DM's who don't let you optimize

[Dazed&Confused]

So, a few days ago I asked for help here in optimizing a druid and people gave me some tips, while I also got some stuff here and there to get my companion stronger. He wasn't that strong; it was a Fleshraker with 32 AC, 5 attacks(3 1d8+10/2 1d8+5), and a poison on each attack at 19 DC. Sure it's not a simple wolf made for pinning, but as soon as he laid eyes he went on to banning it.

Then my talent, Aberration Wild Shape, also got banned, because I had a very high AC from it(wasn't even using Will-O'-Wisp + Enhance Wild Shape btw). After that, I started using MM2 to get a better animal shape, but he didn't like it that I had 34 AC at my level (9) and made me remake the druid with all books banned except for Core/PgtF/Complete Divine. Oh: and temporary bonuses to Wisdom won't count on my bonus spells/day, which makes me cry before Clerics(domain spells) and specialist Wizards.

Just trying to understand: assuming any DM is perfectly able to make monsters stronger, or, if that's too much trouble, perfectly able to PICK stronger monsters, what is so wrong about optimizing? Why do some DM's just throw rocks at you because of some simple optimizing?

[arguskos]

It's possible you were simply too powerful for the campaign, compared to the other players. My DM recently told me certain things are unacceptable, not because he's opposed to they themselves, but because I'm already probably the best built character in the party and any more is dangerously unbalancing. :smalltongue:

For example, if you are doing only basic optimization of a Binder, it's possible to outstrip a group of Wizards, Clerics, and Psions, if those players aren't doing basic optimization and are instead just going with whatever looks fun at the moment. You're playing to your strengths, maximizing your potential, and they're just messing around, so you could overpower them.

Without more information, this is my guess as to what your DM was getting at. Did he do it well? Eh, probably not (best method is to talk to the player, not ban things randomly).

[Jolly]

Druids are one of the strongest characters to start. An optimized druid is potentially game breaking. And if the rest of your party is a monk, a rogue, and a paladin or something then yeah... Starting out far more powerful than the rest of the party, and then making yourself even more powerful is probably not a good thing for the game.

Also, fleshrakers are dinosaurs right? I'd ban that just because I don't want dinos in my fantasy setting.

[Flickerdart]

Fleshraker is ridiculously broken, and the MMII is one of the worst 3e books in terms of balance. On top of that, Druids are ridiculous as-is. Consider - a 9th level character with full BAB and +7 Strength bonus, and probably a +2 sword or so has an attack bonus of +18. He would only hit you about 1/4 of the time, and hit your companion only slightly more often. The same guy would hit your hypothetical buddy, a, say, Paladin of 25 AC (+2 Full Plate, +1 heavy shield, 12 Dex, +1 ring of deflection) about two thirds of the time. In order to hit you on an average roll, he would be hitting the Paladin on a two.

[Coidzor]

What were the rest of the group playing?

Personally I find it an interpersonal flaw to not discuss things better and just commence to banning then more banning then banning more and more of the game in a downward spiral.

[Pigkappa]

Your DM wants to play a game that's fun for himself and the whole party too.

If you want to play a Druid in a normal game, stay in core and don't look for any optimization guide. Be worried that you could be too powerful anyway, and avoid the most powerful options if necessary. It's easy too be too powerful with a Druid even without trying to optimize.

[Yora]

I wouldn't allow it either.

My reason for this is, that I want the players to think of their PCs as characters in a story and pay atention to the events that happen and solve the obstacles they meet by thinking things through and dealing with the people they meet.
When I run a game, I want them to focus on the character interaction and not start a game of Fantasy-Ultra-Chess-X-treme. They should think with their characters perspective in mind, not with their sheet. I want them to come up with their character as a person, and then we find a way to represent that in in-game stats.

However, I go the extra mile and discuss with the players the theme and character backgrounds and then make a white list with the options they can use to make their characters. Which is usually the PHB, minus the races and classes that don't fit into the campaign I planned.

[Dazed&Confused]

It's not outshining the other chars, might be the only "optimized" one, but the others aren't weak.

One of them (barbarian 1/fighter 7/exotic weapon master 1) is a simple char but hits like a damn truck, with our buffs and debuffs he can sometimes deal around 120 damage in a single round, without crits(which happen often since he's got 17-20). He rapes most monsters at this level and has never fallen unconscious because we just try not to allow it.

The other one is a Drow Wizard with an insane luck(so far only like 3 spells have got past his MR) and, though it isn't optimized, wizard spells are just great anyway(haste alone is already a huge advantage over enemies), and his CD's are pretty high.

One of them is quite weak indeed, making half-dragons at 9th level isn't such a good idea. But he can still deal quite a lot of damage given he's only recently got two attacks/round.

The fourth one has given up on the campaign.

I don't know how to talk to this guy. In my campaign(he actually took over my campaign because I don't like DM'ing very much), he had an Initiate of Mystra using negative energy and Leadership for another cleric getting only heals/dispels/buffs/global talents from Libris Mortis that would work on his undead(Necromantic Presence, for example), which meant he controlled some very resistant shadows and in every single encounter I had to find a way of fighting them, my conjurers getting eaten by the "lesser" dude's dispels, and his companions buffed and healed like crap by the "lesser dude" - that while he was himself casting debuffs on my monsters. How is that not optimizing?

[Techsmart]

The biggest question is not your optimization in general, but your optimization in comparison to the remainder of the party. Are you playing with an incantatrix wizard, a divine metamagic cleric, and an optimized psion (dunno psionics too much since I dont have the books)? If yes, then you have excellent grounds to be upset. If you are playing with a low-op wizard or with rogues, fighters and dread necros, then its probably because you would pretty much invalidate the party. Did he restrict you in the most tasteful method? Probably not, but until we know more details, its going to be hard for people to really take a meaningful side in this.

As a DM, I usually discourage players from optimizing to the level you talk about. Obvious things, like lyrical spellcaster on a bard is perfectly fine, but divine metamagic with night sticks is flat out banned (you can take DMM, but I restrict you on how much you can take advantage of it). I tell my players this at the very beginning. I also warn them that whatever they put my way, I throw back. They wanna start using psionics? Okay, don't be mad at the fighter when hes mad at you because his anti-magic stuff stops working against the psions. You wanna break the fabric of the universe? Welcome to black holes. The game is about having fun. If you are outshining the other players, the only one who is having fun is you. If I gotta make you mad so the other 3-4 players can have fun, guess what: You're gonna be mad at me.

[Dazed&Confused]

I wouldn't allow it either.

My reason for this is, that I want the players to think of their PCs as characters in a story and pay atention to the events that happen and solve the obstacles they meet by thinking things through and dealing with the people they meet.
When I run a game, I want them to focus on the character interaction and not start a game of Fantasy-Ultra-Chess-X-treme. They should think with their characters perspective in mind, not with their sheet. I want them to come up with their character as a person, and then we find a way to represent that in in-game stats.

However, I go the extra mile and discuss with the players the theme and character backgrounds and then make a white list with the options they can use to make their characters. Which is usually the PHB, minus the races and classes that don't fit into the campaign I planned.

It is entirely possible to make a very good char while also being a very interesting one. I love writing backgrounds, making up NPC's and big stories of where my char came from, who he likes, who he's spent his time with, why he's decided to go to where he is right now. I dump dexterity at wizards to get more charisma, a ridiculous thing in any optimizer's mind, just to have better social skills and flavor.

But the fights and the sheet-making are very interesting parts to me aswell. I like being versatile, having many ways around problems, trying my best not to die and my best to kill. I don't see the problem; it's not needed to choose between one or the other.

[Calanon]

I know what your going through OP :smallfrown: I was disappointed when my DM didn't let me make my Beholder Mage, Ur-priest, Mystic Theurge


Monster Manual II is always banned in my games for wild shapes (and if its not, the DM is probably gonna drop some players)
DON'T BE SHOCKED WHEN YOUR DM BANS SOMETHING! (S)He clearly sees something your missing, and you are well within your rights to ask why its banned

[Flickerdart]

So you're in a party with a nearly pure Fighter, a Wizard that took a +2LA race and a Half-Dragon. And you don't see the problem with Fleshrakers in this group. Uh-huh.

[Dazed&Confused]

The biggest question is not your optimization in general, but your optimization in comparison to the remainder of the party. Are you playing with an incantatrix wizard, a divine metamagic cleric, and an optimized psion (dunno psionics too much since I dont have the books)? If yes, then you have excellent grounds to be upset. If you are playing with a low-op wizard or with rogues, fighters and dread necros, then its probably because you would pretty much invalidate the party. Did he restrict you in the most tasteful method? Probably not, but until we know more details, its going to be hard for people to really take a meaningful side in this.

As I said, it was a druid shaping to Will-O'-Wisp without Enhance Wild Shape, having a warbeast fleshraker as his companion. It's far from broken IMO.

[Gorgon_Heap]

As the DM, I'd allow a ninth level character to have an AC of 34 for exactly one session.

Then either all his stuff would get stolen or an enemy would simply poison him at dinner.

The end. I hate twinks.

[Hiro Protagonest]

As I said, it was a druid shaping to Will-O'-Wisp without Enhance Wild Shape, having a warbeast fleshraker as his companion. It's far from broken IMO.

Warbeast fleshraker? Not broken?

How are you even turning into a will-o'-wisp?

[Mooncrow]

As I said, it was a druid shaping to Will-O'-Wisp without Enhance Wild Shape, having a warbeast fleshraker as his companion. It's far from broken IMO.

"Broken" exists only in comparison to the rest of your party.

[Dazed&Confused]

So you're in a party with a nearly pure Fighter, a Wizard that took a +2LA race and a Half-Dragon. And you don't see the problem with Fleshrakers in this group. Uh-huh.

Well, I didn't even have the chance of using the fleshraker, so I really don't know his true effect on the game. However, using today's encounter as an example, the half-dragon was "afk" and the "nearly pure fighter" killed all the monsters by himself with the drow; I wasn't able to do much because the DM's dice was weirdly lucky on the dices + I didn't have buffs and the monsters had MR, the Drow was buffing him.

As I said, the dude can deal damage. He does his job quite well.

I was a stone planted there with a high AC and mildly high resistances paying attention on his hp so I could heal him. At 2d8+9.

[Midnight_v]

What is so wrong about optimizing?
Nothing, once you realize that optimizing ISN'T about creating the strongest example of a character you can find.
Its really about finding the optimal spot you want to play at. So yeah, optimizing does not equal powergaming, but we do run those thing on the board to show our system mastery a lot. You likely don't need a 39 ac at level 9, but you can use optimization to find the number you actually DO need if you set the parameters (I only want to be hit 20% of the time) etc.


Why do some DM's just throw rocks at you because of some simple optimizing?
There are several reasons, but the number 1 thing I see is ignorance. They typically have a weak understanding of the mechanics, or again thing "Optimization = Powergaming/Min-Maxing/Munchkining etc" which each one of those is a different thing, course they don't know that, cause as I said: ignorance. You can look through a few pages of the boards and a lot of people will say some pretty wild things, there are still people who are Dm'ing who think the monk is totally overpowered.
They ban things, mostly cause they don't understand. I can't tell you how many posts pop up saying "Ubercharging: Whats a Dm to do"... and they generally aren't prepped to deal with any thing other than, blaster wizards, and Healing Clerics... which is the second thing.
Baggage: Its kind of annoying for some people to see you slay the sacred cows they've built up. So if you have a few people who think: "The Fighter is supposed to be the one that does the fighting!", you'll meet some resistance when your party is like: Rogue, Cleric, Wizard... Cleric!?... hey wait a minute! Even if you're a battle cleric of heironeous or what not.
The game supports many things and one of them is that many different classes exist to fill many different roles, but some people are stuck with the word "Iconic" written across thier 4 heads.

Still though, druid is powerful, and a core druid can still ream his game if you want it to, Or... it can be just another valued member of the team.
Optimization is the knowledge that lets you choose, how you want your character to play...
Would you like help with your core Druid? It'll be roughly as strong...

[Dazed&Confused]

Warbeast fleshraker? Not broken?

How are you even turning into a will-o'-wisp?

Nope, not broken. Broken is a Initiate of Mystra casting stuff from his anti-magic field and using wizard spells. Broken is an evil 9th level cleric controlling 3 shadows(you can go to 5 with the right itemizing, as he did) permanently, taking away 3d6(or 5d6) of your monster's strength every round.

Broken is using Planar spells to summon Efreetis and cast wishes on your char. Using Shapechange and Arcane Strike/Wraithstrike/Divine Power(arcane disciple) to hit more than your fighter while being a wizard.

A Warbeast Fleshraker hits hard, but it is over after a single Will spell. That's not broken at all...

[Midnight_v]

You're right its NOT broken, but.. you maybe should be the one dm'ing if you already understand that, good sir.
People who don't understand that are likely not playing the same game as you, essentially.

[Rankar]

"Broken" exists only in comparison to the rest of your party.

This.

Its a major pain trying to balance an encounter when you've got the Munchkin (I am one), the RPer (the bard), the comedian (the barbarian), and the new guy (the rogue). Encounters that would make them sweat and struggle are defeated by a single spell from me. Be willing to play less than optimal for the fun of everyone involved (or know how to hide your optimization and talk to the DM about it).

[Hiro Protagonest]

Nope, not broken. Broken is a Initiate of Mystra casting stuff from his anti-magic field and using wizard spells. Broken is an evil 9th level cleric controlling 3 shadows(you can go to 5 with the right itemizing, as he did) permanently, taking away 3d6(or 5d6) of your monster's strength every round.

Broken is using Planar spells to summon Efreetis and cast wishes on your char. Using Shapechange and Arcane Strike/Wraithstrike/Divine Power(arcane disciple) to hit more than your fighter while being a wizard.

A Warbeast Fleshraker hits hard, but it is over after a single Will spell. That's not broken at all...

Warbeast fleshraker requires no feats and only skill ranks in one skill, a useful one at that. It also doesn't require obscure splatbooks.

[Flickerdart]

Well, I didn't even have the chance of using the fleshraker, so I really don't know his true effect on the game. However, using today's encounter as an example, the half-dragon was "afk" and the "nearly pure fighter" killed all the monsters by himself with the drow; I wasn't able to do much because the DM's dice was weirdly lucky on the dices + I didn't have buffs and the monsters had MR, the Drow was buffing him.

As I said, the dude can deal damage. He does his job quite well.

I was a stone planted there with a high AC and mildly high resistances paying attention on his hp so I could heal him. At 2d8+9.
Exactly - the DM has geared the encounters for your craptastic party. They do well when fighting them. If he were to gear the encounters for you, they would be obliterated.

[Pigkappa]

optimizing ISN'T about creating the strongest example of a character you can find.
Its really about finding the optimal spot you want to play at.
It's so funny that many people find that the optimal spot for them is being stronger than the rest of the party.

"Oh well, my optimal spot is actually having a fleshraker instead of a wolf. Too bad I'm also outshining the party now and the DM got angry. They just don't understand that this is not about being powerful."

[Mooncrow]

Well, I didn't even have the chance of using the fleshraker, so I really don't know his true effect on the game. However, using today's encounter as an example, the half-dragon was "afk" and the "nearly pure fighter" killed all the monsters by himself with the drow; I wasn't able to do much because the DM's dice was weirdly lucky on the dices + I didn't have buffs and the monsters had MR, the Drow was buffing him.

As I said, the dude can deal damage. He does his job quite well.

I was a stone planted there with a high AC and mildly high resistances paying attention on his hp so I could heal him. At 2d8+9.

What was your replacement pet doing? It's not like a bog-standard animal companion is completely useless. Why were you casting heals instead of something actually useful?

You can play a druid straight out of Core, with the standard wolf AC, take no feats and play naked, and you could still likely dominate the game you're in.

[Midnight_v]

It's so funny that many people find that the optimal spot for them is being stronger than the rest of the party.
No, thats not funny, that's stupid, and sad.
Which is why it needs to be explained more often.
Optimization is a tool and like any tool you can make it for right or wrong.

Also, this:

"Broken" exists only in comparison to the rest of your party.
Is true, but you can have a whole party that is broken in relation to the monsters. So that's not entirely true.

Though this is VERY RELAVANT:

Exactly - the DM has geared the encounters for your craptastic party. They do well when fighting them. If he were to gear the encounters for you, they would be obliterated.

That means you have some options, if you want to play at a higher level optimization play. Dm'ing youself is just one of them, you could "assist" in leveling the people around you so they don't suck. Gentle prodding is optimal... push to hard and you can trigger negative responses.
The ToB, seems to nudge people down that path somewhat.

Anyway... just take a lion or tiger and morph into a huge critter, you're still leagues ahead of all.

[Mooncrow]

No, thats not funny, that's stupid, and sad.
Which is why it needs to be explained more often.
Optimization is a tool and like any tool you can make it for right or wrong.

Also, this:

"Broken" exists only in comparison to the rest of your party.
Is true, but you can have a whole party that is broken in relation to the monsters. So that's not entirely true.

Though this is VERY RELAVANT:


That means you have some options, if you want to play at a higher level optimization play. Dm'ing youself is just one of them, you could "assist" in leveling the people around you so they don't suck. Gentle prodding is optimal... push to hard and you can trigger negative responses.
The ToB, seems to nudge people down that path somewhat.

Anyway... just take a lion or tiger and morph into a huge critter, you're still leagues ahead of all.

Well, it's true that you can be broken in relation to the monsters, but I guess I include the DM as "the party" when I say that. If he sucks at making stuff for you to fight, then...

/agree with the rest of your post though.

[Anderlith]

For the same reason that the military doesn't just give heavy weapons to everyone. You don't need it to get the job done

[sirpercival]

There are three reasons for a DM to be negatory towards optimizing (that I see it):

1) Bad experience. They played in a party where an optimized PC (probably of the class they're nerfing) dominated an encounter or ten, and they didn't like it, so acquired an "I'd never allow that in MY game" mentality.

2) Inexperience/lack of familiarity with ruleset. A lot of inexperienced DMs are not good at adjusting combats and other encounters on the fly to meet what the PCs do and continue to challenge them. Instead, they restrict the options available to the players so that it keeps the game more in their comfort zone.

3) Control issues. This is a variation on #2 -- they don't like it when characters deviate too far from the movie they have in their heads. They planned out encounters based on what they predicted the PCs would do, and when the PCs don't do that because they are powerful and versatile, they can't handle it.

In my opinion, #2 is the most forgivable of these: a DM like that will get better with time, especially with helpful players. #1 is the worst, because the correct response is "I'm going to use that tactic against players, or at least my NPCs will be smart enough to prevent it."

#3 is the hardest to argue against, because DMs who write games like this won't have very much fun if all their time and effort (which they didn't spend exactly wisely) goes to waste from a single spell, and play the "the DM has to have fun too" card. I knew a DM who would spend hours designing really complex plots and encounters, and then they would always be short-circuited by the party in about 10 minutes. Luckily he was a good sport and rolled with it.

There isn't a whole lot you can do as a player, unless your DM is very self-aware and open to criticism; really the best thing is to try and get all your DM's restrictions up front and try to create a character that fits within those rules and will be fun for you to play.

Alternatively... run your own game, and do it better. Which is why I almost always end up DMing IRL. :)

[Gavinfoxx]

Since when is taking a very very powerful (especially at melee) Tier 1 class and then optimizing it FURTHER for melee badassness acceptible in a large portion of games? If I wanted to do that, I would sit down with the DM and say, "I want to play a very powerful character with several class features that can directly change the makeup of your setting, and multiple methods to completely obsolete most of the party, and generally run roughshod over group cohesion or your plans. I want to take an already in the running for 'most powerful class' and then push it to the limit. Can we come up with something so I can do this without completely wrecking everyone's fun, including yours?"

[Dazed&Confused]

What was your replacement pet doing? It's not like a bog-standard animal companion is completely useless. Why were you casting heals instead of something actually useful?

You can play a druid straight out of Core, with the standard wolf AC, take no feats and play naked, and you could still likely dominate the game you're in.

I was casting heals instead of useful things because: the party didn't have any healers and my temporary bonuses to Wisdom weren't valid for bonus spells(his rules; which means I had even less slots to fill up with a few emergency heals); the monsters had high MR and were immune to most of my debuffs. And the two "debuffs" I cast that weren't subject to MR were natural 20s on the saves, so...

I didn't have a replacement pet, I didn't have time to make one (he told me to remove it and started the campaign right away) and I didn't use Handle Animal and the like to get others before because I felt like it was gonna be too strong. When I asked him to pick a monster from the book, he said I could pick it, but it would stay outside the dungeon if I didn't make the pet before we got into the tower. I wasn't gonna pick a companion like that just to feel like dropping it later, that's just not how it should be. It needs a history and reasons for my druid (aka me) to like it and want its company.

As I said: it was very "strong", but I wasn't pushing it. I had mildly to high resistances (10/15/17) and an indeed very, very high AC(but both could go that high with core books already - I just wanted the flavor of changing to a SINGLE aberration, so no point in banning anything), that's about it. I wasn't gonna turn into any crazy animals to hit more than the fighter, I wasn't gonna be a Rukanyr at any moment, I wasn't ever gonna buff my pet, I didn't make any items for it, and all that was clear. All I wanted was a halfling who controlled/mounted a dinosaur while being really hard to kill. A funny picture that's hella surprising to NPCs.

[Master Thrower]

There are three reasons for a DM to be negatory towards optimizing (that I see it):

1) Bad experience. They played in a party where an optimized PC (probably of the class they're nerfing) dominated an encounter or ten, and they didn't like it, so acquired an "I'd never allow that in MY game" mentality.

2) Inexperience/lack of familiarity with ruleset. A lot of inexperienced DMs are not good at adjusting combats and other encounters on the fly to meet what the PCs do and continue to challenge them. Instead, they restrict the options available to the players so that it keeps the game more in their comfort zone.

3) Control issues. This is a variation on #2 -- they don't like it when characters deviate too far from the movie they have in their heads. They planned out encounters based on what they predicted the PCs would do, and when the PCs don't do that because they are powerful and versatile, they can't handle it.

In my opinion, #2 is the most forgivable of these: a DM like that will get better with time, especially with helpful players. #1 is the worst, because the correct response is "I'm going to use that tactic against players, or at least my NPCs will be smart enough to prevent it."

#3 is the hardest to argue against, because DMs who write games like this won't have very much fun if all their time and effort (which they didn't spend exactly wisely) goes to waste from a single spell, and play the "the DM has to have fun too" card. I knew a DM who would spend hours designing really complex plots and encounters, and then they would always be short-circuited by the party in about 10 minutes. Luckily he was a good sport and rolled with it.

There isn't a whole lot you can do as a player, unless your DM is very self-aware and open to criticism; really the best thing is to try and get all your DM's restrictions up front and try to create a character that fits within those rules and will be fun for you to play.

Alternatively... run your own game, and do it better. Which is why I almost always end up DMing IRL. :)

Or the DM doesn't want a single player outshining the rest. When his animal companion is a hard hitting, pouncing, tripping, beast, with poison on each of its attacks, its hard for the fighter to feel useful. Also the Dino is expendable. That not the DM being close minded, or inexperienced, its actually a very group oriented mindset to keep everybody in the spotlight, and not let somebodies class feature outshine somebodies class.

[Vowtz]

So, a few days ago I asked for help here in optimizing a druid and people gave me some tips, while I also got some stuff here and there to get my companion stronger.

Just trying to understand: assuming any DM is perfectly able to make monsters stronger, or, if that's too much trouble, perfectly able to PICK stronger monsters, what is so wrong about optimizing? Why do some DM's just throw rocks at you because of some simple optimizing?I think your DM should decide what he would disallow before you start playing with that character. Like saying "ok, you can be a druid, but only summon, wild shape into or have as companion, animals from monster manual I".

Banning an already active character's features from a game seems wrong. But it's acceptable as last resort if it's jeopardizing other players fun.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I think your DM should decide what he would disallow before you start playing with that character. Like saying "ok, you can be a druid, but only summon, wild shape into or have as companion, animals from monster manual I".

Banning an already active character's features from a game seems wrong. But it's acceptable as last resort.

So the DM has to know every possilbe optimization, spell or combination before he starts the campaign hows that reasonable.
Here's an idea the PC asks "is this OK" before deciding to go for it.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I was casting heals instead of useful things because: the party didn't have any healers and my temporary bonuses to Wisdom weren't valid for bonus spells(his rules; which means I had even less slots to fill up with a few emergency heals); the monsters had high MR and were immune to most of my debuffs. And the two "debuffs" I cast that weren't subject to MR were natural 20s on the saves, so...

Are you sure your DM isn't cheating? None of your offensive spells work?

With the fleshraker companion, you would've been playing a healbot and a melee character. The melee character has ridiculous AC, 5 poisonous attacks, and an unknown attack bonus that I'm guessing is high. I get why the DM banned it.

[Midnight_v]

So the DM has to know every possilbe optimization, spell or combination before he starts the campaign hows that reasonable.
Here's an idea the PC asks "is this OK" before deciding to go for it
No but he should certainly know the BULK of them, or generally communicative of the power level he's shooting for, which is supposed to be covered when he says: Okay Books allowed.
At which point the players have the choice to say. "Hmm... okay I can make x with that, I'm in." Or "I think I'll play x-box live instead" or "Bobby, how bout you Dm, this one?" or whatever.
Few things are as annoying to players as saying "Wait you chose "Fly"?, I've gotta ban that its too powerful, I feel it's broke". After you've been waiting to use it for a few levels.
Its just bad form. Also, thats what I hear people saying, a lot of the time. Its not fly, but its something simple they should be able to incorperate, if they're competent of the game, more often than not. No one complains "The Planar Shepard is wrecking my game", its almost always something more trivial than that.

[bloodtide]

But the fights and the sheet-making are very interesting parts to me aswell. I like being versatile, having many ways around problems, trying my best not to die and my best to kill. I don't see the problem; it's not needed to choose between one or the other.

I get this problem all the time.

Like most DM's I would not mind it so much if a Druid did a good optimization once in a while. But that is where the problem comes in.

In. Every. Single. Encounter. the Druid is 'versatile'(or whatever they want to call it), but what that means is reality is insanely high abilities, effects and such. In. Every. Single. Encounter.

And the Druid player does not even 'try' to hide it. They will just yawn and say 'Oh my Druid has an AC of 35 again'.

And note the examples from the OP. Is the character being 'versatile, having many ways around problems' by being an awesome combatant? You will note that only combat examples are given. No where does he state, say, using wildshape to get around a problem. The Druid is not turning into a mouse and sneaking into the castle to chew the rope and lower the drawbridge....the druid is just becoming a dinosaur and destroying the whole castle.

A lot of DM's don't like to take the 'effort' to deal with optimization. They feel it's just too much work. But there is another problem:

A DM can, in fact, balance out the optimization....but at the risk of alienating the optimized player character. Optimization is only fun when it's ''special''. If suddenly the optimization just makes them 'normal', they will feel cheated and betrayed. For example, if a druid gets an all optimized AC of like 40 and then runs into monsters that have all ranged touch attack that ignore most of his optimized armor won't be happy.

[Dazed&Confused]

Are you sure your DM isn't cheating? None of your offensive spells work?

He doesn't use DM shield, we saw the 20s. The others were just because of the very high MR, I didn't have good buffs(actually, I don't think druids got many, especially with so many book restrictions). The mage outshined me quite hard, a fighter who hits so hard getting so much mobility and protection from his wizard babysitter is too strong. As I said: the dungeon was raped by them two alone. I was a rock sitting there and watching, was able to use two Heal Moderate Wounds and a Barkskin.


With the fleshraker companion, you would've been playing a healbot and a melee character. The melee character has ridiculous AC, 5 poisonous attacks, and an unknown attack bonus that I'm guessing is high. I get why the DM banned it.

Great, so I was filling in two spots. The real problem is when ONE character is too strong in itself, hard to kill and killing hard - then the DM needs way more strength in monsters, since numbers won't matter(they wouldn't touch him). In that case, saying it's wrong for me to control two chars because it would "inbalance" the game would be the same as not allowing another player to join for the same reason. Except for the fact that we'd divide xp/treasure among less chars, but he could divide it like there was another char and let me have my baby anyway.

Heck, he could even take the poisonous attacks and the armor away and I wouldn't care. But don't go just banning everything I have for my char right away, especially when one of them isn't gonna be very useful and the other, although it is a very strong fighter, can be just edited into a weaker version.

And it wouldn't be a healbot, druids don't heal that much. Don't forget it's one level lower than the cleric and we need a talent to spontaneously convert, which I didn't have. I also wouldn't stay in that spot forever, it can be effective but it's insanely boring, so I'd have to find a way of being offensive and healing without enough spell slots - that wasn't working well at all.

Ima leave now to watch a Pink Floyd cover, I'll read the rest when I come back. Cya

[sirpercival]

Or the DM doesn't want a single player outshining the rest. When his animal companion is a hard hitting, pouncing, tripping, beast, with poison on each of its attacks, its hard for the fighter to feel useful. Also the Dino is expendable. That not the DM being close minded, or inexperienced, its actually a very group oriented mindset to keep everybody in the spotlight, and not let somebodies class feature outshine somebodies class.

I get that a lot of DMs feel that way, honestly I do. That's why in my groups I usually end up DMing -- my philosophy is "play what you want". I have found that I never have problems with party balance, but it may be a function of the way I design games.

Basically, they are pretty freeform -- For each story arc I have a set of goals I want to (and I want the party to) accomplish, and I design the setting and background thoroughly. I put together a few encounters that will be necessary, and some others that are optional, and then put them in where appropriate as the plot develops. Because I have so much flexibility, I'm able to adjust each encounter on the fly to keep it fun and challenging no matter who is in the party. It requires a lot of ad-libbing and a lot of knowledge of the setting to make it work, which is, again, not for everyone.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Great, so I was filling in two spots. The real problem is when ONE character is too strong in itself, hard to kill and killing hard - then the DM needs way more strength in monsters, since numbers won't matter(they wouldn't touch him). In that case, saying it's wrong for me to control two chars because it would "inbalance" the game would be the same as not allowing another player to join for the same reason. Except for the fact that we'd divide xp/treasure among less chars, but he could divide it like there was another char and let me have my baby anyway.

Heck, he could even take the poisonous attacks and the armor away and I wouldn't care. But don't go just banning everything I have for my char right away, especially when one of them isn't gonna be very useful and the other, although it is a very strong fighter, can be just edited into a weaker version.

And it wouldn't be a healbot, druids don't heal that much. Don't forget it's one level lower than the cleric and we need a talent to spontaneously convert, which I didn't have. I also wouldn't stay in that spot forever, it can be effective but it's insanely boring, so I'd have to find a way of being offensive and healing without enough spell slots - that wasn't working well at all.

Ima leave now to watch a Pink Floyd cover, I'll read the rest when I come back. Cya

did I mention the fleshraker had stats far beyond any melee character of equal level?

[Vowtz]

Here's an idea the PC asks "is this OK" before deciding to go for it.
I agree, that is the way my DM do it in his games.

[afroakuma]

So, let me see what you have here...

As a DM, reviewing your list of grievances:

• I ban fleshrakers in every single game I run. None of my players ever voice a hint of surprise.

• Specialty Wild Shapes almost invariably draw heat from me. Aberration in particular is a knotty one.

• If any player asked to use the MMII for any reason, I would throw it at his head. Even I try to avoid touching that book - and I'm the DM.

Fair warning: don't ask boards like these for help optimizing, because too much of the interpretation goes not to "making the best character for the game I'm in," it goes to "making the character who can best win the game." I can tell you from the other side of the screen that the latter mentality goes over very badly.

[Mr.Bookworm]

The purpose of practical optimization (i.e. what you actually use in a game) is to match your character power level to the other players. This includes powering down some character concepts (for example: giving a Druid the Shapeshifting ACF instead of Wild Shape). It is all about making a character that can contribute meaningfully to the party, without overshadowing everyone else.

It is not something you do to wave your system knowledge **** in the faces of the other people in the game.

So, yes, in the given party, your GM is completely and totally justified in banning the things he did.

[*.*.*.*]

very high MR

The hell does MR stand for?

[Flickerdart]

The hell does MR stand for?
Magic Resistance, I presume. So, in our language, SR.

[Little Brother]

So the DM has to know every possilbe optimization, spell or combination before he starts the campaign hows that reasonable. Yes.

Here's an idea the PC asks "is this OK" before deciding to go for it.Here's an idea: Tell the players not to be asshats when building and playing characters.


Are you sure your DM isn't cheating? None of your offensive spells work?This.

What level are you? How could all of your enemies have sufficient SR to ignore your blasts, and why didn't you throw bears at them? As a bear?

With the fleshraker companion, you would've been playing a healbot and a melee character. The melee character has ridiculous AC, 5 poisonous attacks, and an unknown attack bonus that I'm guessing is high. I get why the DM banned it.This(the fleshraker) falls very cleanly under my "Don't be an ass" policy. It can outfight Warblades at that level. Warbred, too? No. You're a druid, you don't need a pet. A Warbred Riding Dog would have been plenty. You probably didn't know this, but they're as absurd as the rest of MMII(I'm looking at you, Adamantine Horror). They're stupid. Absurd. Badly made beyond belief.

I agree, that is the way my DM do it in his games.Or, why not set out some basic ground rules and say "Don't be an asshat?" It solves all the problems without appearing tyrannical.
O, it is excellent to have a giant's strength, But it is tyrannous to use it like a giant.Get your group to play nice without having to decree things like this. What I'd have done is just say "You wanna play a druid? Okay, the only option is Shapeshift(Or whatever it's called) Druid.


The hell does MR stand for?Spell Resistance, or SR.

[Mooncrow]

Not to nitpick, but since a few people have made this mistake; Fleshraker is MM3, not 2.

[afroakuma]

Not to nitpick, but since a few people have made this mistake; Fleshraker is MM3, not 2.

We know; he cited looking into the MMII separately, after being denied the fleshraker.

[Flickerdart]

Not to nitpick, but since a few people have made this mistake; Fleshraker is MM3, not 2.
The OP was using MM2 for Wildshapes though, so it's quite relevant.

[myancey]

No but he should certainly know the BULK of them, or generally communicative of the power level he's shooting for, which is supposed to be covered when he says: Okay Books allowed.
At which point the players have the choice to say. "Hmm... okay I can make x with that, I'm in." Or "I think I'll play x-box live instead" or "Bobby, how bout you Dm, this one?" or whatever.
Few things are as annoying to players as saying "Wait you chose "Fly"?, I've gotta ban that its too powerful, I feel it's broke". After you've been waiting to use it for a few levels.
Its just bad form. Also, thats what I hear people saying, a lot of the time. Its not fly, but its something simple they should be able to incorperate, if they're competent of the game, more often than not. No one complains "The Planar Shepard is wrecking my game", its almost always something more trivial than that.

I agree that normally a DM should lay out what he will allow and not allow--but Ive been DMing steadily for close on 9 years and I still don't know everything. Some groups don't delve that deeply into 3.5, and others look through every nook and cranny in the game. It's not fair to expect a DM to know everything. If the player doesn't like it, he should try DMing.

You should always be honest with your DM. The OP wanted to play an optimized build. He should have gone to his DM and said, "Hey, what I am creating is gonna be wicked powerful. You cool with that?" The DM can then say "Heck no!" or "Let's adjust a few things" or "I'm fairly certain I can handle whatever you throw at me."

New DMs shouldn't be subject to optimization, even if they were optimizers themselves--because DMing is a whole different ballpark to playing.

Also, to the OP--the DM can obviously make monsters stronger. But that doesn't mean he should have to put in a crud ton of extra work because a player got a little power hungry. DMing takes way more prep than creating any character, period. If he is banning something, then it is for good reason. DM if you don't like it, or find another group.

Edit: Also, adjusting monsters means adjusting them for the players who don't optimize as well--making their game crazy difficult at best. And the DM can't have it both ways, because then he's suddenly the bad guy of the table--which sucks.

[lunar2]

I know the feeling from both sides of the screen. when I DM, it's the same "Captain Savaho" (Actual character name) Sorcerer/Archmage Every campaign. He doesn't even attempt to disguise that he has 1 monk, 1 sorcerer, 1 fighter, and 1 rogue optimized within the resources we have that he plays one of every single time. I'm glad he doesn't touch druids and wizards, or I'd be completely screwed.

As a player, I've been in a few campaigns where I had to build EVERY PC, because the other players didn't know how to do anything but roll the dice. I also ended up running 6-10 characters at once, because the DM loved throwing in long term "NPCs" and making me run them (at least I got to build most of them, too).

It gets annoying when my horridly unoptimized cleric (Aasimar 1/ Cleric 9/ Fist of Raziel 6) out performs, among other things, a stone giant fighter, a Jarlaxle, and all 3 melee fighters at melee, AND stomp all over the wizard, the sorcerer and the druid as a spellcaster, despite being down 2 caster levels and several BAB. the worst part, of course, is that I built every single one of them, so they should be able to perform on the same level.

Case in point, from that campaign. my cleric singlehandedly defeats 3 black dragons (a wyrm and 2 mature adults), while the entire rest of the party is on the other side of a stone shaped wall, getting abused by a pair of juveniles.

so, let me tell you. Your DM is trying to avoid a "Savaho" situation, where he's put against the wall by a single overpowered character, but he also has to avoid a "Razera" (my cleric) situation, where anything that even remotely challenges you will slaughter everything else. He should be nicer about it, such as giving you enough time to adjust after he bans things, but in the end he's looking out for the whole game, not just you.

[Mooncrow]

We know; he cited looking into the MMII separately, after being denied the fleshraker.


The OP was using MM2 for Wildshapes though, so it's quite relevant.

I guess it's more accurate to say I was pointing it out for clarity's sake.

[Coidzor]

Fair warning: don't ask boards like these for help optimizing, because too much of the interpretation goes not to "making the best character for the game I'm in," it goes to "making the character who can best win the game." I can tell you from the other side of the screen that the latter mentality goes over very badly.

In the absence of a party level to balance to, optimizing a character for X means making the character as good at X as possible. That's just simple logic.

If you want a character as good at Y as possible while still fitting in with characters that were made for a joke campaign that fell through, then you've gotta ask for that, and it's quite unfair and needlessly hostile to blame the entire message board for that kind of information being withheld.

[afroakuma]

In the absence of a party level to balance to, optimizing a character for X means making the character as good at X as possible. That's just simple logic.

Certainly, but I distinguish here between "optimizing" and "optimizing for X." The latter implies a singleminded focus on doing X at the willing sacrifice of things not X.

Also note I did not blame the "entire" board. I said specifically that too much of the interpretation would fall to straight power. I also did not lay blame for that occurring. I do not intend to.

[Dazed&Confused]

Back.


Magic Resistance, I presume. So, in our language, SR.

Oh, sorry, yea, SR. In portuguese it's "resistência mágica", or "RM". So while I was typing the MR (magic resistance) came to mind :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

It is entirely possible to make a very good char while also being a very interesting one.

It is equally possible to do both of these things without overshadowing anyone else.