Shock Trooper/Leap Attack/Pounce?

[Fiery Diamond]

How would you rule it?

If a character has the Shock Trooper/Leap Attack combo and also has the ability to full attack on a charge, would you allow the combo to work on only the first attack or on all attacks?

[Silva Stormrage]

It works on all attacks by RAW and RAI. I wasn't aware there was any debate about this.

[Ardantis]

I'm actually making a 6th level fighter/barbarian character like this right now, although he doesn't have Shock Trooper (yet.)

I know it looks like it could be overpowered, but I'd give it to him. It makes the fighter (or barbarian) do what he does best- and even though it's a great boss-killer, it's not gonna help much against a bunch of clustered mooks.

And yes, by RAW, it is legit. I'm even throwing in the barbarian alternate class feature Whirling Frenzy to give him another swing at his full BAB. With Karmic Strike and Combat Reflexes thrown in the mix, the character is a killing machine, and rightfully so.

Oh, and I'm also giving him Trophy Collector, so this is not a completely optimized game. It's just a solid combo for a warrior, giving him a nice boost against the big bads.

[herrhauptmann]

it's not gonna help much against a bunch of clustered mooks.

I dunno, BAB 6, with whirling frenzy and shocktrooper (he'll have it soon I assume). That's three attacks. At least two of those will hit, and kill a mook. And he's got cleave. So that's 3 mooks down at a minimum. (only 1 cleave per round without great cleave)
Just hand him a reach weapon, even the ridiculous spiked chain.
'Charge' a man in the second rank, kill him. Then use your second attack on the mook directly in front of you. You've now got enough room to charge the man in the third rank on your next turn. (If he's foolish enough to charge you on HIS turn, you'll AOO him into hamburger, since you've still got your PA bonuses.)
For your third attack from the whirling frenzy? Who will you kill?
Use your AOO at the right time, and get yourself even further into the mass of mooks with that 5ft step.

Now you just need Combat Reflexes, and 2 low leveled items (bracers of opportunity and steadfast boots), and you'll destroy a horde of mooks on your first turn.

Just a bad mook killer in comparison to an identical character with great cleave.


Fiery:
As stated, the power attack bonuses and AC penalties work on your entire turn. They also continue to work until the start of your next turn. So anybody foolish enough to provoke an AOO will also die.

[LordBlades]

Uberchargers are nice but they're one trick ponies.

Everything you can charge and land a hit on probably dies, but these two conditions won't always be achieved.

In many battles you won't be able to charge your intended target for various reasons: difficult terrain, target is out of reach (in a hard to reach position, flying, too far away etc), a mook is in the way (mook will certainly die if you charge him, but a 1000 damage hit that drops a 50 HP mook is for all intents and purposes equal to a 51 damage hit).

Landing a hit is also troublesome in some cases. Many enemies especially casters can either get miss chances (displacement, blink, mirror image etc) or ACs so high that your chance to hit them will be very low.

[TroubleBrewing]

*stuff*

Wait, why does he have Cleave? That's a trash feat. Unless he's using it for entry into some PrC? :smallconfused:

[Amphetryon]

Wait, why does he have Cleave? That's a trash feat. Unless he's using it for entry into some PrC? :smallconfused:

Given the amount of damage he's likely to dish out in the first attack, the ability to get some damage on some poor shlub who happens to be too close to Carnage Central is generally worthwhile. Damage is pretty much all this type of character does, after all, so he might as well do it against multiple foes per round. Add a debuff effect to the weapon and enjoy.

Great Cleave, OTOH, is garbage even on this concept.

[Quietus]

It works on all attacks by RAW and RAI. I wasn't aware there was any debate about this.

Please be careful about slinging around "RAI". It's a good way to start a debate about how you can guess at what the designers actually intended - I, for example, would argue that they DIDN'T intend for Pounce to be combined with charge multipliers for massive damage.

[Amphetryon]

Please be careful about slinging around "RAI". It's a good way to start a debate about how you can guess at what the designers actually intended - I, for example, would argue that they DIDN'T intend for Pounce to be combined with charge multipliers for massive damage.

Out of curiosity, do you have a quote on which to base that argument against Pounce + charge multipliers?

[Person_Man]

It works on all attacks by RAW and RAI. I wasn't aware there was any debate about this.

This is my personal understanding as well.

I know that it tends to scare some DMs that players could crank out 100+ points of damage per round at level 6. But in my experience it's really not that big of a deal. You just need to add a few more monsters, and maybe help some of your low optimization players out a little.

[Ardantis]

Herrhauptmann-

I think my statements stand with regards to the basic question regarding leap attack and pounce. Trip and spiked chain builds are no doubt effective against groups, and happen to synergize with a charge, particularly with shock trooper, but they are by and large a separate matter to the one at hand.

Lordblades and Person Man are right- while the abilities are cool, they are situational enough to not be overpowered. Plus they make the character and the combat more interesting.

[ShriekingDrake]

This is my personal understanding as well.

I know that it tends to scare some DMs that players could crank out 100+ points of damage per round at level 6. But in my experience it's really not that big of a deal. You just need to add a few more monsters, and maybe help some of your low optimization players out a little.

I concur with this. It's really up to the DM to adjust the campaign to make the game challenging and fun for all players. Omnipotence is not to be underestimated in the DM. I'm not saying that DM should seek to TPK, by any means. But the DM can re-jigger the encounters to make them challenging for the players, even if one of them is thwacking out the damage.

[Person_Man]

I concur with this. It's really up to the DM to adjust the campaign to make the game challenging and fun for all players. Omnipotence is not to be underestimated in the DM. I'm not saying that DM should seek to TPK, by any means. But the DM can re-jigger the encounters to make them challenging for the players, even if one of them is thwacking out the damage.

Handy bit of advice on how to balance encounters - many players tend to be remarkably short sided about their target selection. They tend to focus on whoever is attacking them or whoever best fits their combo (for example, a Dragonfire Adept will usually try to target as many enemies as possible with their breath weapon every round), instead of attacking the most powerful enemy (the real threat) first.

For example, if a player is surrounded by mooks, he will often spend a round or two fighting off the mooks instead of using Tumble or magic or items to move strait up to the caster or whoever the real threat is to take him out. Or if you have nothing but a dozen mooks and only one of them is holding a bag filled with dust of sneezing and choking, they won't bother to ask who is armed with what unless the DM gives out clues (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLawOfConservationOfDetail).

As DM, you control what enemies your players will fight, and who they will attack once the encounter starts. So if you know that Sir Charge-a-lot is going to deal massive damage, and your other players are a Monk, Healer, Ninja, and a Truenamer, then have your enemies focus on Sir Charge-a-lot, and make the enemies he fights more difficult.

[Quietus]

Out of curiosity, do you have a quote on which to base that argument against Pounce + charge multipliers?

I do not. Nor am I aware of any quotes to the opposite. My argument is based on the fact that allowing these to be combined tends to result in a very binary character who does just one thing - charge - and you have to design encounters specifically to either allow it and have that player destroy whatever they point at, or turn that character's trick "off" for that combat. Neither of which is fun.

I have no actual desire to argue what is and isn't RAI. I just have personal rules when it comes to judging whether a build is reasonable, and among those are, "Will this character be able to contribute in more than just one way?", and "If I turn off his main trick, does he have something he can fall back on?" If the answer to both of those is no, then I ask the player to broaden his character somewhat.

[mootoall]

Not only does it work on each attack in his full attack routine, it works on all of his AoOs for that round too. Makes Whirling Frenzy all the better, for the +Dex for the purposes of Combat Reflexes.

[Jude_H]

I have no actual desire to argue what is and isn't RAI. I just have personal rules when it comes to judging whether a build is reasonable, and among those are, "Will this character be able to contribute in more than just one way?", and "If I turn off his main trick, does he have something he can fall back on?" If the answer to both of those is no, then I ask the player to broaden his character somewhat.
This confuses me.

Even when a charge build is 'off,' it's a power attacker with a developed combat maneuver - fairly typical for a melee build. It might contribute less than it does in its standard insta-kill routine, but it's not going to have any less to fall back on than most Paladins, Barbarians, etc.

I can understand reining characters in to keep the power level low, but this claim of 'binary' characters seems largely insubstantial.

[Ardantis]

Once again, Person Man, you have hit the nail on the head. The DM is now responsible to "roll with" the build, assuming he allowed it in the first place.

Quietus, I am also against binary builds in serious combat RP, although I generally find that is more a result of player RP style and tactics than the mechanics of the class or abilities. I remember a particular Leap Attacking barbarian I made who just asked the party Beguiler "Is he guilty?" and then based on that response, Leap Attacked or not. Luckily, the game was fairly comedic, but the DM was unhappy with how my character "broke" his initial encounters. However, he was able to roll with it, serving up a flying sorcerer for the final fight that I had a hard time with. I actually had to knock down the circus tent we were in to get him to come down to earth.

I think the tone of the game contributes a lot to this- the current fighter/barbarian I am building is a take on the pre-gen character "Darkblade" from the old 2nd edition module "Eye of the Wyvern" which my group played in high school. He will most certainly play as more of a one-trick pony, but mostly because he's spoofing an absurd character trope from older RPGs. His class mechanics certainly allow for more serious, nuanced RPing and tactics (especially with the Barbarian dip to get Pounce and Whirling Frenzy, and his other class abilities) but the tone of the game wants him to be a merciless killing machine who takes the body parts of his enemies and makes magic items out of them.

I think we'll have a good time with it, assuming the DM is cool with this combo.

[ShriekingDrake]

Handy bit of advice on how to balance encounters - many players tend to be remarkably short sided about their target selection. They tend to focus on whoever is attacking them or whoever best fits their combo (for example, a Dragonfire Adept will usually try to target as many enemies as possible with their breath weapon every round), instead of attacking the most powerful enemy (the real threat) first.

For example, if a player is surrounded by mooks, he will often spend a round or two fighting off the mooks instead of using Tumble or magic or items to move strait up to the caster or whoever the real threat is to take him out. Or if you have nothing but a dozen mooks and only one of them is holding a bag filled with dust of sneezing and choking, they won't bother to ask who is armed with what unless the DM gives out clues (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLawOfConservationOfDetail).

As DM, you control what enemies your players will fight, and who they will attack once the encounter starts. So if you know that Sir Charge-a-lot is going to deal massive damage, and your other players are a Monk, Healer, Ninja, and a Truenamer, then have your enemies focus on Sir Charge-a-lot, and make the enemies he fights more difficult.

Precisely. This is exactly what I strive for when I DM. I want the gaming experience to be one my players relish. They want to have interesting encounters; they even want to learn from their encounters. Even though I've painstakingly made notes for myself on each room, if there is an opportunity to deviate from my plan to make play better, I almost always take it. That's not to say you should have to make up the whole thing as you go along. Having a clear, solid foundation from which to deviate is what will make the deviations more effective.

[Quietus]

This confuses me.

Even when a charge build is 'off,' it's a power attacker with a developed combat maneuver - fairly typical for a melee build. It might contribute less than it does in its standard insta-kill routine, but it's not going to have any less to fall back on than most Paladins, Barbarians, etc.

I can understand reining characters in to keep the power level low, but this claim of 'binary' characters seems largely insubstantial.

The problem with this is that most recommended way of turning a charger build "off" is usually "Send flying opponents at him". Which leads you to one of two things : The charger stands around with his thumb up his nose, either uselessly firing a bow he's only strictly proficient with or doing nothing at all, or the barbarian is flying as well and you can't really do anything. In fact, any long-term flying solution for the barbarian makes it so that the only way you can do ANYTHING to stop him is .. to put him in a forest. And explain that no, the opponents have cover. Yes, even then.

At any rate, this argument is shifting away from my original position - that of "If the characters are too strong, the DM should be able to ask them to tone it down". So with that in mind, I'm likely to withdraw from this thread. Arguing about how to prevent a charger from charging just doesn't interest me.

[Grendus]

Odd. My favorite way to turn off a charger is reach weapons and obstructions. Let him have his trick, if he's willing to eat the AoO's and can get into position. Late game the barbarian would be useless anyways. Even a commoner can be proficient with the Longspear.

It is a bit of a binary build, but so is a tripper or frenzied berserker. He's still a barbarian, even when he can't get a charge off. It's not like he's a monk or something.

[Ardantis]

Oooh, reach weapons and obstructions. Way to go on forcing the fighter/barb to think about HOW he charges, rather than banning his build.

And, I've said this before and I'll say it again, throwing in a number of "gimmicks" into a fighter build (the only class with the feats to support it) results in a character with options, not a one-trick pony. Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, Spiked Chain, Tripping, Robilar's, and Karmic Strike can all be taken by the time you get to Robilar's at lvl 12? or so.

I've decided that I like fighters, and don't think that an optimized fighter with the best feats is a gimmick, unfair, or on the other side, particularly underpowered (although dungeoncrasher is nice, and bumps you a Tier.)

[Draz74]

Please be careful about slinging around "RAI". It's a good way to start a debate about how you can guess at what the designers actually intended - I, for example, would argue that they DIDN'T intend for Pounce to be combined with charge multipliers for massive damage.

Agreed. And if I ever DM an Ubercharger, I'll quite happily nerf him with a houserule to match this. (I'm happy to houserule melee having other cool things, but Shock Trooper is just too game-skewing ... and Pounce makes it ridiculous.)

[Philistine]

Please be careful about slinging around "RAI". It's a good way to start a debate about how you can guess at what the designers actually intended - I, for example, would argue that they DIDN'T intend for Pounce to be combined with charge multipliers for massive damage.
And yet, CChamp - which finally game melee easy access to Pounce - was published three years after CAdv and CWar gave us Leap Attack and Shock Trooper, respectively. Meaning, LA+ST was a well-known combination by the time Spirit Lion Barbarian was written. So if it wasn't intended to be used with those feats, WTH was the intent?


Agreed. And if I ever DM an Ubercharger, I'll quite happily nerf him with a houserule to match this. (I'm happy to houserule melee having other cool things, but Shock Trooper is just too game-skewing ... and Pounce makes it ridiculous.)
What? It's a situational ability: when the situation allows a charge, you can tank your defense in favor of more offense. It's trivially easy to create situations where it just flat won't work, and only slightly more complicated to create situations where it will work but is difficult and/or dangerous for the Charger (opponents with Reach weapons and AoOs are good, or groups of ranged mooks work too). The only time it's potentially "game-breaking" is when a lazy DM has put all his eggs into one Villain basket, counting on a single high-HP melee monster to challenge the party.

[Quietus]

Agreed. And if I ever DM an Ubercharger, I'll quite happily nerf him with a houserule to match this. (I'm happy to houserule melee having other cool things, but Shock Trooper is just too game-skewing ... and Pounce makes it ridiculous.)

Oh, I don't really need such silly things as houserules. See, I prefer to just go "Hey guys, if you can kill a dragon above your CR in one round, reliably? You're too strong, please tone it back." It's called DM/Player trust.


And yet, CChamp - which finally game melee easy access to Pounce - was published three years after CAdv and CWar gave us Leap Attack and Shock Trooper, respectively. Meaning, LA+ST was a well-known combination by the time Spirit Lion Barbarian was written. So if it wasn't intended to be used with those feats, WTH was the intent?

You're assuming that the designers actually paid attention to optimization boards, at all. Considering they appear to have barely bothered to playtest things, I sincerely doubt that's the case, and thus it's entirely possible the person who wrote Spirit Lion Barbarian didn't know about that combination, and instead went "Hmm, what kinds of animals would make good totems... oh yeah, lions! What abilities do lions get that would be neat.. ah, pounce!"

I don't have any sources to back that latter part up, but I do think that it's safe to assume that it was never intended to combine options such that a CR 24 dragon could be reliably brought down by mid-levels.



What? It's a situational ability: when the situation allows a charge, you can tank your defense in favor of more offense. It's trivially easy to create situations where it just flat won't work, and only slightly more complicated to create situations where it will work but is difficult and/or dangerous for the Charger (opponents with Reach weapons and AoOs are good, or groups of ranged mooks work too). The only time it's potentially "game-breaking" is when a lazy DM has put all his eggs into one Villain basket, counting on a single high-HP melee monster to challenge the party.

The single high-HP melee monster is a trope, though. It's a standard of the fantasy setting, even if not used every time, that sometimes the heroes run into something big and nasty, everyone else runs, and it's only those few batcrap crazy guys who kill things for a living that are capable of standing up to it. Over-optimized charger builds disallow me from providing my party that experience, because that fight is just a minor speedbump to them.

[Ardantis]

Oh, I don't really need such silly things as houserules. See, I prefer to just go "Hey guys, if you can kill a dragon above your CR in one round, reliably? You're too strong, please tone it back." It's called DM/Player trust.

Yeah, but the system allows it, and the fighter is the damage-dealer to boot. Build a boss with multiple levels, video game style. DM/Player trust also extends to the DM rolling with the party's abilities.

Now, if beforehand, you had ruled out certain feats and/or abilities due to prior experience, then it's your game and their builds must work with that. But "tone it down" seems heavy handed to me, as if you don't trust your players.


I don't have any sources to back that latter part up, but I do think that it's safe to assume that it was never intended to combine options such that a CR 24 dragon could be reliably brought down by mid-levels.

As before, if you believe that, it is well within your rights as DM to say "these feats/combinations are not allowed in my game." But to, after the fact, screw with a player's build because you reacted with alarm to a possible combination, then you haven't yet seen what it does in your games.


The single high-HP melee monster is a trope, though. It's a standard of the fantasy setting, even if not used every time, that sometimes the heroes run into something big and nasty, everyone else runs, and it's only those few batcrap crazy guys who kill things for a living that are capable of standing up to it. Over-optimized charger builds disallow me from providing my party that experience, because that fight is just a minor speedbump to them.

I agree, it is a trope, and a fun one at that. A trope that your fighter overturned, to potentially comic effect. Roll with it, then disallow the combo next game, should it really bother you that much. Or, build the next encounter better. A few ranged or reach mooks up front does not decrease the grandeur of the dragon in the back rank- rather, it give him time/inclination to prepare for the fight, or monologue if necessary.

[Flickerdart]

Not only does it work on each attack in his full attack routine, it works on all of his AoOs for that round too. Makes Whirling Frenzy all the better, for the +Dex for the purposes of Combat Reflexes.
Whirling Frenzy does not and has never provided a Dexterity bonus.

[Philistine]

You're assuming that the designers actually paid attention to optimization boards, at all. Considering they appear to have barely bothered to playtest things, I sincerely doubt that's the case, and thus it's entirely possible the person who wrote Spirit Lion Barbarian didn't know about that combination, and instead went "Hmm, what kinds of animals would make good totems... oh yeah, lions! What abilities do lions get that would be neat.. ah, pounce!"

I don't have any sources to back that latter part up, but I do think that it's safe to assume that it was never intended to combine options such that a CR 24 dragon could be reliably brought down by mid-levels.
I, OTOH, think it would be much more surprising if the designers working on supplements for the system weren't aware of the things being discussed on the CharOp boards over the course of 3+ years - especially given that WotC itself hosted a forum specifically devoted to that very subject. Another issue is the very existence of ToB; if you believe the designers were wholly ignorant of CharOp discussions, as you appear to be claiming, then the accuracy with which ToB addressed the deficiencies of melee as enumerated in those discussions is truly remarkable.

I invite you to consider an alternate explanation for Spirit Lion Pounce: By 2007, WotC's designers were well aware that lack of mobility was one of melee's bigger failings. (Note that ToB was published the year before CChamp.) Unfortunately, books aren't like cars - you can't just issue a recall on a book and have everyone bring their copies back to the dealership to have the defective parts replaced. The next best thing is to publish it in a supplement, as an additional option for existing classes. It's not perfect - not least because there will always be people who claim that melee isn't supposed to be effective, according to their super-secret Unexplained Insight into What the Developers Really Intended - but it's better than nothing.


The single high-HP melee monster is a trope, though. It's a standard of the fantasy setting, even if not used every time, that sometimes the heroes run into something big and nasty, everyone else runs, and it's only those few batcrap crazy guys who kill things for a living that are capable of standing up to it. Over-optimized charger builds disallow me from providing my party that experience, because that fight is just a minor speedbump to them.
It's a trope, yes, but it's one that's not especially well-supported by game mechanics even without "overly"-optimized melee hitting for truckloads of damage (or arcanists rendering the opponent helpless with a single standard action, for that matter). Action economy is stacked heavily against the solitary creature, typically favoring the party by 4:1 or worse for a lone opponent; if you want a given encounter to be more than a minor speedbump, merely stacking more HP on a single "super" monster is a terrible way to go about it.

[Quietus]

Yeah, but the system allows it, and the fighter is the damage-dealer to boot. Build a boss with multiple levels, video game style. DM/Player trust also extends to the DM rolling with the party's abilities.

Now, if beforehand, you had ruled out certain feats and/or abilities due to prior experience, then it's your game and their builds must work with that. But "tone it down" seems heavy handed to me, as if you don't trust your players.

"The system allows it, why can't I do this" is the kind of Player-centric thinking that makes it difficult to represent DMs on these boards. I ask for characters within a certain range of ability, then I review the characters to make sure I'm not surprised by their abilities, and to make sure players get a chance to use what they have.

If they have a combo that allows them to totally shut down an encounter, I talk to them about it. I did this with Flickerdart in our real-life game; He provided a fear-based build that would, essentially, shut down everything not immune to fear, either with one or two standard actions depending how we read the wording. I spoke with him, made it clear that his build was binary and would essentially wipe everything he came across except things built to shut him down specifically, congratulated him on his ingenuity, and asked him to pull it back a little. He instead chose to build a war weaver, which I had trepidations about, but allowed because it wasn't likely to so categorically shut down every encounter. I think it was handled well on both sides, and accurately represents what I'm talking about here. His first build couldn't NOT win encounters just by using his normal combat schtick, and while his new one has caused me all kinds of trouble, it's been more fun for everyone involved, because the DM and player worked together toward that end.

[0nimaru]

I think melee being able to pounce is a fine thing, although it happening at level 1 feels early.

As for the Spirit Lion Totem, it is the only Totem mentioned for a reason. All of the others are miserable compared to it, and nobody ever cares for the additional abilities the totems grant later on. It was a power that was either amazingly underestimated, or they wrote the rest of that page as elaborate camouflage to reward players for finding the "Lion-Pounce" entry. I'd error on the side of the author being excited about lion-like abilities, as mentioned earlier in the thread.

[Quietus]

I think melee being able to pounce is a fine thing, although it happening at level 1 feels early.

As for the Spirit Lion Totem, it is the only Totem mentioned for a reason. All of the others are miserable compared to it, and nobody ever cares for the additional abilities the totems grant later on. It was a power that was either amazingly underestimated, or they wrote the rest of that page as elaborate camouflage to reward players for finding the "Lion-Pounce" entry. I'd error on the side of the author being excited about lion-like abilities, as mentioned earlier in the thread.

Pounce, on its own? No problem.

Charging with a multiplier or two? No problem.

Pounce with a half-dozen multipliers and five attacks? Problem.

[Saintheart]

And yet, CChamp - which finally game melee easy access to Pounce - was published three years after CAdv and CWar gave us Leap Attack and Shock Trooper, respectively. Meaning, LA+ST was a well-known combination by the time Spirit Lion Barbarian was written. So if it wasn't intended to be used with those feats, WTH was the intent?

Based on an interview that someone here turned up with one of the designers of the system (link, anyone?) it is as arguable as not (YMMV) that there was no intent one way or the other. Some of it they playtested. Some they didn't. And some, it is implied, was specifically designed to screw people who didn't have encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules. Personally, I'm pretty dark on the content of that interview, because it's comprised of 50% smug admission of screwing beginner players into poor feat choices via ignorance and 50% painting the target on after the arrow has already struck to suggest that everything, everything broken about 3.5 was ... aaalll ... part of the plaaaan... :smallfurious:

[Talya]

Pounce, on its own? No problem.

Charging with a multiplier or two? No problem.

Pounce with a half-dozen multipliers and five attacks? Problem.

And yet...you'd still be better off with a druid in the party.

[Ardantis]

Quietus~

First I'd like to thank you for one of the most invigorating post discussions I've had in a while.

Second, I liked your example of the fear-bombing player- it sounds like that situation was resolved well, and yes, one-shot builds whose only calumny is a particular status immunity that monsters either have or don't is certainly something to be worked through between player and DM (even to the point of building a new character, as in your case.)

However, the weaknesses in an encounter which Ubercharging takes advantage may be evidence of poor design on the DMs part. A single big bad is just as weak to casters lobbing save-or-die spells as it is to a fighter or barbarian getting a few good whacks in from an advantageous combat maneuver. The "action economy" is the issue here, and it can be resolved simply by ensuring that the team is facing a threat that is congruent to their abilities.

I'm not saying that the DM is to blame- just that CR is not the only indicator of creature or encounter strength. Just as you would throw a flier at an all-melee party, a boss-killer party is challenged by a fight with lots of enemies, where they need to make difficult choices about where to apply their extremely strong abilities.

[Quietus]

Quietus~

First I'd like to thank you for one of the most invigorating post discussions I've had in a while.

Second, I liked your example of the fear-bombing player- it sounds like that situation was resolved well, and yes, one-shot builds whose only calumny is a particular status immunity that monsters either have or don't is certainly something to be worked through between player and DM (even to the point of building a new character, as in your case.)

However, the weaknesses in an encounter which Ubercharging takes advantage may be evidence of poor design on the DMs part. A single big bad is just as weak to casters lobbing save-or-die spells as it is to a fighter or barbarian getting a few good whacks in from an advantageous combat maneuver. The "action economy" is the issue here, and it can be resolved simply by ensuring that the team is facing a threat that is congruent to their abilities.

I'm not saying that the DM is to blame- just that CR is not the only indicator of creature or encounter strength. Just as you would throw a flier at an all-melee party, a boss-killer party is challenged by a fight with lots of enemies, where they need to make difficult choices about where to apply their extremely strong abilities.

Yes, and much of this is part of poor design decisions over the course of 3.5. However, if we look at it from a tier perspective, the caster with the save or die effects is higher tier - they're going to have options other than "fort save or lose", so they won't be completely eliminated from the fight. Lessened, yes, but they can use secondary options and still take part.

My issue is with binary builds, not CR. Caster can't use their save or die? Okay, then they use buff spells, or spells which have an effect regardless of whether the target saves. The ubercharger limits me from using, say, a dragon BBEG, because I then have two possibilities. Either the charger can use his one schtick, and completely destroys the encounter, or he can't, and feels worthless. Look at it this way; if you came to my game with an ubercharger, and somehow ended up without the ability to fly, how would you feel if I had the dragon flying - oh, but I included a few minion-mooks on the ground for you to paste. You don't get to take part in the fight against the foe we've spent 3+ months building towards, because I've somehow negated your schtick - it has Elusive Target and cancels your damage, or its AC is too high for you to hit, or it's immune to HP damage, or it's flying and you aren't. Is this something you would find fun as a player?

This is the DM's job, in my opinion. To make sure everyone has fun. There should be times some characters shine. There should be times when some characters are frustrated but pull through by sheer tenacity. But those climactic fights? They should be times everyone has fun. And as a DM, those binary builds make it very difficult, if not impossible, for me to do that without making those fights either a cakewalk or a complete frustration. So I rely on my players to help me with that, by asking them not to go beyond a certain bound, while also making concessions to their fun and making sure that they have something to fall back on when their primary schtick won't work. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to expect, from both sides of the table.

[Urpriest]

I think melee being able to pounce is a fine thing, although it happening at level 1 feels early.

As for the Spirit Lion Totem, it is the only Totem mentioned for a reason. All of the others are miserable compared to it, and nobody ever cares for the additional abilities the totems grant later on. It was a power that was either amazingly underestimated, or they wrote the rest of that page as elaborate camouflage to reward players for finding the "Lion-Pounce" entry. I'd error on the side of the author being excited about lion-like abilities, as mentioned earlier in the thread.

Bear gets mentioned a lot. It's one of the easiest ways to get Improved Grab with general weapons.

[0nimaru]

I think with DM imagination it's hard to run into binary fights.

For your big end dragon..sure ... have a flying dragon. Also have a dragon on the ground. Two dragon mates, possibly some metallic kind with high DR/AC that can stand up to your charger, but for some reason (SR, reflects rays, etc) is a poor target for your back lane blasters. Then everybody else has to focus on the sky-swimmer who has less SR/AC, but a breath weapon and more HP.

[Quietus]

I think with DM imagination it's hard to run into binary fights.

For your big end dragon..sure ... have a flying dragon. Also have a dragon on the ground. Two dragon mates, possibly some metallic kind with high DR/AC that can stand up to your charger, but for some reason (SR, reflects rays, etc) is a poor target for your back lane blasters. Then everybody else has to focus on the sky-swimmer who has less SR/AC, but a breath weapon and more HP.

In which case I need to do double the work, just on this one encounter (never mind every other encounter over the last few months), to create reasonable challenges. Then find a reason why one dragon would fight tooth and claw with a designated melee fighter, while protecting themselves from spellcasters, and making it so the charger doesn't just explode it in one shot - no easy feat.

OR, I can go "Hey Joe, I think the capability for seven thousand damage on a charge is a bit much. Can you tone it down a little?"

Why is the latter so unreasonable?

[ImperatorK]

In which case I need to do double the work, just on this one encounter, to create reasonable challenges.
Challenging encounters with no work at DMs side? That's crazy. :smalltongue:
what I see is that you make your players hard work invested into creating the character go to waste because you don't want to have more work. It's not what DMing is about, IMO.

[Flickerdart]

Why would there be a dragon on the ground, though, especially since its buddy is already flying? Having to constantly make up excuses ("it's protecting the eggs, it has a broken wing, it's too fat") will work for a while, but you might come to a point where turning your campaign into Noah's Ark is impossible - for example, facing off against any unique creature.

[Quietus]

Challenging encounters with no work at DMs side? That's crazy. :smalltongue:
what I see is that you make your players hard work invested into creating the character go to waste because you don't want to have more work. It's not what DMing is about, IMO.

Did I say I wanted NO work? No. But to make a creature impervious to spellcasters, AND difficult for an ubercharger to take out, is an exceptional amount of optimization. I'm willing to work to make sure everyone has fun, that's part of what being a DM involves. I'm NOT willing to make it a full time volunteer job just because Billy McBadass can't hold back on his copied-off-the-internet builds.


Why would there be a dragon on the ground, though, especially since its buddy is already flying? Having to constantly make up excuses ("it's protecting the eggs, it has a broken wing, it's too fat") will work for a while, but you might come to a point where turning your campaign into Noah's Ark is impossible - for example, facing off against any unique creature.

Thank you, Flickerdart. Once or twice, sure, makes sense - but doing this every time shatters suspension of disbelief.

[ImperatorK]

I'm NOT willing to make it a full time volunteer job just because Billy McBadass can't hold back on his copied-off-the-internet builds.
You don't have internet?

[Quietus]

You don't have internet?

Obviously not. What's that got to do with anything?

[ImperatorK]

Obviously not. What's that got to do with anything?
Then I'm talking with a forum ghost? :smalleek:
Err... You mean that you have internet, right?
Well. If you have internet then you also can use it to copy-paste some cool builds for your games. I'm sure most of people here would be delighted to cook-up some for you.

[Flickerdart]

I think the point being made here is that downloading a TO build off the net does not make it a good idea to use said build.

[Quietus]

Then I'm talking with a forum ghost? :smalleek:
Err... You mean that you have internet, right?
Well. If you have internet then you also can use it to copy-paste some cool builds for your games. I'm sure most of people here would be delighted to cook-up some for you.

I'm talking to you, aren't I? I'm probably using the internet, then. And yeah, I could copy-paste builds for NPCs. But that's just amplifying the problem, and with such binary builds on both sides of the table. It becomes an arms race, and it's one where I'm the US and the players are .. some smaller country. Yes, we both have nukes. But I have a lot more of them. The players have to play perfectly, because one misstep costs them a TPK. And when I look at DMing as more storytelling than DM vs Players, that's a big problem, to me.

[LordBlades]

My issue is with binary builds, not CR. Caster can't use their save or die? Okay, then they use buff spells, or spells which have an effect regardless of whether the target saves. The ubercharger limits me from using, say, a dragon BBEG, because I then have two possibilities. Either the charger can use his one schtick, and completely destroys the encounter, or he can't, and feels worthless. Look at it this way; if you came to my game with an ubercharger, and somehow ended up without the ability to fly, how would you feel if I had the dragon flying - oh, but I included a few minion-mooks on the ground for you to paste. You don't get to take part in the fight against the foe we've spent 3+ months building towards, because I've somehow negated your schtick - it has Elusive Target and cancels your damage, or its AC is too high for you to hit, or it's immune to HP damage, or it's flying and you aren't. Is this something you would find fun as a player?


IMHO this should be the player's burden, not yours. Every time I've allowed a one-trick pony in my campaign I've warned the player beforehand out of game: 'Dude, your char can do one single thing. During the course of the campaign there will be encounters where your 'thing' will be rendered ineffective, either because some enemies are innately resistant to it, or they've simply found out about you and prepared accordingly. Are you sure you'll be ok with this?' If not I'd politely ask him to change the character to something more versatile.

[Quietus]

IMHO this should be the player's burden, not yours. Every time I've allowed a one-trick pony in my campaign I've warned the player beforehand out of game: 'Dude, your char can do one single thing. During the course of the campaign there will be encounters where your 'thing' will be rendered ineffective, either because some enemies are innately resistant to it, or they've simply found out about you and prepared accordingly. Are you sure you'll be ok with this?' If not I'd politely ask him to change the character to something more versatile.

It becomes my burden because I'm the DM, and therefore do need to answer the question of "will <player> find this fun?" every time I design an encounter. The answer doesn't have to always be yes, sometimes one player will be forced to step back and let another have the spotlight for a while, but there does need to be some gray area between "Yes this player is having fun" and "No, this player ought to go play Xbox for this encounter". And besides that, a binary build tends to wreck encounters when it's "on"; How is that fun for *me*? To design an interesting encounter, only to have it solved by "I charge. Attack rolls x y and z of 40+, 300 damage each." - I put effort into designing my encounters, and having them stomped like that is just painful. Why should one player's enjoyment overshadow mine?

[LordBlades]

It becomes my burden because I'm the DM, and therefore do need to answer the question of "will <player> find this fun?" every time I design an encounter. The answer doesn't have to always be yes, sometimes one player will be forced to step back and let another have the spotlight for a while, but there does need to be some gray area between "Yes this player is having fun" and "No, this player ought to go play Xbox for this encounter". And besides that, a binary build tends to wreck encounters when it's "on"; How is that fun for *me*? To design an interesting encounter, only to have it solved by "I charge. Attack rolls x y and z of 40+, 300 damage each." - I put effort into designing my encounters, and having them stomped like that is just painful. Why should one player's enjoyment overshadow mine?

Well, if you were upfront with the player that he might not have fun at all times with this build in your campaign and he agrees to play it anyway, I don't see why should you accommodate him further. If you were planning let's say an undead or construct heavy core only campaign and somebody wanted to play a TWF combat rogue despite knowing this, would you change the campaign to be full of creatures he can sneak attack because he wouldn't be having fun otherwise?

While I do agree that in a game of D&D everyone should have fun, I think you're a bit biased against uberchargers. Anything an ubercharger can instagib, a well played caster can instagib with equal ease (however there are a lot of stuff a caster can instagib and an ubercharger can't touch). Still, you seem to have no problem with optimized casters:




My issue is with binary builds, not CR. Caster can't use their save or die? Okay, then they use buff spells, or spells which have an effect regardless of whether the target saves.



How is somebody solving your encounter with "I charge. Attack rolls x y and z of 40+, 300 damage each." so different from solving it with"I just cast my no-save-just-die combo nr. 24." ?

[Quietus]

Well, if you were upfront with the player that he might not have fun at all times with this build in your campaign and he agrees to play it anyway, I don't see why should you accommodate him further. If you were planning let's say an undead or construct heavy core only campaign and somebody wanted to play a TWF combat rogue despite knowing this, would you change the campaign to be full of creatures he can sneak attack because he wouldn't be having fun otherwise?

I would try and ensure he could use his abilities, suggest that ACF that'd give him half his sneak attack against undead/constructs, and occassionally throw in a living mage controlling things. But yes, if I tell a player "Hey, that character will be pointless and you won't have fun" and they play it anyway, that's their problem, and I'll balance my encounters based on them not being there. I don't like to do it, but it's part of my preference to avoid saying no to a player. The only time I'd say no outright is when they bring me something that is so far outside the bounds of what I asked for that it causes problems for me that I can't solve easily - like pretending they aren't there, because their 1d6+1 damage per round before DR kicks in just isn't going to matter. And in that situation, that's exactly what I'd tell them. "Your rogue is going to have to fight skeletons, zombies, and iron golems. You'll be able to do 1-2 points of damage when you hit, if you roll well. I've got this planned out and can't change much of it while keeping it making sense. I don't think you'll enjoy this character in ths game, how about you save it for the next one and I'll make sure he gets a chance to be useful there." If he insisted, he'd still get story stuff, but his combat-specced character would be useless in combat.

Again, I've had to do something similar to this in my current campaign. One of the players is playing a Ranger with a hate-on for clerics. He wanted to take favored enemy (divine), in the same vein as (arcanist). I explained that for what I had planned, that would end up being a wasted feature, as I couldn't see much way to fit in more than a couple of things it'd apply against. He understood and didn't take it.


While I do agree that in a game of D&D everyone should have fun, I think you're a bit biased against uberchargers. Anything an ubercharger can instagib, a well played caster can instagib with equal ease (however there are a lot of stuff a caster can instagib and an ubercharger can't touch). Still, you seem to have no problem with optimized casters:

I'm using uberchargers as the example because that's what this thread is about. Note that earlier I did give an example of asking a player not to play a particular caster character, a fear-based bard that could pop enough fear effects off in one or two rounds to take anything to Panicked, DC 18 or 19 Will save. Most things I intended to use at the time were rocking a +4 will. Barring circumstances where I specifically shut down his one binary trick, every combat would have come down to most/all of the enemies ended up frightened or panicked, and fleeing, in the first round.

My issue is with binary builds in general, not any one specific one. They make it hard to plan encounters, and hard for me to make things fun for everyone.




How is somebody solving your encounter with "I charge. Attack rolls x y and z of 40+, 300 damage each." so different from solving it with"I just cast my no-save-just-die combo nr. 24." ?

It isn't, and both would get told that their builds, while commendably powerful, aren't appropriate for this game, and to please tone it down so everyone gets to play and have fun.

[Amphetryon]

Could you provide a clearer example of a build that, in your opinion, does not go binary, Quietus? Past a certain ECL, I've personally not found a lot of satisfying options toward that end within 3.5.

[Quietus]

Could you provide a clearer example of a build that, in your opinion, does not go binary, Quietus? Past a certain ECL, I've personally not found a lot of satisfying options toward that end within 3.5.

Sure. I suppose I've been using that term often enough to weaken what I meant by it, in all honesty - or rather, it doesn't carry all the meaning I want. I'm in a full arm cast right now, so I've been trying (failing) to keep my posts short and succinct =P

As an example, let's take Flickerdart's characters. First, he presented me with the fear bard. His entire character was built around that one trick, trading out most, if not all, of his class features to support it. If I nullified it in some way, that one trick he'd given almost everything up to use would be gone. This was a binary build in the sense of "Either it wins the encounter or I make the encounter immune", since it did have a bit of bardic spellcasting to back it up.

His new character is a War Weaver, with a touch of the batman effect on the side. He's got more than one main trick - he's got party buffing, which is always relevant. He's got the old standbys of glitterdust and web and such. And he's got divination spells which have been very useful to the group. At no point is his character completely useless, so long as he has spells.


You are correct, of course. 3.5 really does lend itself to binary characters, which grates at me, and is why I sought a group that has enough system mastery to get around that. And in truth I've been using "Binary" to describe two different things; The "My trick is so powerful that I win if I can use it", and the "I only have one trick ever". There is some overlap, of course, but I think I need to find a way to differentiate them. The thing to keep in mind when trying to avoid the one-trick-pony syndrome is that you need to give lower tiers a little more leeway. One of my players is playing an archery ranger with an ACF that trades out wild empathy for speak with animals 3/day. He would fall toward one tirkcpony-ism because it's nearly impossible to make an archer that doesn't, but he's done things like diversify his damage via weapon enchants, and is going into the beastmaster prestige class to have a dire lion companion. If damage won't work, then his lion can grapple, or maybe his skills/speak with animals will apply. If I throw up a wind wall, that player still gets to act. He's done a good job of avoiding the one trick pony binary build, even as a tier.. 4? 5? ranger base.

:edit: Also worth noting, this is level 8. I fully acknowledge that higher levels exacerbate the problem, but I don't have much experience there. I prefer to end my games in the low teens.

[Amphetryon]

Sure. I suppose I've been using that term often enough to weaken what I meant by it, in all honesty - or rather, it doesn't carry all the meaning I want. I'm in a full arm cast right now, so I've been trying (failing) to keep my posts short and succinct =P

As an example, let's take Flickerdart's characters. First, he presented me with the fear bard. His entire character was built around that one trick, trading out most, if not all, of his class features to support it. If I nullified it in some way, that one trick he'd given almost everything up to use would be gone. This was a binary build in the sense of "Either it wins the encounter or I make the encounter immune", since it did have a bit of bardic spellcasting to back it up.

His new character is a War Weaver, with a touch of the batman effect on the side. He's got more than one main trick - he's got party buffing, which is always relevant. He's got the old standbys of glitterdust and web and such. And he's got divination spells which have been very useful to the group. At no point is his character completely useless, so long as he has spells.


You are correct, of course. 3.5 really does lend itself to binary characters, which grates at me, and is why I sought a group that has enough system mastery to get around that. And in truth I've been using "Binary" to describe two different things; The "My trick is so powerful that I win if I can use it", and the "I only have one trick ever". There is some overlap, of course, but I think I need to find a way to differentiate them. The thing to keep in mind when trying to avoid the one-trick-pony syndrome is that you need to give lower tiers a little more leeway. One of my players is playing an archery ranger with an ACF that trades out wild empathy for speak with animals 3/day. He would fall toward one tirkcpony-ism because it's nearly impossible to make an archer that doesn't, but he's done things like diversify his damage via weapon enchants, and is going into the beastmaster prestige class to have a dire lion companion. If damage won't work, then his lion can grapple, or maybe his skills/speak with animals will apply. If I throw up a wind wall, that player still gets to act. He's done a good job of avoiding the one trick pony binary build, even as a tier.. 4? 5? ranger base.

:edit: Also worth noting, this is level 8. I fully acknowledge that higher levels exacerbate the problem, but I don't have much experience there. I prefer to end my games in the low teens.

Thanks for answering. I'm not sure we agree on our definitions, but at least now I know where you're coming from.

[Ardantis]

Interesting example, the ranger.

I think LordBlades found the solution I was seeking.

Just tell your players that their one-trick build will be nerfed, at times, for the good of the encounter. Then let them decide whether or not to play it.

Obviously the wise move is to alter it or build something new, but I think it is important for the player to have choice, even (or especially) the ability to choose poorly. Otherwise, in the future, they will continue to one-trick build because "that one DM didn't let me try my build."

Also, Quietus, you would be up front with the player about how your games are run, how important you believe optimization to be, and what the consequences are. All without having to say "tone it down," which is a little heavy-handed and that I, as a player, would find offensive.

And if you find yourself facing a party of Uberchargers, DMM Clerics, and Masters of the Arcane Order, you have my permission to smoosh them into paste in whatever way you see fit. For the good of the encounter.

[Gnaeus]

Please be careful about slinging around "RAI". It's a good way to start a debate about how you can guess at what the designers actually intended - I, for example, would argue that they DIDN'T intend for Pounce to be combined with charge multipliers for massive damage.


I do not. Nor am I aware of any quotes to the opposite. My argument is based on the fact that allowing these to be combined tends to result in a very binary character who does just one thing - charge - and you have to design encounters specifically to either allow it and have that player destroy whatever they point at, or turn that character's trick "off" for that combat. Neither of which is fun.

I have no actual desire to argue what is and isn't RAI. I just have personal rules when it comes to judging whether a build is reasonable, and among those are, "Will this character be able to contribute in more than just one way?", and "If I turn off his main trick, does he have something he can fall back on?" If the answer to both of those is no, then I ask the player to broaden his character somewhat.



I'm using uberchargers as the example because that's what this thread is about. Note that earlier I did give an example of asking a player not to play a particular caster character, a fear-based bard that could pop enough fear effects off in one or two rounds to take anything to Panicked, DC 18 or 19 Will save. Most things I intended to use at the time were rocking a +4 will. Barring circumstances where I specifically shut down his one binary trick, every combat would have come down to most/all of the enemies ended up frightened or panicked, and fleeing, in the first round.

My issue is with binary builds in general, not any one specific one. They make it hard to plan encounters, and hard for me to make things fun for everyone.

It isn't, and both would get told that their builds, while commendably powerful, aren't appropriate for this game, and to please tone it down so everyone gets to play and have fun.

Yes, your "binary" issue is so badly worded that it is very difficult to respond to.

You mentioned a RAI issue, which you then virtually admitted had nothing to do with whether things were RAI, and everything to do with your opinions about how things should work in your game.

Then you have an issue with one-trick ponies, which frankly IS NOT YOUR JOB AS DM. It is perfectly reasonable, and in fact good DMing, to mention to players "Hey, your build is too tightly focused. There will be times when your trick won't work." Players should respond to that. But if they don't, that is their own business. If I want to make a character that kills high CR dragons, but only dragons, and he isn't much use fighting anything that isn't a dragon, and I know that fighting dragons is a tiny fraction of your campaign, but I think that that character is fun anyway, why should you say what is or isn't fun for me?

Then you have a power level issue. You mention it with regards to one-trick ponies, but then you clearly indicate that you take it personally when characters wipe out your encounters quickly. THIS IS NOT IN ANY WAY BINARY. A well built tier 1 character can have 6 ways to insta-gib a combat encounter, and can also insta kill many non-combat encounters. It has nothing to do with a single trick working or not working. It isn't about building encounters that either do, or do not challenge him. There is absolutely nothing binary about such a character. Having limits on the power level you want in your game is fine. But make it clear that that is what you are doing, because it sounds from your discussion of "binary" encounters that you have confused yourself as well as us, and probably your players also. The charger isn't bad because he has one trick, he is bad because his trick does not fit the kind of game play you enjoy.

Personally, I recommend that you stop using the word binary altogether.

[Quietus]

Interesting example, the ranger.

I think LordBlades found the solution I was seeking.

Just tell your players that their one-trick build will be nerfed, at times, for the good of the encounter. Then let them decide whether or not to play it.

Obviously the wise move is to alter it or build something new, but I think it is important for the player to have choice, even (or especially) the ability to choose poorly. Otherwise, in the future, they will continue to one-trick build because "that one DM didn't let me try my build."

Also, Quietus, you would be up front with the player about how your games are run, how important you believe optimization to be, and what the consequences are. All without having to say "tone it down," which is a little heavy-handed and that I, as a player, would find offensive.

And if you find yourself facing a party of Uberchargers, DMM Clerics, and Masters of the Arcane Order, you have my permission to smoosh them into paste in whatever way you see fit. For the good of the encounter.

I do try to give my players a general expectation to build towards - usually by asking to be balanced around T3, without the ability to completely decimate encounters. I only ask players to "tone it down" when they break that second request.



Yes, your "binary" issue is so badly worded that it is very difficult to respond to.

You mentioned a RAI issue, which you then virtually admitted had nothing to do with whether things were RAI, and everything to do with your opinions about how things should work in your game.

Then you have an issue with one-trick ponies, which frankly IS NOT YOUR JOB AS DM. It is perfectly reasonable, and in fact good DMing, to mention to players "Hey, your build is too tightly focused. There will be times when your trick won't work." Players should respond to that. But if they don't, that is their own business. If I want to make a character that kills high CR dragons, but only dragons, and he isn't much use fighting anything that isn't a dragon, and I know that fighting dragons is a tiny fraction of your campaign, but I think that that character is fun anyway, why should you say what is or isn't fun for me?

Then you have a power level issue. You mention it with regards to one-trick ponies, but then you clearly indicate that you take it personally when characters wipe out your encounters quickly. THIS IS NOT IN ANY WAY BINARY. A well built tier 1 character can have 6 ways to insta-gib a combat encounter, and can also insta kill many non-combat encounters. It has nothing to do with a single trick working or not working. It isn't about building encounters that either do, or do not challenge him. There is absolutely nothing binary about such a character. Having limits on the power level you want in your game is fine. But make it clear that that is what you are doing, because it sounds from your discussion of "binary" encounters that you have confused yourself as well as us, and probably your players also. The charger isn't bad because he has one trick, he is bad because his trick does not fit the kind of game play you enjoy.

Personally, I recommend that you stop using the word binary altogether.

Part of the problem is that I was posting in two similar threads, and they flowed together. As to the RAI stuff, I've not been discussing that, because RAI discussions are opinion, usually supported only by one's thoughts on balance, so two people who disagree are unlikely to find common ground.

I think, for clarity's sake, I'm going to limit referring to a character as binary when they fall into the "I either win an encounter or it is immune to my major trick", like the fear build earlier, or a damage build measured in the thousands, and the like. The specialized dragon killer that's worthless against non-dragons, and less optimized uberchargers, and such, I'll refer to as one trick ponies. Makes things far more clear, here, though there is some overlap, and even separately both types of build cause their own problems.

To be clear - my problem, then, with both types, then, is that they are difficult to build encounters for. With binary builds - the ones that win any encounters without issue as long as that encounter isn't immune to them - I have to set up situations which become increasingly contrived in order to ensure that every player has the chance to take part. I can never use a single strong foe against high damage builds. I have to find ways to make the low will save monsters be little more than flavor text and a couple uses of bardic music. And against a 30+spell level DC wizard I need to have death ward and mind blank going in order to challenge the party. The problem here is in seeing the party as a whole challenged.

With one trick ponies, then, the problem is that either they get to use their trick, which is fine - unless they are ALSO binary, which is common - or I do something to negate that trick, and they can do little. The ubercharger against an Elusive Target, or the fire wizard against a fire elemental.

Of the two, I consider the first to be the bigger problem. If someone really wants to play a one trick pony type build - say, an archer that doesn't have a strong companion as backup - and the character isn't overpowered, then I'll spell out the issues, and if they still want to play it, fine. But if a character brings an overpowered character to the table, then it really does affect EVERYONE'S enjoyment, in my experience.

Also, breaking it down like that, I think you may be right. One trick pony/overpowered is a much more clear and evocative way of describing those things. The introduction of the idea of "binary" builds was interesting, but I think that it's failed. And then the overlap has its own clear line, of being an overpowered one trick pony.

[Ardantis]

Quietus~

You know you're not always responsible for everyone's enjoyment, right?

~Ardantis

[Quietus]

Quietus~

You know you're not always responsible for everyone's enjoyment, right?

~Ardantis

You know the DM gets accused of running a bad game if a player doesn't have fun, right? I am well aware that that is completely unfair and unreasonable, but the TWF rogue player in the zompacalypse campaign is going to be pissed off and blame the DM.

Whether that's the DM's actual fault or not, I do see it as part of my job to at least put some thought toward it. If I warn a person that their one trick pony won't work, that's their problem. Overpowered characters, however, are MY problem, because that affects the fun of everyone at the table.

[scolack]

Out of curiosity, do you have a quote on which to base that argument against Pounce + charge multipliers?


Because the feat itself LITERALLY describes it as such. "You can combine a powerful charge and a mighty leap into one devastating attack." ONE devastating attack.

[scolack]

Out of curiosity, do you have a quote on which to base that argument against Pounce + charge multipliers?

AND the leap attack feat came out in 2005. Complete champion with Barbarian Pounce came out in 2007. They did not intend for it to work with pounce.

[Fizban]

For my two cents, I think the OMGSLTBPounce and "10 swift move actions" Travel Devotion were quite intentionally written in response to people running around shouting that melee characters absolutely had to be able to move and full attack or they were useless waaaaah. They're so ridiculously cheap, easy, and frankly just out of place, that there's no other good explanation.

As for how I rule on uberchargers, I've got a whole ream of "nerfs" to rein in the power creep and char-op appeasement. From the first page (ACFs and general tweaks), just the ubercharger stuff:
1st level pounce from Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian is banned, other spirit totems may be negotiable.
Whirling Frenzy is banned.
Shocktrooper (heedless charge) provokes an AoO from target.
Leap Attack applies only on the first attack.
Valorous is a +3 enhancement that applies only on the first attack.
-Any other charge multipliers I haven't caught below also apply only on first attack.


Rhino's Rush I'm actually pretty okay with- as long as you've actually earned the right to cast it (Wraithstrike otoh is straight banned). I'm thinking Wand Chambers need to go too- just as the standard/full attack dynamic is a core gameplay thing that gets ignored completely in favor of zomgpounce!, the idea that you need to compromise on what you're putting in your hands also gets completely ignored. Guided Shot and Rhino's Rush lose basically all their abusability once you no longer get to spam them with no penalty other than a tiny bit of gold, and instead return to being reasonable combat tricks in spell form for their classes.

[Quertus]

So, I think I'll start with this quote:
It becomes my burden because I'm the DM, and therefore do need to answer the question of "will <player> find this fun?"

Personally, I advocate something more like this:
I ask for characters within a certain range of ability

Rather, I prefer, "characters within this range of ability will have X challenge; build characters for the level of challenge you desire."

Thus,
"The system allows it, why can't I do this" doesn't go far enough. Who cares if the system allows it, so long as it's within the range that the group finds fun, it should could be allowed.

-----

Now, as to dealing with a "problem" build... I cannot condone people advocating designing encounters to shut the build down in a binary yes/no fashion. That feels like rather antagonistic GMing to me.

I advocate two things. One, on the surface, looks rather similar: building GM skills, to be able to create content that naturally is varied enough to not always be defeated by one-trick ponies. See my classic, "underwater extradimensional portal guarded by invisible, incorporeal beings". A fantasy setting is so rich with possibilities, it saddens me how many GMs just throw the same things at their players over and over again.

The second is to talk with the players, to get them invested in making the game fun for everyone, and have a reasonable conversation with them. If the player builds the perfect killing machine, that can solo the module, ask them how they'd like to make the game more fun for everyone. Or, if that is fun for everyone, then put on your big boy pants and accept that fact. It's so horrible when the players are having badwrongfun. :smallwink:

-----

As to this specific set of abilities... I agree with the majority that it works by the rules. And that it's pretty strong. I love giving muggles nice things, so I've got no complaints.

I don't suggest making house rules to nerf it. If it isn't fun for the group, then ask the player what they'd like to do about it. There are many good solutions that they might suggest: rebuild the character, bring a new character, buff the rest of the party, or even nerf the ability. But they should be invested in finding a solution - this should be their problem to solve.

[Roland St. Jude]

For my two cents, ...Sheriff: Seven years is a little bit past the 45-day cutoff for Thread Necromancy. Please don't revive old threads.