To:[DMs/GMs] Do your players break your games?

[killem2]

Do you have a lot of players who are so far into optimization that you have to go through back breaking changes to reign them in?

I think my group is a rare exception to a lot of the things I see around here. Acknowledgment of teirs, rewriting spells, changing classes, banning items, banning abilities, banning certain book, not using dragon/dungeon/3rd party stuff, and the list goes on.

When I DM, and my friend DMs, despite each of us giving our players access to handbooks, and letting them borrow any of the books they need, everyone stays realtively low powered.

We have challenging encounters, we don't step on people's toes when doing skill checks, or really any of the BS I hear around here. I've been posting here for over a year and been DMing/playing that entire time now. I have never ran into this issue of having to balance the game.

:confused:Am I Alone?

[Krobar]

My group is the same way. We don't abuse stuff, we don't break stuff, we don't dip into multiple classes to optimize... But we do have some house rules that keep some of the bigger problems reined in as well.

[Kol Korran]

My current group changed a few rules and so on, but mostly to try different mechanics, or to better fit our playing style, not out of being worried abotu game breaking players.

We had one high end optmizer who was also quite a pain to deal with. however, he understood he isn't interested in our type of play, and group dynamics and therefore left.

one current player is quite an efficient character builder, but most of his characters try to complement and work with the group, and he also tries to reign himself in when he gets overly dominant (hey, it happens). all in all the group functions quite nicely. :smallsmile:

Do consider though that we're more casual players, and more focused on the roleplay aspects of the game than on it's mechanics. much of the forum's advice I think is geared towards a much more unforgiving and brutal type of play, or that may just be my impression...

[questionmark693]

I'm straight up with my players when it starts looking like a problem 'hey, I think you're trying too hard, and it might start to unbalance things' and that kinda nips it in the bud for my group.

[Eonir]

My group is all optimizers, pretty heavy ones at that. We all rotate the GM position for campaigns, to keep fights and story fresh, and as such our games generally end up being arms races between the GM and the PCs.

It's hella fun.

[RFLS]

:confused:Am I Alone?

No, and I never understand it when this question is asked. Most groups don't powergame, and most people aren't utter jerks in their group, even if they personally enjoy powergaming. I feel like the fact that you CAN optimize to ridiculous extents terrifies some people into over-restrictiveness in an environment where it's really not necessary.

Obviously, if the whole group enjoys optimization, that's different, but again, not what you're asking about.

[Edenbeast]

Not at all :)
The groups I've played with never truly optimize. We make viable characters, but never blow things out of proportions. We play for the roleplaying. We never pick up more than one prestige class if any, and at most one other class if it fits the character's concept. And since we started using pathfinder we don't even see a reason to pick up any other class exept for adding an archetype for extra flavour. These are sort of unwritten "rules" that everyones seems to agree on beforehand. I always find it weird when someone asks for character advice and then somebody else posts a build with dips in 6 different classes. I understand the reasoning behind it, but find it hard to justify in terms of roleplay.
I also like to pick up odd skills like profession and craft not because I have a surplus of skill points, but because it adds flavour.

[Trasilor]

I guess my players are the opposite...they tend to nerf (unoptimize?) themselves. As a DM it used to be frustrating; a moderately intelligent monster ended up being a TPK.

I find that the builds people talk about here tend to be theoretical builds and trying to get an understanding of the game.

Many of the problems that I have read on these forums tend to more about vagueness of rules or DM/Player getting a rule wrong. Not about players breaking the game.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The people that advise heavily regulating the rules exploits in the game are generally imagining worst-case scenarios.

They are, fortunately, rare; but there are players out there that would happily snap-up any exploit they can find to "win" the game. We call them munchkins (and frequently much worse).

In answer to your question; no. You're not at all alone and, in fact, are probably in the majority.

People don't get on the internet to complain about how their games are going too well, for the most part, so those having problems make up a much more vocal portion of the community. This leads to a perception of there being a metric crap-ton of bad gamers out there for which there must be numerous and strict pre-emptive rulings in place to keep them from breaking the game. That's what you're seeing.

[RagnaroksChosen]

Most of my players are new to optimization as when we where kids it was always a bad thing. So I generally have to encourage my players.


Now there are some exceptions to this. Specifically with class combinations that cause some players to be left behind. Like druids out of the box are pretty ridiculous. TOB can be the same way.. So depending on the classes the players are can change if I need to balance the system.

To me Wizards and to a lesser extent Clerics are not like this because you still have to choose to be overpowered. Like ya there T1's but if you don't have the system mastery it is not as bad.

[Shining Wrath]

Do you have a lot of players who are so far into optimization that you have to go through back breaking changes to reign them in?

I think my group is a rare exception to a lot of the things I see around here. Acknowledgment of teirs, rewriting spells, changing classes, banning items, banning abilities, banning certain book, not using dragon/dungeon/3rd party stuff, and the list goes on.

When I DM, and my friend DMs, despite each of us giving our players access to handbooks, and letting them borrow any of the books they need, everyone stays realtively low powered.

We have challenging encounters, we don't step on people's toes when doing skill checks, or really any of the BS I hear around here. I've been posting here for over a year and been DMing/playing that entire time now. I have never ran into this issue of having to balance the game.

:confused:Am I Alone?

I have not had much trouble with this. People I've DM'd for have been more interested in having interesting characters than powerful ones. Like the guy with the changeling mage masquerading as an elf.

[Shining Wrath]

BTW, you can reign in a lot of power games just by enforcing the RAW regarding multi-classes. Every additional class hits you for another XP penalty.

[Edge of Dreams]

I've never yet played with a true munchkin who was trying to break the game. I have, however, played with a few people who are sufficiently better at build optimization and in-game tactics that they risk making the game less fun for others. Usually, they've been pretty receptive to requests to tone things down, though.

[The Glyphstone]

BTW, you can reign in a lot of power games just by enforcing the RAW regarding multi-classes. Every additional class hits you for another XP penalty.

All that really does is cripple powergaming melee classes, they're the ones who tend to have lots of dips. Powergamers who play spellcasters don't care, because all you need for a spellcaster is base class+prestige class. Melee is already operating at a handicap, no need to further gimp them.

[RFLS]

BTW, you can reign in a lot of power games just by enforcing the RAW regarding multi-classes. Every additional class hits you for another XP penalty.

This actually hurts melee a hell of a lot more; a wizard can straight class to 20, but if a melee guy goes Fighter 2/Barb 8/Monk 2/Ranger 2/Other stuff, he's shafted.

[Felandria]

It depends of you definition of optimizing.

My character is a sorcerer, I took a level of bard early on because we needed some healing in the party and I wanted more skills available to me.

Purely for story purposes, I wanted my character to become bigger, which is a mixed blessing for a Sorcerer, you get higher Con but lower AC.

Would you consider that optimizing?

[huttj509]

You are not alone. However, it does exist IRL.

I know, in my circle of friends, a few gaming groups, that share many people, and have WILDLY different mentalities and playstyles.

Two groups can take the same rulebook, same description, sit down, and play VERY different games.

This is a strength, but if you have two people at the same table trying to play different games (without realizing it), it can cause a lot of friction.

It tends to be noticed less among groups of known friends, because, well, you know each other, possibly have for a while, and are more likely to be playing the same game because of it.

For groups formed at the Friendly Local Gaming Store, or College Gaming Club, etc, it's more possible to encounter people with different, conflicting base assumptions, without realizing it. Because the way I'm used to is easy to take as the "obvious" or "standard" method of play. Obviously my way is the standard method and yours is just weird. (blue for sarcasm, but man people can be jerks unintentionally when they first encounter different methods of play, just because of how jarring it can be to realize how many of your assumptions were, well, assumptions)

Combine this with the realization that people are unlikely to make threads about "everything's going awesome and we're all having fun, what should I do about it?" Yeah, you'll often see many more threads about conflict and how to deal with potential sources of such than the other side of things.

[Sloshman997]

When I re-rolled the last rendition of my current character in the campaign I'm playing the party consisted of a Wizard, a Cleric, a Psion and a Barbarian, so I took upon myself to go try-hard optimization mode. But generally this group of people doesn't optimize aside from one other person and he only does it half-heartedly. I tend to do it pretty heavy but I don't do the normal cheesy stuff.

[Greenish]

The groups I've played with never truly optimize. We make viable characters, but never blow things out of proportions.In other words, you optimize all the time. Relentlessly. :smalltongue:


I always find it weird when someone asks for character advice and then somebody else posts a build with dips in 6 different classes. I understand the reasoning behind it, but find it hard to justify in terms of roleplay.Depends on the classes, of course, but what's there to "justify" if a barbarian takes a few levels of fighter? What is this "justifying" thing anyway? How do you justify people getting another level in their own class and suddenly being able to do something they couldn't, before? :smallamused:



BTW, you can reign in a lot of power games just by enforcing the RAW regarding multi-classes. Every additional class hits you for another XP penalty.The multiclassing penalties just encourage non-casters to do more dips. Casters, as noted, are not affected.

[Karnith]

As a DM, I have had my players, if not quite break, then at least severely disrupt my games without intending to do so. After several years of playing 3.5, my group came to have a rudimentary understanding of the tier system - that full spellcasters (read: tier 1 classes) are capable of more than their lower-power, non-spellcasting counterparts. Unfortunately, though, we were still convinced that the game was intended to be played with the classic four archetypes (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard), so even when we started experiencing the usual problems I didn't really know what to do. I can't tell you how much time I spent trying to work out proper encounters and adventures where everyone contributed (and how hard it was/how often I failed).

I should note that even though I spent a ton of time trying to design proper encounters, I never really tried to alter the rules that much; I tried to balance the game by balancing encounters. I did have to re-write some things and soft-ban some others, items and spells especially, but I never touched much else, and I never banned sources.

On the other hand, I've never had players who intentionally broke games or who tried to make playing difficult, so once I had a better handle on the system, most of our problems went away. And I've also played in groups where those kinds of problems didn't show up, so I know that my groups isn't typical.

[javijuji]

Not quite breaking the game but they do stuff which I didnt plan for. Like locate object + mountain hammer to tear through a dungeon right into the last room. Then they teleport out (lvl 9 party).

[Shining Wrath]

BTW, you can reign in a lot of power games just by enforcing the RAW regarding multi-classes. Every additional class hits you for another XP penalty.

In view of 3 or 4 replies to the above, I find myself quoting myself rather than replying piecemeal to everyone. Please excuse my solipsism.

I am aware that a Wizard cares not if he can't multiclass. I said "A lot of power gamers" which is different than "all power gamers throughout the space-time continuum".

If you've got one guy playing a straight Paladin, and one playing a Paladin / Cleric / Crusader, the guy you want to slow down is the multiclasser. If you've got someone else playing a Wizard and going for high optimization, some other technique (like asking him not to do that to the poor Paladin) will be required.

And if you've got someone playing a Wizard / Druid they are just asking for it :smallcool:

[Shining Wrath]

Not quite breaking the game but they do stuff which I didnt plan for. Like locate object + mountain hammer to tear through a dungeon right into the last room. Then they teleport out (lvl 9 party).

Or the classic "We attack the [creature they were supposed to befriend]" maneuver.

[Novawurmson]

Honestly, my biggest problems were mostly in the other direction: I've had a lot of players that didn't optimize at all and were left feeling worthless and bored. I actively help my players optimize to make sure they feel needed and their concept of their character matches what's written on their sheet.

[Story]

Not at all :)
The groups I've played with never truly optimize. We make viable characters, but never blow things out of proportions. We play for the roleplaying. We never pick up more than one prestige class if any, and at most one other class if it fits the character's concept. And since we started using pathfinder we don't even see a reason to pick up any other class exept for adding an archetype for extra flavour. These are sort of unwritten "rules" that everyones seems to agree on beforehand. I always find it weird when someone asks for character advice and then somebody else posts a build with dips in 6 different classes. I understand the reasoning behind it, but find it hard to justify in terms of roleplay.
I also like to pick up odd skills like profession and craft not because I have a surplus of skill points, but because it adds flavour.

I've never understood this philosophy. Fluff is mutable. And you often have to do a lot of optimization just to fit a concept. Plus, banning your Totemist/Barbarian/Fighter/Warblade/Warshaper while allowing a Druid on balance reasons is just silly.


BTW, you can reign in a lot of power games just by enforcing the RAW regarding multi-classes. Every additional class hits you for another XP penalty.

Again, this is stupid. There's a reason ignoring multiclass penalties is one of the most common houserules.

[RFLS]

I've never understood this philosophy. Fluff is mutable. And you often have to do a lot of optimization just to fit a concept. Plus, banning your Totemist/Barbarian/Fighter/Warblade/Warshaper while allowing a Druid on balance reasons is just silly.

Wait, but that first one can get really angry and do nifty things in melee that normal people can't do and gets to look like an animal, but the second one is just so much more BALANCED. I mean, come on, it has full casting.

[Novawurmson]

On the XP penalty thing: Also remember that a lot of groups (mine included) don't use experience. The DM just decides when everyone levels up.

[Edenbeast]

In other words, you optimize all the time. Relentlessly. :smalltongue:

I did say never truly optimize, that doesnt't mean 0 optimization :P But to give you an example of this, if I intend to play an archer, I'll pick up mostly archery feats, I might pick up Alertness, as it I think it would fit my "alert ranger" idea. Maybe even Quick Draw to reflect this alertness, so he can switch quickly to his longsword as a back-up plan, but I'm not picking up a weapon focus in longsword..


Depends on the classes, of course, but what's there to "justify" if a barbarian takes a few levels of fighter? What is this "justifying" thing anyway? How do you justify people getting another level in their own class and suddenly being able to do something they couldn't, before? :smallamused:

The barbarian taking a few levels of fighter is more than all right, and could be roleplayed as the barbarian getting some military combat training. Then again, I mentioned dipping in multple classes. Just one other class and a good reason for it is fine with me. For instance a rogue who has some sorcerous blood in his veins that manifest at a later point. I'm ok with that.
But back to my example with multple level dips: let's say you play a lawful monk, who is all about being focussed and dedicated to ones task or study, and then dipping in 6 different classes, that doesn't sound very focusses to me. That's what I meant with hard to justify roleplay-wise. I'm sure someone can if he want's to, I just find it difficult, and as GM I will ask for a good background explanation.

[Story]

let's say you play a lawful monk, who is all about being focussed and dedicated to ones task or study, and then dipping in 6 different classes, that doesn't sound very focusses to me. That's what I meant with hard to justify roleplay-wise. I'm sure someone can if he want's to, I just find it difficult, and as GM I will ask for a good background explanation.

Oh that's easy, Bob trained at a monastery to try improve his martial skills with focused discipline, but he soon found the disciplined life wasn't for him and left to embrace adventure.

[Greenish]

I did say never truly optimize, that doesnt't mean 0 optimizationDifferent definitions, I guess.


The barbarian taking a few levels of fighter is more than all right, and could be roleplayed as the barbarian getting some military combat training.Do you roleplay a barbarian getting a feat on 3rd level as getting military combat training? :smalltongue:


But back to my example with multple level dips: let's say you play a lawful monk, who is all about being focussed and dedicated to ones task or study, and then dipping in 6 different classes, that doesn't sound very focusses to me.Well, if those dips make him better at the one task or study that he's focusing in, it sounds very, very focused to me. But then, I think of classes as meta-game constructs, not something present in the game OotS-style.

[Edenbeast]

I've never understood this philosophy. Fluff is mutable. And you often have to do a lot of optimization just to fit a concept. Plus, banning your Totemist/Barbarian/Fighter/Warblade/Warshaper while allowing a Druid on balance reasons is just silly.

Personally I'd say if you write a background why your character is this/that/andthat, I'll allow it. If the fluff is good, it's ok. As a player I don't bother to study 7000 books to build a character. I'll look at two or three books at most and then build something based on what I have in mind :)

[Karnith]

Personally I'd say if you write a background why your character is this/that/andthat, I'll allow it. If the fluff is good, it's ok. As a player I don't bother to study 7000 books to build a character. I'll look at two or three books at most and then build something based on what I have in mind :)
But I can make the two builds (straight Druid and Totemist/Barbarian/Fighter/Warblade/Warshaper) use essentially the same fluff very easily; they are nature-based warriors who can change their bodies into weapons. Why would I need to have a convoluted backstory to justify being able to use my warshaper(etc.)'s ability to grow claws when it's fine that, as a druid, I can turn into a bear just because I'm a hippy?

Fulfilling a character concept is what's important. To get this back to a balance perspective, multiclassing has very little effect on power levels and capabilities; if a player can better match his character's capabilities to the party's by multiclassing, then why wouldn't you let him? If he's outside of the party's power level, don't ban/soft-ban multiclassing, just help him make a build that's more suited to the game.

[Barsoom]

Personally I'd say if you write a background why your character is this/that/andthat, I'll allow it. If the fluff is good, it's ok. I used to think like you, but then I reached the conclusion that this way the background simply becomes a laundry list for the character's abilities.
"Clovis was born in a forest, later moved to the city and got a job with the thieves' guild, then repented his wicked ways and found god in his heart ..." and so on.


As a player I don't bother to study 7000 books to build a character. I'll look at two or three books at most and then build something based on what I have in mind :)Well, that's your choice, and it's a legitimate one. But that in no way undermines the legitimacy of the player who want to build his character differently.

[Blarmb]

No. I generally outline character creation guidelines that target the sort of game I want to run and only allow for characters that will be proper for the tone & power level.

[Fable Wright]

In my group, we have two real optimizers, but we don't really break the game. It's E6 and everyone is playing tier 3/4 classes, so that might have something to do with it, but it's mostly that everyone has their own roles. The heavier optimizer is a Warlock that pumped Bluff and Diplomacy extremely heavily (+20 or so at 3rd level? Something like that) and the other is a Duskblade that dishes out heavy melee damage to single targets. The rest of the group is a Factotum that fires alchemical items out of a sling, a slightly modified TWF Rogue, and an Urban Ranger that knowingly decided that he wasn't going to be highly effective in combat. While there might be some discrepancies in effectiveness, combat is dangerous enough that we don't complain; every party member helps keep everyone alive. For example, when we fight 4 Troll skeletons and a handful of human guards at level 3, (really, a difficult encounter, though the humans later decided to fight against the undead abominations) no one really complained that the Duskblade was taking out half of the trolls' HP per hit; full attacks and AoOs with reach in an enclosed space meant that everyone was in trouble, and the faster the creatures died, the better.

[winter92]

The group I play with doesn't really see any of this problem. Our main campaign is quite low power - myself and one friend are the only people who tend towards any optimization, and we're currently a warlock and a fighter who's opposed (by fluff) to anything cheesy like spiked chain builds or trippers, so there's not too much room to break encounters.

When we want to step into high-powered stuff, its in small groups with gestalts. There's no power cap on us, but it still has never been a problem. Despite gitp's focus on how a good caster can break anything, sane/anti-gamebreaking DM interpretation along with slightly amped up enemies is more than enough to keep us nervous and reasonably powered.

[Sir_Thaddeus]

Do you have a lot of players who are so far into optimization that you have to go through back breaking changes to reign them in?

I think my group is a rare exception to a lot of the things I see around here. Acknowledgment of teirs, rewriting spells, changing classes, banning items, banning abilities, banning certain book, not using dragon/dungeon/3rd party stuff, and the list goes on.

When I DM, and my friend DMs, despite each of us giving our players access to handbooks, and letting them borrow any of the books they need, everyone stays realtively low powered.

We have challenging encounters, we don't step on people's toes when doing skill checks, or really any of the BS I hear around here. I've been posting here for over a year and been DMing/playing that entire time now. I have never ran into this issue of having to balance the game.

:confused:Am I Alone?

Honestly, I have never found myself playing or DMing in an "optimized" group. A good 90% of the groups I game with are in fact distinctly UNoptimized. For a while I didn't notice because I didn't really know the game well, but after reading forums for a few months and returning to gaming, the discrepancy between what I read and what I saw in-game was astounding. I think that most people don't optimize to the extent shown on this forum; as I think others have mentioned, people generally come to this forum seeking optimization advice, so low-powered stuff is (in general) simply not mentioned.

[Magesmiley]

I think that a lot of it really comes down the experience levels of the DM and the players. I allow pretty much anything into my game, but there is an unwritten rule that if the players can have it, so can the NPCs.

I've got a mix of players from those who optimize fairly well to those who have trouble playing a basic fighter (yes really). Despite that I've not really had any complaints. I think that this is partly becuase I run a wide variety of encounters and styles of adventures. No one, and this includes the 'tier 1' characters shines every game. I hit weaknesses now and then , but not constantly, which helps keep things in check without tailoring adventures around weaknesses.

Keep in mind that I'm pretty good at optimizing too - I'll pull an optimization trick out now and then to hit the party with.

[TuggyNE]

BTW, you can reign in a lot of power games just by enforcing the RAW regarding multi-classes. Every additional class hits you for another XP penalty.


I am aware that a Wizard cares not if he can't multiclass. I said "A lot of power gamers" which is different than "all power gamers throughout the space-time continuum".

You do catch some powergamers that way, sure. Not generally the worst ones, though. Worse, you catch some perfectly reasonable builds in that fashion, such as Barbarian 1/Fighter 2/Ranger X (off the top of my head). (Fluff-wise, you can justify that as a wild-oriented dude who spent some time formally training, if you really have to justify it in detail.)


If you've got one guy playing a straight Paladin, and one playing a Paladin / Cleric / Crusader, the guy you want to slow down is the multiclasser. If you've got someone else playing a Wizard and going for high optimization, some other technique (like asking him not to do that to the poor Paladin) will be required.

That's possible, but honestly Paladin/Cleric/Crusader a) probably isn't terribly optimal and b) has no real fluff clashes at all. (Also, straight Paladin with lots of ACFs might be considerably more effective and high-op.)


And if you've got someone playing a Wizard / Druid they are just asking for it :smallcool:

Well yeah, but that problem fixes itself.

To sum up: a rule that fixes some cases, messes up some that don't need any penalty, and misses the worst abuses it was aimed at is a bad rule.

[Muktidata]

For my group it's the total opposite. No one has a grasp on the facts of DnD optimization among the group as a whole. Including the DM, but the DM hates to have his NPC bad guys die. Not talking about BBEG's - those rarely go down - but regular captain of the hell hound kennel etc. Any monster with a class level always escapes leaving our party with mediocre treasure and virtually no xp.

All of his NPC's pull out potions of teleportation (I know, right) or Gaseuous form. We have gone like 5 games straight at average level 13 and gotten maybe a total of 3k experience out of them. Half the things we fight give no XP then if there's something that would he tries to pull BS to get it to escape, which he then gives us no XP or treasure for. Take our last game for example:

We walk into a room full of Fire Giants, fire, Hell Hounds, and a Fire Giant Cleric who is the kennel master. We fight. We kill all of the regular giants first and kill sixty of the dogs (which give no xp). The Fire Giants were CR10 (we're all 13-14). We have the last giant surrounded and keep missing him until we realize he's a spell caster and dispel his buffs. We wail away on him. I convinced our Wizard to actually CAST the polymorph spell he hasn't used in the 5 levels it's been available and so there's 12 Hydra heads, a Paladin, a Cleric, and a Rogue surrounding this guy. I had already Dimensional Anchored him.

The DM does his normal routine: Pulls out a potion of Teleportation. I point out two things:

1) He's going to take 15 AoO's.
2) He can't teleport.

The DM grovels at the word attack of opportunity. What? DM, he's surrounded trying to drink a potion, what do you expect? After much argument, and him finally coming to terms with the Giant not being able to teleport he says fine and clarifies that it's now a potion of Gaseous Form. Turns out he doesn't know how that works. Some arguments later, he gives us our AoO's.

We all hit and the Hydra fails to grapple due to DM fudging rolls behind screen. Okay. When the Hydra rolls a 1 on one of his AoO's, the DM robs him of the rest. Okay. I attempt to trip the Giant. Fudged roll, again. Okay. He drinks his potion and the DM grabs his mini up and says, "Okay, guys! How'd you like the game?"

What?! I explain that the gas can only move at a rate of 10ft. per round and that the giant had to use move to draw it and standard to drink it and thus cannot even move. He says it's too late and that he went through a crack in the wall. I explain that our Wizard also has teleport ready, though he has never used it in a combat situation we could teleport the whole party to the other side of the wall and dispel the gas with ease. Or our ninja could go ethereal and follow or we could shape a hole in the stone wall. Even though the whole party is terrible at optimization (we have a Druid that has taken the rapid shot, precise shot line, never wild shapes, buffs, or casts bfc/aoe and plays like a gimped archer for example), we ARE level 13-14.

After much discussion, he reluctantly puts the mini back down on the table and resets the whole scenario before the AoO's. The monster stays and fights us and dies. We actually get some worthwhile treasure and XP or the first time in four months. (we did previously find some Ioun Stones that are useful but we can't identify them because we can basically never sleep)

The nameless, unimportant, mook who had no affect on the game plot took two hours of arguing to kill and guess what's up next week? The same thing.

In our games, the only thing that's optimized is the DM's BS. It's works both ways.

Players are a lot easier to control than DM's. If you are having a hard time of it, your player either needs medication or you're not a very good DM. If you have the brains to be on optimization boards, you should have the brains to know what is going to ruin your games. If there's a problem player, put him on character probation where you make his characters for him.

[ddude987]

From my experience, I enjoy making powerful (and perhaps semi optimized) characters simply because I enjoy playing them. They aren't all the god wizard, in fact only one was and it was very boring. Most of them are martial characters that let me roll lots of dice because I like doing that. I am DMing a campaign and none of the players care to super optimize themselves and that's fine. From a personal standpoint, I think that a lot of DMs overreact to things like polymorph, alter self, and other things. I had a DM that thought me persisting could of knives and being invisible so I could get a sneak attack every round was "cheesy and unfair/overpowered." Its all up to perspective I suppose.

[RFLS]

-snip-

I uhm....wow. Hm. *sympathy cookie*

[Kelb_Panthera]

For my group it's the total opposite. No one has a grasp on the facts of DnD optimization among the group as a whole. Including the DM, but the DM hates to have his NPC bad guys die. Not talking about BBEG's - those rarely go down - but regular captain of the hell hound kennel etc. Any monster with a class level always escapes leaving our party with mediocre treasure and virtually no xp.

All of his NPC's pull out potions of teleportation (I know, right) or Gaseuous form. We have gone like 5 games straight at average level 13 and gotten maybe a total of 3k experience out of them. Half the things we fight give no XP then if there's something that would he tries to pull BS to get it to escape, which he then gives us no XP or treasure for. Take our last game for example:

We walk into a room full of Fire Giants, fire, Hell Hounds, and a Fire Giant Cleric who is the kennel master. We fight. We kill all of the regular giants first and kill sixty of the dogs (which give no xp). The Fire Giants were CR10 (we're all 13-14). We have the last giant surrounded and keep missing him until we realize he's a spell caster and dispel his buffs. We wail away on him. I convinced our Wizard to actually CAST the polymorph spell he hasn't used in the 5 levels it's been available and so there's 12 Hydra heads, a Paladin, a Cleric, and a Rogue surrounding this guy. I had already Dimensional Anchored him.

The DM does his normal routine: Pulls out a potion of Teleportation. I point out two things:

1) He's going to take 15 AoO's.
2) He can't teleport.

The DM grovels at the word attack of opportunity. What? DM, he's surrounded trying to drink a potion, what do you expect? After much argument, and him finally coming to terms with the Giant not being able to teleport he says fine and clarifies that it's now a potion of Gaseous Form. Turns out he doesn't know how that works. Some arguments later, he gives us our AoO's.

We all hit and the Hydra fails to grapple due to DM fudging rolls behind screen. Okay. When the Hydra rolls a 1 on one of his AoO's, the DM robs him of the rest. Okay. I attempt to trip the Giant. Fudged roll, again. Okay. He drinks his potion and the DM grabs his mini up and says, "Okay, guys! How'd you like the game?"

What?! I explain that the gas can only move at a rate of 10ft. per round and that the giant had to use move to draw it and standard to drink it and thus cannot even move. He says it's too late and that he went through a crack in the wall. I explain that our Wizard also has teleport ready, though he has never used it in a combat situation we could teleport the whole party to the other side of the wall and dispel the gas with ease. Or our ninja could go ethereal and follow or we could shape a hole in the stone wall. Even though the whole party is terrible at optimization (we have a Druid that has taken the rapid shot, precise shot line, never wild shapes, buffs, or casts bfc/aoe and plays like a gimped archer for example), we ARE level 13-14.

After much discussion, he reluctantly puts the mini back down on the table and resets the whole scenario before the AoO's. The monster stays and fights us and dies. We actually get some worthwhile treasure and XP or the first time in four months. (we did previously find some Ioun Stones that are useful but we can't identify them because we can basically never sleep)

The nameless, unimportant, mook who had no affect on the game plot took two hours of arguing to kill and guess what's up next week? The same thing.

In our games, the only thing that's optimized is the DM's BS. It's works both ways.

Players are a lot easier to control than DM's. If you are having a hard time of it, your player either needs medication or you're not a very good DM. If you have the brains to be on optimization boards, you should have the brains to know what is going to ruin your games. If there's a problem player, put him on character probation where you make his characters for him.

Smack your DM for me. Twice.

Once because you get XP for overcoming challenges, not killing monsters. If they were supposed to try and kill you and they end up fleeing instead, they've been overcome and you get XP.

Then a second time because he's gotten himself into this ridiculous mind-set of "the NPC's are my team and if they die I'm losing." Mooks die. That's like 85ish% of their purpose for existing in the first place. The remaining 15% is divided; 12% non-combat encounters (contacts, shop-keeps, town guard checking papers, etc) and 3% recurring antagonists that serve under the BBEG.

[ddude987]

To sum up: a rule that fixes some cases, messes up some that don't need any penalty, and misses the worst abuses it was aimed at is a bad rule.

It might be a "bad rule" but it is still a rule in the game, not a houserule and as such I've found multiple DMs that support it more for that reason than because it nerfs multiclassers.

[LadyLexi]

I like to play whatever. I like to optimize my build and then not use it though, what does that count as?

My player's can cause problems with Optimizing, but mostly because it makes the party really uneven and the game hard to run. A Hellfire Warlock with a level of binder in a party with a straight monk and a straight ninja is not even.

[ddude987]

On the XP penalty thing: Also remember that a lot of groups (mine included) don't use experience. The DM just decides when everyone levels up.

Also, THAT'S A THING!! :O do the players like it? As a player I always liked xp because its like a reward, kind of like finding gold. I'm new to DMing so just asking.

[Phelix-Mu]

Smack your DM for me. Twice.

Once because you get XP for overcoming challenges, not killing monsters. If they were supposed to try and kill you and they end up fleeing instead, they've been overcome and you get XP.

Then a second time because he's gotten himself into this ridiculous mind-set of "the NPC's are my team and if they die I'm losing." Mooks die. That's like 85ish% of their purpose for existing in the first place. The remaining 15% is divided; 12% non-combat encounters (contacts, shop-keeps, town guard checking papers, etc) and 3% recurring antagonists that serve under the BBEG.

Mmm, gonna have to agree with Kelb here. The NPCs in a campaign (and I have many, many in mine and I love them like children) are just as capable of dying as PCs, and since PCs die on occasion and there are way more NPCs than PCs, the DM has to let them die. The good news: D&D has strong precedent for the dead not staying dead, especially at high levels.

Not that every NPC should come back, either. Death is a natural feature of any setting, and is generally a desirable outcome of violent conflict. Having every NPC contingency to the gills or melodramatically never really die just dilutes the proper amount of interest that should occur when this happens for plot reasons.

Also, beware the diplomancer. NPC-rich campaigns are fertile ground for the Friendmaker builds out there, and the more they don't die, the more opportunities to convince them that they aren't in the right line of work, they are under-appreciated by their employer, etc.

On the broader point of players breaking games, an important part of being a DM is to maintain some standard of control over what is going on around the PCs. If the players are having the run of the table, then the DM could and should move to establish that powerful gaming is a two way street. The PCs are in a world populated by millions of people and critters, and some of them are gonna be just as op'd as the PCs (or enough to pose a challenge). Most players don't want to steamroll the whole campaign, and the DM is responsible for trying to keep the game fun when the actions of players might not always have enjoyability in mind. An adaptable power level in the game is a key tool for the DM in this circumstance, and no DM should shy away from stepping up challenges so that optimization doesn't ruin play.

Now, the best ways to do this are rules-dependent, but the DM is arbiter of what is and isn't possible, and if the occasional monster with spell-turning-like abilities is necessary to keep a highly-op'd Incantatrix on their toes, then fine, make them and use them. If the demons need Quicken SLA on their dispelling to fight persisted divine metamagic, then give it to them. Do these things and more if it helps make the game more engaging and fun. Don't always curbstomp the players/PCs; let them have their fun, but make them work for it.

[Muktidata]

I like to play whatever. I like to optimize my build and then not use it though, what does that count as?

My player's can cause problems with Optimizing, but mostly because it makes the party really uneven and the game hard to run. A Hellfire Warlock with a level of binder in a party with a straight monk and a straight ninja is not even.

Yeah, there is no way they can live up to the monk's glory. Maybe give them free +5LA and gestalt to try and catch up. :wink:

[Krobar]

For my group it's the total opposite. No one has a grasp on the facts of DnD optimization among the group as a whole. Including the DM, but the DM hates to have his NPC bad guys die. Not talking about BBEG's - those rarely go down - but regular captain of the hell hound kennel etc. Any monster with a class level always escapes leaving our party with mediocre treasure and virtually no xp.

All of his NPC's pull out potions of teleportation (I know, right) or Gaseuous form. We have gone like 5 games straight at average level 13 and gotten maybe a total of 3k experience out of them. Half the things we fight give no XP then if there's something that would he tries to pull BS to get it to escape, which he then gives us no XP or treasure for. Take our last game for example:

We walk into a room full of Fire Giants, fire, Hell Hounds, and a Fire Giant Cleric who is the kennel master. We fight. We kill all of the regular giants first and kill sixty of the dogs (which give no xp). The Fire Giants were CR10 (we're all 13-14). We have the last giant surrounded and keep missing him until we realize he's a spell caster and dispel his buffs. We wail away on him. I convinced our Wizard to actually CAST the polymorph spell he hasn't used in the 5 levels it's been available and so there's 12 Hydra heads, a Paladin, a Cleric, and a Rogue surrounding this guy. I had already Dimensional Anchored him.

The DM does his normal routine: Pulls out a potion of Teleportation. I point out two things:

1) He's going to take 15 AoO's.
2) He can't teleport.

The DM grovels at the word attack of opportunity. What? DM, he's surrounded trying to drink a potion, what do you expect? After much argument, and him finally coming to terms with the Giant not being able to teleport he says fine and clarifies that it's now a potion of Gaseous Form. Turns out he doesn't know how that works. Some arguments later, he gives us our AoO's.

We all hit and the Hydra fails to grapple due to DM fudging rolls behind screen. Okay. When the Hydra rolls a 1 on one of his AoO's, the DM robs him of the rest. Okay. I attempt to trip the Giant. Fudged roll, again. Okay. He drinks his potion and the DM grabs his mini up and says, "Okay, guys! How'd you like the game?"

What?! I explain that the gas can only move at a rate of 10ft. per round and that the giant had to use move to draw it and standard to drink it and thus cannot even move. He says it's too late and that he went through a crack in the wall. I explain that our Wizard also has teleport ready, though he has never used it in a combat situation we could teleport the whole party to the other side of the wall and dispel the gas with ease. Or our ninja could go ethereal and follow or we could shape a hole in the stone wall. Even though the whole party is terrible at optimization (we have a Druid that has taken the rapid shot, precise shot line, never wild shapes, buffs, or casts bfc/aoe and plays like a gimped archer for example), we ARE level 13-14.

After much discussion, he reluctantly puts the mini back down on the table and resets the whole scenario before the AoO's. The monster stays and fights us and dies. We actually get some worthwhile treasure and XP or the first time in four months. (we did previously find some Ioun Stones that are useful but we can't identify them because we can basically never sleep)

The nameless, unimportant, mook who had no affect on the game plot took two hours of arguing to kill and guess what's up next week? The same thing.

In our games, the only thing that's optimized is the DM's BS. It's works both ways.

Players are a lot easier to control than DM's. If you are having a hard time of it, your player either needs medication or you're not a very good DM. If you have the brains to be on optimization boards, you should have the brains to know what is going to ruin your games. If there's a problem player, put him on character probation where you make his characters for him.


The players are what make the game work, not the DM. You are free to do whatever you want to his plot. Ignore it, sidetrack it, abandon it completely and let the world be destroyed.

Here's what my players would probably do to me if I was pulling DM shenanigans.


Right before the big fight, someone would say "you know what? I don't think we need to fight this guy. Let's go back to town." "Capital idea, my good chum!" "Yes, let's do that instead!" "I cast teleport, and transport us all back to the Green Dragon Inn, 1,000 miles away." "HOOOOORAAAAYYY BEEER!"

[Oko and Qailee]

Well I haven't DM'ed yet but...

I'm in a low level campaign where nearly all of us is inexperienced that has a tier mixture.

I'm a lesser Aassimar cleric that rolled really well, but my character has split personality disorder and low self esteem/isn't very brave. So she doesn't do very ridiculous things.

On the other hand we have a druid that somehow had a wolverine at lvl 1 (using a feat, they explained it to me and I thought it was kinda BS) and literally was making (and still does) all our non casters look trivial (she now also has an amulet that lets her summon a bee much stronger than a celestial one, were all level 4, and she summons a bear too). The DM and an experienced player helped her make her character.

Also said experienced player wanted to join the campaign and promised not to optimize too much..... when he joined at level 3 he had a +37 to craft alchemy or something like that.... as a wizard

[rockdeworld]

Do you have a lot of players who are so far into optimization that you have to go through back breaking changes to reign them in?
:confused:Am I Alone?
No to the first question, no to the second question, yes to the topic (at least for 1 game).

I DM'd a Frank&K game because it seemed more fun, and had a player break the game by accident - a player who hates munchkining.

One of the players was a tome samurai popping out critical hits at will with Kiai! to drop groups of enemies with Whirlwind attack. He was outclassed by a gadgeteer who, through 3 class feature choices that synergized, was throwing out a cone of fire for 8d10*1.5 damage per turn, at will. It amounted to something like 60 damage against everything, every turn, at level 8. I used up all the monsters that could live through that attack within a few encounters, and then was stuck. Anything the samurai could kill, the gadgeteer could kill better, more times per day, in larger groups.

I had to ask the gadgeteer's player to trade the Empower enhancement for another one the class's creator made so I could give both players a challenge without making things contrived* (eg. "wow, it seems like all our enemies have fire resistance now! Even the cryohydra!"). And both classes were essentially tier 2/3.

My question to the OP is: how high in level do your games usually go? As I understand it, it's usually at levels 11+ that a difference starts to become noticeable.


*The outcome was that he did, as well as accepting a damage dice reduction from d10 to d8 like a hero, and the game went on with me able to provide adequate challenges where both players were able to shine.

[Greenish]

On the other hand we have a druid that somehow had a wolverine at lvl 1 (using a feat, they explained it to me and I thought it was kinda BS)Natural Bond (C.Adv.), which was probably intended for multi-class druids to keep their animal companions up to trim, but which is often read to counteract the penalty to effective druid level coming from having a stronger animal companion. Pretty standard trick.


(she now also has an amulet that lets her summon a bee much stronger than a celestial one, were all level 4, and she summons a bear too).The infamous Amber Amulet of Vermin (MIC). It is pretty silly.

[Squirrel_Dude]

My old group I played with got off to a bad start. Basically, our first DM through hilarious challenges at us that made us hate him.

e.g.
- Clerics spam finger of death
- You kill a demon, contingency spell summons a new one of the exact same type.
- 3 fight in the game is against a vampire
- After fighting a vampire, you manage to get into a thieve's guilds vault, and then an ancient red dragon shows up and demand you give him everything.

So yeah, we started off in an adversarial position with our DM, and that has carried over into every game we've played since then. We've actually gone into games trying to break them. Maybe we're also terrible people.

[Pickford]

BTW, you can reign in a lot of power games just by enforcing the RAW regarding multi-classes. Every additional class hits you for another XP penalty.

Or you could follow RAW for wizards. By RAW it's both expensive and cumbersome to even lug around the spellbooks (plural) required to have your 'base' spells on hand. If you seriously want access to 'all' the spells ever printed? We're talking maybe 10-20 spell books each which weighs 3 lbs.

Edit:
@Rocktheworld - Did you try grappling the gadget guy? I mean, if they were easily breaking everything, a single grapple and you can't use items.

[The Glyphstone]

Or you could follow RAW for wizards. By RAW it's both expensive and cumbersome to even lug around the spellbooks (plural) required to have your 'base' spells on hand. If you seriously want access to 'all' the spells ever printed? We're talking maybe 10-20 spell books each which weighs 3 lbs.

Edit:
@Rocktheworld - Did you try grappling the gadget guy? I mean, if they were easily breaking everything, a single grapple and you can't use items.

The problem with that idea is that by the time you're carrying more than 2-3 spellbooks, extradimensional space is relatively cheap and Blessed Books are only slightly less cheap. So you end up with a window of 1-2 levels where a wizard's multiple spellbooks are even a minor hindrance, then he shoves them all in a Portable Hole folded in his shoe or something, and makes sure he never sticks his foot into a Bag of Holding. Plus, even low-strength wizards can spare almost all of their meager carrying capacity for books, since almost nothing else they value has more than negligible weight.

[Oko and Qailee]

Natural Bond (C.Adv.), which was probably intended for multi-class druids to keep their animal companions up to trim, but which is often read to counteract the penalty to effective druid level coming from having a stronger animal companion. Pretty standard trick.

The infamous Amber Amulet of Vermin (MIC). It is pretty silly.

Yeah, it was a Christmas present from the DM.

I got a belt of healing,
Druid got Vermin amulet,
Our alchemist Wizard got amulet of poison delay
Our rouge (who had the worst stats ever, a total mod of -1) got a masterwork dueling cloak
Our Barbarian got dust of tracelessness
Our Duskblade got this thing (I forget) that makes everyone in an area hear a noise, he has so far used it to wake us up to the sound of cats purring

and our dread necromancer got.... nothing, except finding out hes the chosen one or something like that

[Pickford]

Well, you'd need a second spellbook by level

spells by
0th level (1 pg each) = 19 spells = 19 pages = 19 total
1st level (1 pg each) = 9 (assuming +4 int) = 9 pages = 28 total
2nd level (2 pg each) = 4 = 8 pages = 36 total
3rd level (3 pg each) = 4 = 12 pages = 48 total
4th level (4 pg each) = 4 = 16 pages = 65 total
5th level (5 pg each) = 4 = 20 pages = 85 total
6th level (6 pg each) = 4 = 24 pages = 109 = two spell books required.

So by 12th level (purely assuming no purchased spells which is just unusual) you have to have two spellbooks.

Yes, you 'could' buy a portable hole, but that's 30% of your WBL (edit: Yeah a DM might give you alot more, but 20k isn't insignificant) by then, even assuming it's available (Again, DM discretion) and you're also forced to assume the player has purchased no other spells because if they did they'd have exceeded the initial spellbook capacity far in advance of 12th level.

There's alot of untapped RP potential (and balancing flavor) in dealing with that. By ignoring it you're effectively 'giving' the wizard that extra 20k they would need to spend on porting it around and/or protecting the source of their power.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well, you'd need a second spellbook by level

spells by
0th level (1 pg each) = 19 spells = 19 pages = 19 total
1st level (1 pg each) = 9 (assuming +4 int) = 9 pages = 28 total
2nd level (2 pg each) = 4 = 8 pages = 36 total
3rd level (3 pg each) = 4 = 12 pages = 48 total
4th level (4 pg each) = 4 = 16 pages = 65 total
5th level (5 pg each) = 4 = 20 pages = 85 total
6th level (6 pg each) = 4 = 24 pages = 109 = two spell books required.

So by 12th level (purely assuming no purchased spells which is just unusual) you have to have two spellbooks.

Yes, you 'could' buy a portable hole, but that's 30% of your WBL (edit: Yeah a DM might give you alot more, but 20k isn't insignificant) by then, even assuming it's available (Again, DM discretion) and you're also forced to assume the player has purchased no other spells because if they did they'd have exceeded the initial spellbook capacity far in advance of 12th level.

There's alot of untapped RP potential (and balancing flavor) in dealing with that. By ignoring it you're effectively 'giving' the wizard that extra 20k they would need to spend on porting it around and/or protecting the source of their power.

A Blessed book is only 12k; 13.6% of WBL for level 12. MIC has it as a 10th level item and being such a useful item to such a central class-feature having it by 8th wouldn't be unusual. It has the added benefit of removing the cost of adding any new spells to your book after it's purchased. The only non-rp reason to forgoe the BB is a lack of availability; the DM refuses to let you find or purchase one and you don't have craft wondrous item.

The lugging around of a multitude of spellbooks is impractical and unnecessary even without such a powerful item, thanks to the alternate spellbooks variants in CAr. If all your staple spells are tattooed onto your body and the more esoteric ones are carved onto a pile of bone-jewelry you're simply not particularly inconvenienced by carrying them.

[Story]

My player's can cause problems with Optimizing, but mostly because it makes the party really uneven and the game hard to run.

In my current game, the DM's done more to unbalance things than any of the players. We ended up with an ECL20 Hill Giant Barbarian in a 4th level party. I don't know what he was thinking, but he brought it on himself.


Plus, even low-strength wizards can spare almost all of their meager carrying capacity for books, since almost nothing else they value has more than negligible weight.

Let's see. Spellbook 3lbs, backpack 2lbs, metamagic rod 5lbs, platinum coins 3-4lbs, miscellaneous wands and scrolls: a couple of ounces - Oh no! I'll have to get someone else to carry my cheap and easily replaceable Disguise Kit!



So by 12th level (purely assuming no purchased spells which is just unusual) you have to have two spellbooks.

By level 12, every Wizard who can will have a Blessed Book. Not to mention various extradimensional storage spaces.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Well, you'd need a second spellbook by level

spells by
0th level (1 pg each) = 19 spells = 19 pages = 19 total
1st level (1 pg each) = 9 (assuming +4 int) = 9 pages = 28 total
2nd level (2 pg each) = 4 = 8 pages = 36 total
3rd level (3 pg each) = 4 = 12 pages = 48 total
4th level (4 pg each) = 4 = 16 pages = 65 total
5th level (5 pg each) = 4 = 20 pages = 85 total
6th level (6 pg each) = 4 = 24 pages = 109 = two spell books required.

So by 12th level (purely assuming no purchased spells which is just unusual) you have to have two spellbooks.

Yes, you 'could' buy a portable hole, but that's 30% of your WBL (edit: Yeah a DM might give you alot more, but 20k isn't insignificant) by then, even assuming it's available (Again, DM discretion) and you're also forced to assume the player has purchased no other spells because if they did they'd have exceeded the initial spellbook capacity far in advance of 12th level.

There's alot of untapped RP potential (and balancing flavor) in dealing with that. By ignoring it you're effectively 'giving' the wizard that extra 20k they would need to spend on porting it around and/or protecting the source of their power.

Given that a spellbook weighs 3 lbs, and the light load limit (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/carryingCapacity.htm#) for a Strength 8 character is 26 lbs., two spellbooks, an explorer's outfit, five days rations, a spell component pouch, and a backpack to carry it all in leaves three pounds free before hitting a medium load. For a Strength 10 character, that would leave ten pounds free. And as has been noted, there's precious little else that a Wizard would need, and there is doubtless another party member (or mule) who can carry any extra for their friend the Wizard should the need arise. And then there's the fact that a Handy Haversack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#handyHaversack) costs 2000gp and lets you carry 120 lbs. of stuff for 5 lbs., which puts our intrepid Wizard well away from his weight limit. And if you need more storage capacity, a type I Bag of Holding (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#bagofHolding) is only 500gp more.

So how is it that a Wizard (even with a Strength of 8) is going to be encumbered by their spellbook, again?

Edit: Swordsage'd

[Pickford]

A Blessed book is only 12k; 13.6% of WBL for level 12. MIC has it as a 10th level item and being such a useful item to such a central class-feature having it by 8th wouldn't be unusual. It has the added benefit of removing the cost of adding any new spells to your book after it's purchased. The only non-rp reason to forgoe the BB is a lack of availability; the DM refuses to let you find or purchase one and you don't have craft wondrous item.

The lugging around of a multitude of spellbooks is impractical and unnecessary even without such a powerful item, thanks to the alternate spellbooks variants in CAr. If all your staple spells are tattooed onto your body and the more esoteric ones are carved onto a pile of bone-jewelry you're simply not particularly inconvenienced by carrying them.

I was talking about the Portable Hole which is 20k. If you bought both that's 32k then, almost half your WBL, not inconsiderable and a disadvantage worth modeling for DMs who find their players are willing and able to take full advantage of anything.

And tatooing is great, except you only get 56 pages of spells that way and some of them require mirrors to read...you also have the obvious disadvantage (at least for your team) of having to get naked to prepare your spells for the day. So ultimately you'd still need a real spellbook. (granted you could role-play a crazy witch-doctor covered in tattoo's and who uses tokens, but there are risks associated).

Tokens...not terrible, but then you're just substituting risks (i.e. destruction from aoe, theft, losing them in a catastrophe)

Edit: The Schroedinger's wizard (most popular variety) would require:
PHB spells:
19 pages 0th level
42 pages 1st level
100 pages 2nd level
135 pages 3rd level
164 pages 4th level
215 pages 5th level
258 pages 6th level

So...yeah that first blessed book could cover the first set of spells (excluding non PHB sources)

But you'd still need multiple blessed books.

For giggles:
245 pages 7th level
280 pages 8th level
216 pages 9th level

And SpC
9 pages 0th level (interesting side query, do all 1st level mages start with these too? Page 57 from PHB says....yes. So that seems to alter the starting number of pages open in a spellbook for each 0th level spell that exists)
74 pages 1st level
202 pages 2nd level
261 pages 3rd level
280 pages 4th level
325 pages 5th level
252 pages 6th level

So by 12th level someone who expanded beyond the PHB would need more than 2 blessed books and 4 regular spell books (or 3 blessed books) to cover all the spells in only two sources.

If we were to go the full distance:

266 pages 7th level
176 pages 8th level
270 pages 9th level

Grand total PHB + SpC: 3789 pages.

So for future reference, anyone playing a Schroedinger's Wizard is carrying around at least: 4 Blessed books or 38 regular spellbooks. That being the case, if you come across an adventuring party, make sure to kill their sherpa first.

[TuggyNE]

It might be a "bad rule" but it is still a rule in the game, not a houserule and as such I've found multiple DMs that support it more for that reason than because it nerfs multiclassers.

Sure. I think it's a sufficiently flawed rule that it's worth houseruling out of existence in essentially all cases; its intended uses don't really work, and it has a number of unintended consequences.

I should probably also have mentioned that Barbarian 1/Ranger 1/Rogue 1/Fighter 1/Wizard 1/Druid 1/Cleric 1/(Chaos or alignment change) Monk 1/Sorcerer 1/Bard 1, despite being a travesty of inelegance, mechanical ineffectiveness, and (very likely) bizarre fluff clashes, takes no multiclass XP penalties whatsoever.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I was talking about the Portable Hole which is 20k. If you bought both that's 32k then, almost half your WBL, not inconsiderable and a disadvantage worth modeling for DMs who find their players are willing and able to take full advantage of anything.

And tatooing is great, except you only get 56 pages of spells that way and some of them require mirrors to read...you also have the obvious disadvantage (at least for your team) of having to get naked to prepare your spells for the day. So ultimately you'd still need a real spellbook. (granted you could role-play a crazy witch-doctor covered in tattoo's and who uses tokens, but there are risks associated).

Tokens...not terrible, but then you're just substituting risks (i.e. destruction from aoe, theft, losing them in a catastrophe)

The spellbook is to a wizard what a magic sword is to a fighter. Dropping serious cash on getting new spells is expected. Doing so by purchase of a BBB is just efficient. Seriously, what else are you going to spend his WBL on?

You can talk about the portable hole all you want, but a handy haversack is a more likely purchase at only a fraction of the cost.

As for the "problem" of having to strip to his smallcloth, big deal. He wasn't wearing armor anyway and probably isn't wearing anything that's both important and inherently concealing. He'd have to lose his robe, gloves, boots, vest and shirt to reveal virtually his entire "book." Rings, cloak, necklace, belt and glasses/goggles won't really be in the way. Magic pants are just a magic cloak variant that most people don't even realize exists. Most of the tools a wizard relies on aren't worn anyway; wands, staves and spell components and foci.

You got the page-count wrong, btw. Most people have two arms, and two legs; doubling the pages for those extremities. Combine with a 2 level dip in geometer and you get enough room for 80 spells; more than enough to cover all the staples, which would include -all- of the freebies he gets from leveling up after level 7. They're only free once, why put them on something that can be snatched.

It was a fine idea at a glance, but spellbooks just don't constitute any kind of encumbrance unless the DM tries to force the issue; singling out the wizard in the process.

[Pickford]

The spellbook is to a wizard what a magic sword is to a fighter. Dropping serious cash on getting new spells is expected. Doing so by purchase of a BBB is just efficient. Seriously, what else are you going to spend his WBL on?

You can talk about the portable hole all you want, but a handy haversack is a more likely purchase at only a fraction of the cost.

Well, I didn't suggest the hole, but I think the point was that it's more secure than a haversack.

And I would expect them to spend the WBL on things other people do, except wizards would also naturally be interested in scrolls, wands, staves, rods, and robes.

Having to shell out for the spellbook/carrying cases is money you can't spend on the good stuff. Simply getting to ignore that disadvantage is 'alot' of free money.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well, I didn't suggest the hole, but I think the point was that it's more secure than a haversack.

And I would expect them to spend the WBL on things other people do, except wizards would also naturally be interested in scrolls, wands, staves, rods, and robes.

Having to shell out for the spellbook/carrying cases is money you can't spend on the good stuff. Simply getting to ignore that disadvantage is 'alot' of free money.

To the underlined: Name of the gods, why?!

A wizard has the abilities that others buy items to emulate as his class features. Why would a wizard ever buy, say, a broom of flying for 17k when adding overland flight to his book only costs 400? Why would he buy -any- of the perception boosting items when he could add a spell to his book to mimic any of those items' effect for a fraction of the cost?

Other characters buy gear to keep up with a wizard. Wizards buy gear to allow them cast spells better and more often.

[huttj509]

To the underlined: Name of the gods, why?!

A wizard has the abilities that others buy items to emulate as his class features. Why would a wizard ever buy, say, a broom of flying for 17k when adding overland flight to his book only costs 400? Why would he buy -any- of the perception boosting items when he could add a spell to his book to mimic any of those items' effect for a fraction of the cost?

Other characters buy gear to keep up with a wizard. Wizards buy gear to allow them cast spells better and more often.

And why would a wizard buy a magic sword?

[tyckspoon]

And why would a wizard buy a magic sword?

To put Eager and Warning on it so he can more easily get the drop on people and cast spells at them while they're still flat-footed, of course. :smallconfused: Everybody knows that!

[Menteith]

No, and I typically encourage them to play the most awesome/epic character they can (if the campaign's a low fantasy/gritty one I'm probably not using 3.5 anyway). Outside of my players pulling a premade TO character off a website, I can handle pretty much anything they throw at me. I had players throw everything from Fleshraker ACs & Venomfire to Spellstitching Create Undead Warrior at me in the last campaign, and I had no issue upping the enemy tactics/builds to account for it. Sure, I had to rebuild the BBEG as a Gestalt, and yeah, I had to give class levels to or advance most of the monsters I had built originally, but I'd rather my players get a chance to do what they want in the game.

And to be completely honest, most of my games aren't anywhere near that kind of power. Most of the time, my players will naturally play at a lower power level, because they seem to like doing so more. In any case, I also haven't had a real issue with anyone in my group for any game balance reasons.

[Newoblivion]

Do you have a lot of players who are so far into optimization that you have to go through back breaking changes to reign them in?

I think my group is a rare exception to a lot of the things I see around here. Acknowledgment of teirs, rewriting spells, changing classes, banning items, banning abilities, banning certain book, not using dragon/dungeon/3rd party stuff, and the list goes on.

When I DM, and my friend DMs, despite each of us giving our players access to handbooks, and letting them borrow any of the books they need, everyone stays realtively low powered.

We have challenging encounters, we don't step on people's toes when doing skill checks, or really any of the BS I hear around here. I've been posting here for over a year and been DMing/playing that entire time now. I have never ran into this issue of having to balance the game.

:confused:Am I Alone?

My group is the same. We are so far into RP that some power builds just can't happen. We have to interact with the world if we want to get things. So we can't just "get" a magic item only because our level dictates that we should be able to purchase it.

All in all RP and cool concepts are much more important to us then game breaking builds.

[Pickford]

To the underlined: Name of the gods, why?!

A wizard has the abilities that others buy items to emulate as his class features. Why would a wizard ever buy, say, a broom of flying for 17k when adding overland flight to his book only costs 400? Why would he buy -any- of the perception boosting items when he could add a spell to his book to mimic any of those items' effect for a fraction of the cost?

Other characters buy gear to keep up with a wizard. Wizards buy gear to allow them cast spells better and more often.

I was referring to the 75k Robe of the Archmagi or something like it, the 32k stat boosters, the ~60k of ioun stones and so forth. You know...the things 'everyone' wants which the Wizard, by spending nearly 50% of their wealth on books/spells, must necessarily forgo.

Flight is not a necessity by any stretch of the imagination.

[TuggyNE]

I was referring to the 75k Robe of the Archmagi or something like it, the 32k stat boosters, the ~60k of ioun stones and so forth. You know...the things 'everyone' wants which the Wizard, by spending nearly 50% of their wealth on books/spells, must necessarily forgo.

The Robe of the Archmagi (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#robeoftheArchmagi) is rather a waste of money. It gives static SR (which is easily outclassed by level 8 or so), a modest armor bonus (greater mage armor does better, even if you can't or won't cast greater luminous armor), a decent resistance bonus (but superior resistance is more effective, or perhaps dedicated cloaks of resistance), and a +2 enhancement bonus to CL checks (but only against SR, not dispels, anti-dispels, or anything else)… all for the low low price of 75000gp.

I can easily understand the orange ioun stone for CL boosts (expensive though it is), but I'm not convinced every wizard out there needs a pale green for +1 competence to ability checks and so forth. (Though it is useful, especially for contact other plane.)

The stat boosters (Int, Con, maybe Dex, maybe others if you have spare change) are of course nigh-essential, or at least Int is, but that comes to about another 80000 if you get two +6 items and a couple +2.

The total is, if you do splurge a lot on this stuff, a bit over 200000gp, which you can easily afford somewhere in the mid-high levels; assuming you also go way overboard scribing ALL THE SPELLS, that's about the time you're finishing up your collection of 8th-level spells. So it's not really a tremendously effective constraint, since even somewhat unfavorable assumptions make it all affordable well before 20.

[Greenish]

Pickford, why don't you make a thread about how much everyone else is playing wizards wrong instead of filling unrelated threads with it?

[rockdeworld]

@Rocktheworld - Did you try grappling the gadget guy? I mean, if they were easily breaking everything, a single grapple and you can't use items.
Yes, in fact I designed an encounter specifically for that (Xorns grappling through earthen walls). After that xorns were done, and nothing else could get close enough to grapple him.

In regards to wizards carrying spellbooks, is this not the same game where you can pay a hireling to carry things for you? I'm pretty sure carrying capacity wasn't meant to (nor actually does) stop wizards from carrying books.

[Krazzman]

Also, THAT'S A THING!! :O do the players like it? As a player I always liked xp because its like a reward, kind of like finding gold. I'm new to DMing so just asking.

Ask them beforehand. Maybe even tell them that you are not giving XP per Monster slain/overcome but more on a plot development scale. I believe Kol Korran did something like this in his Eberron Campaign.

About the topic:

Unsure. In our old group the DM balanced things basically through: "Everybody loses everything!" or such stuff... we basically never played anything above level 4. The few exceptions to that were... a level 18 campaign, starting with full WBL then taking nearly everything away at the entry sequence. A campaign starting on level 6 going to level 11, when a wizard and "i'm not a paladin" paladin/purple dragon knight joined it became "rockettag" as in the paladin dealt an minimum of 120 dmg per charge and the rest was basically a lot weaker.

In our new group I basically used Core + ToB and still on level 5 I am far stronger than the rest. The Druid chooses blasting spells, doesn't use her Animal Companion (a frigging big eagle), the Favoured Soul either doesn't fight because he misses water or did some highly questionable stuff in and out of fight. The Rogue/ranger is a newbie and the Bard/Warlock we just messed up and will probably let her reroll/retrain. In this group the I would with a level 5 Fighter outperform them in combat. Thanks to Spiked Chain (for emergency tripping) and Power Attack I deal far more damage than everyone else, while thanks to maneuvers I have something other to do than just I hit it again.

Some basic stuff like Fighters are strong in the early levels, Casters in the later was apparent in both.
In the new one I mentioned it and well we don't use the Tier system and just try to have fun. Trying to get the good bunch of half Dungeoneering and RPing.

I would say I am the "strongest" optimizer in the current group and I am fine as long as I don't try some really cheesy stuff. I try to stay with 1, maybe 2 dips and stay with one class for the rest of it. Mainly because In the first campaign, which we stopped because of new players coming in and everyone wanting to play something else, we reached level 6. In the now 2nd Campaign we are still level 5 and I'm a Warblade/Fighter so far. Tier 3 is my most favoured Tier and I try to stay around it. I doubt that the later levels really come into play, we either scrap it and start with something new which is for one thing a bit sad but on the other hand new possible char ideas.

The only time I have seen a campaign being broken was my first when a player that came into the game for rather late was suddenly far stronger than we were, to the point where the player forgot to buy a lance and he couldnÄt buy one because he would then do 3xdmg instead of his double he was already doing.

[Pickford]

Pickford, why don't you make a thread about how much everyone else is playing wizards wrong instead of filling unrelated threads with it?

I was posting on topic for the thread (addressing players who break DM games) by suggesting that generally it only 'appears' a player is breaking the game when in reality the DM just needs to begin enforcing the core rules.

Not what you said.

[Karnith]

I was posting on topic for the thread (addressing players who break DM games) by suggesting that generally it only 'appears' a player is breaking the game when in reality the DM just needs to begin enforcing the core rules.

Not what you said.
Enforcing the core rules is one of the best ways to make sure that the game gets broken.

[Story]

Having to shell out for the spellbook/carrying cases is money you can't spend on the good stuff. Simply getting to ignore that disadvantage is 'alot' of free money.

For Wizards, the spellbook IS the good stuff.


Pickford, why don't you make a thread about how much everyone else is playing wizards wrong instead of filling unrelated threads with it?

Obviously the correct way to play wizards is Biological Warfare.

[Newoblivion]

I was posting on topic for the thread (addressing players who break DM games) by suggesting that generally it only 'appears' a player is breaking the game when in reality the DM just needs to begin enforcing the core rules.

Not what you said.

The only rule I enforce is the Golden Rule. If the rules make the game less fun then change or ignore them.

[ahenobarbi]

On wizard spellbook being a problemgorfnab made "Easy Bake Wizard" (borrowed from here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198209)):


Elf, preferably Gray

Elf Wizard Racial Sub - Races of the Wild
Eidetic Spellcaster ACF - Dragon Magazine #357
Spontaneous Divination ACF - Complete Champion - Optional but great at higher levels
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

For a little cheese look into Domain Wizard from UA since it does stack with the Elf Wizard Racial Sub.

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

Edit: 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 and 6 additional spells known every level after that.
If I ever play with DM who messes too much with my spellbook I'm using this.


On topic: I'm a player but as far as I can tell we only have problem with one guy insisting on playing greatly underpowered build (which is a nuisance for everyone else). Once a player brought a build (ubercharger) borrowed from internets.

[Edenbeast]

The only rule I enforce is the Golden Rule. If the rules make the game less fun then change or ignore them.

I thought the golden rule is simply to have fun :) I'm against changing or ignoring rules. When we play a game of football and we're not enjoying it because our striker was caught offside 10 times in a row, then that doesn't mean we're allowed to just ignore the offside rule :P

[Newoblivion]

I thought the golden rule is simply to have fun :) I'm against changing or ignoring rules. When we play a game of football and we're not enjoying it because our striker was caught offside 10 times in a row, then that doesn't mean we're allowed to just ignore the offside rule :P

I am not sure it's the same though. I never had to change or ignore the rules to much, though I will do it if something will seem stupid to me. For example, if a cave will crush down on one of my players I am not going to throw damage dice and see what happens. I will just tell him that he is dead.

Also, I think that this is how homebrew rules are born. You play with friends and you see what works for you. In my group we almost never use coup de grace, mostly because when you wield a giant sword and your target can't move its kinda waste of time to start throwing dice, the DM will just tell you that you take his head off and be done with it.

Rules are important to me as a DM and as a player. Though, in my group, on the first sign of abuse the DM will just tell you "nope, you can't do it, move on". Players know when they abuse a rule or a spell, and they know what the writer of the rule or spells meant, but when we feel that something is against the spirit of the game we just don't allow it.

[Edenbeast]

I am not sure it's the same though. I never had to change or ignore the rules to much, though I will do it if something will seem stupid to me. For example, if a cave will crush down on one of my players I am not going to throw damage dice and see what happens. I will just tell him that he is dead.

Also, I think that this is how homebrew rules are born. You play with friends and you see what works for you. In my group we almost never use coup de grace, mostly because when you wield a giant sword and your target can't move its kinda waste of time to start throwing dice, the DM will just tell you that you take his head off and be done with it.

Rules are important to me as a DM and as a player. Though, in my group, on the first sign of abuse the DM will just tell you "nope, you can't do it, move on". Players know when they abuse a rule or a spell, and they know what the writer of the rule or spells meant, but when we feel that something is against the spirit of the game we just don't allow it.

I agree on the cave. And maybe I misunderstood, I thought you meant allowing anything as long as the players are happy. Like telling the cleric he can cast the spell eventhough he's holding a shield in one hand and a mace in the other.
The coup de grace, I've used the same like you for pretty much anything humanoid. For big monsters however, like a dragon for example, I'll still use the rules with the fortitude safe to reflect the chance that the player tries kill it in one blow but instead wakes it up.

[Agincourt]

I thought the golden rule is simply to have fun :) I'm against changing or ignoring rules. When we play a game of football and we're not enjoying it because our striker was caught offside 10 times in a row, then that doesn't mean we're allowed to just ignore the offside rule :P

Maybe that's the way you play, but that's not the way most people play a sport. If I'm at the park with some friends, I don't say, "sorry, we can't play; we need exactly 22 people, 11 for each side and a regulation pitch before I'll consider playing soccer (football)."

If we have an odd number of people, we might even play 5 on 4, if necessary. We just give the weakest player to the side with 5 people. We aren't going to let FIFA official rules stop us from having a lovely Saturday afternoon.

[Edenbeast]

Maybe that's the way you play, but that's not the way most people play a sport. If I'm at the park with some friends, I don't say, "sorry, we can't play; we need exactly 22 people, 11 for each side and a regulation pitch before I'll consider playing soccer (football)."

If we have an odd number of people, we might even play 5 on 4, if necessary. We just give the weakest player to the side with 5 people. We aren't going to let FIFA official rules stop us from having a lovely Saturday afternoon.

I was speaking about an official saturday or sunday match, with official rules, where the role of the referee is to enforce the rules of the game, in reference to the previous post where the GM would change or ignore certain rules so the players can have more fun.. But sure have it your way. But then the number of players is not a great argument I would say, of course we play with whoever turns up to join us and have a great afternoon. Still there would be several basic rules you would enforce, like not touching the ball with your hands unless you're the keeper (if there is one), and offside if it's too obvious.

[Agincourt]

I was speaking about an official saturday or sunday match, with official rules, where the role of the referee is to enforce the rules of the game, in reference to the previous post where the GM would change or ignore certain rules so the players can have more fun.. But sure have it your way. But then the number of players is not a great argument I would say, of course we play with whoever turns up to join us and have a great afternoon. Still there would be several basic rules you would enforce, like not touching the ball with your hands unless you're the keeper (if there is one), and offside if it's too obvious.

Now we're just quibbling about which rules to enforce. Just because some people ignore the rules about multiclass penalties, does not mean our Saturday roleplaying game is going to degenerate into a game of Calvinball (http://calvinandhobbes.wikia.com/wiki/Calvinball). Roleplaying is a collaborative activity, and if there is a consensus to ignore a rule, there's no fundamental difference between that and ignoring the regulation number of players in a soccer game.

As for likening a weekend roleplaying game to an official match, that's not apt comparison at all. If you enter a tournament or pathfinder society game, they will enforce the official rules. My amateur roleplaying game is most aptly compared to my amateur soccer game in the park.

[Edenbeast]

Now we're just quibbling about which rules to enforce. Just because some people ignore the rules about multiclass penalties, does not mean our Saturday roleplaying game is going to degenerate into a game of Calvinball (http://calvinandhobbes.wikia.com/wiki/Calvinball). Roleplaying is a collaborative activity, and if there is a consensus to ignore a rule, there's no fundamental difference between that and ignoring the regulation number of players in a soccer game.

As for likening a weekend roleplaying game to an official match, that's not apt comparison at all. If you enter a tournament or pathfinder society game, they will enforce the official rules. My amateur roleplaying game is most aptly compared to my amateur soccer game in the park.

Well I don't see myself as a professional roleplayer either, but I admit I can be quite lawful when it comes to rules. These roleplaying games come with several books with rules and guidelines, much like any board game has rules. So when we have a games evening, the goal is to have a great evening and have fun playing board games, but we play according to the rules of the game on the table. Same for RPG's. How hard is it to have fun playing a game without breaking rules? I'm not a rules lawyer, and I won't interupt the game when I see another player do something questionable and the GM allowing it, since I respect the GM's final ruling, but it does take away the fun I'm having.

[RFLS]

-snip-

Your point boils down to wizards needing to do different stuff to function as a class. It's doable, straightforward, and doesn't actually prevent them from breaking the game. If you're playing in a low WBL game where everyone's familiar with the Vancian system (in character), then yeah, wizards might have a hard time of it. Remove either of those, though, and the wizard's pretty well off.


Pickford, why don't you make a thread about how much everyone else is playing wizards wrong instead of filling unrelated threads with it?

Snarkiness aside, this may be an okay idea if we can keep it civil. Pickford doesn't seem to be a frothing-at-the-mouth crazy person, so, while I think he's wrong, I'm not going to refuse to listen.


Enforcing the core rules is one of the best ways to make sure that the game gets broken.

Quoted for truth.


I thought the golden rule is simply to have fun :) I'm against changing or ignoring rules. When we play a game of football and we're not enjoying it because our striker was caught offside 10 times in a row, then that doesn't mean we're allowed to just ignore the offside rule :P

The difference is that football is a symmetric game. D&D, pretty much by definition, isn't.

[Karoht]

I relegate all my arguements about optimization to one spell and one spell only for example sake.

Explosive Runes
I can make practically as many as I want.
I can put them on practically anything I want.
I have a variety of delivery systems available.

Can I start carpet bombing encounters with Explosive Runes + Delivery System De Jour? You bet your ass I can.
Should I start carpet bombing encounters with Explosive Runes + Delivery System De Jour?

Depends. Do I want the DM to take other casters to their logical conclusions and begin using equally cheesy/dirty tactics on me and the party in order to challenge us? Typically my answer is no.

Does that mean we need to ban Explosive Runes at the table? Of course not. Not if it isn't being abused, though the definition of abuse will vary from group to group. But if it begins to be abused, the DM largely has two choices. Rule Zero/DM Fiat, or politely ask the player to stop.
(Yes, Rule Zero and politely asking are sometimes one in the same thing, however I do associate DM Fiat and banning a spell to usually be the same thing.)
If a player doesn't respond well to either, then there really becomes not much that the DM can do.

[killem2]

Thanks for the responses, I don't mean to come off mean in my OP. I hate conflicting advice, and when I don't see the issues that seem to come up here all the time, I wonder what the heck is going on.

It is also why I waited so long to ask, I figured it would be foolish to ask such a question, if I only had a couple sessions.

[Threadnaught]

Smack your DM for me. Twice.

And me, go on, smack him twice for everyone here. If it's Vorr, smack him again for being Vorr. :smallamused:
JK don't hit him any more for being Vorr.

It's heartbreaking when my most awesome encounters are slaughtered, or the PCs ignore them so they don't unseal the can of evil. But anything I put into combat is supposed to risk being killed, even if I say they turn tail and run first round.
Amusingly, my players were very close to introducing a new villain, by winning a fight, but they realized during it's last few HP, that it wanted them to win to free it. A Dry Lich, I sure do like my Undead. :smallbiggrin:

The player I refer to as "that ******* Druid" was seriously considering giving the guy exactly what he asked for. Water. His Hawk Companion contributed more to this specific encounter, even though he's always trying to Munchkin his way through just about every session. Wizard used his new Magic Quarterstaff to fight the Lich's pet Dustform Giant Banded Lizard, then went for the Lich.
I was disappointed when they broke off from the fight and asked the DMPC what to do (because he listens), but they earned their exp and the chaos combined with the desert wind allowed the Wizard to learn a few more Spells. Both players leveled up.
The encounter was capable of wiping both players, the AC and the DMPC, but I rolled very badly. So much so that when I rolled a 1, I ruled that it went into a rage fueled frenzy and had entangled itself with the whip. They've yet to find and smash the jars, but for now they've prevented several side quests involving the Dry Lich from actually happening.

I love it when they co-operate and come up with interesting ways to overcome their problems. :smallbiggrin:
Not so much when that ******* Druid starts whinging about how he can't use 9th level Spells at level 9. :smallfurious:


It's a mixed bag really, I want them to do something crazy, I want them to break the game and possibly even cause a time paradox (the game is set 1000 years before their last game), but only if both of them get involved and it doesn't break down to a single player dominating everything in sight while the other player spends all their time waiting for them to throw a bone. Wizard is currently ahead in terms of level and power due to more ingenuity and competence. That is, outside of whinging and trying to optimize.

[Shining Wrath]

I was talking about the Portable Hole which is 20k. If you bought both that's 32k then, almost half your WBL, not inconsiderable and a disadvantage worth modeling for DMs who find their players are willing and able to take full advantage of anything.

And tatooing is great, except you only get 56 pages of spells that way and some of them require mirrors to read...you also have the obvious disadvantage (at least for your team) of having to get naked to prepare your spells for the day. So ultimately you'd still need a real spellbook. (granted you could role-play a crazy witch-doctor covered in tattoo's and who uses tokens, but there are risks associated).

Tokens...not terrible, but then you're just substituting risks (i.e. destruction from aoe, theft, losing them in a catastrophe)

Edit: The Schroedinger's wizard (most popular variety) would require:
PHB spells:
19 pages 0th level
42 pages 1st level
100 pages 2nd level
135 pages 3rd level
164 pages 4th level
215 pages 5th level
258 pages 6th level

So...yeah that first blessed book could cover the first set of spells (excluding non PHB sources)

But you'd still need multiple blessed books.

For giggles:
245 pages 7th level
280 pages 8th level
216 pages 9th level

And SpC
9 pages 0th level (interesting side query, do all 1st level mages start with these too? Page 57 from PHB says....yes. So that seems to alter the starting number of pages open in a spellbook for each 0th level spell that exists)
74 pages 1st level
202 pages 2nd level
261 pages 3rd level
280 pages 4th level
325 pages 5th level
252 pages 6th level

So by 12th level someone who expanded beyond the PHB would need more than 2 blessed books and 4 regular spell books (or 3 blessed books) to cover all the spells in only two sources.

If we were to go the full distance:

266 pages 7th level
176 pages 8th level
270 pages 9th level

Grand total PHB + SpC: 3789 pages.

So for future reference, anyone playing a Schroedinger's Wizard is carrying around at least: 4 Blessed books or 38 regular spellbooks. That being the case, if you come across an adventuring party, make sure to kill their sherpa first.

Less than one Handy Haversack (2k), and the HH lets you grab the book you want.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I was referring to the 75k Robe of the Archmagi or something like it, the 32k stat boosters, the ~60k of ioun stones and so forth. You know...the things 'everyone' wants which the Wizard, by spending nearly 50% of their wealth on books/spells, must necessarily forgo.

Flight is not a necessity by any stretch of the imagination.

You have a problem with a character spending 12k on improving his ability to carry spells at level 8 but not 72k on a robe that grants a myriad of abilities on the same level? What kind of logic is that?

The robe of the archmage is a © 17th level item. By then you could afford enough BBB's (not more than 6) to scribe every spell in the game without even putting a significant dent in you WBL.

[Novawurmson]

Also, THAT'S A THING!! :O do the players like it? As a player I always liked xp because its like a reward, kind of like finding gold. I'm new to DMing so just asking.

As a DM, whenever I go to start a new campaign, I always say to myself: "This time I'm going to keep really good track of experience!" Then a few months in, I get incredibly bored totaling up the numbers after every session; I only have so much time to prepare every week, and I'd rather use it making a new enemy or designing a new subplot than looking over CR charts. It also makes things weird when the players say things like, "Well, we could just take out the enemy leaders and minimize casualties, but if we kill everyone, do we get more experience?"

I asked one of my players, and she said there's good and bad things about both. It's cool to be reminded about all the things that you did last session, but then there's things like being disappointed at the amount of experience you got for something you did.

I should also mention that I level my players at story-specific events: After defeating a major enemy, finishing a long adventure, etc.