(3.P) OP spellcasters & how to deal with them [Archive]

rollforeigninit

2012-02-14, 08:39 PM

Hiro Protagonest

2012-02-14, 08:45 PM

Gentlemen's Agreement. Even if they do use stuff like the Astral Projection trick, if they use it on the whole party, it's just another contingency against death.

Wish loops and any other inifinite loops should be banned, even if they use them to help the party (giving everyone in the party an inherent +5 to all scores with a wish loop). But if the players use infinite loops, then something's wrong, and it's not the mechanics.

Eliminating Magic Mart is perfectly valid, but they can just Plane Shift to the City of Brass or Sigil or another extraplanar metropolis and look for stuff in the markets there.

Ursus the Grim

2012-02-14, 08:53 PM

So I read these boards daily & the consensus seems to be that the T1 casters (wizards especially) are overpowered in the extreme when compared to non-spellcasters.

It seems to me that Wizards are probably the easiest of the lot to fix. Their reliance on spellbooks for their spells is supposed to be a hindrance. In most campaigns I have been in, though, the spellbook seems to become a non-factor after about level 3. There seems to be no real reason for this but it seems to happen a lot.

The other issues seem to center around having access to ALL the wizard spells ever. That's even easier to deal with. Simply DON'T give them said spells. (Or at least make them work for them.) I don't see why there is a shop that has ALL the scrolls you could ever want just laying around for the purchase. Most of this (in my opinion) comes from lazy DM's who want to make the players happy. In most cases, it works well for the wizard but not as well for the other PC's.

What strategies do you guys have for dealing with the machine that the wizard becomes? Actual story driven plot? It might help overpoweredness to actually have a time deadline that forces the casters to push on while at less than full strength. ( I seem to remember reading that there are only supposed to be so many encounters per day but I don't see any real reason for it.) Eliminate magic mart? In-game prejudices against arcane casters? (Or casters in general for that matter). I'm not asking for a mechanics driven rewrite but if the caster uses planar binding all the time (especially summoning evil creatures) it might cause some backlash with some good-aligned religions or organizations. Or maybe the creature has friends/allies they can send or have sent to eliminate the annoyance.

I'd like both kinds of ideas. Spellcaster limiting & Wizard specific ones as well.

Generally, if someone wants to play a Wizard, I ask them to play a Sorc instead. It doesn't eliminate their ability to break the game, but it does limit it. I'm of the school that Spellbooks are fair game, but a lot of people think its a cheap shot when the DM has villains target it.

Fixing the other Tier 1's are generally actually a little bit simpler because their problems are a combination of class abilities and options, and not just the result of one feature. Cleric spells are slightly less game-changing than Wizards, and most are generally built as a more rounded character. Any time you move from SAD to MAD, you get less optimized. This is a bad thing if you're below the status quo (like a monk) but a good thing if you otherwise dominant. A wizard generally only needs to pump Int, wheras most Clerics are concerned with their Wis, Cha, and physicals, depending on their rolls and purpose. Druids are arguably the easiest to fix. A DM need only adjudicate that Natural Spell is not available, or that only certain sourcebooks are available, or force a Druid to choose between their class features. A druid with just wild shape and an animal companion is still formidable.

The limit on encounters per day is recommended on several assumptions. Without any time to rest and recover, a party natural expends resources, whether they be spells, magic charges, or hit points. A well-balanced encounter is supposed to take roughly a fifth to a fourth of their resources, and so the recommendation is that you don't exceed four such encounters without a nights rest or other such break. Naturally, this assumes a balanced party and a perfectly suited suite of encounters. . . .

By RAW, most magic marts wouldn't exist, at least not at higher levels of play. Short of going to a metropolis (truly rare in most cases), there is a GP limit that most groups unfortunately handwave away. Many groups also don't want to roleplay every individual purchase (I just need a damn whetstone!) and having to roleplay some but not all purchase is going to ruffle feathers.

That particular spell and your recommended fix are among a handful of such contentious spells. Not all of them have such. . . accessible drawbacks.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-02-14, 09:25 PM

If we're talking about a high-op game, then my spellbook is permanently shrunk, and then shrunk again for storage inside of an artificial tooth, or (if you want to venture outside of core) then within a hoard gullet, or stored in a force chest, or...

If you limit spells one can buy, it still doesn't do anything about the 40 + starting INT modifier spells they just get to know by leveling up, which can very well include all the stinky, fetid cheese you can possibly get.

The point being, of course, that if you escalate, the wizard can escalate to match. Your "fixes" assume someone that is low-op enough to accept them, in which case you have someone who just might never optimize a wizard to game-breaking levels anyway (essentially, your "blasty-buffy" type). They are otherwise easily overcome.

Honestly, my fix? If you're playing Pathfinder, Magus, Alchemist, Bard, Summoner and Inquisitor are all things. Wizards and clerics simply not existing in your game isn't big deal. As for Druids, port over the Wildshape variant of ranger and you're set for that niche as well.

Feralventas

2012-02-14, 09:38 PM

Targeting the book is a fine move if it's not guarded well enough in the first place, but most Batman-build wizards will make sure that it's not at risk.

If the enemy is a thief that can steal it, a fighter that can rip it from a bag, or a cleric/caster that knows that a wizard's power comes from their spell-book, they'd better damn well neutralize that threat as quickly and efficiently as possible; there's no excuse for a villain not taking every opertunity to reduce their enemy's ability to hamper their plans.

That said, another option is to drastically reduce the wizard's spells known with a little homebrew. My prefered method is to house-rule that the different schools of magic have very different methodology and are entirely different crafts. The seperate colleges that develop the various schools of magic have a lot of pride in their own and disdain to share their secrets with wizards of another school. With this, a Wizard is reduced to access only to one school of magic, and must multi-class into Wizard so as to gain access to another school.

So, a Wizard (Evoker3) who decided he didn't want to be seen tossing firebolts left and right would have to spend three levels multi-classing into Wizard (Illusionist) to gain access to Invisibility.

Mind you, a lot of the game-breaking spells are available at lower levels, but this prevents some of the combination killers, or makes them useless or less powerful by the time a 'caster has access to them.

Coidzor

2012-02-14, 09:44 PM

Targeting the book is a fine move if it's not guarded well enough in the first place, but most Batman-build wizards will make sure that it's not at risk.

Either A. it's pointless because their protections are rock solid or B. you're being an ass to a wizard who is being well behaved for the desired optimization level by out-oping him and punishing him for being bad at being a wizard by nerfing him.

Much like how it is with classes; weak, bad, or otherwise innocuous players don't need heavy-handed nerfing.

Feralventas

2012-02-14, 09:54 PM

Very true. I've got a Wizard in one of my games that has managed to do very well as a utilitarian support and occasional blaster for the party, while the Fighter is the party's main face and damage capacity.

Meanwhile, in another group, I've got a Dragonfire Adept that is wrecking things left and right with Char-Op and a Dragonwrought build.

deuxhero

2012-02-14, 10:06 PM

By RAW, most magic marts wouldn't exist, at least not at higher levels of play. Short of going to a metropolis (truly rare in most cases), there is a GP limit that most groups unfortunately handwave away. Many groups also don't want to roleplay every individual purchase (I just need a damn whetstone!) and having to roleplay some but not all purchase is going to ruffle feathers.

Actually, MIC does say a player should have access to any item they can afford (Mentioning that the game's even loose balance expects you to have your WBL working for you), not to mention lacking magic items hurts non-casters most

Gavinfoxx

2012-02-14, 10:09 PM

Encourage everyone to play one of these classes:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174628

Red_Dog

2012-02-14, 10:12 PM

=>rollforeigninit

Other Wizards.

A single appropriately stated caster can act as a very good antagonist for a party. He will also be able to occupy the local "god wonna bes(the party's tier1-2)" so the rest of the party has something to do, if the party balance is of concern.

There is even a good fluff reason for an NPC wizard to focus his attention on tier1 party members=> He thinks they are a threat to his plans/etc. So your local know-it-all will quickly find him/herself occupied if he/she gets too cocky.

Tier1 NPCs give Tier1 players a reason to THINK, and everyone else screen time.
Hope this helps ^^

kardar233

2012-02-14, 10:37 PM

Well, I don't find too much trouble with people playing God, Batman is more of a problem due to the fact that he's very blatant with his encounter-solving.

Class balance is only a problem when people perceive it to be one; if the BSF is convinced that he's contributing while he's smacking an Enfeebled, Enervated and Dazed opponent while Giant Sized and under Righteous Wrath of the Faithful, there's no problem. If the players do have a problem, then you need to either look at improving the optimization level of your BSF or ask your mage players to tone it down a bit.

And for really high-op spellbook protection, I carry it on myself at all times. This works because I'm a permanently Shapeshifted mage under the effects of ~358 buffs including several Antimagic Fields who doesn't sleep, eat or breathe. Don't mess around with a guy with 3 full 9th-level spell progressions.

Big Fau

2012-02-14, 10:42 PM

By RAW, most magic marts wouldn't exist, at least not at higher levels of play. Short of going to a metropolis (truly rare in most cases), there is a GP limit that most groups unfortunately handwave away.

Except there is a cannon plane of existence in both Core and an WotC-official campaign setting that acts as a magic market (the Outlands in Core, and I don't pay enough attention to FR to know the name of the plane, but I'm fairly sure Faerun itself has numerous metropolis-level cities given that one has an entire splatbook devoted to it).

Manateee

2012-02-15, 12:29 AM

Most of this (in my opinion) comes from lazy DM's who want to make the players happy.

Actual story driven plot?
Niiiice.

Anyway, prolonging the adventuring day hurts the Fighter as much or more than the wizard. His HP pool is only so big, and he doesn't have the tools to blink to another portion of reality to recover/resupply when things get hairy.

Anyway, leaving aside a wizard's ability to access spells for a second (they don't even need DMs to give them scrolls; independent research is a thing permitted by the rules), the most broken parts of casters are the things they are supposed to be able to do.

Unless you just put an Antimagic field around the entire gameworld, Sorcerers can use Enervation to Enervate and Planar Binding to Planar Bind, and Clerics can use Summon Monster and Plane Shift to do exactly what the spells are designed to do.

Basically, the best ways to deal with it are:
A. Stop worrying about balance. Either by encouraging players to get on the same page in terms of optimization levels and expectations (this is usually what's going on when people recommend specific bans or tier allowances or whatever) or by just letting the Wizard overpower the Fighter and acknowledging that that's how the game works.
or
B. Get a different game. Seriously, unless you want to just strip magic from the game (which creates some serious problems with the HP system), the flying invisible guy packing the polymorph and timestops is going to be stronger than the guy standing on the ground with a stick.

Coidzor

2012-02-15, 02:22 AM

B. Get a different game. Seriously, unless you want to just strip magic from the game (which creates some serious problems with the HP system), the flying invisible guy packing the polymorph and timestops is going to be stronger than the guy standing on the ground with a stick.

Even E6 only does so much, after all.

Ursus the Grim

2012-02-15, 10:00 AM

Actually, MIC does say a player should have access to any item they can afford (Mentioning that the game's even loose balance expects you to have your WBL working for you), not to mention lacking magic items hurts non-casters most

And the DMG says there's a hard cap on the value of what you can buy in a given town. Do you take core restricting optimization or MIC encouraging it?

Except there is a canon plane of existence in both Core and an WotC-official campaign setting that acts as a magic market (the Outlands in Core, and I don't pay enough attention to FR to know the name of the plane, but I'm fairly sure Faerun itself has numerous metropolis-level cities given that one has an entire splatbook devoted to it).

You mean Sigil, right? That's a location. Locations are rarely consistent among settings. Even so, Sigil requires planar travel to a location that the character likely hasn't heard of yet. If your player says "I want to go to Sigil", there isn't often good justification for it aside from metagaming.

Gavinfoxx

2012-02-15, 10:11 AM

You mean Sigil, right? That's a location. Locations are rarely consistent among settings. Even so, Sigil requires planar travel to a location that the character likely hasn't heard of yet. If your player says "I want to go to Sigil", there isn't often good justification for it aside from metagaming.

Or having a high Knowledge: The Planes. Just saying.

SilverLeaf167

2012-02-15, 11:11 AM

Anyway, leaving aside a wizard's ability to access spells for a second (they don't even need DMs to give them scrolls; independent research is a thing permitted by the rules), the most broken parts of casters are the things they are supposed to be able to do.
Independent research isn't exactly what it sounds like, it's still dependent on DM approval. Just like the DM might not let you purchase some scroll, he might not let you make up spells of your own. Technically, there isn't even any RAW about independent research, just guidelines that definitely don't function as actual rules on their own.

I also agree that the most OP features of spellcasters, or any other class, don't really come up that often in the typical gaming group, especially if some kind of simple gentleman's agreement is in effect. And if the players actually want to do something generally considered OP or cheesy, settle it OOC with them and nerf the spell in a reasonable manner.

The stuff about setting-specific things being considered "canon" and thus available in every game ever played is just plain silly. If Sigil or some specific plane doesn't exist in the setting, no kind of Knowledge check or spell will let you learn about it or go there, as it simply doesn't exist. The same thing applies to Touchstones, Pazuzu and about everything else: if it doesn't exist in the setting, you can't have access to it.

Treblain

2012-02-15, 11:56 AM

Or having a high Knowledge: The Planes. Just saying.

But isn't putting ranks in Knowledge: The Planes in order to know about Sigil metagaming as well? :smallsmile:

Gavinfoxx

2012-02-15, 12:24 PM

But isn't putting ranks in Knowledge: The Planes in order to know about Sigil metagaming as well? :smallsmile:

Where is your blue text? You put ranks in Knowledge The Planes because, oh I don't know, you are supposed to be an int-focused loremaster, and you get K:tP as a class skill! And since you can act basically under the assumption that your character knows things appropriate to the score he gets when he takes 10 on that skill, eventually it will get high enough so that you can plausibly start talking in character about the City of Brass or Sigil or whatever, without having to roll for them...

Manateee

2012-02-15, 01:10 PM

Independent research isn't exactly what it sounds like, it's still dependent on DM approval. Just like the DM might not let you purchase some scroll, he might not let you make up spells of your own.
True, but my point was that it's the DM making that call directly. If the DM doesn't allow the Wizard to research anything, it's the DM personally trying to change the system to stymie a Wizard's spell access - not the lack of magic marts or the bad luck of a dozen treasure hoards without a single scroll.

Tyndmyr

2012-02-15, 01:43 PM

So I read these boards daily & the consensus seems to be that the T1 casters (wizards especially) are overpowered in the extreme when compared to non-spellcasters.

Sort of. I'd put Artificer as generally more broken than Wizard, for instance. Additionally, level is at play. Wizard is not at all broken at level 1. At level 20? Rather different.

It seems to me that Wizards are probably the easiest of the lot to fix. Their reliance on spellbooks for their spells is supposed to be a hindrance. In most campaigns I have been in, though, the spellbook seems to become a non-factor after about level 3. There seems to be no real reason for this but it seems to happen a lot.

It's simple. I can list an arbitrarily long list of defenses and horrific things I've done to defend my spellbook(s). Then, my spellbook is basically impervious to being stolen. Or, we can just not screw around with that and play D&D in that time instead. The choice is on the GM. If he likes to target my spellbook, I'll waste whatever time is necessary to reduce the risk to approximately zero. I have the ability to do so, I'd just rather not muck about with him trying to make me into a crappy commoner.

Additionally, multiple means exist to make the spellbook not even a thing. Listing all of them would be tedious. Just assume that this is not actually a weakness for any spellcaster who cares about it.

The other issues seem to center around having access to ALL the wizard spells ever. That's even easier to deal with. Simply DON'T give them said spells. (Or at least make them work for them.) I don't see why there is a shop that has ALL the scrolls you could ever want just laying around for the purchase. Most of this (in my opinion) comes from lazy DM's who want to make the players happy. In most cases, it works well for the wizard but not as well for the other PC's.

Copying from spellbooks is more cost effective than scrolls. Here's how this works.

Noob wizard starts game. Knows all cantrips. Knows 3+int 1st level spells. Learns two spells of choice at every level. This guarantees a minimum of four spells of choice at every spell level. The ways to gain more are effectively infinite, and include, by RAW, researching any already printed spell.

Availability is irrelevant.

What strategies do you guys have for dealing with the machine that the wizard becomes? Actual story driven plot?

What's that, railroading? God no. Fixing power with "PLOT!" is terrible.

It might help overpoweredness to actually have a time deadline that forces the casters to push on while at less than full strength. ( I seem to remember reading that there are only supposed to be so many encounters per day but I don't see any real reason for it.)

Here's the thing. Mundane chars need hp and stuff. They tend to run dry first. The only reason that this does not happen is that caster, such as clerics, spend their resources protecting and replenishing the mundane char's resources. If you make it an endurance game, then you are actively punishing them for playing nice.

Eliminate magic mart?

Nah. Mundane folks need magic marts. Magical folk do not. That aforementioned wizard? He can make scrolls for himself by default. No wierd options, just bam, gold and time turned into magic items. With feats, he can make whatever he needs.

The fighter cannot. He needs the magic mart.

In-game prejudices against arcane casters? (Or casters in general for that matter).

If you like, and it fits the setting. That said, keep in mind that you won't necessarily know arcane casters automatically. "wears robes" is not sufficient reason to assume someone is a caster, as opposed to say...someone who's cold.

More realistically? Gentleman's agreement. They avoid ridiculousness, you avoid using it back at them. Whatever level of optimization and awesomeness they prefer to play at, use a similar level when designing challenges for them. Nice and fair.

PersonMan

2012-02-15, 03:24 PM

That said, another option is to drastically reduce the wizard's spells known with a little homebrew. My prefered method is to house-rule that the different schools of magic have very different methodology and are entirely different crafts. The seperate colleges that develop the various schools of magic have a lot of pride in their own and disdain to share their secrets with wizards of another school. With this, a Wizard is reduced to access only to one school of magic, and must multi-class into Wizard so as to gain access to another school.

If you did implement this, I'd 1. Add Wizard/Wizard theurge classes and 2. add a ToB-esque '1/2 your CL is added to other Wizard schools' thing. So an Evoker 3/Illusionist 2 has invisibility.

They're already paying pretty badly for being able to diversify (level 2 spells of another school are generally worse than level 3 spells of your school), so it makes (both mechanical and in-universe) sense to throw them a bit of a bone.

Assuming, of course, you tell everyone beforhand, etc.

EDIT: @ above: Yeah, almost nothing kills verisimilitude for me faster than
'They want to take away your spellbook'
'Why?'
'Because you're a wizard.'
'How can they tell?'
'...They just can.'

Tyndmyr

2012-02-15, 04:01 PM

EDIT: @ above: Yeah, almost nothing kills verisimilitude for me faster than
'They want to take away your spellbook'
'Why?'
'Because you're a wizard.'
'How can they tell?'
'...They just can.'

Yup. If I had a dollar for every time this happened to me...

Incidentally, if you get one of those DMs who believe that casters should always be targeted first, and fighters can't be expected to attract aggro, purchase for your party fighter a fake spellbook and set of robes. He's gleeful at getting to do his job, and you get to enjoy doing yours.

Crasical

2012-02-15, 04:10 PM

The point being, of course, that if you escalate, the wizard can escalate to match. Your "fixes" assume someone that is low-op enough to accept them, in which case you have someone who just might never optimize a wizard to game-breaking levels anyway (essentially, your "blasty-buffy" type). They are otherwise easily overcome.

....Isn't this kind of backwards? I always hear 'Don't get into an arms race with the GM, he will win.'

Chess435

2012-02-15, 04:14 PM

....Isn't this kind of backwards? I always hear 'Don't get into an arms race with the GM, he will win.'

Not if the player is capable of out-optimizing the DM.... :smallwink::smallcool:

Tyndmyr

2012-02-15, 04:35 PM

....Isn't this kind of backwards? I always hear 'Don't get into an arms race with the GM, he will win.'

The real reason not to get into an arms race is not about who wins, but because playing arms race is pretty destructive to the game. While the GM and the optimizer are one upping each other, the other players are probably not having a great time.

It's best for everyone if they just skip the arms race altogether, and play all friendly-like.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-02-15, 04:38 PM

The real reason not to get into an arms race is not about who wins, but because playing arms race is pretty destructive to the game. While the GM and the optimizer are one upping each other, the other players are probably not having a great time.

It's best for everyone if they just skip the arms race altogether, and play all friendly-like.

Yeah, either the DM will send out an uberpowerful monster, or you'll ascend. Or maybe just use Idiot Crusader for infinite actions.

Gavinfoxx

2012-02-15, 04:58 PM

Not if the player is capable of out-optimizing the DM.... :smallwink::smallcool:

The thing is, the DM isn't so bound by the rules as the player...

Bonzai

2012-02-15, 07:05 PM

I ran a campaign a couple years ago. It started at lvl 1, and ended at lvl 22. My goal was to try and make the party sweat a little with each encounter. However my party was very experienced, and were really strong optimizers. There were a variety of things I did to mix it up, different tactics, situations, etc... I did well until the mid to late teens, but it got to a point that if I were to really and truly threaten the party, I would have to pretty much kill a couple of them in one turn.

As a DM, I was not prepared to take the game to that level. I am not out to kill my players characters, I am there to provide fun and interesting stories, and allow my players to experience them through their characters. As they got more and more powerful, the encounters became shorter and more one sided. One player was a Wizard/Psion/Theurge who had devoted himself almost entirely to problem solving. An other was a Beguiler/ fatespinner who took luck out of the equasion, and was potent battle field control/ utility in her own right. The rest of the party were VERY effective damage dealers from a variety of sources. They had all their bases covered, and their tactics down. I became a little disapointed with myself for not challenging them like I used to. After the party reached 22nd level, I had completed the campaign that I had written, had no real idea where to go next with it even if I wanted to, and needed a break from DM'ing to recharge.

After the campaign had ended, I talked to my players about my disapointment in not being able to challenge them toward the end, and how I felt that it had pretty much gotten to a point where I refused to escalate things further as it would most likely result in a party wipe, or at least a few deaths. They then gave me the best compliment they could give me. They said that it didn't matter that they weren't struggling every battle. They were having fun, and enjoying playing the game, in large part because I was fair and not adversarial. They may have had an answer for every encounter, but their room for error and mistakes were very low most of the time. They got to enjoy their characters doing what they were meant to do, and have a good time.

Long rambling post short.... If the players are having fun, does it really matter that they are really powerful? D&D is a game, meant to be played for the enjoyment of the players. It's suprising how many DM's forget that. Now, if the rest of the party isn't having fun, and are completely outshown, then that needs to be addressed, and there are a variety of ways to do that without nerfing anyone.

My two cents on the subject.

rollforeigninit

2012-02-15, 07:47 PM

Coidzor

2012-02-15, 08:30 PM

The thing is, the DM isn't so bound by the rules as the player...

But if the DM gets caught cheating, this can definitely hurt his credibility and credit with the players.

Especially if the DM is the source of the escalation in the first place.

Doubly so if the DM didn't act like a reasonable approximation of a human adult and actually talk to the player if he felt there was a problem.

....Isn't this kind of backwards? I always hear 'Don't get into an arms race with the GM, he will win.'
As far as I understand it, everyone loses. Especially the DM if he actually cared about the time he put into that game.

At least, generally my understanding is that DMs who aren't the sort that's universally reviled here lose more from a game imploding or exploding in their face than the players, again, generally speaking.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-02-16, 07:43 AM

....Isn't this kind of backwards? I always hear 'Don't get into an arms race with the GM, he will win.'

Both this:

Not if the player is capable of out-optimizing the DM.... :smallwink::smallcool:

AND this:

The real reason not to get into an arms race is not about who wins, but because playing arms race is pretty destructive to the game. While the GM and the optimizer are one upping each other, the other players are probably not having a great time.

It's best for everyone if they just skip the arms race altogether, and play all friendly-like.

If the DM and wizard get into an arms race, either the DM will ruin the wizard (negating class features by fiat, destroying or targeting spellbooks specifically, other antagonistic behaviors) or the wizard will become paranoid and ruin the DM (playing every adventure astral projected from a demiplane you created with genesis, with contingencied contingencies and all other manner of tricks to stay ahead of the DM).

In neither case does the party win, but more importantly, it's entirely unnecessary: with a low-op player, the wizard doesn't have enough of an understanding to break the game, and thus there's no reason to escalate; and with a high-op player, usually a gentleman's agreement between player and DM can be fostered by the DM simply asking, "please don't bend the world over your knee and spank it," very nicely.

For all other games, a blanket ban on wizards just might be less headache-inducing. Use the 2/3rds casters instead.

Ursus the Grim

2012-02-16, 12:10 PM

Long rambling post short.... If the players are having fun, does it really matter that they are really powerful? D&D is a game, meant to be played for the enjoyment of the players. It's suprising how many DM's forget that. Now, if the rest of the party isn't having fun, and are completely outshown, then that needs to be addressed, and there are a variety of ways to do that without nerfing anyone.

My two cents on the subject.

IF. IF the rest of the party is having fun.

My issue with OP characters is not that they're OP but that the rest of the party isn't. You say that you can fix the situation I describe without a nerf, but that generally relies on the player being willing to work with you, either changing classes or not playing the class to its potential.

Tyndmyr

2012-02-16, 12:14 PM

Long rambling post short.... If the players are having fun, does it really matter that they are really powerful?

Player power is never bad in and of itself. Player power is only bad if a player is using his power to make other people in the party not have fun. The wizard who insists on doing everything himself is hurting fun, just like the assassin who kills his sleeping teammates for their delicious loot is hurting fun.

The problem lies not with the wizard class or the assassin class, but in what those classes are being used to do. Talk with the player about this. It's the most direct route to fixing problems.

Coidzor

2012-02-16, 01:46 PM

IF. IF the rest of the party is having fun.

My issue with OP characters is not that they're OP but that the rest of the party isn't. You say that you can fix the situation I describe without a nerf, but that generally relies on the player being willing to work with you, either changing classes or not playing the class to its potential.

To which I counter in confusion, "Why are you playing with them if there's personal enmity?" :smallconfused:

Ursus the Grim

2012-02-16, 02:19 PM

To which I counter in confusion, "Why are you playing with them if there's personal enmity?" :smallconfused:

Perhaps I came across too dramatic. What I meant to say may fall under Geek's Fallacies, but relying on personal good will like that is uncomfortable for a lot of people. Even if a relationship is good, one might fear worsening it by asking the player to make a sacrifice or compromise that isn't asked of other players.

Naturally, in an ideal world where everyone was perfectly comfortable with everyone they play with or had an infinite pool of players to form an ideal group with, this wouldn't be an issue.

I'd relate this too a recent experience of mine that I posted about last year, but I'm afraid I've already derailed it enough.

So yes, ideally, just talk to the spellcaster about scaling things back a bit.

Bonzai

2012-02-16, 05:11 PM

Perhaps I came across too dramatic. What I meant to say may fall under Geek's Fallacies, but relying on personal good will like that is uncomfortable for a lot of people. Even if a relationship is good, one might fear worsening it by asking the player to make a sacrifice or compromise that isn't asked of other players.

Naturally, in an ideal world where everyone was perfectly comfortable with everyone they play with or had an infinite pool of players to form an ideal group with, this wouldn't be an issue.

I'd relate this too a recent experience of mine that I posted about last year, but I'm afraid I've already derailed it enough.

So yes, ideally, just talk to the spellcaster about scaling things back a bit.

Asking the spell caster to scale back is one way. Another is to work with the other players to help them be more effective. Or design game sessions that allow other's to shine and create role play opportunities that allow the rest of the party to take a more active role. Have npc's challenge the fighter to a duel, put some traps in for the rogue to find, have some strange tracks for the rangers or druids to find, etc....

Coidzor

2012-02-16, 05:27 PM

Always better to be proactive than reactive. Hence why it's recommended to get a gentleman's agreement in place before the game begins if one hadn't previously been operating under it.

rollforeigninit

2012-02-16, 07:01 PM

Always better to be proactive than reactive. Hence why it's recommended to get a gentleman's agreement in place before the game begins if one hadn't previously been operating under it.

Kinda the whole point I was making about the issue in the 1st place. It's better to be a DM on top of things than running to catch up.

bloodtide

2012-02-16, 09:46 PM

What strategies do you guys have for dealing with the machine that the wizard becomes? Actual story driven plot? It might help overpoweredness to actually have a time deadline that forces the casters to push on while at less than full strength. ( I seem to remember reading that there are only supposed to be so many encounters per day but I don't see any real reason for it.) Eliminate magic mart? In-game prejudices against arcane casters? (Or casters in general for that matter). I'm not asking for a mechanics driven rewrite but if the caster uses planar binding all the time (especially summoning evil creatures) it might cause some backlash with some good-aligned religions or organizations. Or maybe the creature has friends/allies they can send or have sent to eliminate the annoyance.

1.The World was not made Yesterday. This is a very important way to look at things. The Core rules just give a sample of adventuring magic. They don't take into account several thousand years of magic being a day to day fact of life. So needless to say the whole world has had a couple years to come up with defensive spells, items and creatures. And it's not like everyone knows 'just one' spell or whatever. Everyone has tons and tons of them. There is so much magic in the world that no one can know it all. And that leads to the second one.

2.Knowledge checks are much higher and limited. The Core idea that you take a couple ranks in this skill and know absolutely everything about all magic is just rubbish. A character can't just roll a die and get a high result and know everything. First knowledge rolls are broken down into specifics like 'dragon magic', and then even more into 'divine dragon magic' and even more into 'divine dragon magic of Gygax' and so on. A roll on any general topic like 'elven magic', will only get you general information. Also the DC's of of information varies, normally higher depending on the game.

3.Everyone in the world was not born Yesterday. Roughly 99% of all the creatures in the world are more powerful then and know more magic then the players at 1st level. And this percentage does not go down much just as the character gains levels. It's based more on what a character knows. The average adventuring character will always have a good 65% of the world to be more powerful and know more about magic then they do. Note that this does not just include races like humans, as this also counts liches, dragons, and such. So unlike the 'standard Core' idea that everyone is weak and helpless, it's more like everyone is smart and powerful.

4.The world operates on a MAD(Mutual Assured Destruction) like principle. In general, those of any type of great power must be careful. Any action taken may cause reactions and responses from others. So if a wizard was to go nova and destroy a town, all that would really do is get them noticed. And as there are a good 100 or so powerful individuals within a mile of all characters at any one time, this can be a big deal.

5.There is more to the world and more to magic then what is in the Core books. The Core books do not cover absolutely everything that could possibly happen ever in all of existence. For example, what happens if you open two gates right next to each other? Core says nothing, but that's not the final word. And in any case, no one really knows. Even the all great and powerful can only have an idea of what might happen. There are few facts when it comes to magic and lots of 'anything goes'. It's not pure chaos though, as there is some logic to how magic works.

In short, the players can carve out a small notch for themselves in the Multiverse, but they (nor anyone else) can never be a God-King of Everything(though they can get close, and they can try, and it's not totally impossible break this rule.)

Doug Lampert

2012-02-16, 10:42 PM

By RAW, most magic marts wouldn't exist, at least not at higher levels of play. Short of going to a metropolis (truly rare in most cases), there is a GP limit that most groups unfortunately handwave away.

Huh? The GP limit only nerfs melee MORE.

A wizard can buy a scroll of almost anything he wants of less than level 5 at a VILLAGE within the GP limit! And at level 9, he gets teleport.

Also, there's a listed cost for access to a spellbook, guess what, level 9 spells are CHEAP purchased that way! And the GP limit says you can buy normally buy ANYTHING within that limit.

So the FIRST TIME the GP limit can possibly inconvienence a wizard on spell choices is also when he can get to that metropolis anytime he wants if it's within 900 MILES, further if he's willing to spend a bit of time and effort.

And that's ASSUMING that the DM has arbitrarily declared that you can't buy spell-book access to learn spells and can't research them!

Some limit!

Coidzor

2012-02-16, 11:54 PM

The average adventuring character will always have a good 65% of the world to be more powerful and know more about magic then they do.

65% of the world is more powerful and knows more about magic than Epic Wizards, Archivists, and Dual-Casters? Really?

You're so far beyond the Tippyverse it isn't even funny in that case.

bloodtide

2012-02-17, 12:12 AM

65% of the world is more powerful and knows more about magic than Epic Wizards, Archivists, and Dual-Casters? Really?

You're so far beyond the Tippyverse it isn't even funny in that case.

Yes. That's exactly the point. A character can just 'nova blast' there way through things and become epic level. But they sill would not be as powerful as an intelligent long lived person that also used magic.

After all, even the most powerful character can only be as powerful as what's written in the books. The average powerful character does not create anything, they just use what other people have made(and even when they create, they just create things that others have made).

But then too, we are talking about the 'average' character, or say like a good third of them.

Illven

2012-02-17, 12:56 AM

Yes. That's exactly the point. A character can just 'nova blast' there way through things and become epic level. But they sill would not be as powerful as an intelligent long lived person that also used magic.

After all, even the most powerful character can only be as powerful as what's written in the books. The average powerful character does not create anything, they just use what other people have made(and even when they create, they just create things that others have made).

But then too, we are talking about the 'average' character, or say like a good third of them.

If 65% of the world are stronger than epic level characters, then why aren't they solving the campaign problems, how do you go about making the PC's relevant at level 1 when 65% of the world are epic level characters?

TuggyNE

2012-02-17, 05:22 AM

3.Everyone in the world was not born Yesterday. Roughly 99% of all the creatures in the world are more powerful then and know more magic then the players at 1st level. And this percentage does not go down much just as the character gains levels. It's based more on what a character knows. The average adventuring character will always have a good 65% of the world to be more powerful and know more about magic then they do. Note that this does not just include races like humans, as this also counts liches, dragons, and such. So unlike the 'standard Core' idea that everyone is weak and helpless, it's more like everyone is smart and powerful.

That's like... a caricature of the worst features of Forgotten Realms*, turned up to 11. Why would you even do that?

*According to many, at least, FR is annoying because of "all the epic-level NPCs getting in the way". Whether this is necessarily true or reasonable I can't say for sure.

Doc Roc

2012-02-17, 08:24 AM

Or you could just replace your casters with Legend's casters.

lord_khaine

2012-02-17, 08:38 AM

Yes. That's exactly the point. A character can just 'nova blast' there way through things and become epic level. But they sill would not be as powerful as an intelligent long lived person that also used magic.

After all, even the most powerful character can only be as powerful as what's written in the books. The average powerful character does not create anything, they just use what other people have made(and even when they create, they just create things that others have made).

But then too, we are talking about the 'average' character, or say like a good third of them.

This doesnt make any sense whatsoever...

That's like... a caricature of the worst features of Forgotten Realms*, turned up to 11. Why would you even do that?

*According to many, at least, FR is annoying because of "all the epic-level NPCs getting in the way". Whether this is necessarily true or reasonable I can't say for sure.

At the same time, this is why a lot of people love Eberon.

Bonzai

2012-02-17, 11:41 AM

That's like... a caricature of the worst features of Forgotten Realms*, turned up to 11. Why would you even do that?

*According to many, at least, FR is annoying because of "all the epic-level NPCs getting in the way". Whether this is necessarily true or reasonable I can't say for sure.

Most of the complaints regarding the 3.5 Realms smacked of bad/lazy DM'ing or new developers coming on board who had no appreciation or respect for the setting that they were given to work with. "Why does my character matter in a world where Elminister and the chosen exist?", "How can I possibly create anything when EVERY square inch of the setting has been fleshed out".

My responses: "The Chosen are Mystra's agents, and they have a very specific mission statement; To see to the proliferation of Magic, and to prevent it's abuse". Thats a very specific mandate, and unless you are tampering with the weave, or committing genocide against spell casters, the Chosen are not going to be an issue unless you start something in their back yard or just plain bad luck. They will not pop across faerun and stop an Ork horde from slaughtering a village. They will not stop some petty noble from attempting to poison the Regent of Cormyr".

And to the second issue, that was complete bull crap. A DM is always free to create their own material. The world was constantly evolving and as fleshed out as it was, there was still plenty of room to insert a town here or there, and if you need a kingdom, you had such a wide range to choose from, that you were almost certain to find one that fit your needs.

Instead, WotC listened to the vocal minority, along with new developers that thought that they could do it all better than those who had made it the success it was. So they killed off all the NPC's except for their largest cash cows (can't touch them now can we?), and literally ripped and mangled the setting beyond recognition. I went through the same thing with Dragon Lance, and you would think that they would have learned the lesson.

Ok, [/RANT]

bloodtide

2012-02-17, 12:48 PM

If 65% of the world are stronger than epic level characters, then why aren't they solving the campaign problems, how do you go about making the PC's relevant at level 1 when 65% of the world are epic level characters?

Well, your under the assumption that the epic level people would want to solve the campaign problems, of course. And remember that like half of the epic level people are causing the problems. And 65% of the world is not epic level, they are just more powerful then the players. And there are all sorts of power, so we are not just talking about pure 'I can do more damage' then you.

That's like... a caricature of the worst features of Forgotten Realms*, turned up to 11. Why would you even do that?

*According to many, at least, FR is annoying because of "all the epic-level NPCs getting in the way". Whether this is necessarily true or reasonable I can't say for sure.

The Forgotten Realms is my setting of choice, of course.

At the same time, this is why a lot of people love Eberon.

And that is the reason I don't like Eberron(and Dragonlance and LofR, etc). The idea that the whole world just sits around and says ''dumey dur' and has to wait for only the player characters to save them is just silly.

Instead, WotC listened to the vocal minority, along with new developers that thought that they could do it all better than those who had made it the success it was. So they killed off all the NPC's except for their largest cash cows (can't touch them now can we?), and literally ripped and mangled the setting beyond recognition. I went through the same thing with Dragon Lance, and you would think that they would have learned the lesson.

Makes you wonder as they did give the vocal minority there own setting of Eberron, why did WotC feel the need to nuke the Realms? It's not like any of the Relams Haters would come back to the setting in any case.

Coidzor

2012-02-17, 01:06 PM

Well, your under the assumption that the epic level people would want to solve the campaign problems, of course. And remember that like half of the epic level people are causing the problems. And 65% of the world is not epic level, they are just more powerful then the players. And there are all sorts of power, so we are not just talking about pure 'I can do more damage' then you.

You just said that even if the players made it to epic levels that they'd be weaker and know less about magic than 65% of the entire setting when I asked if this arbitrary rule applied to them even after the PCs became as unto gods. If that 65% of the setting who kick more ass than the PCs isn't epic level that implies some shenanigans, to say the least.

So maybe you'd like to take a step back and clarify, given this opening to do so and all?

And that is the reason I don't like Eberron(and Dragonlance and LofR, etc). The idea that the whole world just sits around and says ''dumey dur' and has to wait for only the player characters to save them is just silly.

What? :smallconfused: Do you have NPCs swoop down and derail the plotline by solving everything if your players aren't going through as fast as you'd like?

bloodtide

2012-02-17, 01:46 PM

You just said that even if the players made it to epic levels that they'd be weaker and know less about magic than 65% of the entire setting when I asked if this arbitrary rule applied to them even after the PCs became as unto gods. If that 65% of the setting who kick more ass than the PCs isn't epic level that implies some shenanigans, to say the least.

So maybe you'd like to take a step back and clarify, given this opening to do so and all?

I think you might be stuck on the power part. If your looking at power from the pure basic kind of 'I can kill or destroy more then you can'. So sure an epic level PC could kill most of the creatures in the world, but that does not make them 'more powerful' then all of them. We are not ranking power just by how much damage you can do or who you can kill.

And just being epic level is not even close to being 'unto gods' in my setting.

And epic level does not bring enlightenment or understanding. So a 15th level lich might know more about necromancy then the epic level PC, but the PC could destroy the lich east enough.

Though you have to keep the whole setting in mind. The typical 'Uber Awesome Theoretical Internet Board Trippyverse Character' would not make it much past 10th level or so in my game. They would just not be able to handle the setting. The first time such a character tried to do something like 'I teleport into the kings bed room and kill him and take over the kingdom' and I said 'your teleport spell does not work', that player would toss his books and dice around then room and walk out and never be seen again(except for a random text message about how said he was that his special snowflake character was not allowed to take over the world). In fact, a lot of players don't make it past the first adventure when they try to do something like 'I shoot my magic missile at the door and the shards of wooden shrapnel do 10d10 damage and kill the orc boss' and they are told that not only does not not happen, but that magic missile does not effect objects.

What? :smallconfused: Do you have NPCs swoop down and derail the plotline by solving everything if your players aren't going through as fast as you'd like?

Of course not. Speed is relative, you can't go 'too fast' or 'too slow'. NPC's don't solve everything, and remember that they are causing much of everything.

In general, at any one time, I see roughly 1,000 major events happening in the world(and 10,000 more in the whole multiverse) every day. So that keeps a good chunk of all the NPC's(and the PC's for that matter) busy.

Gavinfoxx

2012-02-17, 02:14 PM

<snip>

That's... really insulting to the people on this forum. You basically called the majority of the optimizers on this forum really immature and unable to handle house rules and childish. Why are you so upset at this?

bloodtide

2012-02-17, 02:40 PM

That's... really insulting to the people on this forum. You basically called the majority of the optimizers on this forum really immature and unable to handle house rules and childish. Why are you so upset at this?

I did not. If I did you'd see that in my post. I'm not even talking about optimizers. I'm an optimizer, after all. I'm talking about bad players, cheating players and players that feel they have the right to interpret the rules.

Take my example of the 'magic missile destroys objects' player(s). It's a common enough idea among bad and cheating players that magic missile can effect objects, and I have had players walk out of a game because they could not magic missile objects(the wizard had spent rounds getting all the goblins on the suspended platform and then attempted to magic missile the rope holding it up and kill all the goblins. He was very upset that his master plan did not work.)

The same goes for my teleport example. The player just assumes that the king would be an easy teleport target. And when that does not work the player just gives up.

I get to play with a broad spectrum of players at the game store, so I do see this all the time. Worse I see poor DM's that can't handle it and get all upset as a player 'teleports around and ruins the plot' or such. And most bad and cheating players don't even consider joining my game after looking over the house rules anyway.

Gavinfoxx

2012-02-17, 02:49 PM

bloodtide

2012-02-17, 03:05 PM

So instead of saying, "Your teleport doesn't work", why don't you say, "You can feel your teleport is blocked by some effect, and you don't move, though the spell slot is wasted. Make an Arcana roll."

Well, of course in the game I'd say something like that. Except the arcana roll as I'm against that sort of thing. I was just paraphrasing for the post.

To give a example: You take the Royal Palace of Cormyr in the Forgotten Realms. Now Cormyr has been around 1,000 years, the palace at least a couple hundred, plus Cormyr has a large group of spellcasters working for the crown. Now, do you think it's reasonable that sometime in the last 1,000 years(or just say the last year) that someone might have thought 'Humm, we should protect the king from random teleport assassinations'?

Coidzor

2012-02-17, 03:39 PM

I think you might be stuck on the power part.

Well, first I was stuck on how you were spouting something rather outlandish (and still are), and then I was stuck on how your words and tone from one post to another ended up with you contradicting yourself. :smallwink:

Now I'm stuck on how you're apparently advocating that everyone do what you do but not communicating the idea very clearly or well for someone who is trying to sell something.

Though you have to keep the whole setting in mind. The typical 'Uber Awesome Theoretical Internet Board Trippyverse Character'

Please don't word salad like that, it's unseemly.

'your teleport spell does not work'

So, basically, what you're saying is that you'd deliberately hide information like this even if the player asked about it, until they actually tried to use their abilities.

And you view people who want an open dialogue between players and DMs as arrogant and conceited. :smallconfused: Can't really say that's a very good tactic for getting people to adopt your ideas.

Of course not. Speed is relative, you can't go 'too fast' or 'too slow'. NPC's don't solve everything, and remember that they are causing much of everything.

Then why is the setting going "derp" if it doesn't have epic level people running around solving all of the problems that the PCs have to deal with? You don't need to have detailed a housand problems that a thousand thousand parties of NPC adventurers are currently dealing with. That's a huge waste of time from a setting wriing perspective.

Take my example of the 'magic missile destroys objects' player(s). It's a common enough idea among bad and cheating players

Yes, and your horrible wording was such that you lumped the concept of optimization and clarity between DM and players with "bad" and "cheating." :smallsigh:

Tyndmyr

2012-02-17, 03:48 PM

I think you might be stuck on the power part. If your looking at power from the pure basic kind of 'I can kill or destroy more then you can'. So sure an epic level PC could kill most of the creatures in the world, but that does not make them 'more powerful' then all of them. We are not ranking power just by how much damage you can do or who you can kill.

And just being epic level is not even close to being 'unto gods' in my setting.

And epic level does not bring enlightenment or understanding. So a 15th level lich might know more about necromancy then the epic level PC, but the PC could destroy the lich east enough.

Though you have to keep the whole setting in mind. The typical 'Uber Awesome Theoretical Internet Board Trippyverse Character' would not make it much past 10th level or so in my game. They would just not be able to handle the setting. The first time such a character tried to do something like 'I teleport into the kings bed room and kill him and take over the kingdom' and I said 'your teleport spell does not work', that player would toss his books and dice around then room and walk out and never be seen again(except for a random text message about how said he was that his special snowflake character was not allowed to take over the world). In fact, a lot of players don't make it past the first adventure when they try to do something like 'I shoot my magic missile at the door and the shards of wooden shrapnel do 10d10 damage and kill the orc boss' and they are told that not only does not not happen, but that magic missile does not effect objects.

Er, if that's your understanding of a typical player, I'm sorry you had to deal with such types.

If you'd like a discussion of why exactly spellcasters are powerful at high levels, and why epic spellcasting is broken, I can provide you with this information, but it has absolutely nothing to do with munchkinning or cheating, which should be discouraged by anyone at any level.

bloodtide

2012-02-17, 04:13 PM

Now I'm stuck on how you're apparently advocating that everyone do what you do but not communicating the idea very clearly or well for someone who is trying to sell something.

I'd never say that. Each person plays the game the way they want. The OP was asking how each of us handle the 'batman god wizards', and I simply gave my answer.

So, basically, what you're saying is that you'd deliberately hide information like this even if the player asked about it, until they actually tried to use their abilities.

No. But I don't believe that a couple ranks in a knowledge skill all you to know everything about everything.

And you view people who want an open dialogue between players and DMs as arrogant and conceited. :smallconfused: Can't really say that's a very good tactic for getting people to adopt your ideas.

I'm not sure where the open dialogue comes from? I'm very open to talking with my players. And the players in all my games like my setting(as they would not play there if they did not). They like having to think and work to be powerful and not just be powerful as page 33 says they are so.

Then why is the setting going "derp" if it doesn't have epic level people running around solving all of the problems that the PCs have to deal with? You don't need to have detailed a housand problems that a thousand thousand parties of NPC adventurers are currently dealing with. That's a huge waste of time from a setting wriing perspective.

It's just a matter of scale. Your looking at the game from a single adventure plot(a lot like a novel or a movie). I look at it from a multi adventure plot where many things are always going on.

Yes, and your horrible wording was such that you lumped the concept of optimization and clarity between DM and players with "bad" and "cheating." :smallsigh:

Again, optimization is not cheating. Cheating is (almost) all the broken stuff you can find on the boards. We all know what cheating is. And a lot of 'god wizards' get away with cheating as the DM lets them. And that's fine if you want to play the game like that. But, like the OP asked, who do you stop the 'god wizards', well, you don't let them cheat or have the final say on the rules or what happens in the setting.

Tyndmyr

2012-02-17, 04:16 PM

Again, optimization is not cheating. Cheating is (almost) all the broken stuff you can find on the boards. We all know what cheating is. And a lot of 'god wizards' get away with cheating as the DM lets them. And that's fine if you want to play the game like that. But, like the OP asked, who do you stop the 'god wizards', well, you don't let them cheat or have the final say on the rules or what happens in the setting.

Er, no. The vast majority of stuff on the boards is legal. Sure, people slip up, bad advice sometimes gets handed out, but very, very few people intentionally advocate cheating.

It's perfectly doable to play quite high op wizards that are quite potent, purely by RAW.

Coidzor

2012-02-17, 04:22 PM

I'd never say that. Each person plays the game the way they want. The OP was asking how each of us handle the 'batman god wizards', and I simply gave my answer.

Well, take this as an observation that you came on a bit too strong and judgmental, then.

No. But I don't believe that a couple ranks in a knowledge skill all you to know everything about everything.

Which has what to do with player knowledge of your setting that they should know if you're mucking about with the magic system?

I'm not sure where the open dialogue comes from?

The bit where you believe it's a realistic scenario to have that play out in any game. Considering you apparently also have people read through your houserules, this implies that you do not include this kind of information in your houserules or the information that you communicate to players.

It's just a matter of scale. Your looking at the game from a single adventure plot(a lot like a novel or a movie). I look at it from a multi adventure plot where many things are always going on.

Then you're overthinking it and being insulting towards those who don't want to be running a thousand side scenarios while they're also running actual games.

Again, optimization is not cheating.

Why, thank you. I know that. I was the one calling you out on having your wording be bad enough that you lumped in optimization with cheating. This implies that I do not find them to be the same thing if I object to them being lumped together.

Cheating is (almost) all the broken stuff you can find on the boards.

No, TO, with very, very few exceptions, cleaves very, very firmly to the rules.

We all know what cheating is.

Hence why you should know better than to have wording that lumps cheating in with optimization.

But, like the OP asked, who do you stop the 'god wizards', well, you don't let them cheat or have the final say on the rules or what happens in the setting.

1. Wizards are a problem without cheating, as has been stated by Tyndmyr and many, many, many, many, many, many others.
2. If you're changing the rules one needs to be upfront about it rather than capricious. Also, I'd urge you to double check your presentation of such if it's anything like how you presented it to us, which was rather haphazard and outright offensive in places.
3. If you repeatedly shut down player agency you'll only get players who like to ride the railroad, this is generally agreed to be a bad thing on the whole.

bloodtide

2012-02-17, 04:23 PM

Er, no. The vast majority of stuff on the boards is legal. Sure, people slip up, bad advice sometimes gets handed out, but very, very few people intentionally advocate cheating.

It's perfectly doable to play quite high op wizards that are quite potent, purely by RAW.

Again we are not really talking about the legal stuff. We are talking about the cheating stuff. The stuff that is clearly written poorly, or does not take into account other rules or that is otherwise problematic.

And we are talking about the things a DM can say and do to effect the game. You want to gate in a solar, well that won't make the good guys very happy...even more so if you have the solar do evil or selfish things for you. So a host of archons might attack you for revenge. Now, page 45 of the rule book does not say that happens....but it could happen in a game.

Kioku

2012-02-17, 04:23 PM

Coidzor

2012-02-17, 04:29 PM

Again we are not really talking about the legal stuff. We are talking about the cheating stuff. The stuff that is clearly written poorly, or does not take into account other rules or that is otherwise problematic.

You seem to have a very strange definition of cheating and legal when it comes to the rules of the games. Indeed, I don't think I've ever heard of someone refer to the rules themselves as cheating.

You want to gate in a solar, well that won't make the good guys very happy...even more so if you have the solar do evil or selfish things for you. So a host of archons might attack you for revenge.

Well, sure, being an actively hostile DM can keep your players in line, but it's a rather, ah, confrontational and needlessly hostile tactic.

bloodtide

2012-02-17, 04:40 PM

You seem to have a very strange definition of cheating and legal when it comes to the rules of the games. Indeed, I don't think I've ever heard of someone refer to the rules themselves as cheating.

Well, have you read through all the books? A lot of books have things like 'increases the threat range of your weapon by one'. Now some books say it stacks with other crit increases, some have a line that says it does not stack. So the rules are open on that point. So that is when a DM has to step in and say 'no that does not work or stack'.

Well, sure, being an actively hostile DM can keep your players in line, but it's a rather, ah, confrontational and needlessly hostile tactic.

I'm not sure why you see it as hostile. My setting does not allow for 'by the book' god wizards. It's not hostile, it's just the setting. The players are free to work within the setting to get 'god powerful', but they don't get to do it automatically as they go up in levels.

Is it hostile to say 'here is my version of Gate where you get no control over the creature summoned'? Is it hostile to say 'you can't just dip into a PsC class for one ability and ignore the role playing aspect of the class?

Tyndmyr

2012-02-17, 05:31 PM

Again we are not really talking about the legal stuff. We are talking about the cheating stuff. The stuff that is clearly written poorly, or does not take into account other rules or that is otherwise problematic.

No we are not. You are. You're the one that keeps bringing up accusations of cheatings.

Furthermore, you are doing so for people who are using the rules. This is...not what the word cheating means.

And we are talking about the things a DM can say and do to effect the game. You want to gate in a solar, well that won't make the good guys very happy...even more so if you have the solar do evil or selfish things for you. So a host of archons might attack you for revenge. Now, page 45 of the rule book does not say that happens....but it could happen in a game.

That's not the rules. If I gate in a solar, I am not cheating. If you bust out archons or not, I'm still not cheating. That said, this is basically solvable by gating in another solar to kill off the archeons. So...it's a problem that solves itself and gives the caster bonus XP.

That's a pretty poor solution.

Well, have you read through all the books? A lot of books have things like 'increases the threat range of your weapon by one'. Now some books say it stacks with other crit increases, some have a line that says it does not stack. So the rules are open on that point. So that is when a DM has to step in and say 'no that does not work or stack'.

Yes. I own and have read every single official 3.x book. This includes the obscure stuff, like dragon mag issues and dragonlance third party official books.

Thus, I know that there's explicit 3.0 -> 3.5 conversion rules, and rules on primary sources, and other such rules for determining which rule takes priority. In short, crit stacking was greatly cleaned up for 3.5, and there's little problem with stacking.

I'm not sure why you see it as hostile. My setting does not allow for 'by the book' god wizards. It's not hostile, it's just the setting. The players are free to work within the setting to get 'god powerful', but they don't get to do it automatically as they go up in levels.

Is it hostile to say 'here is my version of Gate where you get no control over the creature summoned'? Is it hostile to say 'you can't just dip into a PsC class for one ability and ignore the role playing aspect of the class?

Wait...you're accusing us of cheating because we don't use your heavily customized campaign? Is that what this is? Seriously? Look, either justify your claims of us optimizers being largely cheaters, or take it back.

Also, yes, that is hostile and entirely unhelpful. The lower the tier of class, generally speaking, the more helpful dipping is. That warmage might benefit a lot from dipping sandshaper. Me, the wizard? I can take every single level of Iot7v, merrily play up the roleplaying aspects by...casting abjuration spells and even prismatic spells....and lose nothing. Absolutely nothing. So, you nerf the players that are least problematic, while leaving the most powerful unhindered. Those sorts of rules are the opposite of helpful.

rollforeigninit

2012-02-17, 10:36 PM

I should point out that you can't plane shift to Sigil. If you've read the description, it can't be teleported into or out of; the only way to access it is to use one of the Doors. Finding a Door to Sigil in the material plane is a serious pain and can take a lot of research and exploration - and then good luck figuring out the right way to access it. Most are normal doors unless you use the right key, spell, incantation, or whatever other way that particular Door has to access it to go to Sigil instead of just the other side.

Excellent point. It's quite strictly enforced in my campaigns. (Gods I miss Planescape).

As for the City of Brass, it's not exactly hostile but what ya buy may not be what ya want. No harm in trying though.

My whole point I have danced around in this thread is that there are in game ways to deal with exploits. (not cheats, that gets handled differently).

Why on earth would you not allow an arcana check to know the spell properties of Magic Missile? Isn't that the point of K arcana? It also prevents reverse metagaming.

bloodtide

2012-02-17, 11:02 PM

No we are not. You are. You're the one that keeps bringing up accusations of cheatings.

Furthermore, you are doing so for people who are using the rules. This is...not what the word cheating means.

Well, we are not just talking about cheating, we are also talking about bad players and players that feel they can abdicate their own interpretation of the rules. That is how you get 'god wizards'.

That's not the rules. If I gate in a solar, I am not cheating. If you bust out archons or not, I'm still not cheating. That said, this is basically solvable by gating in another solar to kill off the archeons. So...it's a problem that solves itself and gives the caster bonus XP.

It's not cheating to use the gate spell in this way. The cheating part comes in when the player stand on the table and says ''you can't do anything about this DM as it's in the rules''. To many bad players think that just because the rules do not spell out everything, that that makes everything unofficial and wrong. Just because the spell gate says nothing about abuse that says to many bad players that they can just abuse a DM and ruin a game for their own fun and enjoyment. I don't see things that way.

Yes. I own and have read every single official 3.x book. This includes the obscure stuff, like dragon mag issues and dragonlance third party official books. Thus, I know that there's explicit 3.0 -> 3.5 conversion rules, and rules on primary sources, and other such rules for determining which rule takes priority. In short, crit stacking was greatly cleaned up for 3.5, and there's little problem with stacking.

I hope everyone can at least agree that each writer of each book does not exactly 'check the core rules' before they add something to the game. You can find tons of stuff that does not quite fit or mesh together. and this is the stuff a DM has to make a call on, not a thing that a player wishing to take advantage of a loop hole, omission or mistake can vote on.

Wait...you're accusing us of cheating because we don't use your heavily customized campaign? Is that what this is? Seriously? Look, either justify your claims of us optimizers being largely cheaters, or take it back.

Again, going back to the Original Post I'm just pointing out how I run my game with magic.

Optimizing is not cheating. I never said it was. The whole time I've been talking about bad players, cheaters and self rulers...never about optimizers.

Also, yes, that is hostile and entirely unhelpful. The lower the tier of class, generally speaking, the more helpful dipping is. That warmage might benefit a lot from dipping sandshaper. Me, the wizard? I can take every single level of Iot7v, merrily play up the roleplaying aspects by...casting abjuration spells and even prismatic spells....and lose nothing. Absolutely nothing. So, you nerf the players that are least problematic, while leaving the most powerful unhindered. Those sorts of rules are the opposite of helpful.

I guess it depends on each individuals role-playing. And how do you consider 'just casting spells' role-playing anyway?

Slipperychicken

2012-02-18, 12:37 AM

Or you could just replace your casters with Legend's casters.

Having read the book, they do look good. Now I just have to wait until my DM gets tired enough of dual-wielding Banhammer and Homebrew to try it out.

cc_kizz

2012-02-18, 02:49 AM

[…]The whole time I've been talking about bad players, cheaters and self rulers...never about optimizers.[…]

What's a "bad player"? Someone who doesn't fully understand the game?

rollforeigninit

2012-02-18, 09:00 AM

What's a "bad player"? Someone who doesn't fully understand the game?

He seems to be talking about people who are absolutely convinced that something functions in a way it doesn't. Not sure why the DM is not in charge there.

Engine

2012-02-18, 09:59 AM

It seems to me that Wizards are probably the easiest of the lot to fix. Their reliance on spellbooks for their spells is supposed to be a hindrance. In most campaigns I have been in, though, the spellbook seems to become a non-factor after about level 3. There seems to be no real reason for this but it seems to happen a lot.

Well.
I could accept, for roleplaying purposes, to lose the spellbook of my Wizard once in a campaign. Having the spellbook of my Wizard constantly targeted? Not so much.

It's not that I want to "win", or have an invincible character. It's just that with a Wizard I could protect a spellbook in a variety of ways, and keeping track of those things is, well, boring. I play RPGs for fun, and I have little fun worrying too much about how the DM will screw my character and how I could prevent it.

And by the way, if spellbooks are fair targets than swords are too. You know, the precious Fighter's sword, the DM should constantly trying to sunder it.

Maybe we should just forget that PCs resources could be destroyed, and play the game without worrying too much about such things.

The other issues seem to center around having access to ALL the wizard spells ever. That's even easier to deal with. Simply DON'T give them said spells. (Or at least make them work for them.) I don't see why there is a shop that has ALL the scrolls you could ever want just laying around for the purchase. Most of this (in my opinion) comes from lazy DM's who want to make the players happy. In most cases, it works well for the wizard but not as well for the other PC's.

You gain two free spells every time you level as a Wizard. In Pathfinder, if you're human, you could have another free spell. That's a lot of spells, so you really don't need a Magic Mart.

What strategies do you guys have for dealing with the machine that the wizard becomes?

Your ideas are good if you use them just for roleplaying purposes. Using them to limit a class from a mechanical viewpoint? Not so much. If you feel that a player is overshadowing the others you could try to talk to her as others in this thread have already suggested.
The Wizard is just a class, a tool. It requires a player to be truly broken. So one should address the real problem, the player who uses the Wizard in a disruptive manner for the story and for the group.

bloodtide

2012-02-18, 10:43 AM

What's a "bad player"? Someone who doesn't fully understand the game?

Well, a ''bad player'' is simply anyone who puts their own interests and fun ahead of everyone else in the game. A bad player is also a player that makes their own rulings on rules. And most of all a bad player is someone who feels that they have an absolute right to do whatever they want and the DM is not allowed to say anything or stop them.

He seems to be talking about people who are absolutely convinced that something functions in a way it doesn't. Not sure why the DM is not in charge there.

Ever sense 3E, there has been a big huge push by the bad players to take over the game. In the old days, the DM's word was law. If a DM said that elephants were pink and were immune to magic, then they were. But 3E started the idea that the rules were the law, and that the DM was 'just a player too'. And this leads right to where a player interpreters the rules the way they want to or tells the DM they have to follow what the rules say. When the DM has their hands tied by the rules, then the bad players can rule the game.

SilverLeaf167

2012-02-18, 11:39 AM

'god wizards'
You keep using that word... I'm not sure you know what it means.

A "God Wizard" is a character who uses his "utterly OP class" to support and help the party without breaking the game or making anyone feel useless. This is why he is called a "God": he uses his omnipotent powers to aid people without them even realizing. Do note that I'm not actually religious, this is just the definition of the gaming term.

So, a God Wizard isn't actually what you would call a cheater. He is someone who ignores his cheating capabilities and instead tries to make the game better for everyone.

Also, the whole concept of a DM's hands being tied is not something established by the rules: it is an illusion created by the DM itself and sometimes (very rarely) supported by a "bad player". Nobody's saying the DM can't simply fix or ban whatever he wants. Do you even know what TO actually means? Theoretical Optimization. I've never heard of anybody actually intending to use it in a game.

rollforeigninit

2012-02-18, 01:40 PM

Well, a ''bad player'' is simply anyone who puts their own interests and fun ahead of everyone else in the game. A bad player is also a player that makes their own rulings on rules. And most of all a bad player is someone who feels that they have an absolute right to do whatever they want and the DM is not allowed to say anything or stop them.

Ever sense 3E, there has been a big huge push by the bad players to take over the game. In the old days, the DM's word was law. If a DM said that elephants were pink and were immune to magic, then they were. But 3E started the idea that the rules were the law, and that the DM was 'just a player too'. And this leads right to where a player interpreters the rules the way they want to or tells the DM they have to follow what the rules say. When the DM has their hands tied by the rules, then the bad players can rule the game.

What about rule 0?

rollforeigninit

2012-02-18, 01:54 PM

Well.
I could accept, for roleplaying purposes, to lose the spellbook of my Wizard once in a campaign. Having the spellbook of my Wizard constantly targeted? Not so much.

It's not that I want to "win", or have an invincible character. It's just that with a Wizard I could protect a spellbook in a variety of ways, and keeping track of those things is, well, boring. I play RPGs for fun, and I have little fun worrying too much about how the DM will screw my character and how I could prevent it.

And by the way, if spellbooks are fair targets than swords are too. You know, the precious Fighter's sword, the DM should constantly trying to sunder it.

Maybe we should just forget that PCs resources could be destroyed, and play the game without worrying too much about such things.

You gain two free spells every time you level as a Wizard. In Pathfinder, if you're human, you could have another free spell. That's a lot of spells, so you really don't need a Magic Mart.

Your ideas are good if you use them just for roleplaying purposes. Using them to limit a class from a mechanical viewpoint? Not so much. If you feel that a player is overshadowing the others you could try to talk to her as others in this thread have already suggested.
The Wizard is just a class, a tool. It requires a player to be truly broken. So one should address the real problem, the player who uses the Wizard in a disruptive manner for the story and for the group.

I seem to be slightly misunderstood. I don't bring any of this up to screw with or otherwise molest a PC. My goal is mostly to limit exploits to some degree without castrating spellcasters (or wizards in particular). I totally agree with the premise that if it's not fun then it's not worth playing. I've just seen threads about disallowing wizards or other tier 1's altogether. It does seem to me that just removing those archetypical options is not helpful. Instead of targeting potential abuses, I target behaviors. An occasional exploit is fun even. I've used them myself. BUT when it's just the same old trick that no one can beat then I use circumstances & intelligence (or sometimes more powerful enemies) to rein in said PC.

In my opinion, all the iterations of D&D games (Including PF) are about pushing the boundaries of what is POSSIBLE. If only PC's are allowed to be creative then why should I, as the DM, play? I just prefer to deal with the problems that creep up occasionally in game unless the player is being a real pain.

I prefer not to destroy PC items in general. In fact, in my campaign, spellbooks in particular are coveted for access to more spells.

Coidzor

2012-02-18, 03:16 PM

Well, we are not just talking about cheating, we are also talking about bad players and players that feel they can abdicate their own interpretation of the rules. That is how you get 'god wizards'.

That word, I do not think it means what you think it means. In fact, I think you actually want them to abdicate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abdicate) their own knowledge of the rules.

Abdicate
transitive verb
1
: to cast off : discard
2
: to relinquish (as sovereign power) formally
intransitive verb
: to renounce a throne, high office, dignity, or function
— ab·di·ca·ble \-kə-bəl\ adjective
— ab·di·ca·tion \ˌab-di-ˈkā-shən\ noun
— ab·di·ca·tor \ˈab-di-ˌkā-tər\ noun
See abdicate defined for English-language learners »
See abdicate defined for kids »
Examples of ABDICATE

1. The king was forced to abdicate.
2. The king abdicated the throne.

Origin of ABDICATE
Latin abdicatus, past participle of abdicare, from ab- + dicare to proclaim — more at diction
First Known Use: 1541

Optimizing is not cheating. I never said it was.

The typical 'Uber Awesome Theoretical Internet Board Trippyverse Character' would not make it much past 10th level or so in my game.

Try to avoid communicating like this then. It muddies the water and causes you to appear to be saying something completely different, as it combines a denigratory and hostile view of optimization with your tirade against "cheaters."

It's not cheating to use the gate spell in this way. The cheating part comes in when the player stand on the table and says ''you can't do anything about this DM as it's in the rules''. To many bad players think that just because the rules do not spell out everything, that that makes everything unofficial and wrong. Just because the spell gate says nothing about abuse that says to many bad players that they can just abuse a DM and ruin a game for their own fun and enjoyment. I don't see things that way.

So now you're defining "cheating" as calling a DM out on pulling a "rocks fall, everyone dies." And using Gate for its intended purpose of acquiring temporary outsider allies is personally abusing the DM himself now? Really?

I hope everyone can at least agree that each writer of each book does not exactly 'check the core rules' before they add something to the game. You can find tons of stuff that does not quite fit or mesh together. and this is the stuff a DM has to make a call on, not a thing that a player wishing to take advantage of a loop hole, omission or mistake can vote on.

Yes, the core rules are totally an example of writers in splats who aren't doing any doublechecking making rules that don't sync up together right, so the DM has to adjudicate how they fit together.

This would be more topical and have more credibility if you had actually been discussing any of that at all previously, or at least started providing concrete examples.

Well, a ''bad player'' is simply anyone who puts their own interests and fun ahead of everyone else in the game. A bad player is also a player that makes their own rulings on rules. And most of all a bad player is someone who feels that they have an absolute right to do whatever they want and the DM is not allowed to say anything or stop them.

So it's a bad player who dares to have an opinion that is not lock-step with a DM, eh? Well, I guess that makes everyone bad players, because I guarantee that you're going to find a DM who disagrees with player knowledge of the rules in every way shape and form.

This could very easily be turned back upon you, as you've been advocating a philosophy typified by, essentially, killing a player's characters and otherwise tormenting them until they stop playing with you if they dare to take agency and be proactive or use their abilities. A bad DM is one who feels he has to stifle the players and prevent them from taking any actions. A bad DM puts his own rulings above the opinions and perspectives of anyone and everyone else no matter the context. A bad DM kills players' characters for doing things he doesn't want them to do rather than just banning the damn spell if he hates it so much. A bad DM wants to be a petty dictator with absolute control over his players and how they think.

Ever sense 3E, there has been a big huge push by the bad players to take over the game. In the old days, the DM's word was law.

Oh, so now it's just the players being allowed, or even encouraged, to read the books that's the problem? There's a term for what you're wishing would come back. "The bad old days."

Also, you want "since" rather than "sense" here.

Engine

2012-02-18, 06:23 PM

I totally agree with the premise that if it's not fun then it's not worth playing. I've just seen threads about disallowing wizards or other tier 1's altogether. It does seem to me that just removing those archetypical options is not helpful. Instead of targeting potential abuses, I target behaviors. An occasional exploit is fun even. I've used them myself. BUT when it's just the same old trick that no one can beat then I use circumstances & intelligence (or sometimes more powerful enemies) to rein in said PC.

Banning Tier 1 classes is a way to have a balanced party. I'm not saying it's a good way to do it, because in the end we all play for the fun and I think it's not so funny being unable to play some classes.
Anyway, I agree that it's really frustrating seeing a Tier 1 class break the campaign. And I agree that a DM should target behaviours. That's why I said that one should talk to the player and saying that her behaviours aren't that funny, that she's overshadowing the others and that RPGs are cooperative games so she should take in account the fun of the group, not just her fun.

IMHO, trying to rein a player with the setting, or the roleplaying, or with everything that's part of the game will bring to a failure. Because in the end the real problem is the player, not the character neither the class. So you should talk directly to the player, without any intermediary.

rollforeigninit

2012-02-18, 07:31 PM

Banning Tier 1 classes is a way to have a balanced party. I'm not saying it's a good way to do it, because in the end we all play for the fun and I think it's not so funny being unable to play some classes.
Anyway, I agree that it's really frustrating seeing a Tier 1 class break the campaign. And I agree that a DM should target behaviours. That's why I said that one should talk to the player and saying that her behaviours aren't that funny, that she's overshadowing the others and that RPGs are cooperative games so she should take in account the fun of the group, not just her fun.

IMHO, trying to rein a player with the setting, or the roleplaying, or with everything that's part of the game will bring to a failure. Because in the end the real problem is the player, not the character neither the class. So you should talk directly to the player, without any intermediary.

In many cases, you might be right. I did make the mistake of going from personal experience. The "new" player in our campaign I met in 1996 so most gaming issues dissipated a long time ago.

bloodtide

2012-02-18, 07:43 PM

So now you're defining "cheating" as calling a DM out on pulling a "rocks fall, everyone dies." And using Gate for its intended purpose of acquiring temporary outsider allies is personally abusing the DM himself now? Really?

Well, we are not talking about DM actions. The OP wanted to know about players of wizard characters. And it's not about 'not being allowed to use something', it's about the DM being in control of the game. To use the gate example: The DM says 'opening more then one gate in a single area runs the risk of a planar breach'. Now this is not covered anywhere in the rules, so the DM can't say it's on page 44. And the problem players would say ''oh well if it's not in the rules then the Dm can't do it''.

Now, I say a DM should be able to do things like this. And I'm not just talking about 'House Rules'. It's ridiculous to say that the DM must type up a 500, 000 page document of everything custom about the game. The whole point of a DM is to make on the spot rulings.

So it's a bad player who dares to have an opinion that is not lock-step with a DM, eh? Well, I guess that makes everyone bad players, because I guarantee that you're going to find a DM who disagrees with player knowledge of the rules in every way shape and form.

Your free to have an opinion, but in the game the DM makes the final call. The whole thing with problem wizards often comes from DM's that refuse to make a call.

This could very easily be turned back upon you, as you've been advocating a philosophy typified by, essentially, killing a player's characters and otherwise tormenting them until they stop playing with you if they dare to take agency and be proactive or use their abilities. A bad DM is one who feels he has to stifle the players and prevent them from taking any actions. A bad DM puts his own rulings above the opinions and perspectives of anyone and everyone else no matter the context. A bad DM kills players' characters for doing things he doesn't want them to do rather than just banning the damn spell if he hates it so much. A bad DM wants to be a petty dictator with absolute control over his players and how they think.

I'm not sure how you jumped to killing characters?

I agree that a bad DM is one that stifles the players into taking no actions. That's why I'm talking about the DM stepping up and taking control of the setting. I don't agree with the idea that players should make rulings, again the whole point of a DM is t make a ruling. Players of a game can't make rulings, that is why D&D has a DM. The DM his not have any skin in the game.(This is why sports have referees and the players of a team don't get to make rulings).

Engine

2012-02-18, 09:01 PM

Now, I say a DM should be able to do things like this. And I'm not just talking about 'House Rules'. It's ridiculous to say that the DM must type up a 500, 000 page document of everything custom about the game. The whole point of a DM is to make on the spot rulings.

Well, House Rules are fine in my book. But I wish to have prior knowledge of them before playing. That's not ridicolous. I'm using my spare time to play with other people, I want to be sure that I'm playing in a game that could be fun to me. House Rules on the fly are not fine in my book: sure, the DM could introduce a new rule during playing, but I want to have a chance to discuss it if I feel to.

Your free to have an opinion, but in the game the DM makes the final call. The whole thing with problem wizards often comes from DM's that refuse to make a call.

That's not entirely true. Sure, the DM has the final call about the rules, but the players have the final call about playing at all. If you rule something and the players do not agree about it, you may have to find another group to play with.

In many cases, you might be right. I did make the mistake of going from personal experience. The "new" player in our campaign I met in 1996 so most gaming issues dissipated a long time ago.

I had similar experiences, probably. That's why I'm a bit jaded about resolving gaming issues in the game. But, hey, try what you think could be the best solution for your game. Maybe it works, maybe not.

Coidzor

2012-02-19, 12:00 AM

Well, we are not talking about DM actions.

Well, that's where the conversation went, and, unfortunately, you've been advocating some very hostile DMing philosophies and strategies so far in this thread.

And it's not about 'not being allowed to use something', it's about the DM being in control of the game.

Your apparent definition of the DM being in control of the game is not allowing wizards to do X at all or having it bite their faces off if they try instead of acting like a reasonable person and laying things as they stand out for the person.

To use the gate example: The DM says 'opening more then one gate in a single area runs the risk of a planar breach'. Now this is not covered anywhere in the rules, so the DM can't say it's on page 44.

The DM could do that, but that kind of decision, when play that features high level casters is already so ridiculous, smacks of the DM not really having a good reason for his ruling and instead shooting from the hip after having knee-jerk reactions.

And when players can smell a DM who isn't making rulings based on a good rationale, that's bad.

And the problem players would say ''oh well if it's not in the rules then the Dm can't do it''.

Look, if you've actually encountered people like this, you have my sympathies, really, but this is not where the problem with wizards come in. There isn't a real common problem with wizards' characters trying to be inventive with spells and get rulings made on non-covered interactions. Indeed, most of the time as long as they weren't too silly for the particular DM's tastes, most DMs I've spoken to have reported enjoying when their players are creative.

Most of the potential gamebreaking lies with iron-clad, straight-forward, simple spell descriptions that give a ton of power and versatility to full casters.

And then Theoretical Optimization which is not meant to see actual play is even more rock-solid than that.

Now, I say a DM should be able to do things like this.

But as a moral entity and person playing with other people you should have a damn good reason whenever you do change the rules of the game, especially mid-session or after previously having allowed it.

And I'm not just talking about 'House Rules'. It's ridiculous to say that the DM must type up a 500, 000 page document of everything custom about the game.

If the DM is massively changing the rules framework then yes, it is on the DM to inform his or her players of this in some form or fashion that is sufficient to convey the necessary information and to have enough rapport that clarification can be sought without hostility for just asking questions.

The whole point of a DM is to make on the spot rulings.

:smallconfused: No, it is not, that is merely one facet of what the DM must do. The DM does a whole damn sight more than that unless you're doing something like Pathfinder Society where one is running off of a script, and even then they have some leeway last I had checked.

Further, the players have a right to not have the DM constantly flip-flop on them and change what rules he's going to have in effect on the game. Hence why there's an established body of rules in the first place so that there's some common ground and knowledge so that a game can be run in the first place.

Your free to have an opinion, but in the game the DM makes the final call. The whole thing with problem wizards often comes from DM's that refuse to make a call.

I would say that, no, that is not the case at all.

I'm not sure how you jumped to killing characters?

Right. I jumped to kiling characters when you brought up the example of using archons to zergrush and kill a character that was trying to gate in a solar.

The DM his not have any skin in the game.(This is why sports have referees and the players of a team don't get to make rulings).

Certainly doing a good job of making yourself sound like you live the exact opposite then.

gorfnab

2012-02-20, 12:14 AM

Well.
And by the way, if spellbooks are fair targets than swords are too. You know, the precious Fighter's sword, the DM should constantly trying to sunder it.

Maybe we should just forget that PCs resources could be destroyed, and play the game without worrying too much about such things.

You gain two free spells every time you level as a Wizard. In Pathfinder, if you're human, you could have another free spell. That's a lot of spells, so you really don't need a Magic Mart.

If you need a Wizard with lots of spells known but don't want the hassle of a spellbook try this:

"Easy Bake Wizard"

Elf, preferably Gray

Elf Wizard Racial Sub - Races of the Wild
Eidetic Spellcaster ACF - Dragon Magazine #357
Collegiate Wizard feat - Complete Arcane

1st Level - 7+ Int mod 1st level spells known, all cantrips, 1 extra spell per day of highest level
No Familiar, No Scribe Scroll, No Spellbook

Every level after 1st that advances wizard spellcasting gets you 5 spells known for free instead of the usual 2

If you're playing in Eberron, the feat Aerenal Arcanist (Player's Guide to Eberron) will net you an additional spell known per level netting you 8+Int spells at 1st level (if you take at first level with flaws) and 6 spells known every level after that.

I recommend also taking the Spontaneous Divination ACF from Complete Champion with the build set up.

Add the Domain Wizard ACF from Unearthed Arcana. It works with the Elf Wizard Racial Sub. 1 more spell known and a spell slot to cast it per spell level, and you get to cast that spell at +1 caster level.

Grendus

2012-02-20, 01:33 AM

On topic, I can think of four good ways to "deal" with overpowered characters.

1. Gentleman's Agreement. Probably the easiest on the DM. If they know enough optimization to make the T1 a problem, they have enough system mastery to play it at the same level as the rest of the party. Of course, this can be very boring to an optimizer stuck in a very unoptimized group.
2. Be a Team Player. Probably more fun for a powergamer type. Most of the best buff spells can be cast on others. If the rest of your party is underpowered, make them better. It's usually a better use of that spell slot anyways, at low to mid levels beatsticks make a great force multiplier and debuffing enemies so the melee can safely mix it up with them saves on healing without rendering them obsolete. Fun for all ages tiers. Requires a bit of self control and can be hard on newer GM's.
3. Houseruling. Everybody knows that chain gating leads to serious power imbalance, and Candle of Invocation as written can break the setting. It is certainly possible to pare spellcasters back to reasonable levels, as evidenced by the more reasonable T3 spellcasters. Takes a lot of work though, and can still fail if they slip an overpowered spell past you. Plus it builds resentment if you do it too much. If the DM is going to nerf all the good spells, you might as well play a fixed list caster and have more spell slots, more situational versatility, and decent class features.
4. Banning. Within 3.P there are a massive variety of classes in T2-T6, enough to cover any archtype you might want. Requires the least work and is the least likely to backfire, but... well, T1's can be a lot of fun to build and play. Generally speaking, if you have to do this, it means you don't trust your group - either it's a new group or you have munchkin types and you should probably solve the problem OOC. Certainly acceptable, but you probably shouldn't use this as a permanent solution.

I'm a big opponent of targeting the wizard's spellbook. The problem is that's a binary weakness, either the wizard is at full strength or he's a commoner with a better skill list. Not fun for the player, you get in an arms race with the DM and he can still simply win by fiat if he's enough of a jerk. Unless destroying the party's equipment is a running theme, avoid trying to simply negate the wizard. There are plenty of good ways to deal with him without alienating the player.

Canarr

2012-02-20, 06:05 AM

More realistically? Gentleman's agreement. They avoid ridiculousness, you avoid using it back at them. Whatever level of optimization and awesomeness they prefer to play at, use a similar level when designing challenges for them. Nice and fair.

Excellent suggestion, IMO. Just follow that and you won't have any problems with brutally overpowered casters (or other PCs) in your game.

As a GM, I can always "win"; that's not a challenge. I control every creature in the world, I know the strengths and weaknesses of the PCs and, without breaking a single D&D rule or fudging a single die roll, I can always design a level-appropriate encounter that will utterly destroy the party. I know that I can, my players know that I can - but where's the fun in it? We get together to play together - they have character ideas they want to pursue, I have plot and setting ideas I want to pursue, and none of that is really going to work too well if either player or GM has some fantasies of omnipotence they want to live out in the game. So, it's just not happening. It's as easy as that.

My players know that I'm not looking to smash their characters in the first round of every combat; so they don't feel the need to optimize their characters in every possible direction. They know that I'll have plot points geared towards each character in turn, and everyone will have their chance to shine.

TL; DR: There's no need to nerf the casters unless you have a player behind the caster who's not really playing with the other players, but just with himself.

Canarr

2012-02-20, 08:13 AM

Well, we are not talking about DM actions. The OP wanted to know about players of wizard characters. And it's not about 'not being allowed to use something', it's about the DM being in control of the game. To use the gate example: The DM says 'opening more then one gate in a single area runs the risk of a planar breach'. Now this is not covered anywhere in the rules, so the DM can't say it's on page 44. And the problem players would say ''oh well if it's not in the rules then the Dm can't do it''.

Of course the GM *can* do that, yes. But making such a profound ruling in his game is something the players of characters with an appropriate background should be informed of - say, the Wizard trying to cast the Gate spell. As a matter of fact, the spell should come with a warning label: "Caution. Casting more than one of these in the same location within a set timeframe will cause reality to collapse and bad things to happen. Exercise appropriate caution."

Now, a 17th level Wizard can (and often will) have 20 ranks in Spellcraft and/or Knowledge: Arcana and Knowledge: the Planes. That's a crapload of knowledge about the mechanics of spells and the inner workings of magic and planar peculiarities. At some point in acquiring all that knowledge, he *should* have learned something as important as, "Multiple Gates rip open the barriers between the planes!"

That's why you have house rules open for perusal by the players in advance. Putting this in as a house rule is no problem at all, since the players - and thus, their characters, if they have appropriate knowledge - will know about it in advance.

Waiting until the wizard player happily tries chaining Gates for the first time to spring that info on him as a surprise, however, is just a **** move. As you said: people in this world have been doing magic for a thousand years and longer; at some point in that time, someone should have discovered such problems, and have made them available for other scholars of the arcane.

Tyndmyr

2012-02-20, 11:03 AM

Well, we are not just talking about cheating, we are also talking about bad players and players that feel they can abdicate their own interpretation of the rules. That is how you get 'god wizards'.

No, God Wizard is a specific term, that refers to a specific guide (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19873034/Treantmonks_guide_to_Wizards:_Being_a_God) for playing wizards. Please use it as such. Be aware that munchkinning rules is not part of the guide or definition.

It's not cheating to use the gate spell in this way. The cheating part comes in when the player stand on the table and says ''you can't do anything about this DM as it's in the rules''. To many bad players think that just because the rules do not spell out everything, that that makes everything unofficial and wrong. Just because the spell gate says nothing about abuse that says to many bad players that they can just abuse a DM and ruin a game for their own fun and enjoyment. I don't see things that way.

Gate, as spelled out in the rules, is extremely powerful. Your player is not wrong for pointing that out. He is also not wrong for feeling annoyed that use of his spells exactly as written results in him being targetted by the heavens for assassination. That sounds a bit like he's being picked on.

I hope everyone can at least agree that each writer of each book does not exactly 'check the core rules' before they add something to the game. You can find tons of stuff that does not quite fit or mesh together. and this is the stuff a DM has to make a call on, not a thing that a player wishing to take advantage of a loop hole, omission or mistake can vote on.

Why not? Why is voting cheating? I agree, voting is not the only way in which tables choose to resolve differences, but I see nothing wrong with people who wish to use such a resolution method. I consider the opinions of my players in determining what is allowed, and I would hope that most GMs would.

Again, going back to the Original Post I'm just pointing out how I run my game with magic.

Optimizing is not cheating. I never said it was. The whole time I've been talking about bad players, cheaters and self rulers...never about optimizers.

That's not what this thread is about, though. Please either show how your opinions in this matter are relevant, or take it elsewhere.

I guess it depends on each individuals role-playing. And how do you consider 'just casting spells' role-playing anyway?

Iot7v doesn't have very restrictive fluff. It's not tied to organizations or physical locations...it does have a nice focus on abjuration and prismatic spells, but the entire point is that your set of restrictions imposes basically no additional burden on the high op player, but DOES impose burdens on the low op player.

This means that your set of restrictions destroys, rather than promotes balance.

Now, I say a DM should be able to do things like this. And I'm not just talking about 'House Rules'. It's ridiculous to say that the DM must type up a 500, 000 page document of everything custom about the game. The whole point of a DM is to make on the spot rulings.

If you can't even list everything custom about your game, you might well consider that this means you need to cut back. A new player to your game world is not going to understand the world that his char lives in. This is pretty terrible for realism and telling a story.

If the rules work differently in your game, it's reasonable for the player to expect to know this before it comes up in game. House rules are fine, but they should not be "whatever I feel like at the moment".

Engine

2012-02-20, 11:17 AM

If you need a Wizard with lots of spells known but don't want the hassle of a spellbook try this

Too bad I'm playing Pathfinder right now, but thanks for your suggestion.:smallwink:

(By the way I feel that spellbooks aren't that much of a burden, and last time I played a Wizard I had to convince the DM to not giving my character instant knowledge of every spell on the list like the Cleric because, you know, I have fun finding new spells for my character)

Tyndmyr

2012-02-20, 11:42 AM

Too bad I'm playing Pathfinder right now, but thanks for your suggestion.:smallwink:

(By the way I feel that spellbooks aren't that much of a burden, and last time I played a Wizard I had to convince the DM to not giving my character instant knowledge of every spell on the list like the Cleric because, you know, I have fun finding new spells for my character)

Honestly, I quite enjoy the spell collecting mini-game. Rather than targetting spellbooks, I suggest gleefully embracing this mini-game. It gives you a fun way to reward your wizard player to some degree without significantly changing the power balance. Give him a bit of variety in spellbooks, scrolls, or what have you, and let him happily add things to his char sheet that, in actual practice, likely add little but flexibility.

Meanwhile, give the other chars things too.

erikun

2012-02-20, 11:50 AM

I am rather stunned by the implication that AD&D players always followed the rulings created by the DM, never sought to question the DM, and never attempted to apply their own personal interpretation of the rules onto the game.

I have seen far more of the "I get a save when interacting with illusions and seeing a visual illusion is an interaction and so I should get a save to see through invisibility" arguments (for a specific example that actually happened) from AD&D players than anyone who has started with 3e, or any other system.

If you need a Wizard with lots of spells known but don't want the hassle of a spellbook try this:
I like the Illusion Mastery (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/specialistWizardVariants.htm#illusionistVariants) ACF for illusionists, as it does something similar but you only need to allow one source to make it work. Not as powerful, certainly, but still a lot of versatility and entirely capable of full spellcasting even when stripped of all equipment (with Eschew Materials).

bloodtide

2012-02-20, 01:29 PM

Gate, as spelled out in the rules, is extremely powerful. Your player is not wrong for pointing that out. He is also not wrong for feeling annoyed that use of his spells exactly as written results in him being targetted by the heavens for assassination. That sounds a bit like he's being picked on.

It's fun how as soon as you say something to someone they say you can't do that as they feel 'picked on'. So a character can just walk up to an NPC and kill them? After all if the DM said ''well the guards come after you'' that would be ''picking on them'' right? So the same way if an outsider shows up and is mad as the character gated him in before, that is ''picking on '' them? you make it sound like a DM can't do anything, for fear they might ''pick on'' the player.

Why not? Why is voting cheating? I agree, voting is not the only way in which tables choose to resolve differences, but I see nothing wrong with people who wish to use such a resolution method. I consider the opinions of my players in determining what is allowed, and I would hope that most GMs would.

I don't understand this at all. The whole point of having a DM is that they are separate from the players(and again, this is why referees are not on a sports team). The whole idea is the DM, without a character in the game, decides things for all. The idea that the players would make calls on things is just silly. Even if all the players were perfect angels, you'd still have problems.

So all the players vote ''each character gets five free wishes a day'', now that sounds like a fun game. Or how about the players just vote every couple of minuets of the game ''We vote that all our characters get 100 free hit points''. As you can see, having the players vote can never work.

That's not what this thread is about, though. Please either show how your opinions in this matter are relevant, or take it elsewhere.

Glad your here to tell me what I can post and where to post it. I wonder if that is against the rules here?

The OP asked for ways to limit spellcasters and wizards in particular. So i gave my way.

If you can't even list everything custom about your game, you might well consider that this means you need to cut back. A new player to your game world is not going to understand the world that his char lives in. This is pretty terrible for realism and telling a story.

If the rules work differently in your game, it's reasonable for the player to expect to know this before it comes up in game. House rules are fine, but they should not be "whatever I feel like at the moment".

I just never got this type of reasoning. If you can't spell out all the rules before the game they don't exist?

Lets take a specific example: Character X tries to teleport into into the kings bedroom. The Dm says 'your teleport spell does not work''. Now, I think it would be reasonable for this to happen. But your saying that as that player did not get a huge essay saying ''important and powerful people may have magical protections'' that it would be wrong to do so in the game.

Or are you thinking that I'm talking about randomly changing the rules every second or so to mess with the players? I'm not. As I said a couple times, the way to handle powerful spellcasters is to just keep control of the game. It's simple, the Core rules just cover 'adventuring', they are not a set of rules describing a whole imaginary world. That is what the DM has to do.

Tyndmyr

2012-02-20, 02:08 PM

It's fun how as soon as you say something to someone they say you can't do that as they feel 'picked on'. So a character can just walk up to an NPC and kill them? After all if the DM said ''well the guards come after you'' that would be ''picking on them'' right? So the same way if an outsider shows up and is mad as the character gated him in before, that is ''picking on '' them? you make it sound like a DM can't do anything, for fear they might ''pick on'' the player.

The first is a possible result, depending on circumstance.

However, given that gate gives you absolutely no indication that gating outsiders in means they want to kill you later, there's little reason to assume that this is standard practice. IE, you are putting into place setting details that your players have no reason to assume.

And yes, punishment without warning IS picking on them.

I don't understand this at all. The whole point of having a DM is that they are separate from the players(and again, this is why referees are not on a sports team). The whole idea is the DM, without a character in the game, decides things for all. The idea that the players would make calls on things is just silly. Even if all the players were perfect angels, you'd still have problems.

That is...merely one aspect of being a DM. A more notable aspect would be to organize an adventure for the players to play through, and to handle the logistics of doing that.

The players are there to play, and the DM is there to make that possible. The less the DM needs to resort to the referee mode, the better he's doing. An ideal game is one in which there are no disagreements about the rules on anyone's part.

So all the players vote ''each character gets five free wishes a day'', now that sounds like a fun game. Or how about the players just vote every couple of minuets of the game ''We vote that all our characters get 100 free hit points''. As you can see, having the players vote can never work.

Really? Your players would vote to destroy the game so obviously? Why? Do they place no value on the game?

I have seen groups of players work by voting on rules issues with my own eyes. One such campaign was a round robin campaign, in which each week, another player would take a turn DMing. Rules changes were minimal, and were solved by people generally discussing how the rule did/should work. Nobody even brought up free wishes or other such nonsense.

Other systems, such as Dresden Files, have the players taking active, equal roles in such things as creating the world in which they adventure. Such systems work quite well, and this one in particular is both somewhat popular and has won a great deal of awards. There is absolutely no need to assume that an autocratic DM role is necessary for RPGs. Hell, some games dispense with the DM role altogether.

Glad your here to tell me what I can post and where to post it. I wonder if that is against the rules here?

If you are honestly curious about the rules, and not merely being sarcastic, there's a link to them at the very top of the page. It is always considered good form to stay on the topic everyone else is discussing, though.

The OP asked for ways to limit spellcasters and wizards in particular. So i gave my way.

Everything he said was about optimization and wizards. Nothing was about cheating. So far, the only time you've been on topic is when you've merrily insulted optimizers by lumping us in with cheaters.

I just never got this type of reasoning. If you can't spell out all the rules before the game they don't exist?

Correct. Rules should not merely be invented on the fly. If for some reason, you need to modify the rules after the campaign starts, you should make sure your players are aware of the change, and are ok with it. You should also seek to minimize these sorts of ad-hoc changes. Consistency is important.

Lets take a specific example: Character X tries to teleport into into the kings bedroom. The Dm says 'your teleport spell does not work''. Now, I think it would be reasonable for this to happen. But your saying that as that player did not get a huge essay saying ''important and powerful people may have magical protections'' that it would be wrong to do so in the game.

Yes, this is wrong. You're flat out denying a player ability instead of bothering to actually use an actual spell or other mechanism. If the King keeps a wierdstone in his castle, that's legit. It also means that the players can discover this with the right knowledge skills and some legwork. This leads to good, plausible storytelling.

"you just can't teleport there" adds nothing to the story, and serves only to railroad the players down the DMs desired path. This is NOT what rules changes are for.

Or are you thinking that I'm talking about randomly changing the rules every second or so to mess with the players? I'm not. As I said a couple times, the way to handle powerful spellcasters is to just keep control of the game. It's simple, the Core rules just cover 'adventuring', they are not a set of rules describing a whole imaginary world. That is what the DM has to do.

It is not a matter of "control". It is a game, one in which maintaining "control" should not be a priority. Things like "having fun", "making a story to which everyone contributes" and "having a plausible world" are priorities.

Managing spellcasters by fiating away their abilities whenever they become inconvenient means destroying realism, destroying player fun, and forcing everyone to do things your way. This is actively destructive to having a good, fun game.

Gnaeus

2012-02-20, 02:20 PM

I agree with everything Tyndmyr said in this thread.

Ever sense 3E, there has been a big huge push by the bad players to take over the game. In the old days, the DM's word was law. If a DM said that elephants were pink and were immune to magic, then they were. But 3E started the idea that the rules were the law, and that the DM was 'just a player too'. And this leads right to where a player interpreters the rules the way they want to or tells the DM they have to follow what the rules say. When the DM has their hands tied by the rules, then the bad players can rule the game.

Virtually no one here disagrees that the DM has the power to rewrite the rules, or that that power is a good thing.

Most people here (I think) have issues with ways in which that power is commonly (ab)used. Most especially, in the following general categories:
1. When the DM doesn't know what he is doing, and his rules changes do not have intended results.

example: DM: "I will kill magic marts to keep the op Wizard from breaking the world!"
Fighter: "But now I can't get the items I need!"
OP Wizard (under his breath) : "Heh! I didn't need them anyway!"

2. When the DM is trying to maintain his railroad/personal control by keeping PCs weak.

Example:DM: "I will ignore WBL and not give any treasure and kill magic marts to make campaign "Gritty" and keep players dependent on me"
Fighter: "But now I can't get the items I need!"
OP Wizard (under his breath) : "Heh! I didn't need them anyway!"

3. When rules changes seem sudden:

Example: After learning Polymorph, memorizing and then casting polymorph, Player (whose character has appropriate skills) is THEN told how polymorph works in that game. This is much, much worse if Character was being built towards some combo that is now worthless, and DM will not let him rewrite. In the Teleport example, it makes perfect sense that the king's bedroom is warded against teleport. It does not make sense that any wizard with a high Know Arcana and godlike smarts would not know that many/most important people have defenses against magical attacks including scry and die tactics. It doesn't have to have notice in the houserules, but it would be good to mention to the wizard player when he is choosing to learn Teleport, and certainly before he tries to use it in this manner.

4. When rules changes seem punitive/cruel:

Example: Rules are changes to benefit (d)NPCs, or favored PCs, while other players, as a result of their class choice, favoritism, or other reasons, are beaten down. Like if players of wizards, druids, or paladins find out in game that the DM hates their class for whatever reason, and will make it unplayable.

So, for example, if people on forums hear that a game has no magic marts, or is way below wbl, they will generally assume that in this case, as it most commonly is, it is a result of example 1 or 2 and come down hard on the DM. Not because DM used rule 0, but because they have assumptions relating to the most common reasons behind that particular houserule. If they hear about a crit-fumble rule, they will assume that the DM doesn't know what he is doing because of the way it alters class balance.

And most importantly, the DM's word is bound by rule -1. If it makes players not enjoy his game, they can and should leave. This is a much stronger rule than ANY in the rulebooks. If the DM wants to play god, but all the players want to play in a game that is run by RAW, the players can leave and play their own game, and the DM can write a novel loosely based on D&D. This has always been and will always be true. It is more true today than in past, simply because most players have more options to find different games to play if they don't like the one they are in.

bloodtide

2012-02-20, 02:50 PM

The first is a possible result, depending on circumstance. However, given that gate gives you absolutely no indication that gating outsiders in means they want to kill you later, there's little reason to assume that this is standard practice. IE, you are putting into place setting details that your players have no reason to assume. And yes, punishment without warning IS picking on them.

I guess what you see as punishment is just part of the game of role-playing to me. If a character charms a shopkeeper every time they come to town and cheats him, it's not unreasonable to me that the shopkeeper might figure this out and get mad about it an take some action against the character. But you'd say that charm person does not intricate that people might not like being charmed, so A DM should not do this?

That is...merely one aspect of being a DM. A more notable aspect would be to organize an adventure for the players to play through, and to handle the logistics of doing that.

The players are there to play, and the DM is there to make that possible. The less the DM needs to resort to the referee mode, the better he's doing. An ideal game is one in which there are no disagreements about the rules on anyone's part.

That would be an ideal game for sure.

Really? Your players would vote to destroy the game so obviously? Why? Do they place no value on the game?

I have seen groups of players work by voting on rules issues with my own eyes. One such campaign was a round robin campaign, in which each week, another player would take a turn DMing. Rules changes were minimal, and were solved by people generally discussing how the rule did/should work. Nobody even brought up free wishes or other such nonsense.

Not every player is a paladin. It's just human nature to stack the deck in your favor. And again, this is why a sports team does not get to make a call on a play. That's what a referee does.

Other systems, such as Dresden Files, have the players taking active, equal roles in such things as creating the world in which they adventure. Such systems work quite well, and this one in particular is both somewhat popular and has won a great deal of awards. There is absolutely no need to assume that an autocratic DM role is necessary for RPGs. Hell, some games dispense with the DM role altogether.

True, but note we are on the D&D 3X/D20 forum.

Everything he said was about optimization and wizards. Nothing was about cheating. So far, the only time you've been on topic is when you've merrily insulted optimizers by lumping us in with cheaters.

Even though I never said optimization was cheating. Granted there are optimizers that cheat, but then you will find that every group has cheaters in it as well.

What I say is cheating is letting a player make a rule call or decide what happens in the game. A player can't say ''they leave the back door unlocked'' and then walk in and rob the place. The same way a player can't say ''I cast a gate spell and nothing bad every happens to my character because of it''.

Correct. Rules should not merely be invented on the fly. If for some reason, you need to modify the rules after the campaign starts, you should make sure your players are aware of the change, and are ok with it. You should also seek to minimize these sorts of ad-hoc changes. Consistency is important.

I do agree with consistency. But I see nothing wrong with saying a general ''it's not a good idea to teleport into a important place'' or ''beings don't like being taken advantage of by charm spells or gate'' or ''places might have defenses''.

Yes, this is wrong. You're flat out denying a player ability instead of bothering to actually use an actual spell or other mechanism. If the King keeps a wierdstone in his castle, that's legit. It also means that the players can discover this with the right knowledge skills and some legwork. This leads to good, plausible storytelling.

"you just can't teleport there" adds nothing to the story, and serves only to railroad the players down the DMs desired path. This is NOT what rules changes are for.

I guess I don't see how saying ''you can't teleport into the king's bedroom'' is any different then the DM saying ''you see two orcs standing by a wooden chest''. The DM describes what happens in the game.

After all, how would the players automatically know everything about the setting? They simply cast teleport, and are told it does not work...and take no other action but to call the DM out on 'not adding to the story' and being 'railroaded'. How is it any different then if the DM says ''the door is locked'' so the characters can't get into a room? Is that also 'not adding to the story' and 'railroading'.

(and one of my big house rules nerfs knowledge checks,as I said in my first post, so that's not an option in my game.)

It is not a matter of "control". It is a game, one in which maintaining "control" should not be a priority. Things like "having fun", "making a story to which everyone contributes" and "having a plausible world" are priorities.

Managing spellcasters by fiating away their abilities whenever they become inconvenient means destroying realism, destroying player fun, and forcing everyone to do things your way. This is actively destructive to having a good, fun game.

It's always a matter of control in a social situation. Think of any even you have ever been to or been a part of....you have the best times when someone is in control and sets everything up, keeps everything moving and makes sure everything goes right.

It's not exactly a 'fiat' in my game, as I have always run an ultra-high level/fantasy/energy/magic game. And that is right at the top of my house rule list. And a lot of players do like that kind of game. They like where they have to work to get power, not where they just sit back and say ''I do the infinite wish loop as per the rules and take over the world''.

So I'm not talking about where player Billy says ''I cast my spell'' and the DM jumps up and says ''your spell does not work! sit down shut up!''. I'm talking about a whole game world set up, things like the local blacksmith at the enchanters collage is an azer so that apprentices can't charm him at all.

Tyndmyr

2012-02-20, 02:57 PM

That would be an ideal game for sure.

Then work toward making your game closer to the ideal. Minimize conflicts. If the rules are known and agreed upon beforehand, players are vastly less likely to disagree over them in game.

Not every player is a paladin. It's just human nature to stack the deck in your favor. And again, this is why a sports team does not get to make a call on a play. That's what a referee does.

This ain't a sports game. We're all on the same side here, and we all have basically the same goals(mostly, having fun with a bunch of friends). The sports metaphor does not apply.

It's always a matter of control in a social situation. Think of any even you have ever been to or been a part of....you have the best times when someone is in control and sets everything up, keeps everything moving and makes sure everything goes right.

Skipped right ahead to this one, since this is the real problem. Social settings are NOT all about control. The best times I've had have been informal gatherings with friends, time spent with significant others, etc. Nobody is in control of everyone else in such a setting, yet everyone has a good time.

Players do not need to be "controlled" to be happy.

bloodtide

2012-02-20, 03:06 PM

Most people here (I think) have issues with ways in which that power is commonly (ab)used. Most especially, in the following general categories:
1. When the DM doesn't know what he is doing, and his rules changes do not have intended results.

example: DM: "I will kill magic marts to keep the op Wizard from breaking the world!"

I agree with this one.

2. When the DM is trying to maintain his railroad/personal control by keeping PCs weak.

Example:DM: "I will ignore WBL and not give any treasure and kill magic marts to make campaign "Gritty" and keep players dependent on me"

I dislike this one myself. I cringe when a DM says 'a low magic' game or 'lots of role-play', as I know they will want to weaken the characters bit time.

3. When rules changes seem sudden:

Example: After learning Polymorph, memorizing and then casting polymorph, Player (whose character has appropriate skills) is THEN told how polymorph works in that game. This is much, much worse if Character was being built towards some combo that is now worthless, and DM will not let him rewrite. In the Teleport example, it makes perfect sense that the king's bedroom is warded against teleport. It does not make sense that any wizard with a high Know Arcana and godlike smarts would not know that many/most important people have defenses against magical attacks including scry and die tactics. It doesn't have to have notice in the houserules, but it would be good to mention to the wizard player when he is choosing to learn Teleport, and certainly before he tries to use it in this manner.

I agree with most of this, but I will always feel that magic should mostly be 'unknown', so no one can every know everything about it. So 'anything' can happen. Big huge changes are in the house rules(my polymorphs have the old 'you might loose your mind effect'). And for the most part I'd much rather 'play out an effect' then just do a boring sit down of ''oh, Fred you can't teleport into that dragon's hoard''. It's much more fun for them to learn about the dragon's teleport redirection in the game when it happens to them.

4. When rules changes seem punitive/cruel:

Example: Rules are changes to benefit (d)NPCs, or favored PCs, while other players, as a result of their class choice, favoritism, or other reasons, are beaten down. Like if players of wizards, druids, or paladins find out in game that the DM hates their class for whatever reason, and will make it unplayable.

This is common, and I sure don't agree with this sort of thing. I see the thing like 'oh wizards take con damage equal to the spell level' or such all the time.

I know there are tons of DM's like 1-4...and worse. The problem is the response of ''well the players can do whatever they want as there are DM's like that''.

And most importantly, the DM's word is bound by rule -1. If it makes players not enjoy his game, they can and should leave. This is a much stronger rule than ANY in the rulebooks. If the DM wants to play god, but all the players want to play in a game that is run by RAW, the players can leave and play their own game, and the DM can write a novel loosely based on D&D. This has always been and will always be true. It is more true today than in past, simply because most players have more options to find different games to play if they don't like the one they are in.

All True. Some players don't like my kind of game. They feel they should be able to 'do anything' and the 'DM is just a player' and 'we players can out vote the DM' and so on.

But I've also had the spot of gaming with plenty of people that don't 'get along'. And the best way to deal with this, and OP spellcasters in general, is for the DM to keep control of the game.

Gnaeus

2012-02-20, 03:17 PM

After all, how would the players automatically know everything about the setting? They simply cast teleport, and are told it does not work...and take no other action but to call the DM out on 'not adding to the story' and being 'railroaded'. How is it any different then if the DM says ''the door is locked'' so the characters can't get into a room? Is that also 'not adding to the story' and 'railroading'.

(and one of my big house rules nerfs knowledge checks,as I said in my first post, so that's not an option in my game.)

Well, you see, Characters have access to a lot of knowledge that Players don't have. Like all the time they spent in wizard school or studying under a master. Or the notes in the spellbook that they copied the Teleport spell from. Or all the hours they spend talking to other adventurers in taverns. Or, you know, an actual understanding of the in game natural laws that make their magic work, which make them able to research a spell in a manner more effective than just making up nonsense words and throwing randomly mixed ingredients at people. Those things are the reasons why the Knowledge skills exist. Also, unlike a sorcerer, a basic wizard could be described as "a smart guy who studies magic", and if you don't give players the information that "a smart guy who studies magic" would reasonably have, either by a knowledge roll or just telling them, you are preventing them from playing their character.

To use your analogy, players all know that doors can be locked, so you don't have to tell them that. But if your rogue is a master locksmith, and there are certain doors in your world that require ruby lockpicks to unlock, you do need to tell him that, or give him a mechanic to know it. Because that is the kind of thing that master locksmiths in that world would be likely to know, to discuss with their apprentices, or their colleagues in taverns, etc.

Engine

2012-02-20, 03:47 PM

Honestly, I quite enjoy the spell collecting mini-game. Rather than targetting spellbooks, I suggest gleefully embracing this mini-game. It gives you a fun way to reward your wizard player to some degree without significantly changing the power balance. Give him a bit of variety in spellbooks, scrolls, or what have you, and let him happily add things to his char sheet that, in actual practice, likely add little but flexibility.

Meanwhile, give the other chars things too.

I agree. And collecting new spells could bring to plot hooks, so the whole party could be involved in this kind of mini-game.
Why do this alone when you have your minions...cough...faithful companions willing to help you?

bloodtide

2012-02-20, 04:11 PM

To use your analogy, players all know that doors can be locked, so you don't have to tell them that. But if your rogue is a master locksmith, and there are certain doors in your world that require ruby lockpicks to unlock, you do need to tell him that, or give him a mechanic to know it. Because that is the kind of thing that master locksmiths in that world would be likely to know, to discuss with their apprentices, or their colleagues in taverns, etc.

I disagree with this. This is an example of a small focus game, and I like a large focus game. And I'm very much against the 'know everything knowledge skill mechanic'

When you add something to the game, automatically tell the players about the addition, and how to get around it, that is a small focus game. Then it becomes very pointless. The players just take a second to over come the addition and continue on.

For example, if everyone knows all about the ruby lockpicks, then any locksmith or thief or such will just have the needed lockpicks. And it's boring and pointless.

Such as:Before the game the DM mentions the ruby lock picks. Two hours later the players encounter a locked door. ''Oh we must need them ruby lockpicks the Dm mentioned(wink wink)''.

Or my way: The DM only mentions 'this is a high level game''. Two hours later the players encounter a locked door and have absolutely no idea of what to do or how to get through it and must simply keep playing the game and discover something or figure something out.

Now small focus is popular(like LotR, Dragonlance, Eberron), but it's not for me at all.

Tyndmyr

2012-02-20, 04:29 PM

I disagree with this. This is an example of a small focus game, and I like a large focus game. And I'm very much against the 'know everything knowledge skill mechanic'

When you add something to the game, automatically tell the players about the addition, and how to get around it, that is a small focus game. Then it becomes very pointless. The players just take a second to over come the addition and continue on.

For example, if everyone knows all about the ruby lockpicks, then any locksmith or thief or such will just have the needed lockpicks. And it's boring and pointless.

Such as:Before the game the DM mentions the ruby lock picks. Two hours later the players encounter a locked door. ''Oh we must need them ruby lockpicks the Dm mentioned(wink wink)''.

Or my way: The DM only mentions 'this is a high level game''. Two hours later the players encounter a locked door and have absolutely no idea of what to do or how to get through it and must simply keep playing the game and discover something or figure something out.

Now small focus is popular(like LotR, Dragonlance, Eberron), but it's not for me at all.

Small focus/large focus are not commonly accepted gaming terms. I'm afraid you'll have to define what you mean by this. In short, all of the above makes very little sense. For instance, assuming that everyone has ruby lockpicks entirely ignores the fact that rubies are generally not free.

That said, if it's a high level game of 3.5, and you consider a locked door a meaningful obstacle, you are not playing a high magic game at all, despite your claims to the contrary.

Gnaeus

2012-02-20, 04:33 PM

I disagree with this. This is an example of a small focus game, and I like a large focus game. And I'm very much against characters being competent'

Fixed that for you.

If I am a wizard, trying to be good at my job, I am going to talk to other wizards. It will be important to me, because it is my job and my life depends on it. I will have hundreds of conversations about details of spells that are too trivial to cover in the rules. The Character will be invested in having that knowledge, and would reasonably be able to acquire it in most games. If I am a smart bookish guy who studied history, I am likely to know that kings used to die a lot from teleporting wizards in the centuries before the great war until people started using countermeasures. Also, a person invested in the study of magic will want to know about how the fourth theory of harmonic resonance interacts with the second law of thaumaturgy.

The Player, on the other hand, is not going to be asking you to describe all the minutia of conversations he has with other adventurers, his mentor, the guy he buys the scroll from, etc, the complete texts of all the worlds history books, etc. It would be boring as hell, would cover hundreds of details which will never come up in play, and would often not even be memorable enough to the Player (whose life does not depend on it) to write down. Most players can't care less about how their wizard casts a spell, or the magical details of why it works, only that they cast it and it goes off.

So even though the Character would be able to know how his spells and abilities work, and would care a lot about that, the only relevant mechanic you give them is to try it and fail. If your doctor or lawyer operated like that, you would sue them for malpractice. If you don't want your characters to be competent because you think it is funny when they fail, just say so.

bloodtide

2012-02-20, 05:33 PM

Small focus/large focus are not commonly accepted gaming terms. I'm afraid you'll have to define what you mean by this. In short, all of the above makes very little sense. For instance, assuming that everyone has ruby lockpicks entirely ignores the fact that rubies are generally not free.

That said, if it's a high level game of 3.5, and you consider a locked door a meaningful obstacle, you are not playing a high magic game at all, despite your claims to the contrary.

Small Focus The 'whole fictional game world' can be described easily and is very simple to do so. The focus of the game is on a very small area and everyone knows everything about that area(as if the adventure was talking place in everyone's backyard). A small focus will have very few things to remember number wise: the number of gods, monsters, NPCs, spells and so forth will be limited to give focus. And in small focus 'everyone knows your name', as the world is so tightly focus that everyone knows and bumps into everyone else that they know all the time.

Small focus is very popular in fiction, as it allows a creator to focus on what they want to and ignore stuff they don't want to deal with.

Large Focus The 'whole fictional game world' can not be described in any easy way and it's hard to tell anyone much about it other then vague things. The focus of this game is infinite. A large focus game takes place in a whole world that no one can know everything about. A large focus will have a ton of things to remember, an endless amount of gods, monsters, NPC's, spells and so forth. In large focus, most people do not know most other people in the world and you only sometimes bump into people you know.

The Forgotten Realms is Large Focus, and Eberron or Dragonlance are Small Focus.

Now it's important to point out that neither one is 'better' or anything like that...they are just different. Almost all novels, TV shows and movies use it, of course. As soon as something bad happens ''Ah ha, it must be Dr. Evil (as they are the 'only' bad guy in the world).

In short, all of the above makes very little sense. For instance, assuming that everyone has ruby lockpicks entirely ignores the fact that rubies are generally not free.

That said, if it's a high level game of 3.5, and you consider a locked door a meaningful obstacle, you are not playing a high magic game at all, despite your claims to the contrary.

Just using the given example.

A locked door is a meaningful obstacle in a high power game(not necessarily high level). As soon as you put defenses in place, a door is hard to get through. For example, say the door occupies the same space as a portal. So you can't go around the door, you have to figure out a way to get the door open. (and note that knock is not an absolute 'open anything' in my game).

erikun

2012-02-20, 05:43 PM

I guess what you see as punishment is just part of the game of role-playing to me. If a character charms a shopkeeper every time they come to town and cheats him, it's not unreasonable to me that the shopkeeper might figure this out and get mad about it an take some action against the character. But you'd say that charm person does not intricate that people might not like being charmed, so A DM should not do this?
There is a difference between a charmed individual taking precautions next time, and the wizard PC suddenly discovering that his head spontaneously explodes every time a target of Charm Person makes their save... after it happens.

If this seems like a silly example, I'll point back to one of your earlier posts, where you recommended that a wizard using Gate to call in a Solar to do something for you should result in a large and spontaneous fight. Please note that using Gate to call in creatures to do things for you is explicitly the intention of the spell.

And we are talking about the things a DM can say and do to effect the game. You want to gate in a solar, well that won't make the good guys very happy...even more so if you have the solar do evil or selfish things for you. So a host of archons might attack you for revenge. Now, page 45 of the rule book does not say that happens....but it could happen in a game.

Now, that does not mean I disagree with everything you are saying. Characters certainly should not spontaneously develop inappropriate knowledge, including the exact defenses of a specific target.

On the other hand, I don't agree with a lot of what you seem to be advocating. There is no problem with saying something like, "Knowledge skills don't work like in the book, Teleport isn't reliable, and summonings might have negative consequences." I do find a problem, however, with saying "We're playing this game" and then changing half of what's written in the rules after players have already made their choices.

bloodtide

2012-02-20, 06:09 PM

If this seems like a silly example, I'll point back to one of your earlier posts, where you recommended that a wizard using Gate to call in a Solar to do something for you should result in a large and spontaneous fight. Please note that using Gate to call in creatures to do things for you is explicitly the intention of the spell.

That's not a good argument. It's explicitly the intention of the spell fireball to kill someone. But if you blast a guy sitting at the kings table, it will have effects in the game.

It's explicitly the intention of the spell charm person to alter the way a person acts towards you. But if you make a store clerk your 'best pal' and he sells you something at a discount, that will make his boss unhappy.

Now, that does not mean I disagree with everything you are saying. Characters certainly should not spontaneously develop inappropriate knowledge, including the exact defenses of a specific target.

On the other hand, I don't agree with a lot of what you seem to be advocating. There is no problem with saying something like, "Knowledge skills don't work like in the book, Teleport isn't reliable, and summonings might have negative consequences." I do find a problem, however, with saying "We're playing this game" and then changing half of what's written in the rules after players have already made their choices.

It's not so much 'changing the rules' as it is adding to them. You won't find dozens of anti-teleport spells and items in the rules, but that does not mean they don't exist. And more are created all the time. And no one automatically knows all of this.

Gnaeus

2012-02-20, 06:54 PM

It's not so much 'changing the rules' as it is adding to them. You won't find dozens of anti-teleport spells and items in the rules, but that does not mean they don't exist. And more are created all the time. And no one automatically knows all of this.

If one high level wizard JUST developed a spell to block teleport, it makes sense that few if any people would know about it.

If there are dozens of anti teleport defenses, and they are regularly in use by the rich and powerful, anyone who is clued in enough to teleport will know about them. You might not know WHICH teleport defense King Bill has, whether it kills you, blocks the spell, or sends you somewhere else. But you will know that high level wizards regularly block teleports into palaces of powerful nobles and merchants and that some of those wards are dangerous. Not only will people who can teleport tell you this, but you will have other wizards advertizing their anti-teleport services, selling anti-teleport spells and items, etc. And once your character knows that there are multiple different teleport defenses, he can try to figure out which one King Bill has and how to penetrate it.

Similarly, high wizards are very famous. If casting the Gate spell results in high level wizards and clerics getting torn apart by invisible spirits in the streets (like the author of the Necronomicon) everyone will have heard of it. Clerics will be warned by their temples and wizards by their mentors that Gate has strong negative consequences.

rollforeigninit

2012-02-20, 07:53 PM

I agree. And collecting new spells could bring to plot hooks, so the whole party could be involved in this kind of mini-game.
Why do this alone when you have your minions...cough...faithful companions willing to help you?

I have no objection to this at all. I throw out options. It does stand to reason that others will play said mini game as well & it might turn badly on occasion prompting theoretical side adventures when book is stolen or whatever. ( I MUCH prefer stealing to destruction). The same can happen to the fighter's sword, the cleric's relic or any other item. It is fun to play the wizard that way though. A gentleman's agreement along with some basic precautions are usually enough to keep a sideboard arms-race from happening.

Sure any DM can be a **** to any given PC. My second PC ever was a Paladin way back in the heady days of 2nd ed. I only found out that the DM hates Paladins after a session or three of getting no loot and then being forced to sell the armor to pay the 10% tithe I owed my church.:frown:
Later, I had to play a side adventure to recover my paladin-hood after committing a marginally evil act unknowingly (look into barns before ya drop your lanterns guys.):smallannoyed:

The whole point of this thread is to avoid blanket bans or rules-based nerfs on spellcaster types in general by encouraging some forethought as to what your actions may lead to. I am wholly unconcerned with cheating. It's the DM's job to notify & then deal with that out of game.

Yes, I'm aware that my way of dealing with things can be broken pretty easily.

Yes, It can degenerate into an arms race only the DM can really win.

Yes I'm aware that it can seem punitive to have someone (usually lower-planar) as a hit-squad to someone who engages in chain gating. However this has only happened once & it was in response to the 24th lvl wizard trying to take over the world (again). If you gate in the same things so often that they learn how to get where you are, it's your fault.

I STILL prefer to have Wizards, Witches, Clerics, Erudites, and prettymuch ALL other classes (both 3.x & PF) at least as options for my PC's. I love options and using rules as a crutch for not being willing to do some work
seems wrong to me. I'd rather encourage growth and creativity in my PC's & a realization that they can't do whatever they want & have the whole campaign setting just patiently wait for them to come blow then up for the XP of it. I actually enjoy the morality play end of things and hope others out there agree with me. :smallsmile:

bloodtide

2012-02-20, 09:06 PM

If there are dozens of anti teleport defenses, and they are regularly in use by the rich and powerful, anyone who is clued in enough to teleport will know about them.

Well I never said anything like 'everything is a secret until after a player tries to do something, and then the DM says ''oh that has been that way all along and the whole world knew this except you'' '.

The whole point of this thread is to avoid blanket bans or rules-based nerfs on spellcaster types in general by encouraging some forethought as to what your actions may lead to. I am wholly unconcerned with cheating. It's the DM's job to notify & then deal with that out of game.

I don't believe in blanket bans or nerfs. For example, my version of gate the target gets a will save and they are not automatically controlled by the gate spell. The will save nicely stops a caster from gating in anything too powerful and the being is uncontrolled so the caster does not get an auto slave. Now the will save is not absolute, as the caster can either target low will save creatures or boost the DC of the spell. The caster has to find some way to control the gated creature by magic, skills, abilities or all of them or even just negotiate with it for a service. This again limits what the caster can gate in, but leaves it open for the caster to boost up and take control of a creature. Plus it gives the caster a chance to negotiate with a creature that may agree with them. And this is all on top of the 'unknowns' such as the gate might 'leak' energy or even creatures, explode or do any of a dozen other things.

Yes, It can degenerate into an arms race only the DM can really win.

An arms race is not the right comparison, it's more just making the game more complicated and not so simple.

I STILL prefer to have Wizards, Witches, Clerics, Erudites, and prettymuch ALL other classes (both 3.x & PF) at least as options for my PC's. I love options and using rules as a crutch for not being willing to do some work
seems wrong to me. I'd rather encourage growth and creativity in my PC's & a realization that they can't do whatever they want & have the whole campaign setting just patiently wait for them to come blow then up for the XP of it. I actually enjoy the morality play end of things and hope others out there agree with me. :smallsmile:

My way sure encourages growth and creativity. I could fill paragraphs about how players have found ways get powerful monsters through gate alone. A lot of players love the challenge of doing something and not the boring by the book RAW that says something.

rollforeigninit

2012-02-20, 09:23 PM

I don't believe in blanket bans or nerfs. For example, my version of gate the target gets a will save and they are not automatically controlled by the gate spell. The will save nicely stops a caster from gating in anything too powerful and the being is uncontrolled so the caster does not get an auto slave. Now the will save is not absolute, as the caster can either target low will save creatures or boost the DC of the spell. The caster has to find some way to control the gated creature by magic, skills, abilities or all of them or even just negotiate with it for a service. This again limits what the caster can gate in, but leaves it open for the caster to boost up and take control of a creature. Plus it gives the caster a chance to negotiate with a creature that may agree with them. And this is all on top of the 'unknowns' such as the gate might 'leak' energy or even creatures, explode or do any of a dozen other things.

An arms race is not the right comparison, it's more just making the game more complicated and not so simple.

My way sure encourages growth and creativity. I could fill paragraphs about how players have found ways get powerful monsters through gate alone. A lot of players love the challenge of doing something and not the boring by the book RAW that says something.

Simplicity is sometimes overrated. If a party likes to go for an arms race style campaign where they are constantly trying to stay a step ahead of the DM & his minionions then that's their business. If ya want a simple game I think ye might do well to go back & play Core only.

I don't see a need to rewrite the spell, quite honestly. Especially the fabric of reality part of things. That, in fact, is exactly what I'd hoped to avoid with this thread. It matters little to me if you rewrite the spell for you own campaign but the point was mostly that if you auto enslave enough of the powerful in reality, they might (even good aligned outsiders) object. So instead of rewriting the wizard, the spells themselves get rewritten. I fail to see it as an improvement. There's no need to re-invent the proverbial wheel, it was made a long time ago. Sure your way encourages growth & creativity but that alone is not enough to recommend it. I am specifically looking for ways to do things that do not require rewrites.

bloodtide

2012-02-20, 09:38 PM

I am specifically looking for ways to do things that do not require rewrites.

What are you looking for? You only have three choices:
1.You only play with good friends that all agree to the gentleman's handshake before the game.
2.You rewrite the rules.
3.The DM keeps control of the story, plot, effects and consequences in the game and decides what happens.

so you can have everyone say ''ok everyone don't be a jerk'', rewitre things to fix them or say things like ''careful a gate might leak or the higher powers do watch it's use''.

There's no need to re-invent the proverbial wheel, it was made a long time ago.

Well, to be accurate my 'rewrite' of gate is more of a retcon back to the 2E gate(you did not get auto control of the creature in 2E and in fact might not even get the creature you called).

rollforeigninit

2012-02-20, 09:47 PM

What are you looking for? You only have three choices:
1.You only play with good friends that all agree to the gentleman's handshake before the game.
2.You rewrite the rules.
3.The DM keeps control of the story, plot, effects and consequences in the game and decides what happens.

so you can have everyone say ''ok everyone don't be a jerk'', rewitre things to fix them or say things like ''careful a gate might leak or the higher powers do watch it's use''.

Well, to be accurate my 'rewrite' of gate is more of a retcon back to the 2E gate(you did not get auto control of the creature in 2E and in fact might not even get the creature you called).

Combine 1 & 3. The new people I play with are my own kids so (age 9 & 13) so optimization fights are not really an issue now. Everyone else I've played with for 17 years or so. If I don't like em, I don't play with em. Even if it's just their gaming style. If you are all gentlemen, it's easier. If you have to play in even a semi hostile gaming environment then I fell for ya.

I remember the spell. I'll dig it out sometime. I DO agree that 2nd ed had some things I miss a LOT. (Priest spell access by Sphere for a BIG 1.) Putting some risk back in spellcasting (especially arcane magic) has it's place. We might do well starting a thread covering that. It's just a little off topic. :smallsmile: