My DM says I'm too powerful, so I'll make the others overpowered instead.

[Deca4531]

so I created a bard character and focused him on some good damage abilities, well my DM says I'm too strong and he can't put anything out there that I won't one shot or won't kill the whole rest of the party. So I reworked the character, this time I'm not going to really do much of anything on the way damage at all. However I am going to give everyone else in the party anywhere from 9 to 18 extra d6 of damage and a Plus 9 to hit and damage as well. Maybe he'll feel better if I'm not the one destroying everything in the dungeon, he he he

my original build was a storm singer, but since taking his power down really screwed up the theme of the character I was going for I decided to scrap him all together. Now I am built as a dragon fire inspiration Bard. And I've managed to build it so I can have 3 different inspire courage, or variant dragon fire inspiration, going at once. So I'll be doing what everyone always says a bard does, sit in the back and strum my lute like the useless class I am :-)

[hymer]

How can we help you?

[Hyena]

so I created a bard character and focused him on some good damage abilities
What. How?

[LanSlyde]

How can we help you?

I think this is less about him wanting help and more of an attempt at gloating and fishing for praise.

[Zombulian]

so I created a bard character and focused him on some good damage abilities, well my DM says I'm too strong and he can't put anything out there that I won't one shot or won't kill the whole rest of the party. So I reworked the character, this time I'm not going to really do much of anything on the way damage at all. However I am going to give everyone else in the party anywhere from 9 to 18 extra d6 of damage and a Plus 9 to hit and damage as well. Maybe he'll feel better if I'm not the one destroying everything in the dungeon, he he he

my original build was a storm singer, but since taking his power down really screwed up the theme of the character I was going for I decided to scrap him all together. Now I am built as a dragon fire inspiration Bard. And I've managed to build it so I can have 3 different inspire courage, or variant dragon fire inspiration, going at once. So I'll be doing what everyone always says a bard does, sit in the back and strum my lute like the useless class I am :-)

Well woopty doo for you sonny boy.

[Deca4531]

lol well I guess I did have a couple points of discussion I just didn't phrase in very well. First being that a lot of people hate on bards but if you do a little research you can actually make them pretty powerful. My storm singer was doing near 80 damage a hit with his Bardic music, and I can see how that can overwhelm some DM's when we're only 8 level.

I do kind of wonder how my DM will respond to this, having the entire party more or less forcibly power gamed. How do you think this will turn out?

[Trinoya]

lol well I guess I did have a couple points of discussion I just didn't phrase in very well. First being that a lot of people hate on bards but if you do a little research you can actually make them pretty powerful. My storm singer was doing near 80 damage a hit with his Bardic music, and I can see how that can overwhelm some DM's when we're only 8 level.

I do kind of wonder how my DM will respond to this, having the entire party more or less forcibly power gamed. How do you think this will turn out?

I have absolutely no clue how you're dealing 'near' 80 damage with your bardic music, stats or it didn't happen.

[Deca4531]

I have absolutely no clue how you're dealing 'near' 80 damage with your bardic music, stats or it didn't happen.

a third level storm singer gets an ability called thunderstruck, you use one of your daily music uses to activate it. Its a ranged touch attack that deals damage equal to your perform saying roll. By stacking charisma, A level in Marshall to double what my charisma adds to the skill and a few easy to come by magic items I was able to pump my perform saying check to almost 60. Add on to that the D 20 for the check and you have between 60 and 80 damage per hit. A few levels higher and the ranged touch attack becomes a line attack and thus able to hit as many targets as possible in a 60 foot line.

[Trinoya]

a third level storm singer gets an ability called thunderstruck, you use one of your daily music uses to activate it. Its a ranged touch attack that deals damage equal to your perform saying roll. By stacking charisma, A level in Marshall to double what my charisma adds to the skill and a few easy to come by magic items I was able to pump my perform saying check to almost 60. Add on to that the D 20 for the check and you have between 60 and 80 damage per hit. A few levels higher and the ranged touch attack becomes a line attack and thus able to hit as many targets as possible in a 60 foot line.

I'm aware of the ability you're using, I'm curious about your stats and these so called 'easy to come by' items pumping your check up to 60.

[Heliomance]

That's a damn sweet ability, though do note that it's Ref half.

I'm more interested in how you're having three different types of Inspire Courage up at once.

Also, what level are you playing at?

[Segev]

That's a damn sweet ability, though do note that it's Ref half.

I'm more interested in how you're having three different types of Inspire Courage up at once.

Also, what level are you playing at?

If you have 3 different types as 3 different class features and can have 3 songs active...

I'm fairly sure there is a feat that allows you go have two songs running at once, and I think there's a magic item that will maintain one for you, too.

[Deca4531]

I have absolutely no clue how you're dealing 'near' 80 damage with your bardic music, stats or it didn't happen.


I'm aware of the ability you're using, I'm curious about your stats and these so called 'easy to come by' items pumping your check up to 60.

there is a plus 1 weapon enchant call harmonizing that gives you plus 6 enhancement bonus to your sing, I also had a plus 4 from my race by being a fey. I had a charisma off 26 and a level in marshall gives me an aura that allows me to apply my charisma modifier to charisma based skills twice. I also had a custom made magic item to get me a plus 10 compotance bonus 2 my sing check. Then if you use a master work instrument you get another plus 2 cercomstance bonus. And I think I had 1 or 2 other items but I can't remember them at the moment.

[Trinoya]

If you have 3 different types as 3 different class features and can have 3 songs active...

I'm fairly sure there is a feat that allows you go have two songs running at once, and I think there's a magic item that will maintain one for you, too.


Only the highest morale bonus would apply.


there is a plus 1 weapon enchant call harmonizing that gives you plus 6 enhancement bonus to your sing, I also had a plus 4 from my race by being a fey. I had a charisma off 26 and a level in marshall gives me an aura that allows me to apply my charisma modifier to charisma based skills twice. I also had a custom made magic item to get me a plus 10 compotance bonus 2 my sing check. Then if you use a master work instrument you get another plus 2 cercomstance bonus. And I think I had 1 or 2 other items but I can't remember them at the moment.

Okay, so which fey race is this?

[HC Rainbow]

I have absolutely no clue how you're dealing 'near' 80 damage with your bardic music, stats or it didn't happen.

I too would like these stats. Even with an insanely high charisma and Perform Sing gear, a few buffs, and a high roll I'm only managing to pump out 50 - 60 damage mentally at level 9.

I'll try tweaking it a bit some more, this could be very interesting if I found a way to make a stormcaller bard and name him Rain.

...Back Back B

EDIT: Apparently in the 5 minutes it took me to look the character up 5 people posted. x_x

[Deca4531]

If you have 3 different types as 3 different class features and can have 3 songs active...

I'm fairly sure there is a feat that allows you go have two songs running at once, and I think there's a magic item that will maintain one for you, too.

seeker of the song level 2 let me have to music running at once, and a second or fourth level bart spell call animated instrument will perform another of your bardic music for you.if you consider casting the animated object multiple times and burning up a lot of bardic music you could theoretically stack the dragon fire inspiration.

[Segev]

Only the highest morale bonus would apply.

Ah, but if one's a morale bonus to hit, and another's a morale bonus to damage, and the third's a bunch of elemental d6s (which, if my skim of this thread and memory of a friend's "bard of doom" build is not betraying me, is why he has 3 "inspire courages" up). They all do different things.

[Deca4531]

Only the highest morale bonus would apply.



Okay, so which fey race is this?

Seelie court fey template from the dragon compendium, and I forget the name of the race, I do remember it was a plus 1 l a had a really nasty bite. But it did give a boost to my charisma score

[Heliomance]

Only the highest morale bonus would apply.


Dragonsfire Inspiration replaces the morale bonus to attack and damage with d6s of elemental damage. A party of bards could have five or six different flavours of DI up at the same time, plus one vanilla IC, for a total of (if optimised) something like +12 to hit, and +72d6+12 damage on all attacks. It's a bit mean.

What are you doing to get two different types of DI on one character, though?


I too would like these stats. Even with an insanely high charisma and Perform Sing gear, a few buffs, and a high roll I'm only managing to pump out 50 - 60 damage mentally at level 9.

Custom skill boost items are really damn cheap - bonus^2 * 100 - and you can get up to +30 to a skill for a cost of 90,000GP pre-Epic.

[SiuiS]

lol well I guess I did have a couple points of discussion I just didn't phrase in very well. First being that a lot of people hate on bards but if you do a little research you can actually make them pretty powerful. My storm singer was doing near 80 damage a hit with his Bardic music, and I can see how that can overwhelm some DM's when we're only 8 level.

I do kind of wonder how my DM will respond to this, having the entire party more or less forcibly power gamed. How do you think this will turn out?

Very few people hate on bards. They hate on bard archetypes, but that's different.

I don't think you can stack multiple sources of dragon fire inspiration. They're all morale bonuses, right? So you'd overlap, not stack.


I think you're doing a jerk move and should instead work with the DM instead of doing the Exact. Same. Thing. In a way that semantically solves the wording of the issue while actually making the problem worse. The DM cannot handle that level of easy damage and enjoy the game. You are purposefully making the game not fun for one of the players after he asked you to not do that. Optimization is fine and all, but you're using it as a social weapon against your fellows. I would suggest talking to the DM and seeing if this is acceptable and if he can be okay with the rest of the party shining this bright, or if he meant he wants everything toned down.


Ah, but if one's a morale bonus to hit, and another's a morale bonus to damage, and the third's a bunch of elemental d6s (which, if my skim of this thread and memory of a friend's "bard of doom" build is not betraying me, is why he has 3 "inspire courages" up). They all do different things.

Oh! Yeah, that's totally legit. I've done that. :3

[Trinoya]

EDIT: Ninja'd pwn'd.

[Deca4531]

Ah, but if one's a morale bonus to hit, and another's a morale bonus to damage, and the third's a bunch of elemental d6s (which, if my skim of this thread and memory of a friend's "bard of doom" build is not betraying me, is why he has 3 "inspire courages" up). They all do different things.

there is a certain dragon you can pic when you take the dragonic heritage feat that can do both fire and sonic breath weapons. So in the event your dm says trying to stack the same dragon fire inspiration wouldn't work for the same element you now have two elements and that's twice the damage

[Heliomance]

Very few people hate on bards. They hate on bard archetypes, but that's different.

I don't think you can stack multiple sources of dragon fire inspiration. They're all morale bonuses, right? So you'd overlap, not stack.

Not if you use different elements. One's a morale bonus to the amount of fire damage you do, one's a morale bonus to the amount of cold damage you do...

[HC Rainbow]

Dragonsfire Inspiration replaces the morale bonus to attack and damage with d6s of elemental damage. A party of bards could have five or six different flavours of DI up at the same time, plus one vanilla IC, for a total of (if optimised) something like +12 to hit, and +72d6+12 damage on all attacks. It's a bit mean.

What are you doing to get two different types of DI on one character, though?



Custom skill boost items are really damn cheap - bonus^2 * 100 - and you can get up to +30 to a skill for a cost of 90,000GP pre-Epic.

Whats DI from Exactly? I must have missed the memo on bards doing insane things.

And Secondly, Yeah I knew about skill boosts but earlier he said that he was level 8, was trying to figure out how exactly he managed to snatch a +30 skill item as well as how hes running seeker of the song and stormsinger at such low levels. SOS prereq of 13 perform ranks = minilevel 9. yes?

[SiuiS]

Ah, but if one's a morale bonus to hit, and another's a morale bonus to damage, and the third's a bunch of elemental d6s (which, if my skim of this thread and memory of a friend's "bard of doom" build is not betraying me, is why he has 3 "inspire courages" up). They all do different things.


Whats DI from Exactly? I must have missed the memo on bards doing insane things.

And Secondly, Yeah I knew about skill boosts but earlier he said that he was level 8, was trying to figure out how exactly he managed to snatch a +30 skill item as well as how hes running seeker of the song and stormsinger at such low levels. SOS prereq of 13 perform ranks = minilevel 9. yes?

Either dragon magic or races of dragon. A bard feat that lets you instead boost damage by a d6 for every +1 you would get from inspire courage. The element is based on your dragon breath. If you do not have dragon breath, it is instead fire.

With Eberron letting you take feats instead of songs, and the feats to boost inspire courage by 1, and the items, you can hit some gnarly damage early on. I think I hit +6 at third level through shenanigans. And you can run both, for dice and flat bonuses.

[Heliomance]

Whats DI from Exactly? I must have missed the memo on bards doing insane things.

And Secondly, Yeah I knew about skill boosts but earlier he said that he was level 8, was trying to figure out how exactly he managed to snatch a +30 skill item as well as how hes running seeker of the song and stormsinger at such low levels. SOS prereq of 13 perform ranks = minilevel 9. yes?

It's a feat from Dragon Magic. Replaces your IC bonus with D6s of elemental damage. Also it's not actually a morale bonus, it's untyped.

And he doesn't have a +30 item, he has a +10 item.

[Deca4531]

Whats DI from Exactly? I must have missed the memo on bards doing insane things.

And Secondly, Yeah I knew about skill boosts but earlier he said that he was level 8, was trying to figure out how exactly he managed to snatch a +30 skill item as well as how hes running seeker of the song and stormsinger at such low levels. SOS prereq of 13 perform ranks = minilevel 9. yes?

Dragonfire inspiration is either in races of the Dragon or dragon magic, I forget which. Also my storm singer didn't have seeker of the song levels, that was in reference to my Dragonfire inspiration build.

[Trinoya]

Whats DI from Exactly? I must have missed the memo on bards doing insane things.

And Secondly, Yeah I knew about skill boosts but earlier he said that he was level 8, was trying to figure out how exactly he managed to snatch a +30 skill item as well as how hes running seeker of the song and stormsinger at such low levels. SOS prereq of 13 perform ranks = minilevel 9. yes?


I believe it would be min level 10 to reach the 13 ranks, and then you could take it at 11th.

[HC Rainbow]

Dragonfire inspiration is either in races of the Dragon or dragon magic, I forget which. Also my storm singer didn't have seeker of the song levels, that was in reference to my Dragonfire inspiration build.

ahhhhh okay okay. Sorry I was so confused. Please continue while I stop being distracting.

Thanks for the input though, My bard buddy is gonna wanna see this.


I believe it would be min level 10 to reach the 13 ranks, and then you could take it at 11th.

You are correct. ECL+3 = max ranks.

Im all sorts of off today. excuse me. I need a redbull.

[Segev]

Sadly, this wouldn't work due to the LAs and HD involved, but now I want to see a fighter-type with Leadership who has 5 followers - one of each of the Chromatic (or metallic) dragon types as wyrmlings, with Bard levels and Inspire Courage. They fly in a halo-like ring around him, singing, and give him elemental damage to hurt things with.

Like I said, doesn't work all that well (and he'd be better off with halfling or gnome followers to get more bard levels out of them), but still...

[Deca4531]

I believe it would be min level 10 to reach the 13 ranks, and then you could take it at 11th.

Correct, then if u take 5 lvs in warchanter you get an additional one as well

[Alaris]

there is a plus 1 weapon enchant call harmonizing that gives you plus 6 enhancement bonus to your sing, I also had a plus 4 from my race by being a fey. I had a charisma off 26 and a level in marshall gives me an aura that allows me to apply my charisma modifier to charisma based skills twice. I also had a custom made magic item to get me a plus 10 compotance bonus 2 my sing check. Then if you use a master work instrument you get another plus 2 cercomstance bonus. And I think I had 1 or 2 other items but I can't remember them at the moment.

Finally got into the thread, now I'll do some quick calculations:

20 (Nat20) + 11 (Ranks) 6 (Harmonizing) + 8 (Charisma) + 8 (Marshall) + 10 (Magic Item) + 2 (Masterwork Instrument) + 4 (Racial) = 68

Okay, so I guess 2 "other items" equal up to around +12 bonus. Of course, they'd have to be non-competence bonus items, but I'm sure it's fine. Nitpick here, but I wouldn't allow a Masterwork "Instrument" for singing. You're not using an instrument, but whatever.

That said, "Seelie Court Fey" would indeed grant the +4 Sing bonus. Really though, how can you not remember your primary race... -.-


there is a certain dragon you can pic when you take the dragonic heritage feat that can do both fire and sonic breath weapons. So in the event your dm says trying to stack the same dragon fire inspiration wouldn't work for the same element you now have two elements and that's twice the damage

If I were the DM, I certainly wouldn't allow you to have those going off of one bardic music. So you'll have to use 2 uses to do Fire & Sonic, using whatever ability you have. Naturally, this can't be done at 8th level, given that you'd need a spell (Animate Instrument) or the special Class Feature.

Admittedly, bard can be pretty OP if built right... but seriously... you're just being an ass to your DM, and the other players. You should build something in line with their level of optimization, rather than just building something absurd to steamroll and outshine the other players.

[Deca4531]

ahhhhh okay okay. Sorry I was so confused. Please continue while I stop being distracting.

Thanks for the input though, My bard buddy is gonna wanna see this.



You are correct. ECL+3 = max ranks.

Im all sorts of off today. excuse me. I need a redbull.

you're bard friend might also be interested in this (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=c0d05p22ho4glr6gp77626en31&topic=9830.0)

[Particle_Man]

I think that there is a danger that you are turning your party into glass cannons. Are you going to give them any defensive buffs?

[Deca4531]

Admittedly, bard can be pretty OP if built right... but seriously... you're just being an ass to your DM, and the other players. You should build something in line with their level of optimization, rather than just building something absurd to steamroll and outshine the other players.

I'm not doing this to outshine the other players, quite the opposite actually since they will be the ones to benefit from this build. I'm just trying to buy them, who doesn't like being powerful. Also my DM's main complaint was the party was unbalanced because I was far beyond the other players, with this all the players will be equal in power. Now the DM can afford to throw bigger and better things at the party and the party gets to feel epic because they are taking out things that should be beyond them. And yes I am being a bit of an ass, just a bit

[Deca4531]

I think that there is a danger that you are turning your party into glass cannons. Are you going to give them any defensive buffs?

I intend to throw around as many defensive spells and mitigation as my bard spells will allow. But you are correct they will be a little bit of a glass cannon.

[Alaris]

I'm not doing this to outshine the other players, quite the opposite actually since they will be the ones to benefit from this build. I'm just trying to buy them, who doesn't like being powerful. Also my DM's main complaint was the party was unbalanced because I was far beyond the other players, with this all the players will be equal in power. Now the DM can afford to throw bigger and better things at the party and the party gets to feel epic because they are taking out things that should be beyond them. And yes I am being a bit of an ass, just a bit

Alright, that's fair. You were being more of an ass with your previous build... but buffing them to hell and back, I suppose that is better and more in line. It's what I do with my Sorcerer in one of the games I play, since I don't want to be OP.

Just... jeez. Bards way more OP than I originally thought.

[Zombulian]

Alright, that's fair. You were being more of an ass with your previous build... but buffing them to hell and back, I suppose that is better and more in line. It's what I do with my Sorcerer in one of the games I play, since I don't want to be OP.

Just... jeez. Bards way more OP than I originally thought.

That's generally what optimization shows you. Bards are awesome.

[Deca4531]

That's generally what optimization shows you. Bards are awesome.

the funny thing is I used to hate bards, and in most cases if we had one in the party and my character happened to be evil I would try to kill him all the time. I guess the reason I never liked them was because I never knew there real potential. Its just my style that whenever I pick a class I research the hell out of it and in doing so I found out just how good a bard can be. Even with this super buffet build I'll still be able to get up to 8th or 9th level spells as well and you perform checks to boost my castor levels by up to plus five. So I should still have pretty good versatility

[Heliomance]

the funny thing is I used to hate bards, and in most cases if we had one in the party and my character happened to be evil I would try to kill him all the time. I guess the reason I never liked them was because I never knew there real potential. Its just my style that whenever I pick a class I research the hell out of it and in doing so I found out just how good a bard can be. Even with this super buffet build I'll still be able to get up to 8th or 9th level spells as well and you perform checks to boost my castor levels by up to plus five. So I should still have pretty good versatility

You're fitting Sublime Chord in there as well? Because that's about the only way to get 9s on a Bard.

[Deca4531]

You're fitting Sublime Chord in there as well? Because that's about the only way to get 9s on a Bard.

what I was planning on doing is

Bard 8
Virtuoso 2
Seeker of the song 2 or sublime cord 2
Virtuoso 8

[Heliomance]

what I was planning on doing is

Bard 8
Virtuoso 2
Seeker of the song 2 or sublime cord 2
Virtuoso 8

SotS won't get you 9s, and SC won't get you double music.

[Deca4531]

SotS won't get you 9s, and SC won't get you double music.

I was actually thinking about it after I posted that and I see no reason why I couldn't take both and just do six levels of the other class since it provides spell progression

[Honest Tiefling]

Have you talked to the party, to see how they feel about the power of your character, and if they have any input?

[Deca4531]

Have you talked to the party, to see how they feel about the power of your character, and if they have any input?

we only meet once a week and I really don't know them that well outside of our game. However the good thing about the way this is built is that it has a good scaling ability. I can give them all 18 d6 damage or simply not use a magic item or 2and reduce the amount of power I'm giving them. So I can easily play this at low power level or crank it up to max in a situation that we need it. My other character I built was very focused on what he did so when the DM had issues with how strong his abilities were it wasn't very easy to do much of anything else with him. At least this build can still act like a normal barred without needing to change anything.

[Particle_Man]

I intend to throw around as many defensive spells and mitigation as my bard spells will allow. But you are correct they will be a little bit of a glass cannon.

In that case, I think you may be increasing the chance of a TPK, as the DM makes monsters to challenge this improved party.

[Heliomance]

To help counter this a little, I'd be inclined to dip Marshal for Motivate Dexterity, to boost everyone's initiative by your charisma mod. That way, your team will be going first, and hopefully with your silly damage boosts, you can kill the enemy before they have a chance to act.

[Pex]

This is like me with my group. I know I optimize more than they do. I got away with it by having my first character be support. He's a Life Mystery Oracle, healbot extraordinaire. I don't only heal. I do lots of buffing and the occasional attack spell, but the choices I make in feats, revelations, and spells make the party stronger, and I don't even have or want the Life Link revelation that many people love. One player noted he took nearly 200% HP of damage one combat and never dropped. The other party members can afford to put in extra effort on offense because I put in the extra effort on defense. I originally did intend to be part-warrior as well, but I learned I weakened the party when I attacked with a weapon. That round of actions was a waste on my part. I abandoned that thought and now go full party defense plus attack spells.

As we alternate campaigns, my optimization level becomes more apparent as I focus more on offense. I made a psion too well it turned the group off of it to ban psionics. I switched to a dual-cursed Dark Tapestry Oracle played as a warrior type. The DM is already bothered by my forcing the bad guys to reroll d20s via Misfortune Revelation and Ill Omen spell. I wonder how he'll react when we reach 7th level, and I can be a flying gorilla in shadow armor thanks to revelations and still be able to cast a few spells since I'll be taking Silent Spell feat.

[Deca4531]

To help counter this a little, I'd be inclined to dip Marshal for Motivate Dexterity, to boost everyone's initiative by your charisma mod. That way, your team will be going first, and hopefully with your silly damage boosts, you can kill the enemy before they have a chance to act.

I would like to but I'm not sure if I have the room for it.

[AMFV]

I'd be very concerned about rocket tag and escalation here. It's very easy for the DM to match greater damage (by giving the monsters greater HP or resistances). And you have no means of bypassing said resistances or the greater hitpoints. Which is a problem. If you fight an enemy that can cast elemental resistance or elemental immunity, you're in really bad shape, really quickly since you're a one trick pony. That's the problem with overoptimizing one aspect. Optimization is about expending the right number of resources to get exactly the right results. You are spending all of your resources on a trick that can be shut down (silence), mitigated (high points), or made completely irrelevant (immunities).

The party isn't equipped to deal with more challenging enemies without your assistance, that's why it's poor form to over-optimize in this fashion, particularly because in this case... Since your trick is pretty one dimensional, if the DM shuts it down and the party is screwed, that is likely your fault since you've set the overall level of optimization higher than the other players could meet.

[Alent]

Here's what I would do if I were your DM:

1) Make you go back to your original build.

2) Houserule your ability to work as call lightning the druid spell, with the perform check granting a bonus round for every 5 points you beat the perform check by.

3) Hand out potions of Resist Energy(electricity) when he needs to slow you down.

Because here's the alternatives if you keep the DFI build.

1) He adds templates to mobs to make them immune to dragonfire inspiration.

2) He adds templates to the party to make them immune to mind altering effects so that you don't destroy the way he thinks CR works.

Running an arms race with the DM is just a bad idea. Get some kind of gentleman's agreement going that goes "yes, I know you can break the game, work with me here so it's fun for both of us".

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I DM a group of people where that kind of damage is pretty standard by low-mid levels. This is what I do:

1. Pick higher CR'd creatures... but I try to avoid the ones with HD-based effects that just screw over the party. There are many.
2. Advance hit dice. You can get a lot of bulk for not a lot of CR this way.
3. Swap out the feats. They are usually terrible.
4. Then I lower CR by ~5* across the board when calculating XP, because the group is at least that much more powerful than a "standard" party.
5. Sometimes they fight similarly-optimized NPCs, and I don't have to muck with CR at all.

I wouldn't call it an arms race; my group likes to optimize combat effectiveness, but not break the entire game world, so the "race" is contained via numbers. It is more work though.

*More for higher levels or over-CR'd creatures, less for lower levels or under-CR'd creatures

[AMFV]

I DM a group of people where that kind of damage is pretty standard by low-mid levels. This is what I do:

1. Pick higher CR'd creatures... but I try to avoid the ones with HD-based effects that just screw over the party. There are many.
2. Advance hit dice. You can get a lot of bulk for not a lot of CR this way.
3. Swap out the feats. They are usually terrible.
4. Then I lower CR by ~5* across the board when calculating XP, because the group is at least that much more powerful than a "standard" party.
5. Sometimes they fight similarly-optimized NPCs, and I don't have to muck with CR at all.

I wouldn't call it an arms race; my group likes to optimize combat effectiveness, but not break the entire game world, so the "race" is contained via numbers. It is more work though.

*More for higher levels or over-CR'd creatures, less for lower levels or under-CR'd creatures

The problem is that there's only one player who has optimized for combat effectiveness so if the DM optimizes and then his trick doesn't work it's very bad for everybody.

[Deophaun]

there is a certain dragon you can pic when you take the dragonic heritage feat that can do both fire and sonic breath weapons.
Pyroclastic dragons, from Draconomicon. It's this dragon that makes the standard Silverbrow human actually suboptimal for a DFI bard, because just having the dragonblood subtype doesn't make the prereqs any easier.

But yeah, this might not be the best way to go if you want to be a powerful bard while avoiding your DM's banstick. A fear-based bard might be a better fit and won't risk TPK if the DM escalates .

[Heliomance]

The problem is that there's only one player who has optimized for combat effectiveness so if the DM optimizes and then his trick doesn't work it's very bad for everybody.

No there isn't, that's the whole point. The one player that's optimised is playing a buffmonkey, so they make EVERYONE stronger.

[Incorrect]

My storm singer was doing near 80 damage a hit with his Bardic music, and I can see how that can overwhelm some DM's when we're only 8 level.

I do kind of wonder how my DM will respond to this, having the entire party more or less forcibly power gamed. How do you think this will turn out?

The DM made you change your character because you did 80 damage at level 8.
And your reply was to make the entire party do an extra 18d6 = 63 damage, per attack?

What in the multiverse made you think this is acceptable player behavior?
GM: Dude, your optimizing is ruining the game, make a new character please.
PC: Perfect, a new chance to optimize!

I can't say how it will turn out, but in my game you would be immediately dropped from the group. You had your chance.

Sorry if I come across harsh, but I think you are going to ruin the game for everyone. To give some advice, I'm guessing you know the Tier system, make a character of the same tier as the rest of the group and deal roughly the same damage. Don't force everyone to play optimized.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The problem is that there's only one player who has optimized for combat effectiveness so if the DM optimizes and then his trick doesn't work it's very bad for everybody.
No there isn't, that's the whole point. The one player that's optimised is playing a buffmonkey, so they make EVERYONE stronger.Also, not that this is ideal, but if you have one optimized non-buff-monkey you don't optimize to counter that guy. You optimize to challenge the group, so they need his ridiculous trick to win. The problems here aren't with optimizing enemies; it's with the party imbalance.

[Treme]

of course the downside is that the party now has a single weak spot. Take out the bard and the whole party is now way off the required power level!

[Heliomance]

The DM made you change your character because you did 80 damage at level 8.
And your reply was to make the entire party do an extra 18d6 = 63 damage, per attack?

What in the multiverse made you think this is acceptable player behavior?
GM: Dude, your optimizing is ruining the game, make a new character please.
PC: Perfect, a new chance to optimize!

I can't say how it will turn out, but in my game you would be immediately dropped from the group. You had your chance.

Sorry if I come across harsh, but I think you are going to ruin the game for everyone. To give some advice, I'm guessing you know the Tier system, make a character of the same tier as the rest of the group and deal roughly the same damage. Don't force everyone to play optimized.
Eh... it's not so bad, actually. The problem before was uneven power levels - anything strong enough to challenge the Stormsinger would wipe the floor with the rest of the party, and anything right for them would be a speedbump to the Stormsinger. The new character brings up everyone's power level, meaning it's possible to make a meaningful challenge, because everyone's at roughly the same power level as each other.

[Incorrect]

[QUOTE=Heliomance;16637321]The new character brings up everyone's power level.../QUOTE]
(shortened by me)

Thereby forcing the GM to cater to a whole new power level, instead of just bringing the power down, as the GM requested.

[Sir Chuckles]

I'm glad I've never had to veto much in my campaigns (I can only think of one instance, which was when the Drunken Master decided to start carrying around a ladder with weapon enchantments), but I'd strongly consider that kind of power gaming on the precipice of my patience.

My first response, however, would be to throw enemies immune/resistant to your energy type, or at least have an invisible Wizard playing defense against you.
And yes, you make yourself a target against intelligent enemies.

Smart DMing can easily overcome this, so if your DM is competent and thoughtful, be prepared to lose a character.

[Heliomance]

The new character brings up everyone's power level...
(shortened by me)

Thereby forcing the GM to cater to a whole new power level, instead of just bringing the power down, as the GM requested.

I see no problem with this. It's the GM's job to react to whatever the players throw at him. If the players have a consistent power level, it's possible to cater to it. You only get problems when one character is significantly more/less powerful than the rest.

[Aasimar]

Just skimming over your build, I want to say that I would neither want to GM you nor be in a party with you.

[Feint's End]

Thereby forcing the GM to cater to a whole new power level, instead of just bringing the power down, as the GM requested.

Agree with this one. I can understand why bringing up the powerlevel of the whole group seems like a good idea but it really isn't since neither the group nor the DM asked you for it. The DM just asked you to tone it down a bit and not everyone else up.

If you are playing this build it will most likely result in bad feelings from either the party or the DM (my bet is on both) and as a result from you too.

So if I were you I'd first ask the rest of the group what they would think about such a power boost. If they are fine you should ask your DM and if he says it's ok go for it. But tbh I wouldn't be happy about it since I like to play my character and if suddenly there is a bard who increases my dmg by 200% and makes even the party wizard a good fighter then I don't feel like I'm doing my own stuff anymore but rather am a weapon for the bard player. And I think that would ruin it for your party.

In general you should take this opportunity to build a flavourful character out of a suboptimal concept. Sometimes I really appreciate situations like this since you can get away with something like that. If you just can't do it or optimizing is that important for you, you might want to consider leaving the group since you are not the same kind of players.

Think about the following. Don't just optimize your character but optimize your gaming experience. Even if that means to play a "suboptimized" character.

[AMFV]

I see no problem with this. It's the GM's job to react to whatever the players throw at him. If the players have a consistent power level, it's possible to cater to it. You only get problems when one character is significantly more/less powerful than the rest.

Which is exactly the scenario that we have, in this case.

[Kudaku]

I can't help but feel that you're forcing your preferred play style on the rest of your party. They may or may not be OK with this. I'd strongly suggest you sit down and talk with them about this before making your next character, especially if you don't know them well.

Part of being a good RPG player is learning to adjust to and accommodate for your party's power level. Bringing a balls-to-the-walls DFI bard into a party that thinks fighters are OP because they get tower shield proficiency at level 1 is going to throw the party dynamics way off-balance, which is usually a bad thing.

In this case I'd suggest playing something that's still good but less... Showy and one-trick pony. I'd consider something like a utility-wizard: the guy who prepares general buff spells like Enlarge Person, Haste etc, he has a scroll for every occasion but rarely uses the GOD-level control spells etc. He doesn't put people in his shadow in the same way and it's easier to handle for the DM.

[Aasimar]

But tbh I wouldn't be happy about it since I like to play my character and if suddenly there is a bard who increases my dmg by 200% and makes even the party wizard a good fighter then I don't feel like I'm doing my own stuff anymore but rather am a weapon for the bard player. And I think that would ruin it for your party.


This is a great point

[Deca4531]

a big part of the difference between this build and my storm singer is that my main attack had a base damage of almost 60, and that couldn't be hold back on it was just what it was. I can choose just how powerful I want my buff to be now. I don't have to run to songs at the same time if I don't want to, nor do I have to use things like word of creation or bad of Valor to boost my DFI if I think it's going to cause too serious and in balance. Also I wouldn't consider this a one trick pony since I'm still advancing my caster level and if I dip into sublime cord I become even more of a versatile caster. The point of the build wasn't too turn up everyone into glass cannons but to give them a taste of what it's like to be powerful at a level that their experience in the game doesn't let them optimize to. So once I start rolling this character I can start small with say a Plus 4 and scale it up from there gradually to find a spot where both the players and the DM can find equal ground.

[AMFV]

a big part of the difference between this build and my storm singer is that my main attack had a base damage of almost 60, and that couldn't be hold back on it was just what it was. I can choose just how powerful I want my buff to be now. I don't have to run to songs at the same time if I don't want to, nor do I have to use things like word of creation or bad of Valor to boost my DFI if I think it's going to cause too serious and in balance. Also I wouldn't consider this a one trick pony since I'm still advancing my caster level and if I dip into sublime cord I become even more of a versatile caster. The point of the build wasn't too turn up everyone into glass cannons but to give them a taste of what it's like to be powerful at a level that their experience in the game doesn't let them optimize to. So once I start rolling this character I can start small with say a Plus 4 and scale it up from there gradually to find a spot where both the players and the DM can find equal ground.

The problem is that a silence spell not only completely shuts you down, but it makes your party now completely vulnerable since they've planned on having you. Energy resistances will make you utterly worthless, and again lowering your party's damages will make them completely ineffective. What sort of spells are you taking with sublime chord? That will matter quite a bit. You're still pretty much a one-trick pony, and worse a one-trick pony that's easy easy to shut down, since no bard spells can ever be cast with silent spell.

I would avoid this, you're not giving them a taste of what it's like to be powerful, your giving them a drug, more damage, and then enabling them. Without realizing that the withdrawal could be fatal, the DM will make more encounters more challenging and if he does that, and then happens on your weaknesses, which are many, then you'd have a TPK, all it takes is for him to combine the two.

Planning your character to avoid that, is just smart metagaming, you don't want to make your character indispensable, because then you'll be irreplaceable. And when you get shut down, by any of the tricks, I've listed, which were by the way, completely off-the-top of my head. You'll get blamed when the party fails.

[Aasimar]

a big part of the difference between this build and my storm singer is that my main attack had a base damage of almost 60, and that couldn't be hold back on it was just what it was. I can choose just how powerful I want my buff to be now. I don't have to run to songs at the same time if I don't want to, nor do I have to use things like word of creation or bad of Valor to boost my DFI if I think it's going to cause too serious and in balance. Also I wouldn't consider this a one trick pony since I'm still advancing my caster level and if I dip into sublime cord I become even more of a versatile caster. The point of the build wasn't too turn up everyone into glass cannons but to give them a taste of what it's like to be powerful at a level that their experience in the game doesn't let them optimize to. So once I start rolling this character I can start small with say a Plus 4 and scale it up from there gradually to find a spot where both the players and the DM can find equal ground.

You're basically rubbing your superiority in their faces.

I don't want to play a character that only feels like an outlet for someone elses power, I doubt your friends do.

[Feint's End]

a big part of the difference between this build and my storm singer is that my main attack had a base damage of almost 60, and that couldn't be hold back on it was just what it was. I can choose just how powerful I want my buff to be now. I don't have to run to songs at the same time if I don't want to, nor do I have to use things like word of creation or bad of Valor to boost my DFI if I think it's going to cause too serious and in balance. Also I wouldn't consider this a one trick pony since I'm still advancing my caster level and if I dip into sublime cord I become even more of a versatile caster. The point of the build wasn't too turn up everyone into glass cannons but to give them a taste of what it's like to be powerful at a level that their experience in the game doesn't let them optimize to. So once I start rolling this character I can start small with say a Plus 4 and scale it up from there gradually to find a spot where both the players and the DM can find equal ground.

You have a valid point however you should consider what your group likes to play. Do they like the powerlevel they are at right now? Do they just play that powerlevel because they don't know any better? You will spare yourself a lot of frustration and conflicts if you find out about it. I've met lots of different players over the years and most of them are just not interested into optimizing. If the DM gives them a great storyline and they can enjoy their character then they are happy. They like to play D&D that way even if one player plays a monk and the other one plays a fireball throwing wizard.

Same rule for DMs. There are amazing DMs (I personally know one) who just don't know that much about the rules an optimization just because they are good storytellers and are good at emulating a world. They are really good DMs but they just don't care for optimization because they just want to tell a good story together with their friends. Sure ... storygaming and powergaming are not mutually exclusive (see Stormwind Fallacy) but it's just that a lot of people don't want to spend time on learning how to optimize (which between us takes a lot of time and research between sessions) and don't want to play the game the way it is played on a high optimization level.

It is important to find out which kind of group you have there and especially which kind of DM you have. If the group is of the kind which just enjoys playing and telling a story and not caring for optimization at all then you should either tone it down (like play something awesome but suboptimal and try to enjoy the roleplaying) or leave the group and find one that better fits your style of play.

As someone has mentioned don't start an arms race against your DM. A thing most people forget is that games don't get actually more exciting if you optimize more. They really don't. For me (and most other people) the most important part is spending a good time with your friends and telling a story. The optimization level you use is just a tool but not the purpose of the game.

[Deca4531]

The problem is that a silence spell not only completely shuts you down, but it makes your party now completely vulnerable since they've planned on having you. Energy resistances will make you utterly worthless, and again lowering your party's damages will make them completely ineffective. What sort of spells are you taking with sublime chord? That will matter quite a bit. You're still pretty much a one-trick pony, and worse a one-trick pony that's easy easy to shut down, since no bard spells can ever be cast with silent spell.

I would avoid this, you're not giving them a taste of what it's like to be powerful, your giving them a drug, more damage, and then enabling them. Without realizing that the withdrawal could be fatal, the DM will make more encounters more challenging and if he does that, and then happens on your weaknesses, which are many, then you'd have a TPK, all it takes is for him to combine the two.

Planning your character to avoid that, is just smart metagaming, you don't want to make your character indispensable, because then you'll be irreplaceable. And when you get shut down, by any of the tricks, I've listed, which were by the way, completely off-the-top of my head. You'll get blamed when the party fails.

almost anyone can be shut down with the right spell, paralyzed comes to mind, simple things like hold person takes care of melee late easily, and anti-magic so on will stop most casters just as easily as silence will affect probably have their spells.

[AMFV]

almost anyone can be shut down with the right spell, paralyzed comes to mind, simple things like hold person takes care of melee late easily, and anti-magic so on will stop most casters just as easily as silence will affect probably have their spells.

Wizards at med-high OP carry rods of Silent Spell around with them, it's just good planning. It's just that you are upping the party's optimization level, and you are easy to shut down. So you are screwing the party, eventually it will screw them. It's why the batman wizard is so different from this, he's useful but not indispensable, you are making yourself irreplaceable, and that will screw the party at some point.

Also AMF is a 10' emanation, if you can't avoid a 10' emanation then you might not be wizard material.

[Deca4531]

Wizards at med-high OP carry rods of Silent Spell around with them, it's just good planning. It's just that you are upping the party's optimization level, and you are easy to shut down. So you are screwing the party, eventually it will screw them. It's why the batman wizard is so different from this, he's useful but not indispensable, you are making yourself irreplaceable, and that will screw the party at some point.

Also AMF is a 10' emanation, if you can't avoid a 10' emanation then you might not be wizard material.

one would hope that if the DM build an encounter designed to mitigate say any one of the primary roles that he would take into account what the party would lose. For instance one of our players is a dedicated healer, so if the DM chose to mitigate him for the encounter you would expect him not to be dishing out as extreme damage as normal. Having been a DM I know that any character can be dealt with in some way, and no one is unkillable.

[AMFV]

one would hope that if the DM build an encounter designed to mitigate say any one of the primary roles that he would take into account what the party would lose. For instance one of our players is a dedicated healer, so if the DM chose to mitigate him for the encounter you would expect him not to be dishing out as extreme damage as normal. Having been a DM I know that any character can be dealt with in some way, and no one is unkillable.

The problem is that it will be an accident. You've upped the paradigm, now, it's possible to have you be worthless almost by accident (silence is common), and he might not plan for it. You've also admitted that the DM isn't comfortable with high-optimization so he (or she) may respond in a vengeful way, that's human nature, that's why the batman wizard is so good, because you're not rubbing your superiority in their face, so there's not much of a chance that the DM will have angry reprisals.

Furthermore he already asked you to tone it down, and now you're doing the opposite, you don't think that's going to lead to problems down the road, that's kind of just a jackass thing to do.

[Deca4531]

The problem is that it will be an accident. You've upped the paradigm, now, it's possible to have you be worthless almost by accident (silence is common), and he might not plan for it. You've also admitted that the DM isn't comfortable with high-optimization so he (or she) may respond in a vengeful way, that's human nature, that's why the batman wizard is so good, because you're not rubbing your superiority in their face, so there's not much of a chance that the DM will have angry reprisals.

Furthermore he already asked you to tone it down, and now you're doing the opposite, you don't think that's going to lead to problems down the road, that's kind of just a jackass thing to do.

again I think you're working under the assumption that every encounter I'm going to try to add 9d6 of damage to everyone's attack. That being the case yes it would horribly unbalance the CR and the players, but that's not what I intend to do. Even a non optimized DFI can still offer 3 or 4 d6. then I simply reserve the ridiculousness for the big boss battle or if it's looking like a TPK

[AMFV]

again I think you're working under the assumption that every encounter I'm going to try to add 9d6 of damage to everyone's attack. That being the case yes it would horribly unbalance the CR and the players, but that's not what I intend to do. Even a non optimized DFI can still offer 3 or 4 d6. then I simply reserve the ridiculousness for the big boss battle or if it's looking like a TPK

But still there is that question, he asked you to tone it down, and you are doing the opposite. The exact opposite, an optimized DFI bard is significantly more optimized than a Stormsinger. So instead of toning it down, you've ramped it up. That's starting both a pissing contest and an arms race, that's just a bad idea in general.

[cakellene]

Would this build be able to just limit it to a flat modifier such as as just 5 or 6 damage boost instead of extra dice?

[Deca4531]

Would this build be able to just limit it to a flat modifier such as as just 5 or 6 damage boost instead of extra dice?

Yes very easily

[Deca4531]

But still there is that question, he asked you to tone it down, and you are doing the opposite. The exact opposite, an optimized DFI bard is significantly more optimized than a Stormsinger. So instead of toning it down, you've ramped it up. That's starting both a pissing contest and an arms race, that's just a bad idea in general.

He wanted me to tone down the character not because I was too powerful for his creatures but because it unbalance the party, as long as the party is balanced you can adapt.

also one thing I think people are forgetting is that silence won't stop Bardic music, you can perform that ability with any kind of perform check, I could buff the party with interpretive dance as long as they can see and/or hear me.

[AMFV]

He wanted me to tone down the character not because I was too powerful for his creatures but because it unbalance the party, as long as the party is balanced you can adapt.

also one thing I think people are forgetting is that silence won't stop Bardic music, you can perform that ability with any kind of perform check, I could buff the party with interpretive dance as long as they can see and/or hear me.


Once per day per bard level, a bard can use his song or poetics to produce magical effects on those around him (usually including himself, if desired). While these abilities fall under the category of bardic music and the descriptions discuss singing or playing instruments, they can all be activated by reciting poetry, chanting, singing lyrical songs, singing melodies, whistling, playing an instrument, or playing an instrument in combination with some spoken performance. Each ability requires both a minimum bard level and a minimum number of ranks in the Perform skill to qualify; if a bard does not have the required number of ranks in at least one Perform skill, he does not gain the bardic music ability until he acquires the needed ranks.

Starting a bardic music effect is a standard action. Some bardic music abilities require concentration, which means the bard must take a standard action each round to maintain the ability. Even while using bardic music that doesn’t require concentration, a bard cannot cast spells, activate magic items by spell completion (such as scrolls), spell trigger (such as wands), or command word. Just as for casting a spell with a verbal component, a deaf bard has a 20% chance to fail when attempting to use bardic music. If he fails, the attempt still counts against his daily limit.

Bolding mine, those are the things that are eligible for bardic music and none of them work in silence.

Also you're still unbalancing the party because now instead of adding 60 damage to an encounter (a pretty trivial amount at level 8) you are adding (4-5) x 4-9d6, which is between 56 (assuming the lowest average and players only having one attack per round), and 315 on average extra damage per round (supposing two attacks per character). You're still unbalancing the game, you're just doing it in a different way, your character is still doing damage, just using other characters to do that.

[Deca4531]

Bolding mine, those are the things that are eligible for bardic music and none of them work in silence.

Also you're still unbalancing the party because now instead of adding 60 damage to an encounter (a pretty trivial amount at level 8) you are adding (4-5) x 4-9d6, which is between 56 (assuming the lowest average and players only having one attack per round), and 315 on average extra damage per round (supposing two attacks per character). You're still unbalancing the game, you're just doing it in a different way, your character is still doing damage, just using other characters to do that.

So what your saying is DFI should never be used by bards because it breaks the game?

[AMFV]

So what your saying is DFI should never be used by bards because it breaks the game?

No... I'm saying that if 60 extra damage breaks the game, then DFI should not be used. I've played games where characters could hit 60ish damage at level 1 or 2, DFI would be fine in those games. But not in this game, and not after you've already been asked to lower your output.

[Heliomance]

Which is exactly the scenario that we have, in this case.

No it isn't, because in this case the optimised player is bringing everyone else up with him.

"Find another gaming group" is not always practical advice. Sometimes what you have is all there is. I, much like the OP, am an optimiser. Building a strong character is half the fun for me. When playing in a low op group, there are two ways to fit in and still have fun. You can either take a thoroughly suboptimal base and optimise it until it's viable, or you can do what the OP has done and play a support role to make everyone else awesome.

OP, in this case the fact that you're turning the party into glass cannons might cause a couple of problems, especially with an inexperienced DM. If youwant to play a more rounded support rather than just giving everyone tons of damage, look into war Weaver, from heroes of battle.

[Ansem]

So you're a Bard and you outmunchkin the rest of the party?
How?!

[Deca4531]

No... I'm saying that if 60 extra damage breaks the game, then DFI should not be used. I've played games where characters could hit 60ish damage at level 1 or 2, DFI would be fine in those games. But not in this game, and not after you've already been asked to lower your output.

so at what point does DFI break the game? A straight barred at level 8 gets a plus two, let's say he takes word of creation, which is a great bard feat so why wouldn't he, now you have a plus 4. Now you have a fight where the party is getting its butt handed to them, so lets activate our badge of valot for another plus one. where did we break the game?

[Deca4531]

No it isn't, because in this case the optimised player is bringing everyone else up with him.

"Find another gaming group" is not always practical advice. Sometimes what you have is all there is. I, much like the OP, am an optimiser. Building a strong character is half the fun for me. When playing in a low op group, there are two ways to fit in and still have fun. You can either take a thoroughly suboptimal base and optimise it until it's viable, or you can do what the OP has done and play a support role to make everyone else awesome.

OP, in this case the fact that you're turning the party into glass cannons might cause a couple of problems, especially with an inexperienced DM. If youwant to play a more rounded support rather than just giving everyone tons of damage, look into war Weaver, from heroes of battle.

it's nice to see that someone can relate to me. And I'll definitely look into that class and see what I think of it.

[Deca4531]

So you're a Bard and you outmunchkin the rest of the party?
How?!

lol, look at my first post on the second page, I linked it there.

[cakellene]

A good compromise, at least till you get an okay from party/DM would be to only do flat boosts and not extra dice of damage.

[NichG]

Over longer periods of time, this sort of thing has a harmful effect even if the DM can deal with it. Specifically, it forces you to realize that in a campaign that is well-balanced to the players, all big numbers are basically irrelevant, which I've seen basically sour players on the game.

For example, I had a campaign where we had a guy using compounding-X-stat-to-Y-ubercharger like shenanigans to do 12000 damage a round. He helped someone else in the party build a character to deal about the same using Palm Throw. The guy playing the wizard then stepped up meta-magic tricks to pull roughly the same amounts.

But with the way the campaign flowed, basically they never got to fight anything that could actually be one-shotted by these tricks, because I'd basically say 'you trivially slaughter this foe, lets move on' when there was such an event. Instead, the lion's share of the time in game was spent on things that could not be one-shotted by their insane damage - stuff with an immunity, or auto-dodge tricks, or 'you are literally fighting a planet, it has 2 million hitpoints' situations, or 'there is an endless stream of enemies', or whatever.

The result, the player who started the arms race basically told me 'it feels like this trick I came up with is basically irrelevant - I thought it was impressive, but now it doesn't feel special anymore that I can do 12000 damage'.

Basically, numbers that get big enough become meaningless. 1200 damage or 12000 damage, its just adding a zero at the end.

Following this, we did a sort of 'part 2' to the campaign with new characters at low levels and a sort of interwoven plot, which the player later said was very refreshing.

I had a similar issue with AC in a later campaign. One PC was pumping their AC far above the rest of the party (e.g. everyone else was sitting around 20, and he was optimizing straight to get it as high as possible, ending up with ~60 or so). I basically said 'if the range of AC in the party gets so high that nothing can hit one guy ever, without always hitting everyone else, I will have to adapt and use encounters that make AC less relevant so that the game can still have a variety of meaningful challenges for everyone'. The guy who was pumping AC understood this, but it still really soured the game for him to know that basically by making his AC higher he was actually making himself weaker due to the metagame considerations of the game focusing more on things that didn't attack via to-hit.

So its not always the case 'lets pump the power-level, then the DM can throw cooler, harder things at us!'. At some point, pumping the power-level along a specific direction actually makes that direction less relevant for everyone, because the outcome is often either 'there is no point in rolling this out' or 'this encounter has something that makes your trick irrelevant'.

[AMFV]

so at what point does DFI break the game? A straight barred at level 8 gets a plus two, let's say he takes word of creation, which is a great bard feat so why wouldn't he, now you have a plus 4. Now you have a fight where the party is getting its butt handed to them, so lets activate our badge of valot for another plus one. where did we break the game?

Because you are now doing more damage, which you were talked to about before. Except instead of doing a flat 60, you're doing more than that on average, and you can do other stuff while doing that if you have the right feats.

The problem is that you already were too damage heavy, now you are more damage heavy, much much more damaging. If you were too high for your group with a Stormsinger which is not the best direct damage option at 8, then a DFI is way too powerful. I'm sorry, thems the breaks, if it was already too powerful, and your DM said "Please tone down the damage," why would you do the exact opposite, I mean literally the exact opposite. Since now you are doing more damage, potentially turning the other players into stooges at least to their perception.

You've done the exact opposite of what you were asked to do, instead of toning down your character you've made it more powerful, you think other players won't realize that the damage is mostly yours? Do you think they won't realize you're the prime mover in the party? They will.

It's why the Batman wizard or the War Weaver is better, because that's more subtle, this is a very non-subtle option, and it was a direct result of being asked to step back, and instead you've taken two steps forwards.

[Deca4531]

Because you are now doing more damage, which you were talked to about before. Except instead of doing a flat 60, you're doing more than that on average, and you can do other stuff while doing that if you have the right feats.

The problem is that you already were too damage heavy, now you are more damage heavy, much much more damaging. If you were too high for your group with a Stormsinger which is not the best direct damage option at 8, then a DFI is way too powerful. I'm sorry, thems the breaks, if it was already too powerful, and your DM said "Please tone down the damage," why would you do the exact opposite, I mean literally the exact opposite. Since now you are doing more damage, potentially turning the other players into stooges at least to their perception.

You've done the exact opposite of what you were asked to do, instead of toning down your character you've made it more powerful, you think other players won't realize that the damage is mostly yours? Do you think they won't realize you're the prime mover in the party? They will.

It's why the Batman wizard or the War Weaver is better, because that's more subtle, this is a very non-subtle option, and it was a direct result of being asked to step back, and instead you've taken two steps forwards.

well I suppose I could always roll a common are,level him up with racial hit dice. I have played 3.5 a lot longer than most of the other players so I know how to use almost any class to a higher power degree then most of them do. What you're asking is for me to roll a class that I won't enjoy playing for the sake of not pissing off the DM and making him plan better. I do seem to remember an interesting flaw called chicken thrower, maybe I could build a class around that and beat people to death with chickens. Optimized chicken death machine here we come :-)

[AMFV]

well I suppose I could always roll a common are,level him up with racial hit dice. I have played 3.5 a lot longer than most of the other players so I know how to use almost any class to a higher power degree then most of them do. What you're asking is for me to roll a class that I won't enjoy playing for the sake of not pissing off the DM and making him plan better. I do seem to remember an interesting flaw called chicken thrower, maybe I could build a class around that and beat people to death with chickens. Optimized chicken death machine here we come :-)

I'm telling you that you should find a way to build something that won't do the exact opposite of what he asked. A Snowflake Wardancer is an example of a lower-op concept that you can optimize. A DFI guy without, Words of Creation, is another good set.

I know that it might not be the best advice, but if you can't refrain from doing that level of damage, this may not be the group for you. Sorry, bud. If 60 damage is too much at 8th level, then we're talking a really low optimization group. And you've got to be really careful. War Weaver is a good bet for not overshadowing. Something with healer could be a good bet, although it sounds like that's already covered. Warmage could work well, at least then you'll have more options and not be quite as bad.

[Particle_Man]

well I suppose I could always roll a common are,level him up with racial hit dice.

Or you could play a Bard to level 20 without multi-classing or templates or flaws or optional rules or alternate class features, using feats, skills, race, and spells from only the Players Handbook and magic items from only the Dungeon Masters Guide. That might fit the optimization level of your party better, and people did have fun playing the game when those (and the Monster Manual, which was the purview of the DM only) were the only books there were.

Try it and see. It might help to move from optimizing the character's abilities to optimizing tactical situations your party finds itself in, as they arise. That way you can get your optimization fix without the DM being overwhelmed.

[Deca4531]

Or you could play a Bard to level 20 without multi-classing or templates or flaws or optional rules or alternate class features, using feats, skills, race, and spells from only the Players Handbook and magic items from only the Dungeon Masters Guide. That might fit the optimization level of your party better, and people did have fun playing the game when those (and the Monster Manual, which was the purview of the DM only) were the only books there were.

Try it and see. It might help to move from optimizing the character's abilities to optimizing tactical situations your party finds itself in, as they arise. That way you can get your optimization fix without the DM being overwhelmed.

actually I did that once, but I used a rogue. When the two weapon fighting route and eventually got turned into a werewolf. Ended up doing 200 or 300 damage around while everyone else was doing about 30. It was a fun game though, every opportunity I had I tried to murder the Bard and the

DM kept saying "no you did not just kill the Bard"

and I kept saying "but but I backstabbed them and I hit"

and then a DM would say "no you didn't , that didn't happen.

[Aasimar]

actually I did that once, but I used a rogue. When the two weapon fighting route and eventually got turned into a werewolf. Ended up doing 200 or 300 damage around while everyone else was doing about 30. It was a fun game though, every opportunity I had I tried to murder the Bard and the

DM kept saying "no you did not just kill the Bard"

and I kept saying "but but I backstabbed them and I hit"

and then a DM would say "no you didn't , that didn't happen.

It really does sound like your major problem is your attitude towards the game and the other players.

[AMFV]

actually I did that once, but I used a rogue. When the two weapon fighting route and eventually got turned into a werewolf. Ended up doing 200 or 300 damage around while everyone else was doing about 30. It was a fun game though, every opportunity I had I tried to murder the Bard and the

DM kept saying "no you did not just kill the Bard"

and I kept saying "but but I backstabbed them and I hit"

and then a DM would say "no you didn't , that didn't happen.

I think you may be wanting to play a very stylistically different game than the other players are. Backstabbing other players is very rarely kosher in games. At least the ones I've played. Also did the other players enjoy the 200-300 damage as compared to their 30? Did they resent that? Because they probably did.

It's why non-damage methods of buffing are better, because damage can be measured, we're tribal so we inherently compare ourselves to others, and damage is easy to compare, that's again the reason you can put a batman wizard into a lower OP party and not have as big a splash, because if he does his job right, it won't feel like he's done anything at all.

[Segev]

I see no problem with this. It's the GM's job to react to whatever the players throw at him. If the players have a consistent power level, it's possible to cater to it. You only get problems when one character is significantly more/less powerful than the rest.


Which is exactly the scenario that we have, in this case.

Er, no. There's one character who is making everyone significantly more powerful than they would be if that one character was not in the party. The whole party, with this build, is increased significantly in power.

[Kudaku]

It was a fun game though, every opportunity I had I tried to murder the Bard and the

DM kept saying "no you did not just kill the Bard"

and I kept saying "but but I backstabbed them and I hit"

and then a DM would say "no you didn't , that didn't happen.

My problem player alarm just went from a soft gentle chime to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2Fgu1UIIS0).

Are you sure cooperative RPG games is your thing? From reading your posts I'm getting more of a competitive feel.

[AMFV]

Er, no. There's one character who is making everyone significantly more powerful than they would be if that one character was not in the party. The whole party, with this build, is increased significantly in power.

Not really, they're only increased significantly in damage, which requires a more significant boost of enemy power, but can cause more problems, because higher HP enemies tend to have better abilities, which are not well countered by an unoptimized party.

[Deca4531]

I think you may be wanting to play a very stylistically different game than the other players are. Backstabbing other players is very rarely kosher in games. At least the ones I've played. Also did the other players enjoy the 200-300 damage as compared to their 30? Did they resent that? Because they probably did.

It's why non-damage methods of buffing are better, because damage can be measured, we're tribal so we inherently compare ourselves to others, and damage is easy to compare, that's again the reason you can put a batman wizard into a lower OP party and not have as big a splash, because if he does his job right, it won't feel like he's done anything at all.

actually they all had a lot of fun, I was mostly the skill monkey of the group. And as far as trying to kill the Bard I knew the DM wouldn't let me that's why I kept trying and the party had a good laugh about it. And every now and then just mess around I would sneak attack something and blow it up. The other characters didn't really mind because they knew I have been playing a lot longer than them, Manny asked for my advice on how to improve on what they were doing. Even when I have a character that is more powerful than the rest of the party I make a point not to rub it in peoples faces. I know I can single-handedly deceit what most the party would take to defeat but what's the point? I played a whole character that massively out damaged the party but half the time I would just run around like an idiot and be comical, and then have a little fun creaming some mobs from time to time.

[Segev]

That's a separate issue, though, and the easiest solution is to just pile on advancement HD. Those usually only increase attack bonuses and hp by any significant amount, unless the DM deliberately optimizes them.

In practice, the bard is making himself no less of a glass cannon than he is the rest of the party, so it still is a across-party balance point for which the DM can aim.

Now, I do think talking to the DM about it before hand, asking the party and him to see how it goes this time and see if the players enjoy it and then decide, is a good idea. But be willing to try something else if the others don't like it.

Still, it does address the concern, just in a different way than was expected. You'd be surprised how often people THINK they know what a problem is, only to discover that their solution attacks the wrong symptom and doesn't solve the problem. This could be a case of the player seeing more clearly than the DM, or it could be the player having his vision clouded. Only by working together with the others in the game can the truth be determined, but giving this a shot for a session, maybe two (to give the DM a chance to ramp up the next set of encounters), can help them see what they prefer.

[Deca4531]

That's a separate issue, though, and the easiest solution is to just pile on advancement HD. Those usually only increase attack bonuses and hp by any significant amount, unless the DM deliberately optimizes them.

In practice, the bard is making himself no less of a glass cannon than he is the rest of the party, so it still is a across-party balance point for which the DM can aim.

Now, I do think talking to the DM about it before hand, asking the party and him to see how it goes this time and see if the players enjoy it and then decide, is a good idea. But be willing to try something else if the others don't like it.

Still, it does address the concern, just in a different way than was expected. You'd be surprised how often people THINK they know what a problem is, only to discover that their solution attacks the wrong symptom and doesn't solve the problem. This could be a case of the player seeing more clearly than the DM, or it could be the player having his vision clouded. Only by working together with the others in the game can the truth be determined, but giving this a shot for a session, maybe two (to give the DM a chance to ramp up the next set of encounters), can help them see what they prefer.

I already have a backup character in mind, A level 9 senile sorcerer. Every turn I'm going to roll a die to see what level spell he will cast, which spell of that level, and then who the target will be. It should be interesting :-)

[ithildur]

How about that, he can optimize 3.5e and spell properly too; definitely the bees knees.

The 'alternative' spelling in his earlier posts were so much edgier though. :smallsigh:


I think this is less about him wanting help and more of an attempt at gloating and fishing for praise.

At this point after reading the title, the OP, and every post he's made in this thread since, I'm inclined to agree.

[Segev]

...I find the hostility at somebody who has something he's enjoyed putting together and wanted to chat about to be more than a bit disturbing.

[Kudaku]

I already have a backup character in mind, A level 9 senile sorcerer. Every turn I'm going to roll a die to see what level spell he will cast, which spell of that level, and then who the target will be. It should be interesting :-)

So a spellcaster version of the Frenzied Berserker. Yeah, that alarm is not getting any quieter. :smallsigh:

[AMFV]

...I find the hostility at somebody who has something he's enjoyed putting together and wanted to chat about to be more than a bit disturbing.

The hostility is mostly because he was asked to do something by a DM, "cut back on the damage", and he did the exact opposite, without discussing it with the DM, as far as I can tell to spite the DM. If he had said, "This is another possible solution" that'd have been one thing, but we have somebody unilaterally trying to change the tone of a game, and that's bad almost always.

[Segev]

The hostility is mostly because he was asked to do something by a DM, "cut back on the damage", and he did the exact opposite, without discussing it with the DM, as far as I can tell to spite the DM. If he had said, "This is another possible solution" that'd have been one thing, but we have somebody unilaterally trying to change the tone of a game, and that's bad almost always.

That is more understandable. "Sounds like he came here to gloat" is not about that, though. Or maybe it is, and I just wasn't reading the underlying connection.

I think it's fine and dandy, but should be accomapnied by discussion with the whole group. Really, ANY response to the DM's request probably should be, since the DM's request indicates there was a problem, and the player should try to identify the root of the problem and attempt to come up with something fun for himself AND everybody else.

[AMFV]

That is more understandable. "Sounds like he came here to gloat" is not about that, though. Or maybe it is, and I just wasn't reading the underlying connection.

I think it's fine and dandy, but should be accomapnied by discussion with the whole group. Really, ANY response to the DM's request probably should be, since the DM's request indicates there was a problem, and the player should try to identify the root of the problem and attempt to come up with something fun for himself AND everybody else.

However if he had accepted the advice, "you probably should cut back a smidge", "maybe drop words of creation", "maybe don't run two songs at once," or even shown any interest in that. Or "Maybe try a war-weaver," there were dozens of pieces of advice that were reasonable given, and he brushed them all aside. Ignoring them, the scorn results from several pages of neglected advice, not any actual scorn.

Also the fundamental problem still exists. We have that he has attempted to randomly kill another person's character in a non-PvP game, that he now is intended to create a sorcerer that blasts random targets. I don't think that our questioning of his commitment to group coherency is that negative in this case.

[Heliomance]

Because you are now doing more damage, which you were talked to about before. Except instead of doing a flat 60, you're doing more than that on average, and you can do other stuff while doing that if you have the right feats.

The problem is that you already were too damage heavy, now you are more damage heavy, much much more damaging. If you were too high for your group with a Stormsinger which is not the best direct damage option at 8, then a DFI is way too powerful. I'm sorry, thems the breaks, if it was already too powerful, and your DM said "Please tone down the damage," why would you do the exact opposite, I mean literally the exact opposite. Since now you are doing more damage, potentially turning the other players into stooges at least to their perception

The problem was not the damage. The problem was that the damage was significantly higher than anyone else's. There is a difference. The DFI build is a team player completely. He's not overshadowing anyone else with it, he's making everyone awesome.



I had a similar issue with AC in a later campaign. One PC was pumping their AC far above the rest of the party (e.g. everyone else was sitting around 20, and he was optimizing straight to get it as high as possible, ending up with ~60 or so). I basically said 'if the range of AC in the party gets so high that nothing can hit one guy ever, without always hitting everyone else, I will have to adapt and use encounters that make AC less relevant so that the game can still have a variety of meaningful challenges for everyone'. The guy who was pumping AC understood this, but it still really soured the game for him to know that basically by making his AC higher he was actually making himself weaker due to the metagame considerations of the game focusing more on things that didn't attack via to-hit.

That wasn't the best way for the DM to handle it. The way to handle it would be to make sure, yes, that a lot of enemies had ways to deal with high AC - especially those enemies that logically should be aware of the PCs' capabilities and have worked to counter them. Where he fell down was missing the second part. Occasionally, give the high AC player a chance to shine, by sending loads of attacking creatures at the party, letting the high AC character feel glorious and invincible as they flail impotently at him. You don't let him make every encounter trivial - but playing the odd encounter to run straight into his strengths would have made him feel a lot better.

Similarly, if you have a rogue with insane amounts of SA damage, you don't make everything immune to SA. You make some things immune to SA, and you give some things Uncanny Dodge, but you also run the odd encounter that lets the rogue sneak up to the enemy without them having a clue he's there, and eviscerate them in the surprise round.


Or you could play a Bard to level 20 without multi-classing or templates or flaws or optional rules or alternate class features, using feats, skills, race, and spells from only the Players Handbook and magic items from only the Dungeon Masters Guide. That might fit the optimization level of your party better, and people did have fun playing the game when those (and the Monster Manual, which was the purview of the DM only) were the only books there were.


But that's boring. To a certain kind of mind, the logical puzzle involved in poring through all the books and piecing together the best character you can from the pieces you can find is a large chunk of the fun. It's why the Iron Chef challenge is currently on its 51st thread. Optimising is fun for its own sake.


However if he had accepted the advice, "you probably should cut back a smidge", "maybe drop words of creation", "maybe don't run two songs at once," or even shown any interest in that. Or "Maybe try a war-weaver," there were dozens of pieces of advice that were reasonable given, and he brushed them all aside. Ignoring them, the scorn results from several pages of neglected advice, not any actual scorn.
Actually, he said he'd look at War Weaver.

[kkplx]

Custom skill boost items are really damn cheap - bonus^2 * 100 - and you can get up to +30 to a skill for a cost of 90,000GP pre-Epic.



except the creator needs to have an equal amount of skill ranks to create the item, making that +30 not just unlikely but downright impossible to attain pre-epic.

[Heliomance]

except the creator needs to have an equal amount of skill ranks to create the item, making that +30 not just unlikely but downright impossible to attain pre-epic.

[citation needed]

[AMFV]

The problem was not the damage. The problem was that the damage was significantly higher than anyone else's. There is a difference. The DFI build is a team player completely. He's not overshadowing anyone else with it, he's making everyone awesome.


But as I pointed out, he's not actually giving them real optimization it's boosting the power temporarily in ways that can fall out, if he doesn't make a session, or if an enemy has silence. That's a problem. A DFI bard is no problem in most groups, but if it inflates the encounter level and then an encounter comes along where it is worthless, that's a problem, and that would not be hard to happen.



That wasn't the best way for the DM to handle it. The way to handle it would be to make sure, yes, that a lot of enemies had ways to deal with high AC - especially those enemies that logically should be aware of the PCs' capabilities and have worked to counter them. Where he fell down was missing the second part. Occasionally, give the high AC player a chance to shine, by sending loads of attacking creatures at the party, letting the high AC character feel glorious and invincible as they flail impotently at him. You don't let him make every encounter trivial - but playing the odd encounter to run straight into his strengths would have made him feel a lot better.


I don't disagree, but the confrontational response of going the exact opposite way, is a problem, furthermore the post was filled with language that was confrontational to the DM, so we see that there is some confrontational element here.

If he talked to the DM, I'd have no problem, but he's changing the game from what the other players want without talking to them. It's as bad as backstabbing another player repeatedly in a no-pvp game for no reason, or casting spells on your allies because you think it's funny. Not really good for a cooperative game, and pretty much a violation of the social contract in any game where it's not expected.




Similarly, if you have a rogue with insane amounts of SA damage, you don't make everything immune to SA. You make some things immune to SA, and you give some things Uncanny Dodge, but you also run the odd encounter that lets the rogue sneak up to the enemy without them having a clue he's there, and eviscerate them in the surprise round.


But if the rogue was the only source of damage in the party, then the one equal CRed encounter with SA Immunity may very well kill them, almost definitively that's why even buffing damage in that respect can be very very bad.



But that's boring. To a certain kind of mind, the logical puzzle involved in poring through all the books and piecing together the best character you can from the pieces you can find is a large chunk of the fun. It's why the Iron Chef challenge is currently on its 51st thread. Optimising is fun for its own sake.


Optimizing is performing to a certain point with the usage of as little resources as possible. That's why he could still optimize and not overshadow the party, just limit resources, that actually makes it much more challenging.



Actually, he said he'd look at War Weaver.

I may have missed that, although that is a step in the right direction, since that sort of buffing isn't so much an all or nothing boost.

[Heliomance]

Optimizing is performing to a certain point with the usage of as little resources as possible. That's why he could still optimize and not overshadow the party, just limit resources, that actually makes it much more challenging.


There is less choice with fewer sources. It may be more of a challenge to create a good character within such limits, but it's a lot less complex. The complexity of the sheer number of options is the appeal.

[AMFV]

There is less choice with fewer sources. It may be more of a challenge to create a good character within such limits, but it's a lot less complex. The complexity of the sheer number of options is the appeal.

Well the complexity of building something that hits a certain level is actually more complex. Pun-Pun is simple. I could build a fairly average optimization character with all source books, the idea is the reduction of final output, not reduction in sources available.

It also lets you do things, like combine two tricks that might not otherwise synergize well, things like that. It allows for more creativity and has more options than TO which is a solved problem. "How do you do anything? Pun-Pun." That's a solved problem, so anything less is optimizing yourself within certain restrictions, those of taste or of overall power.

[Deca4531]

it's very unfair to say I have shrugged off all of the advice given. I have read everyones comments and taking all of their opinions into consideration. Any class that is a dedicated buffer will of course cause the party to suffer should they be unable to perform, either do 2n game mitigation or simply not being able to show up. But you also have to remember that things in DND aren't fixed, if the DM knows that I can't make a game he can pull his punches a bed with whatever He has planned for the game. I have done so in many of my own campaigns by simply not making full attack actions or not using a creatures SLA and things of that nature. Yes the creatures will get tougher with me buffing the party so much, but it's just as dangerous as if I were the sole healer of the group and couldn't make a game.

[Drachasor]

it's very unfair to say I have shrugged off all of the advice given. I have read everyones comments and taking all of their opinions into consideration. Any class that is a dedicated buffer will of course cause the party to suffer should they be unable to perform, either do 2n game mitigation or simply not being able to show up. But you also have to remember that things in DND aren't fixed, if the DM knows that I can't make a game he can pull his punches a bed with whatever He has planned for the game. I have done so in many of my own campaigns by simply not making full attack actions or not using a creatures SLA and things of that nature. Yes the creatures will get tougher with me buffing the party so much, but it's just as dangerous as if I were the sole healer of the group and couldn't make a game.

You really aren't listening to people. You DM even said he didn't want stuff like this. It's clearly many levels of power beyond the rest of the party. EVEN BUFFING YOU WILL OVERSHADOW THEM TREMENDOUSLY.

Rather than have a "dedicated X" you should make something that combines two or three things that normally don't synergize really well. That is the only way you'll be at roughly the same level as the rest of the group. And you'll get to focus on optimizing your in-game decisions, rather than the much easier task of optimizing a dedicated build.

Basically, when your DM is unhappy with what you've been doing and everyone here says your current plan is a horrible idea. IT IS A HORRIBLE IDEA!

[jaydubs]

Just call or send your DM an email, describing the character you want to build and what it will be capable of doing. Include in detail the upper limits of your buffing power, but argue that it will be less problematic because the other party members will get to feel powerful as well. If he says it's cool, great. If not, build something else.

If you don't want to check with your DM because you think he might veto it, then it's not something you should try bringing to the table in the first place.

[Heliomance]

You really aren't listening to people. You DM even said he didn't want stuff like this. It's clearly many levels of power beyond the rest of the party. EVEN BUFFING YOU WILL OVERSHADOW THEM TREMENDOUSLY.

NO HE WON'T. BECAUSE THE CHARACTER WON'T HAVE ANY POWER THAT ISN'T SHARED WITH THE REST OF THE PARTY.

[Drachasor]

NO HE WON'T. BECAUSE THE CHARACTER WON'T HAVE ANY POWER THAT ISN'T SHARED WITH THE REST OF THE PARTY.

When 80% of your power comes from another character, then you notice and everyone else notices just how much more powerful that other character is. They'll notice just how much it changes the entire nature of their game (which they seem to be happy with). It's not easy to adjust a game to a glass cannon group that the OP is trying to make either. So the entire balance is going to be negatively affected.

To say nothing of the massive upset if the OP can't show up to a session or if the group has to split up or whatever. This would just further emphasize just how overshadowed they are.

Buffing is helpful in hiding power, sure. The problem is that the OP is designing something so min-maxed to buffing that the power of it is still overwhelming to the group, given the info we've seen.

[Alent]

NO HE WON'T. BECAUSE THE CHARACTER WON'T HAVE ANY POWER THAT ISN'T SHARED WITH THE REST OF THE PARTY.

I can guarantee the DM and party will not see it this way, on account of having been that bard before.

The only solution to this is to halt the escalation, and go back down to the others. the OP can still come up with interesting ideas without making everyone else look like a level 2 healer.

Seriously, OP, just go back to stormsinger and ask the DM to change the way the lightning bolt works to make it function as Call Lightning. Standard action 3d6(3d10 in storms) once per turn keeps the flavor while keeping you from breaking his encounters.

Also, lose the magic instrument performing your third song. Just put it in a box and save it for when your party catches up to your Op-fu.

[AlltheBooks]

This thread is sad. I forget that ppl like the OP exist. Thank goodness my table never sees their ilk.

[Drachasor]

I've got the feeling that a Warlock with no PrCs or Multi-classing, is probably something that would fit in with the group and still be quite potent relative to their power level.

[Deca4531]

This thread is sad. I forget that ppl like the OP exist. Thank goodness my table never sees their ilk.

so you're saying that you had forgotten that there are people out there that know the game well and know how to make good characters? I imagine your table must be very vanilla, and I feel sorry for you because of that.

[Particle_Man]

But that's boring. To a certain kind of mind, the logical puzzle involved in poring through all the books and piecing together the best character you can from the pieces you can find is a large chunk of the fun. It's why the Iron Chef challenge is currently on its 51st thread. Optimising is fun for its own sake.

I would suggest that the OP separate their fun into two separate games.

In one game, the OP optimizes the heck out their ideas, from as many books as they have access to. They make all sorts of awesomely powerful characters in Iron Chef style. They may even post such characters on the internet. But they do not play such characters with the OP's party.

In the other game, the one the OP's party is playing, the OP plays a very, very, toned down character (such as single classed bard, PHB only features, DMG only magic items).

Thus the OP can have the fun and joy of optimizing in character builds, and can also have the fun and joy of playing a roleplaying game (without interfering with the fun of the other, far less optimize-conscious, players and DM).

Just keep the two completely separate.

[Deca4531]

when my DM first started this game he told all the players to make the best character they could, I warned my DM that I am a power gamer and that I know how to make ridiculously strong characters. He said that was cool make whatever you want as long as it's within the rules. The first character I made was my Incredible Hulk build, and he quickly found out that giving me free reign was a bad idea as I was essentially immortal practically immune to damage and had the ability to use a three story house as a weapon. Noticing this I told them that I would roll up a different character so that things could be a bit more balanced. The character I made was much more normalized and with a single powerful ability with limited uses, but that was still a little much for him to handle and he even said that it wasn't as bad as the last one was just a touch too much for him. So now I'm trying to put together a character that I can easily adjust the power level without needing to change any feet or class levels. And yet everyone seems to think I'm just going to go balls to the wall on every fight and make all the other characters feel worthless. if I choose to I can simply not use DFI at all and just stick to normal inspire courage, but at least I have the option to be powerful if needed.

[Particle_Man]

I've got the feeling that a Warlock with no PrCs or Multi-classing, is probably something that would fit in with the group and still be quite potent relative to their power level.

I suspect that the crafting item feature at level 12 might belie that point. :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

EVEN BUFFING YOU WILL OVERSHADOW THEM TREMENDOUSLY.

Okay, people keep claiming this build of the OP's will overshadow the party. You've flat-out stated here that it's doing so despite making the rest of the party the ones actually doing the increased effect.

Please explain how the support character is overshadowing the characters he's supporting.

[Drachasor]

Okay, people keep claiming this build of the OP's will overshadow the party. You've flat-out stated here that it's doing so despite making the rest of the party the ones actually doing the increased effect.

Please explain how the support character is overshadowing the characters he's supporting.

I already did. Read another few posts after the one you quoted.


when my DM first started this game he told all the players to make the best character they could, I wanted my DM that I am a power gamer and that I know how to make ridiculously strong characters. He said that was cool make whatever you want as long as it's within the rules. The first character I made was my Incredible Hulk build, and he quickly found out that giving me free reign was a bad idea as I was essentially immortal practically immune to damage and had the ability to use a three story house as a weapon. Noticing this I told them that I would roll up a different character so that things could be a bit more balanced. The character I made was much more normalized and with a single powerful ability with limited uses, but that was still a little much for him to handle and he even said that it wasn't as bad as the last one was just a touch too much for him. So now I'm trying to put together a character that I can easily adjust the power level without needing to change any feet or class levels. And yet everyone seems to think I'm just going to go balls to the wall on every fight and make all the other characters feel worthless. if I choose to I can simply not use DFI at all and just stick to normal inspire courage, but at least I have the option to be powerful if needed.

It's a pretty bad call to make a character where you plan on holding back all the time. Other players won't appreciate this and it undermines whatever challenges the DM puts forward. You should actually commit to a lower power character, not make another high power character that is lower power because you tie its arms behind its back.

[HaikenEdge]

I think, ultimately, this is what happens when you put an optimizer with a group of nonoptimizers, particularly if the optimizer in question is a pathological optimizer; the other characters cannot keep up because the optimizer is always looking for that extra leg up, no matter how small.

To answer the OP's post, there's really nothing you can do, as an optimizer, if the rest of your group is just unoptimized; you have to accept that, they're not optimized and you are, so maybe approach the game differently. Don't be super powerful all the time, even if you actually are; instead, be the group's safety net, letting the other player shine until it looks like you're all up the creek without a paddle, at which point you unleash just enough power to haul everybody back to shore. Be like the LeBron James of your D&D party, the 20 points, 8 rebounds, 8 assists guy who can put the team on his back and get 40 and a triple-double if he needs to.

It doesn't resolve the underlying issue (you're better at D&D optimization than the other players), but it can relieve the situation a little bit.

Edit: @Drachasor: I really think committing to a lower-powered character is generally bad idea for some players, because the player will find the play experience unsatisfying. I feel like too much of this thread is other posters telling the OP, "You're doing it wrong! Be something weak and relatively useless!", when it could be, "You're doing it wrong! Don't be weak and useless, be helpful enough so the team is never screwed. Nobody likes losing characters."

[Heliomance]

I already did. Read another few posts after the one you quoted.



It's a pretty bad call to make a character where you plan on holding back all the time. Other players won't appreciate this and it undermines whatever challenges the DM puts forward. You should actually commit to a lower power character, not make another high power character that is lower power because you tie its arms behind its back.

Really? Sounds like a (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC6dgtBU6Gs) well established character archetype (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IAmNotLeftHanded) to me (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WillfullyWeak).

[Aasimar]

Don't be super powerful all the time, even if you actually are; instead, be the group's safety net, letting the other player shine until it looks like you're all up the creek without a paddle, at which point you unleash just enough power to haul everybody back to shore.

I would not want to play with another player who was just holding back from solving everything on his own and who could at a moments notice fix things no matter how screwed we seem.

It would feel like playing in a theme park, or with a GM who pulled ridiculous deus ex machina to save the party whenever things started to look grim.

It's no fun to feel irrelevant and only be allowed to do things because another player is humoring you.

[Segev]

When 80% of your power comes from another character, then you notice and everyone else notices just how much more powerful that other character is. They'll notice just how much it changes the entire nature of their game (which they seem to be happy with). It's not easy to adjust a game to a glass cannon group that the OP is trying to make either. So the entire balance is going to be negatively affected.

To say nothing of the massive upset if the OP can't show up to a session or if the group has to split up or whatever. This would just further emphasize just how overshadowed they are.

Buffing is helpful in hiding power, sure. The problem is that the OP is designing something so min-maxed to buffing that the power of it is still overwhelming to the group, given the info we've seen.

Having been in a party where the buffer was making that big of a difference, I didn't feel overshadowed, I felt empowered and awesome. Because I still was using MY attacks to do it, and was still using MY tactics.

I had the agency to use the power as I saw fit.

You can't speak for the OP's group. You can guess, but you can't be certain.

It is thus recommended he speak to his fellow players and the DM, but that doesn't mean this is inherently a bad idea until he's run it by them and maybe given it a test run.

[Drachasor]

Really? Sounds like a (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC6dgtBU6Gs) well established character archetype (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IAmNotLeftHanded) to me.

It's one thing to hold something back. It's another to plan out a really powerful character and plan on holding back the majority of his power. What's the point of that except to make the other players feel bad when you end up using it? It's completely against the spirit of solving the problem he's encountered.


Edit: @Drachasor: I really think committing to a lower-powered character is generally bad idea for some players, because the player will find the play experience unsatisfying. I feel like too much of this thread is other posters telling the OP, "You're doing it wrong! Be something weak and relatively useless!", when it could be, "You're doing it wrong! Don't be weak and useless, be helpful enough so the team is never screwed. Nobody likes losing characters."

If he seriously can't handle playing at the same level as everyone else and they find his level disruptive, then it is the wrong group for him.

[jaydubs]

Okay, people keep claiming this build of the OP's will overshadow the party. You've flat-out stated here that it's doing so despite making the rest of the party the ones actually doing the increased effect.

Please explain how the support character is overshadowing the characters he's supporting.

A clip from the infamous Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw#t=238) should put things in perspective.

People are smart enough to figure out where the real power is coming from.

[Drachasor]

Having been in a party where the buffer was making that big of a difference, I didn't feel overshadowed, I felt empowered and awesome. Because I still was using MY attacks to do it, and was still using MY tactics.

I had the agency to use the power as I saw fit.

You can't speak for the OP's group. You can guess, but you can't be certain.

It is thus recommended he speak to his fellow players and the DM, but that doesn't mean this is inherently a bad idea until he's run it by them and maybe given it a test run.

Some people might be ok with knowing most of their power doesn't come from their character. Some people might be ok knowing that if they are ever alone, they'll be a joke because the superbuffer isn't there.

Plenty of people aren't though. It is a very questionable strategy to have when his past efforts have been disruptive. Especially if part of his plan is "oh, I'll just not really try and not use some of my abilities." Better to just actually play a character that's actually at a lower power level than pretend to.

Bear in mind they are likely already sensitive to power disparities at this point.

[Deca4531]

I think, ultimately, this is what happens when you put an optimizer with a group of nonoptimizers, particularly if the optimizer in question is a pathological optimizer; the other characters cannot keep up because the optimizer is always looking for that extra leg up, no matter how small.

To answer the OP's post, there's really nothing you can do, as an optimizer, if the rest of your group is just unoptimized; you have to accept that, they're not optimized and you are, so maybe approach the game differently. Don't be super powerful all the time, even if you actually are; instead, be the group's safety net, letting the other player shine until it looks like you're all up the creek without a paddle, at which point you unleash just enough power to haul everybody back to shore. Be like the LeBron James of your D&D party, the 20 points, 8 rebounds, 8 assists guy who can put the team on his back and get 40 and a triple-double if he needs to.

It doesn't resolve the underlying issue (you're better at D&D optimization than the other players), but it can relieve the situation a little bit.

Edit: @Drachasor: I really think committing to a lower-powered character is generally bad idea for some players, because the player will find the play experience unsatisfying. I feel like too much of this thread is other posters telling the OP, "You're doing it wrong! Be something weak and relatively useless!", when it could be, "You're doing it wrong! Don't be weak and useless, be helpful enough so the team is never screwed. Nobody likes losing characters."

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, and the thing is I kind of like playing with 1 hand tied behind my back.I know most of my characters can overshadow the other party members, which is why a lot of the time I simply do mundane things or silly things to get a rise out of the other players and spread some laughs. I like being a goofball but at the same time I know that if my goofing around and not helping during a fight has endangered the party I can turn around and turn the tides in the parties favor. My hulk character would never transform unless damaged first, so in most fights he would simply act like a scared commoner, and in one case spent an entire fight wrestling a face hugger of his head. Yes I could have a hulked out and destroyed everything in the room but I didn't want to, I let the party hack n slash everything to death and have their fun whil I enjoyed being a goof. Just because I make a powerful character doesn't mean I use that full power all the time.

[Segev]

A clip from the infamous Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw#t=238) should put things in perspective.

People are smart enough to figure out where the real power is coming from.

Again, the difference is in agency and control. BMX Bandit is actually not doing anything. Everything is at the command of Angel Summoner. BMX Bandit is literally puppeted when Angel Summoner has his angels carry BMX Bandit over the jump, even if he is meant to think otherwise.

If Angel Summoner could instead give BMX Bandit the power of an angel to add to his bike-riding skills, he'd have full agency and control over HOW he used these "angel powers" and could mix them up with his BMX skills.

So, no, not really a good example.

[Drachasor]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, and the thing is I kind of like playing with 1 hand tied behind my back.I know most of my characters can overshadow the other party members, which is why a lot of the time I simply do mundane things or silly things to get a rise out of the other players and spread some laughs. I like being a goofball but at the same time I know that if my goofing around and not helping during a fight has endangered the party I can turn around and turn the tides in the parties favor. My hulk character would never transform unless damaged first, so in most fights he would simply act like a scared commoner, and in one case spent an entire fight wrestling a face hugger of his head. Yes I could have a hulked out and destroyed everything in the room but I didn't want to, I let the party hack n slash everything to death and have their fun whil I enjoyed being a goof. Just because I make a powerful character doesn't mean I use that full power all the time.

I would think the fact you've made characters that don't need to take seriously what everyone else has to take seriously is part of the problem. Tie the hand behind your back during character creation, and make it so that after character creation you don't have to. Then you actually share in the party's difficulties and troubles rather than being some outsider that occasionally deigns to bail them out of trouble. Because the latter...most people don't appreciate it.

[Deca4531]

I have discussed my build with my DM, and explained the minimum and maximum effect I can have and he has deemed it agreeable. He wants to see how it will work during gameplay and how the other players will respond to it but we can only guess at that. From what I have seen of my fellow party members as long as they are kicking b*** and earning phat loot they are pretty happy with the game, and we all take time for jokes and silliness. And should I choose to make a character that is an "outsider" in the group isn't that my choice. The other players know what they are contributing, and that I am there to help them. they are still killing monsters completing quests and earning rewards and having fun while doing it, none of the players are all on the same power level. We even have another bard that never even played 3.5 before this and a radiant servant of palor that can almost optimize as well as me. He simply went the healing route, and with his build there's very little chance of a TPK. So it's not like I'm the soul force in the game.

[jaydubs]

Again, the difference is in agency and control. BMX Bandit is actually not doing anything. Everything is at the command of Angel Summoner. BMX Bandit is literally puppeted when Angel Summoner has his angels carry BMX Bandit over the jump, even if he is meant to think otherwise.

If Angel Summoner could instead give BMX Bandit the power of an angel to add to his bike-riding skills, he'd have full agency and control over HOW he used these "angel powers" and could mix them up with his BMX skills.

So, no, not really a good example.

The point is that people can tell if someone is clearly holding a character back in order to give them the spotlight. Or that they can only do the things they do because someone else is granting the majority of the power.

There's a difference between "I'm a mighty hero in my own right" and "I'm a mighty hero when that guy over there grants me power." Some players won't have a problem with that, and some will. As has been said, it depends on the group.

[HaikenEdge]

I have discussed my build with my DM, and explained the minimum and maximum effect I can have and he has deemed it agreeable. He wants to see how it will work during gameplay and how the other players will respond to it but we can only guess at that. From what I have seen of my fellow party members as long as they are kicking b*** and earning phat loot they are pretty happy with the game, and we all take time for jokes and silliness. And should I choose to make a character that is an "outsider" in the group isn't that my choice. The other players know what they are contributing, and that I am there to help them. they are still killing monsters completing quests and earning rewards and having fun while doing it, none of the players are all on the same power level. We even have another bard that never even played 3.5 before this and a radiant servant of palor that can almost optimize as well as me. He simply went the healing route, and with his build there's very little chance of a TPK. So it's not like I'm the soul force in the game.

No offense, but it sounds like you and the DM/other players are playing completely different games. It sounds like the other players (and the DM) are basically in a Diablo-type video game, whereas you're the guy playing something closer to Dragon Age or something like that.

[The Insanity]

You people are amusing.

[NichG]

That wasn't the best way for the DM to handle it. The way to handle it would be to make sure, yes, that a lot of enemies had ways to deal with high AC - especially those enemies that logically should be aware of the PCs' capabilities and have worked to counter them. Where he fell down was missing the second part. Occasionally, give the high AC player a chance to shine, by sending loads of attacking creatures at the party, letting the high AC character feel glorious and invincible as they flail impotently at him. You don't let him make every encounter trivial - but playing the odd encounter to run straight into his strengths would have made him feel a lot better.


Respectfully, in a game where you only have so many hours to play, one shouldn't waste time on encounters whose only purpose is to make one player feel good. If the outcome is a given, its better to move on and just rule 'party disables the guards, what's next?'.

I wouldn't run a group of kobolds against a Lv20 group, because its simply not an interesting encounter on either side of the table. I wouldn't run a bunch of land-bound, melee-range animals against a group who has access to party-wide flight, because there's no actual question of the result - the same way I wouldn't ask someone with a +30 Search mod to roll to detect the DC 25 trap.

The point is, there's a difference between 'raw numbers' and 'what you can do'. Increasing versatility lets you interact with more situations. Increasing raw numbers basically trades 'I can now fight higher CR enemies' for 'lower CR enemies are no longer interesting'. If you want to kill Thor or something, sure, that's a concrete goal.

But eventually, you will run out of interesting new enemies in the book, and it becomes entirely about what the DM creates. And if the DM is creating something specifically to be the party's enemies because it's necessary to create a challenge, then it doesn't matter if you add a zero to the end of all the numbers, because its not like you can say something like 'I really want to kill Thor, so this is the power level I need' - once the DM is making stuff, the enemies designed to deal with 'I do 12000 damage' are not going to be any cooler than the enemies designed to deal with 'I do 1200 damage' unless those power scales have been firmly built into the campaign ahead of time (e.g. you see some guy walk by early in the game who shows off his power scale, and then optimize to reach it).



Similarly, if you have a rogue with insane amounts of SA damage, you don't make everything immune to SA. You make some things immune to SA, and you give some things Uncanny Dodge, but you also run the odd encounter that lets the rogue sneak up to the enemy without them having a clue he's there, and eviscerate them in the surprise round.


It's not that everything is immune to SA, its that enemies that cannot detect the rogue or survive his SA are no longer 'encounters' for the party, they're just narration. 'I sneak up to the castle guards and kill them', 'okay, you do so trivially'.

The rogue has given himself the ability to auto-succeed at some tasks. Congratulations - you can now auto-succeed, so we don't need to actually take any time to resolve those tasks.

The problem isn't the auto-success per-se. It's the fact that once you get beyond the range of things for which we have a concrete intuition in the game, the actual scale loses its meaning. Once you do 1200 damage a round, then either something will be killed by your damage or it has a gimmick. If you increase that to 12000 damage a round, then notice that it makes no actual difference in play, you come to understand that all the work you did doesn't matter - and its true, it doesn't matter, but the moment of that revelation tends to sour people on their character.

It's better to focus then on things that actually do matter, rather than going 'I can do 10 billion damage with a Hulking Hurler'. Leave that kind of thing to theoretical optimization and instead focus on versatility.

If you want to optimize, don't be the guy that makes all the damage numbers go up by a factor of 10. Be the guy who can identify a spell and can get the party across a gap and can tell if someone is lying and can summon a demon to make a pact with and can set a trap for enemies and can let the party survive on the elemental plane of fire. Focus on 'if I get myself this ability, it opens up new narrative possibilities' rather than 'if I get myself this ability, my numbers will be even higher!'. They're not the same thing.

[Heliomance]

Respectfully, in a game where you only have so many hours to play, one shouldn't waste time on encounters whose only purpose is to make one player feel good. If the outcome is a given, its better to move on and just rule 'party disables the guards, what's next?'.


If you consider making the players feel good "wasting time", I question what you're playing for.

[Aasimar]

If you consider making the players feel good "wasting time", I question what you're playing for.

In this context, the problem would be taking too much time to make one player feel good going through the motions of what is absolutely a foregone conclusion (would you make Superman make a lot of rolls to see if those ordinary lead bullets shot at him by those bank robbers harm him?) at the expense of every other player at the table and progressing the story.

[NichG]

If you consider making the players feel good "wasting time", I question what you're playing for.

You know what the player in question found to be the best part of the campaign? When there was a villain who antagonized him for several sessions, then ended up fighting him on a one-on-one duel in the midst of his henchmen, where he (the PC) won and killed the guy with only -1hp left (thanks to a delayed damage pool).

When everything is a push-over, it stops being fun. Even people who optimize so that they can steamroll stuff eventually get tired of it, then they get dis-satisfied with the game and often have a hard time pinpointing why. Optimization past a DM's ability to create a challenge (either because he has to take the other players' power level into account, or just because he doesn't know how) is basically a way to make yourself unhappy.

[Heliomance]

When everything is a push-over, it stops being fun. Even people who optimize so that they can steamroll stuff eventually get tired of it, then they get dis-satisfied with the game and often have a hard time pinpointing why.

I never said everything should be a pushover. I said there should be the occasional encounter that plays right into a player's strengths. I agree that if curb stomping everything is the norm, it gets boring. But curb stomping something occasionally because it happens to be weak to your build focus? That's an awful lot of gleeful fun.

[Segev]

The OP has discussed it with his DM, apparently. I don't think any further outside judgments really make a difference until we have more data from which to operate. Specifically, not until they try what he and the DM have agreed to and the whole group determines whether they like it or not. And what they do or do not like about it.

[Corinath]

Good luck.

There's a chance I'm in a similar situation as the OP with my character, though I'm nowhere near as optimized for combat, I'm absolutely optimized as the skill monkey. Normally, in our sessions, this is fine. But the last session I had I felt like I was doing everything, or, at least, a great many things, and I'd always wanted to avoid that. Only one or two members of my group of six optimize, and I walked away feeling like I stole the thunder of the session, despite the fact that few of the players could skill monkey. I'm going to bring it up to my DM this week and possibly nerf my character because of it.

If your DM says "Build the best character you can", it's not an open door for you bringing PunPun. Just because. Given the experiences you've relayed regarding your fellow players, you may very well be the exception to the rule. The fact that you're considering a chicken infestation build is sort of proof of that.

"I drown him in a sea of chickens"
"You…what?"
"Drawing an item is a free action if it's from a component pouch, and half of the time I draw things it's a chicken. So I drown him in a sea of chickens."

I'd consider, just this once, throwing optimization out the door, or, if you must, attempting to optimize a T6 class such that, at the very best, you're walking in with a T3.

Anyway, I'm with the last poster. It's been discussed with the DM, so we'll see how this all plays out.

[NichG]

I never said everything should be a pushover. I said there should be the occasional encounter that plays right into a player's strengths. I agree that if curb stomping everything is the norm, it gets boring. But curb stomping something occasionally because it happens to be weak to your build focus? That's an awful lot of gleeful fun.

Well, so then there's some ideal ratio of 'popcorn fights' to 'serious fights' for a given group - basically how often the group 'just wants to smash stuff easily' and how often the group wants to be challenged.

If one player optimizes in such a way that it primarily acts to alter this ratio, the DM is going to adapt to maintain the same ratio as before. This means that the optimization has effectively done nothing but render itself irrelevant and caused things to become a bit more contrived all around. Only the component of a given optimization that is orthogonal to these 'balance points' is really meaningful - generally that means something with narrative consequence, rather than just game-mechanical consequence.

Of course sometimes the DM's adaptation involves narrative consequence, but generally that just translates to 'rushing through' or 'skipping over' parts of the campaign to get to the stuff that was going to be higher CR/etc anyhow. Which basically translates to stretching the DM's prep thin and making for less game overall. So that's a potential negative consequence above and beyond other considerations.

[Heliomance]

Except there's a difference between steamrolling a fight because the enemies are weaksauce, and steamrolling a fight because the enemies are the scissors to your rock. If you build a megatank high AC character, then you're going to have tremendous fun when you come up against enemies that can do nothing but flail helplessly at your armour. If you're a fire-specced blaster mage, you're going to have tremendous fun when you go up against something weak to fire. If you're a dedicated necromancer, you're going to have tremendous fun when you come up against a bunch of undead that you can usurp and use for your own nefarious purposes.

[The Insanity]

I'd have much more fun overcoming a challenging opponent that isn't vulnerable to my tricks. But I also like to steamroll an encounter from time to time. Makes me feel actually powerful, which I'm supposed to be at higher levels.

[Heliomance]

Which is why I said it should only be an occasional thing, not all the time :smallconfused:

[The Insanity]

Did I say otherwise?

[HaikenEdge]

I actually have more fun steamrolling stuff than I do with "challenges that aren't vulnerable to my bag of tricks"; however, to be fair, I also don't particularly enjoy combat, a sentiment shared by most of the groups I play with, so for us, so combat is really just a way from plot point A to plot point B, and steamrolling the combat just gets us to our destination faster.

I'm a firm believer that six things, when used in combination intelligently, can solve any problem (except antimagic fields/dead magic zones): disintegrate, grease, prestidigitation, shatter, time hop and tree tokens.

[NichG]

Except there's a difference between steamrolling a fight because the enemies are weaksauce, and steamrolling a fight because the enemies are the scissors to your rock. If you build a megatank high AC character, then you're going to have tremendous fun when you come up against enemies that can do nothing but flail helplessly at your armour. If you're a fire-specced blaster mage, you're going to have tremendous fun when you go up against something weak to fire. If you're a dedicated necromancer, you're going to have tremendous fun when you come up against a bunch of undead that you can usurp and use for your own nefarious purposes.

At least until you come to the inevitable realization that popcorn is popcorn whether or not you cheesed out your character. I'm not just making this up - this is exactly what happened to a couple of my players over the course of a year long campaign.

The guy who was making 12k damage/round characters no longer optimizes like that, and has expressed that he no longer feels 'pressured' to optimize. The guy who made the metamagic blaster mage decided to give himself weird challenges (like bringing a Lv1 character into a Lv15 group) because he enjoyed the mental challenge of optimization but didn't want the arms race (particularly because we had one player who would personally take any expression of power from another character as an invitation to start an arms race with them)

And in my own case, I've been in a campaign where there was a huge optimization-ability gap between the players, and the GM would help the weaker characters keep the same amount of screentime. It helped me understand the difference between optimizing for power and optimizing for what I actually wanted out of the game. Bringing in the most powerful character would mean that I'd get less plot, because my screentime would mostly be dealing with combat - so I learned to balance between outwards power and true versatility.

[Flavel]

I'm starting to consider house ruling that die-rolls cannot be modified by more then 3 X character level or + 8 (whichever is higher).

[Heliomance]

I'm starting to consider house ruling that die-rolls cannot be modified by more then 3 X character level or + 8 (whichever is higher).

Doesn't help when you're adding d6s.