths) they "get the message" :)

[Quietus]

Here's kind of the way I'm seeing it.

Issue 1 : Dm is fairly new to the game/hasn't put in much effort toward system mastery.

Issue 2 : Unlike the DM, you and a few of your fellow players HAVE done so, including reading handbooks and assimilating the combined knowledge and work of thousands of geeks poring over these books for over a decade.

Issue 3 : You're using this knowledge, which the DM doesn't have, in-game. This causes you to be capable of saying "I win the combat", and against level appropriate foes, the DM can only shrug and agree. When the DM scales his foes up the only way he knows how, by picking higher CR targets, in order to survive your attacks. In doing so, these come with higher offense, which crushes your offense-focused builds.

Now, I won't completely let the DM off the hook here. He does need to learn the rules - but taking someone who hasn't mastered the PHB yet and throwing all of 3.5 at him isn't going to help that. Denying a basic level 7 fireball for being too powerful is ridiculous, but so is pretty much everything you've described about your build. You had to scale back to a pouncing, shock troopering, TWF barbarian? So .. from what, something that killed a target in one attack, to something that killed a target in one pouncing charge?

The two of you need to meet in the middle. What I suggest is doing core-only. PHB1 classes, feats, and races only for the players. In exchange for this, you are allowed to have more or less free reign within those bounds - fireballs, even if they're empowered or maximized, aren't considered too strong for the game. As part of that agreement, however, you have to take it to heart that you can't just break the game using only core stuff. You have greater system mastery than the DM, show it, and be responsible with it. Playing a caster is fine, but playing one who is a complete unassailable god - somewhat possible, as you know - is too much for your DM. Play nice, but do push him just a little so he has to step up his own game.

[Rossebay]

Here's kind of the way I'm seeing it.

Issue 1 : Dm is fairly new to the game/hasn't put in much effort toward system mastery.

Issue 2 : Unlike the DM, you and a few of your fellow players HAVE done so, including reading handbooks and assimilating the combined knowledge and work of thousands of geeks poring over these books for over a decade.

Issue 3 : You're using this knowledge, which the DM doesn't have, in-game. This causes you to be capable of saying "I win the combat", and against level appropriate foes, the DM can only shrug and agree. When the DM scales his foes up the only way he knows how, by picking higher CR targets, in order to survive your attacks. In doing so, these come with higher offense, which crushes your offense-focused builds.

Now, I won't completely let the DM off the hook here. He does need to learn the rules - but taking someone who hasn't mastered the PHB yet and throwing all of 3.5 at him isn't going to help that. Denying a basic level 7 fireball for being too powerful is ridiculous, but so is pretty much everything you've described about your build. You had to scale back to a pouncing, shock troopering, TWF barbarian? So .. from what, something that killed a target in one attack, to something that killed a target in one pouncing charge?

The two of you need to meet in the middle. What I suggest is doing core-only. PHB1 classes, feats, and races only for the players. In exchange for this, you are allowed to have more or less free reign within those bounds - fireballs, even if they're empowered or maximized, aren't considered too strong for the game. As part of that agreement, however, you have to take it to heart that you can't just break the game using only core stuff. You have greater system mastery than the DM, show it, and be responsible with it. Playing a caster is fine, but playing one who is a complete unassailable god - somewhat possible, as you know - is too much for your DM. Play nice, but do push him just a little so he has to step up his own game.

In response to the bolded section: No, I didn't have to scale back to that, I scaled it back to a normal barbarian.

Anyway, that's a good idea. We can run a few 'low-level' basic encounters at higher levels like 13 and 15 and such, and he can try to learn how to cope with those.

And it isn't that I have a need to optimize. I simply feel that I ought to do the best I possibly can, given the circumstances. I need to get used to a lower OP setting, I guess.

[Big Fau]

This is why I say all DMs need to have a higher degree of system mastery than their players do, or at least be on-par with their players as far as optimization knowledge goes.

[Vandicus]

This is why I say all DMs need to have a higher degree of system mastery than their players do, or at least be on-par with their players as far as optimization knowledge goes.

This absolutely. Provide help if need be, but a GM must have a higher degree of system mastery so that they can properly adjudicate the game. Without a greater degree of understanding of D&D, the GM is incapable of judging the actual power level and the talents of the party and preparing an appropriate challenge.

If the DM is not familiar enough with the system, his judgement calls may be based solely on the opinions or words of another player.

In the homebrew low magic campaign I play in another player suggested out of the blue to ban aptitude weapons(right before the session), which my build was reliant on, and which my character already possessed(after asking if I could use them before the campaign started). The DM said "Ok, I'll ban them then." He was unaware of what aptitude weapons were and how they functioned(having forgotten what I told him about them before), and agreed to ban them because a player who he understood to have greater system mastery than he did recommended it. Naturally I spent the next two hours of the session completely rerolling my character(the other player wanted to reroll already himself, but an absent player had no inclination to do so), race, stats, alignment,magic items, build. We actually ended up completely rerolling our party, and so the player who was absent that day has to design a new character and join the new party.

What really annoys me is that the other player knew my build was reliant on aptitude weapons.
:smallfurious:

[Quietus]

In response to the bolded section: No, I didn't have to scale back to that, I scaled it back to a normal barbarian.

Anyway, that's a good idea. We can run a few 'low-level' basic encounters at higher levels like 13 and 15 and such, and he can try to learn how to cope with those.

And it isn't that I have a need to optimize. I simply feel that I ought to do the best I possibly can, given the circumstances. I need to get used to a lower OP setting, I guess.

It might be good to compare it to standard fighting anime. Let's take Dragonball (Original and Z) for example. Your DM is currently occupying a level of system mastery that would fit into the original series - the most shocking things I remember seeing in that were an extending stick, and an energy blast able to put a small hole in a wall.

You, on the other hand, are somewhere in Z, Frieza saga or higher. You're capable of wiping out encounters in a single turn, unless they can wipe YOU out in a single turn. If someone put a little effort into it, planets could probably be destroyed.

My recommendation is to fall somewhere toward the beginning of Z. Sure, there's powerful energy blasts to be had. Occasionally you have to deal with someone that can fly. And if the fighting gets really hardcore, there's some disruption of local geology. But it's not crazy earth shattering, and while Goku might have the edge, Krillin might still be able to get in a good shot or two before getting beaten in combat. The DM does need to step up and meet you, but limiting yourself to the basics and working within that framework allows him to actually do so without straight up murdering everyone.

As to the "DM must have more system mastery than the players" - I disagree. Optimally, sure, the DM's system mastery should equal or better the player's, but lacking that, the DM simply needs to know that there is a gap, and has to be able to trust his players not to abuse that fact. Let's say I had ten hours of prep time for a game as a new DM - would you rather I put nine of that into learning how the Mailman and Ubercharger builds work, and one into making a just barely coherent story with a few randomly rolled encounters? Or would you rather I put one hour into looking at the player's sheets, which should include a summary of their more common tricks, and be prepared to handle such things, then put those nine hours into making a vibrant, interesting world for those characters to explore, trusting them not to casually end it with an ability they didn't spell out?

To put it frankly : The DM already has far more on his plate than the players do. I, at least, spend an hour or two every single day working on the campaign that I've got in the works, while the players just need to show up and have fun. In that light, I really don't think that it's fair to expect even MORE from the DM, when it would be just as easy for the players to not pick up, say, pounce and power attack multipliers. It's called communication between the players and the DM, and mutual respect.

[shadow_archmagi]

With some tactical thought, even extremely powerful characters can be challenged. Pouncing, Power Attacking Barbarian? Enemies are on top of a 10 ft high guard tower with spears and crossbows.

Proper use of terrain and strategy (Also, control magic) can make a huge difference.

I had a DM once who nearly wiped our party with a much lower level party, because our barbarian got hit by Kelpstrand, our wizard got harassed by a lockdown fighter, etc.

[Rossebay]

*snip*
+1 for fantastic analogy.
Yeah, that makes sense...
Alright. I'm in the process of making a new character anyway, so I'll see how that goes and I'll attempt to make it more... Beginning of Z. Haha.

[Quietus]

With some tactical thought, even extremely powerful characters can be challenged. Pouncing, Power Attacking Barbarian? Enemies are on top of a 10 ft high guard tower with spears and crossbows.

Proper use of terrain and strategy (Also, control magic) can make a huge difference.

I had a DM once who nearly wiped our party with a much lower level party, because our barbarian got hit by Kelpstrand, our wizard got harassed by a lockdown fighter, etc.

And all of these things rely on the DM being two things. First : Knowledgeable about the rules, both in what the players are capable of doing, and how to design counters against that. Second : Creative enough to come up with these things. The type of creativity needed to create a fully fleshed out world with interesting plot hooks isn't the same type of creativity needed to create interesting, varied combats. There's some overlap - a two axis graph, if you will - but not everyone will score high on both of those. From what I'm reading, this particularly DM is much stronger on setting/story.


+1 for fantastic analogy.
Yeah, that makes sense...
Alright. I'm in the process of making a new character anyway, so I'll see how that goes and I'll attempt to make it more... Beginning of Z. Haha.

Glad to help. It's a LITTLE obtuse, and definitely dated, but I'm pleased that it made sense.

[Big Fau]

As to the "DM must have more system mastery than the players" - I disagree. Optimally, sure, the DM's system mastery should equal or better the player's, but lacking that, the DM simply needs to know that there is a gap, and has to be able to trust his players not to abuse that fact.

I disagree here. Knowing that there is a gap is nice, but being able to recognize it and prevent it from happening are far more important. You may not always be able to trust your players (especially when you just met them), so recognizing a game-breaker is very important.


Let's say I had ten hours of prep time for a game as a new DM - would you rather I put nine of that into learning how the Mailman and Ubercharger builds work, and one into making a just barely coherent story with a few randomly rolled encounters?

You don't need to know how they work, merely being familiar with the concept is enough. And you just described a TO build next to a PO build (TO=Theoretical, PO=Practical).


To put it frankly : The DM already has far more on his plate than the players do. I, at least, spend an hour or two every single day working on the campaign that I've got in the works, while the players just need to show up and have fun. In that light, I really don't think that it's fair to expect even MORE from the DM, when it would be just as easy for the players to not pick up, say, pounce and power attack multipliers. It's called communication between the players and the DM, and mutual respect.

Again, you do not always have the luxury of mutual respect, and even if you do, some players have a different view of fun that you do.

I've seen so many people on this forum (specifically this one) saying a DM should cater their campaigns to a player's abilities, and I agree. You should not have to ask them to tone something down, you should be capable of stepping up and working around the problem if they choose to present it to you. DnD is interactive fiction, meaning you need to roll with the story just as much as your players do.

[Hoddypeak]

I just need a few examples of, "Well, in order to teach so-and-so this, I did this..." Or something like that.

Well, in order to teach my players to run away from overpowering encounters, I threw them up against hugely overpowering encounters that would TPK them if they didn't run. Like, let's say, a Frost Worm.

I mean, why should your characters, regardless of optimization level, never feel threatened?

Ok, seriously, just give the DM a break. Yeah, he should know the rules as well as his players. You said he prefers DMing to playing, but he doesn't even really know the combat rules, which makes me wonder if he's actually even played.

You might suggest one way he can learn the rules better would be to pick a different rule to play around with each week. Sure, he doesn't know the grapple rules right now, but after 4 grapple fights in one session, everyone will know them. Then, over a period of time, he can work more rules knowledge in. In the mean time, if you get an underpowered enemy, have fun and crush it, and if you get one that's overpowered, execute a tactical withdrawal.

[Andorax]

Actually WoTC has rules for stacking multipliers like that, and some of the items explicitly mention that they follow those stacking rules, indicating they were meant to be stacked.

Also, uberchargers have some serious drawbacks. Inability to fight effectively while flying, ease of interrupting a charge with a readied action, still not a caster etc.


I think you're missing the point somewhat...yes, they *can* legally be stacked, but tracking down every form of multiplier you can find from across different sourcebooks, environment books, campaign settings, even time periods to get EVERY stackable multiplier you can find...if you don't see where the problem lies with that, then we're just not going to find common ground here.


I shouldn't have to design the campaign around turning your binary ability off and on, reducing the fights to a question of whether or not I've successfully anticipated, and countered, your OP ability. Yes, the DM has some responsibility to cater the campaign to the players...but it wouldn't hurt if the players took some responsiblity to cater their characters to the campaign/style of the DM as well.




The only think you is if your player's use heavy optimization,make heavely optimized enemys(with RAW CR etc) and after some really tough sessions(and maybe some deaths) they "get the message" :)



Same reason I don't much care for DMing epic campaigns. Ask for the character sheets a week in advance of the campaign, fully annotated with all of the sources being drawn on. Spend a large chunk of my week auditing them, finding which status they haven't made themselves immune to, which holes still remain in their armor.

Then scouring countless additional sources to find ways to exploit those weaknesses, and find a way to fit those exploits into the existing campaign/plan in a way that isn't contrived? And on top of that...find a way to do so that isn't utterly binary, resulting in either the PCs trouncing everything they face, or falling prey to a TPK, inside of 1-2 combat rounds, max?


Again...I *can* do this. Or, with players who aren't obsessive loophole-hunters, OP bonus stackers, and eternal seekers of the "I win" button, I can put that same amount of time crafting an interesting story, lavish descriptions, and combat encounters that are interesting due to terrain, environment and circumstances (rather than technical loopholes) and make for a much better game...at least from my perspective.

I get that there are players and DMs who do actually enjoy their rules arms-races. I'm not one of them, neither are those I have the good fortune to call my gaming group regulars.


I guess if one were to go back to the OP, I'd have to say that this, sadly, sounds like a mismatch of play styles and that the DM and players in question should seek out different groups if they can't close that gap (though it sounds like that's what you're trying to do).

[Quietus]

I disagree here. Knowing that there is a gap is nice, but being able to recognize it and prevent it from happening are far more important. You may not always be able to trust your players (especially when you just met them), so recognizing a game-breaker is very important.

The message I'm taking from this is that you should expect your players to not be respectful of the people they're playing with, and should always be prepared to counter ridiculous rules abuses when you've specifically asked people to avoid them. Is that a fair summation? More on this below, in any case.


You don't need to know how they work, merely being familiar with the concept is enough. And you just described a TO build next to a PO build (TO=Theoretical, PO=Practical).

I was referring to the ubercharger as the named build, capable of several thousand damage per round, alongside the mailman, who produces 400-800 per round and ignores any method of stopping it. Both produce the same result - whatever they aim at dies - and both can be toned down to produce a practical build. The difference is in how much you tone said things down.



Again, you do not always have the luxury of mutual respect, and even if you do, some players have a different view of fun that you do.

I've seen so many people on this forum (specifically this one) saying a DM should cater their campaigns to a player's abilities, and I agree. You should not have to ask them to tone something down, you should be capable of stepping up and working around the problem if they choose to present it to you. DnD is interactive fiction, meaning you need to roll with the story just as much as your players do.

I find it a sad state of affairs if a GM can't trust their players. If I go "Okay guys, I want to run a mid-op game, no characters whose abilities are completely binary, and nothing so powerful as to trivialize any encounter that isn't immune to you", then you know what I expect? Exactly that. If I ask for that and a player brings in a character who delivers 400 damage a round at level 15, while everyone else has done what was asked of them, then that player is a problem. And they will be dealt with appropriately. This involves first talking to them privately outside the game, then if it continues telling them that their character is inappropriate and will have to be retired. If they come back with something equally outside the lines I, as a DM, have drawn, then they aren't welcome at my table.

Look, the fact is, I only have so much time to dedicate to the game. I put aside that time every day through the week in the hope of producing a fun experience, and in turn, having fun myself. When I ask for characters to fall within certain limits and players don't listen to that, it's no different from trying to have a water balloon fight with someone who breaks out their paintball gun. I put a lot of work into DMing, I think that the least a player can do is respect that enough not to flagrantly abuse the trust I put in them.

I'm a human being. My time is limited, and while I personally have a solid grasp of rules abuses, not everyone does - and in most cases, they don't care to put in the time to learn them. Does it help, absolutely. But quite frankly, anyone who doesn't have enough respect for the DM to validate the trust he puts in them is a bad player. The DM has better things to do with his time than play powergamer police officer - namely, making a fun game.

[Dream_Merchant]

I agree completely with quietus. He put it more eloquently that I could have, but essentially I have been saying the same thing. I understand that some players enjoy making extreme optimisations and as an academic exercise I find that both interesting and challenging and fully respect them for that ability and the ingenuity to come up with such things. But in all honestly, unless I do make a demiplane of Mortal Kombat (which can be fun sometimes) of endless slaughter these sort of builds have no place in a roleplaying game where the objective is to role play and not roll dice to see the predictable outcome of a more or less predetermined encounter.

And I second the idea that you should try playing with core only to initiate a new DM. In all the games I had to DM where I had new players, those where also my restrictions. Some players had some knowledge of splat books, but they where also forced to do with core. And even still, there was always respect and understanding between us.

Really, if its just monster killing which you want to do, try a computer game. You will find it much more satisfying and as a DM I won't have to spend hours conjuring the setup, the game engine will do it for you in a matter of seconds.

[ImperatorK]

A computer game isn't as open-ended as an RPG.

[Quietus]

A computer game isn't as open-ended as an RPG.

Perhaps, but if all you're interested in doing is providing a character well above what the GM is prepared to handle mechanically, then it does exactly what you want it to : Provide enemies to kill.

[Dream_Merchant]

Perhaps, but if all you're interested in doing is providing a character well above what the GM is prepared to handle mechanically, then it does exactly what you want it to : Provide enemies to kill.

And it might even be slightly challenging for you and thus even more fun (rather than a rules fumbling DM taking forever to make the wrong and suboptimal decision). EDIT: A lot of these mmorpgs around are as open-ended as any 3.5 based system where the only activity is monster killing. There are always more monsters to kill, even rarer items to collect and opposition clans to bash.

[Endarire]

I made Challenging 3.5 and Pathfinder Parties in Practice (http://antioch.snow-fall.com/~Endarire/DnD/Challenging%203.5%20and%20Pathfinder%20Parties%201 %2031%2011.doc) based on m' experiences as GM.

[ImperatorK]

Perhaps, but if all you're interested in doing is providing a character well above what the GM is prepared to handle mechanically, then it does exactly what you want it to : Provide enemies to kill.
A game that's practically limited only by my imagination is way better then any cRPG engine that's out there, and probably will be for a long time, if not forever.
I personally would always favor the game with unlimited options over the game that's limited by the game programing. Just saying.

[Quietus]

A game that's practically limited only by my imagination is way better then any cRPG engine that's out there, and probably will be for a long time, if not forever.
I personally would always favor the game with unlimited options over the game that's limited by the game programing. Just saying.

Sure, except that we're talking about a group of people who've been having mismatched mechanical expectations. We've stopped talking about the original group, I think, but gone onto the general situation of players who have greater system knowledge than their GM,and whether it's the GM's "job" to pull up his boostraps and put in even more time to gain an even higher level of system mastery than the players, even if he doesn't enjoy that.

In the bounds of THAT conversation, it's been suggested that if the players insist on making mechanical monstrosities, they'd be better served by going and playing a video game instead. If (the general) you are only interested in building something that is designed to kill monsters, when the DM is asking you to tone it down a little, then you're better served by playing a video game where that's the expectation. Bringing that into a tabletop game where you've been asked not to is, at the very least, exceptionally rude.

[Big Fau]

If I go "Okay guys, I want to run a mid-op game, no characters whose abilities are completely binary, and nothing so powerful as to trivialize any encounter that isn't immune to you"

Except there are a lot of people out there with different opinions as to what "Mid-Op" means. For me, that means everyone's builds are ultimately Tier 3/Tier 4 after applying PrCs and feats, which I have to adjudicate manually.

For someone who frequents The Gamer Den and is an advocate of Frank&K's Tomes series and other PDFs, their idea of a Mid-Op game would be nothing less than Tier 2s with Rocket tag potential.

And for someone who's never heard of the Character Optimization forums (or a large number of people over at GameBanshee's forums; the less said about that subject the better), they would view a TWFing Halfling Rogue as overpowered and that Weapon Focus is a balanced feat.


The point I am trying to make is that having a high degree of system mastery as a DM is marginally more important than trusting your players.

[ImperatorK]

<snip>
Yes, it's rude. That player is just being a jerk. But I wouldn't say that a player that's making optimized characters should just play a video game. EVEN when he's only interested in killing stuff. D&D is mostly about killing stuff, in case you didn't remember.

[NecroRick]

The issue is that you want to force someone else (the DM) to change.

The problem is that he is actually a really good story-teller. Hence, when this ends badly (which it will), you will regret missing out on the cool adventures you could have had.

[Bovine Colonel]

The issue is that you want to force someone else (the DM) to change.

The problem is that he is actually a really good story-teller. Hence, when this ends badly (which it will), you will regret missing out on the cool adventures you could have had.

And the DM also wants to force the players to change. Specifically, to change their expectations of what a game looks like from a mechanical standpoint.

Try to offer better advice than "you're wrong and you're doomed". please?

[Gensh]

And the DM also wants to force the players to change. Specifically, to change their expectations of what a game looks like from a mechanical standpoint.

Try to offer better advice than "you're wrong and you're doomed". please?

Remember that the DM is also doing most of the work. While D&D is a cooperative game, the dungeon master remains the crutch upon which the entire game world (and by extension, the gaming group) rests. You don't want to play in that world? Tough. Again, unless a player in this sort of situation volunteers to take over that duty, then s/he must simply learn to deal with it. That's not to say that the DM should ignore what s/his players want, but the sheer sense of player entitlement that arises in these internet debates is astounding.


Yes, it's rude. That player is just being a jerk. But I wouldn't say that a player that's making optimized characters should just play a video game. EVEN when he's only interested in killing stuff. D&D is mostly about killing stuff, in case you didn't remember.

D&D is to wargames as Halo is to RTS. The point is to focus on one particular character's story as an individual. While combat was originally intended to be a part of that story, it certainly doesn't have to be. That's why it's not a wargame; it's a roleplaying game. Play a role; don't play to roll.

[Antonok]

At this point is when I'd introduce the DM to puzzles and traps. Not all the time, mind, but having a few puzzles or a tricky trap set up that replaces one or 2 of the combat scenes can remedy this situation nicely.

Or another option is to set up tricky encounters. One session that I had as a DM had a couple decently high-op chars, so I went through the monsters that our group hasn't ever really encountered before or even seen (hello faerun!) and set up a boss fight that made them think. The boss in particular wasn't very strong, and only had 2 abilities: Spider Climb at will and a Reverse Gravity effect to his bite attack. Add in a 50ft room that only has illumination out to 30ft from the center while I know none of the party has darkvision or bothered to bring torches and it became a very interesting encounter.

The party managed to kill the boss in 3 hits, they just had to be smart about how they were to fight it. And yes, it was a CR appropriate encounter.

Point in case; there are ways to make high op groups still use thier brains and not completely nerf thier charecters, but the DM has to use his to find them. There are many options available to DMs then the standard 'kick in the door' style of play.

[Big Fau]

D&D is to wargames as Halo is to RTS.

Actually... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_Wars)


DnD originally was a war game, and still has an aspect of that left (DnD Minis took over that aspect).

[ImperatorK]

D&D is to wargames as Halo is to RTS. The point is to focus on one particular character's story as an individual. While combat was originally intended to be a part of that story, it certainly doesn't have to be. That's why it's not a wargame; it's a roleplaying game. Play a role; don't play to roll.
Wargames? :smallconfused: Does it have to be a wargame to deal with fights? No. It's an RPG, but still revolves mostly around combat. If you don't believe me then compare the number of combat rules to non-combat rules.
And to be clear - there's nothing wrong with people "playing to roll". It's a viable playing style as any other. So watch what you say.

[NNescio]

Actually... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_Wars)


DnD originally was a war game, and still has an aspect of that left (DnD Minis took over that aspect).

Or as OoTS puts it... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0644.html)

[Gensh]

Wargames? :smallconfused: Does it have to be a wargame to deal with fights? No. It's an RPG, but still revolves mostly around combat. If you don't believe me then compare the number of combat rules to non-combat rules.
And to be clear - there's nothing wrong with people "playing to roll". It's a viable playing style as any other. So watch what you say.

Certainly not. However, do you recall the original reason why the noncombat rules were exceedingly light? That's right! Gygax felt there was little need to have them because that was defeating the purpose of the game! What does making an Int check or a Cha check do for you that could possibly be more entertaining than actually figuring out a puzzle or interacting in place of your fictional character? That right there was the purpose of the game, and it wasn't until the late 90s that combat became a main focus. The point is that if you really are just playing to roll, why on Earth would you not just play a game where you don't even have to do that in order to get your kill on? If we're following the same arguments that class fluff is purely an abstraction, why would one care that the DM spent X amount of time planning an encounter against the orcs of Orcland when you could just play Dynasty Warriors and pretend you're fighting against the orcs of Orcland; you just have to refluff the visual input your eyes are receiving :smallannoyed:.

[NichG]

Yes, it's rude. That player is just being a jerk. But I wouldn't say that a player that's making optimized characters should just play a video game. EVEN when he's only interested in killing stuff. D&D is mostly about killing stuff, in case you didn't remember.

Different tables, different DMs, and D&D can be about different things. To you maybe its about killing stuff, and to him its about talking to people and doing things socially and when you guys turn into the traditional 'murderous hobos' he doesn't know what to do. It's worth considering.

Basically you have a few options: You can DM, you can adapt to him, you can find a new DM, or you can try to come to a compromise. The first options seems out, the second option has been suggested in the form of 'optimize differently' and I think you've taken that to heart somewhat, the third option may not be possible or may not be desirable. If you want to do the fourth option, you probably shouldn't go in with the mindset 'he is wrong and I will show him the error of his ways', since that is going to get in the way of your part of the compromising.

[ImperatorK]

Different tables, different DMs, and D&D can be about different things. To you maybe its about killing stuff, and to him its about talking to people and doing things socially and when you guys turn into the traditional 'murderous hobos' he doesn't know what to do. It's worth considering.
D&D is mostly about killing stuff. What you do in your games is another story.

[Big Fau]

What you do in your games is another story.

Pun not intended I assume.

[ImperatorK]

Pun not intended I assume.
Maybe. :smalltongue:

[NichG]

D&D is mostly about killing stuff. What you do in your games is another story.

So you're going to go to your friend the DM and say 'You're doing D&D wrong, do it my way or else'?

That reaction you had when someone said 'Don't roll play, role play; if you roll play you might as well be playing a computer game'? Your DM is going to have that reaction when you say 'If you're running a game that isn't about killing things you're doing D&D wrong'. And thats just going to make him not want to change anything.

[ImperatorK]

So you're going to go to your friend the DM and say 'You're doing D&D wrong, do it my way or else'?

That reaction you had when someone said 'Don't roll play, role play; if you roll play you might as well be playing a computer game'? Your DM is going to have that reaction when you say 'If you're running a game that isn't about killing things you're doing D&D wrong'. And thats just going to make him not want to change anything.
What are you blabbering about? :smallconfused: I only stated a fact about the game (look at all the combat options in comparison to non-combat ones) and not how you should play the game. :smallannoyed:
How you play the game depends only on your and your groups preferences.

[NichG]

What are you blabbering about? :smallconfused: I only stated a fact about the game (look at all the combat options in comparison to non-combat ones) and not how you should play the game. :smallannoyed:
How you play the game depends only on your and your groups preferences.

Fair enough, I misread you then.

[crazyhedgewizrd]

(look at all the combat options in comparison to non-combat ones) .

thats because social encounters are suppose to be acted out, were DC checks are not need that much.

[Dream_Merchant]

thats because social encounters are suppose to be acted out, were DC checks are not need that much.

To further that with a hypothetical example. Say there was a social encounter skill called Puzzle Solving (Int), which one could buy ranks in.

DM: <thoroughly thought and described puzzle situation>. "OK guys, roll DC 17 Puzzle Solving checks".
Player1 (rolling 12): "Darn, Gorgosh doesn't know how to solve the puzzle and rubs his head."
Player2 (rolling 18): "Aha, Disbo the Archivist has solved the puzzle!"
DM: "OK, so you turn this knob like that, pull that lever up and just as you hear a crank, push that indented stone on the left side and you see the door opening".

DM's time investment: 2 hours of thinking and researching for the puzzle + 15 minutes storytelling
All player's total time investment: 4x (10 seconds rolling a dice + 20 seconds 'role-playing' the obvious) = 2 minutes

Net time investment disparity = 2 hour 13 minutes.

[Quietus]

Except there are a lot of people out there with different opinions as to what "Mid-Op" means. For me, that means everyone's builds are ultimately Tier 3/Tier 4 after applying PrCs and feats, which I have to adjudicate manually.

Which is where the second part of that comes in. "...and nothing so powerful as to trivialize any encounter that isn't immune to you" spells out exactly what I meant by mid-op. If you read that and see "Rocket tag is totally okay guys, if you lose initiative you're gonna die!", then I'm afraid that our opinions are so vastly disparate that we simply can't come to anything resembling an agreement.


Yes, it's rude. That player is just being a jerk. But I wouldn't say that a player that's making optimized characters should just play a video game. EVEN when he's only interested in killing stuff. D&D is mostly about killing stuff, in case you didn't remember.

D&D can be mostly about killing stuff. It doesn't have to be. I'm running a game about exploration with a healthy side of social conflict, in my current game. Combat exists, because that appears to be what the players want, and they tend to initiate it nine times out of ten. A different group of players could easily sneak around the angry animals guarding their territory, and would have had one fight - ONE - in the entirety of the first "dungeon". And would have been rewarded exactly the same.

Now, what I'm saying isn't that optimizers should just play video games. Among my longstanding group, I'm by far the strongest optimizer, and possess the greatest system mastery. With my current group, we're all roughly equal. And frankly, I prefer optimization, when it leads to diversity. So it would be hypocritical of me to say "optimizers should go play WOW, lul". What I am saying is that when that is taken to the extreme - a player whose optimization level is so far out of line with what the DM has specifically asked for - then that player has done the tabletop equivalent of turning on god mode, when the DM has asked for no cheat codes to be used. And if a player insists on going to THAT extreme, then yes, I think they would have more fun playing their video game of choice, rather than splattering combats so far beneath them they barely have to bother rolling.

[Anderlith]

First off if you want to play optimized you're playing monty hall & not for competitive fun. I'd say either to start using terrain & walls & palisades or knock you all down to lower levels.

[ImperatorK]

@ Quietus
Depends what build. An Ubercharger, for xample, is quite easy to shot down.

[NichG]

@ Quietus
Depends what build. An Ubercharger, for xample, is quite easy to shot down.

I think it would be interesting (on both ends) to take a canonical set of named builds: Batman, Ubercharger, Mailman, Bearbarian, CoDzilla, etc (yes I know they're not all equal and overlap significantly). Then for each published monster, make a list of whether it can be used against said build at roughly equal level without being trivial. For those who want to actually run for such a party, it'd be a useful tool.

However I think it would also help make a point: Generally the issue with such builds is, every one of them you have in the party will probably trivialize about 50% of the monster manuals. And if you have several of them, the 50% they trivialize doesn't entirely overlap, so you're quickly down to 'well I could use a Balor or a Dragon, but anything else is pointless'.

[Quietus]

@ Quietus
Depends what build. An Ubercharger, for xample, is quite easy to shot down.

I'm... not sure what you're referring to. The only thing I can relate that to is my comment about rocket tag, in which case that's exactly what I meant. If I ask for a player not to trivialize encounters, and they bring an ubercharger to the table, I have limited options for encounters.

1) Normal encounter, where charging is an option. Ubercharger murderates everything.
2) Encounter where Ubercharger can't charge. Ubercharger might as well go watch TV.
3) Same as #2, except I provide pointless exp-less mooks for the Ubercharger to paste, just so he feels like he's doing something.

This is what I mean by a binary character. He's like a light switch - either he's on, and the encounter is trivialized. I can't send a dragon at the party unless the charger is ground-bound, because the charger will destroy it in one round. If the charger IS ground-bound, I can't send a dragon at the party because the charger will have to sit out for that combat. And this is bad character design. If I've asked for players not to produce something like this, and they do anyway, then that's a player placing himself above everyone else in the party, which makes him a bad player.