Munchkin build for the Anti-munchkin player

[SouthpawSoldier]

I hate munchkin builds. My ideal game would be an E6 game, starting at level 1. I want gritty fantasy. I can't stand the complexity that goes into high level builds.

The only group I can play with (my work schedule is such that playing at game shops is not a viable option) bounces around with various settings, game types, etc. The current gig is a level 20 game, with 5 mythic levels.

I can't stand the idea of that type of game. Only two players (DM +1) have any experience playing like that. The rest of us are either new to 3.5, or have only played low-level games. The last session was like a video game; cleric spamming Mass Cure while the wizard (some wierd drow/dragon gig; that player was the +1) spammed Maximized Fireball and the fighter did full attacks when fighting a Tarrasque. Not my idea of DnD.

Aby suggestions for a cheese build that doesn't FEEL cheesy? Something I can "plug and play". I'd prefer something simplistic; minimal management of spell list/familiar/animal companion. I want something that I can easily play, but still has enough munchkin to demonstrate the weaknesses of games like this.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Gnome Beguiler 14/Shadowcraft Mage 5/Mindbender 1 is very strong, but aside from remembering the list of things Shadowcraft Mage lets you do it is easy to run.

You mentioned both PF and 3.5 in your post, so this is for 3.5 btw.

[The Glyphstone]

Barbarian 20. Shock Trooper + Leap Attack. Obliterate everything by charging at it. Zero effort needed.

That out of the way, why do you automatically equivalence 'high level' with 'munchkin/cheese'? Most people make the exact opposite correlation - at high levels, you don't need to be cheesy because everyone is ludicrously powerful anyways. The proper home of cheese is at low levels, where you have to milk your more limited resources if you want something overpowered for its level, and most 'high-level' cheese builds are just low level cheese builds with extra levels stacked on. I.e., this barbarian...it works starting at level 6 onward.

[Ziegander]

[...]why do you automatically equivalence 'high level' with 'munchkin/cheese'? Most people make the exact opposite correlation - at high levels, you don't need to be cheesy because everyone is ludicrously powerful anyways.

Because what the hell are you talking about?

High-level non-casters get raped by the system, because most of the system is itself a high-level caster. That charge-pounce Barbarian you're talking about literally doesn't even contribute to the game if the DM decides it's too powerful. Unfortunately, that same DM has to struggle to fine ways to challenge the Clerics, Druids, and Wizards of the party.

[Windstorm]

It sounds like there is an OOC mismatch of expectations here, and that's the real problem. I implore you to talk to your DM and the other players, and try and find an amicable system, than use a character build to "illustrate the weaknesses of the system".

3.5 is a weak system, its kind of that way by design, partially intended, partially not. Any system that tackles the kind of extremes involved in a high fantasy setting will be to varying degrees.

My best suggestion is articulate to your DM what your after ( the feel of challenging combat with a real possibility of death or failure, by the sound of it) and see what can be done to evoke that. It is possible to do outside of an E6 game, it just takes the understanding between the DM and players that that is what the expectation is. You'll need to include the players in this case because it also sounds like a bad case of party power level mismatching.

Ultimately d&d is about the players and the DM meeting in the spirit of cooperation to have fun and maybe tell a good story. I feel that the request you have put forward goes against that notion.

EDIT:

Because what the hell are you talking about?

High-level non-casters get raped by the system, because most of the system is itself a high-level caster. That charge-pounce Barbarian you're talking about literally doesn't even contribute to the game if the DM decides it's too powerful. Unfortunately, that same DM has to struggle to fine ways to challenge the Clerics, Druids, and Wizards of the party.
see the above. If there is such a power mismatch going on that one class is working and others are useless, it might be worth taking the time to figure out what can be done about it. If that means asking the guy playing the wizard or the Druid to give up some of his traditional 'I win" buttons, so that the group as a whole can be more involved, the DM should do so.

I should know, I have played wizards in games where most of the party is low-op, and while you could nuke a lot of things with the traditional "we win" buttons, doesn't that defeat the purpose of playing D&D? It's not about a power trip, it's about having fun with a group of friends.

[The Glyphstone]

Because what the hell are you talking about?

High-level non-casters get raped by the system, because most of the system is itself a high-level caster. That charge-pounce Barbarian you're talking about literally doesn't even contribute to the game if the DM decides it's too powerful. Unfortunately, that same DM has to struggle to fine ways to challenge the Clerics, Druids, and Wizards of the party.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, and is utterly irrelevant.

Yes, high level casters can outdo high level melee. That doesn't make high level melee weak, it just makes high level casters even more powerful (which we already know). DM fiat can shut down any character, caster or otherwise. A DM who's not a jerk won't shut down anyone. But short of DM fiat, that barbarian (with no-derp equipment like an item of flight) is one-shotting anything in the game that he can get into reach of, which is anything that isn't a 17+ level caster. For the OP, who considers E6 to be his favorite form of D&D, a Pouncebarian meets 100% of his asked-for qualifications.


It sounds like there is an OOC mismatch of expectations here, and that's the real problem. I implore you to talk to your DM and the other players, and try and find an amicable system, than use a character build to "illustrate the weaknesses of the system".

3.5 is a weak system, its kind of that way by design, partially intended, partially not. Any system that tackles the kind of extremes involved in a high fantasy setting will be to varying degrees.

My best suggestion is articulate to your DM what your after ( the feel of challenging combat with a real possibility of death or failure, by the sound of it) and see what can be done to evoke that. It is possible to do outside of an E6 game, it just takes the understanding between the DM and players that that is what the expectation is. You'll need to include the players in this case because it also sounds like a bad case of party power level mismatching.

Ultimately d&d is about the players and the DM meeting in the spirit of cooperation to have fun and maybe tell a good story. I feel that the request you have put forward goes against that notion.

And this is just good advice. OP, D&D may just not be the system for you. You like gritty games, and gritty fantasy is one of the many things D&D is absolutely terrible at. It's designed for heroic, larger-than-life fantasy. The caster/mundane power curve is hideously out of whack, and gets worse higher up, but 'gritty' goes away at level 1 when a fighter can suffer multiple stab wounds with zero effect, then take one more stab wound and instantly collapse dying.

[Shinken]

Because what the hell are you talking about?

High-level non-casters get raped by the system, because most of the system is itself a high-level caster.
I fail to see how that (or rather, your opinion on that) is relevant to the point being made.


That charge-pounce Barbarian you're talking about literally doesn't even contribute to the game if the DM decides it's too powerful.
Nothing contributes to the game if the DM decides it's too powerful. :smallconfused:
Your point?


Unfortunately, that same DM has to struggle to fine ways to challenge the Clerics, Druids, and Wizards of the party.
But you just said the system is itself a high level caster (whatever that means). You also implied a DM would ban a charger because it's too powerful, but you imply that spellcasters are more powerful and would not be banned...?

I'm having some serious problems following your logic.

[OldTrees1]

I can't stand the idea of that type of game. Only two players (DM +1) have any experience playing like that. The rest of us are either new to 3.5, or have only played low-level games. The last session was like a video game; cleric spamming Mass Cure while the wizard (some wierd drow/dragon gig; that player was the +1) spammed Maximized Fireball and the fighter did full attacks when fighting a Tarrasque. Not my idea of DnD.

So you had an Evoker Wizard, a Healer Cleric and a Fighter.
Honestly it sounds like you would be OP if you brought an optimized build to that party.

What kind of character do you like to play?
How about a Human Rogue 20?

[SouthpawSoldier]

It's the complexity that turns me off. X levels of this, y levels of that, with flaws and level substitutions, etc. etc. I have nothing against the idea of gestalt or gish builds per se; it's the application that gets my goat. It doesn't require a "mechanics>character" mindset, but from what I've seen, it generally serves as the first step on the slippery slope. Shenanigans like RAW-legal offspring of Dragonwrought Kobolds and PunPun (how's that for a mental image? Time to scrub my brain with bleach).

I like there to still be a sense of adventure to my games. Low magic, low WBL games. Conan-esque fantasy. Being able to take on a minor diety or a Tarrasque without serious planning ahead of time takes away from that.

[Shinken]

It's the complexity that turns me off. X levels of this, y levels of that, with flaws and level substitutions, etc. etc. I have nothing against the idea of gestalt or gish builds per se; it's the application that gets my goat. It doesn't require a "mechanics>character" mindset, but from what I've seen, it generally serves as the first step on the slippery slope. Shenanigans like RAW-legal offspring of Dragonwrought Kobolds and PunPun (how's that for a mental image? Time to scrub my brain with bleach).
D&D is a complex system. However, there are simple options within that framework, such as Glyphstone's proposed Barbarian.


I like there to still be a sense of adventure to my games. Low magic, low WBL games. Conan-esque fantasy. Being able to take on a minor diety or a Tarrasque without serious planning ahead of time takes away from that.
Can't you convince your group to try some low level games, then?

[The Glyphstone]

It's the complexity that turns me off. X levels of this, y levels of that, with flaws and level substitutions, etc. etc. I have nothing against the idea of gestalt or gish builds per se; it's the application that gets my goat. It doesn't require a "mechanics>character" mindset, but from what I've seen, it generally serves as the first step on the slippery slope. Shenanigans like RAW-legal offspring of Dragonwrought Kobolds and PunPun (how's that for a mental image? Time to scrub my brain with bleach).

I like there to still be a sense of adventure to my games. Low magic, low WBL games. Conan-esque fantasy. Being able to take on a minor diety or a Tarrasque without serious planning ahead of time takes away from that.

The irony is that Pun-Pun is RAW-legal at level 1, with sufficient application of cheese.:smallbiggrin:

But see the edit I made above about heroic fantasy. D&D just isn't the game your playstyle/mindset is suited for...E6 is the closest D&D can get, and while it is good, it's a rather blunt hack cleaving off 70% of the game to try and make it 'low fantasy'. You might be better off trying to convince your group/DM to try another RPG better tuned for low-power games.

[OldTrees1]

It's the complexity that turns me off. X levels of this, y levels of that, with flaws and level substitutions, etc. etc. I have nothing against the idea of gestalt or gish builds per se; it's the application that gets my goat. It doesn't require a "mechanics>character" mindset, but from what I've seen, it generally serves as the first step on the slippery slope. Shenanigans like RAW-legal offspring of Dragonwrought Kobolds and PunPun (how's that for a mental image? Time to scrub my brain with bleach).

I like there to still be a sense of adventure to my games. Low magic, low WBL games. Conan-esque fantasy. Being able to take on a minor diety or a Tarrasque without serious planning ahead of time takes away from that.

Human Rogue 20
Put your skill points in the skills you like.
Take the feats you like.
Have fun.

[Seerow]

So you had an Evoker Wizard, a Healer Cleric and a Fighter.
Honestly it sounds like you would be OP if you brought an optimized build to that party.

Was going to say this. It sounds like despite the high baseline power level, everyone is playing low op enough that it may as well be a level 6 game. So I'm not entirely sure what the OP's issue is.

[Windstorm]

You might actually want to give 7th Sea a try. One of the best low-magic systems I've had the pleasure of playing.

Oh playground, actually being honest and telling people that a system isn't for them, it warms my shriveled wizard's heart. (I think, it's in a box somewhere, let me go check....)

[SouthpawSoldier]

I've tried. The problem is DM ADHD.

In the last 6 months, we've gone from PF, to 3.5, to M&M, to a Marvel game that everyone was trying to learn at the table, to a mishmash of 3.5 and PF, back to 3.5 (I tried to suggest an E6 game, but I got called away for a month at work and the DM got upset that I suggested a system and didn't stay aroudn to play), back to 3.5....

The game that was ran last year was great. Overarching campaign, starting at level 1, made it to level 5/6...then drama in the group and DM fatigue caused it to be scrubbed.

I've considered bringing up a new system, but I fear that will only exacerbate the issue of DM ADHD.

[OldTrees1]

Was going to say this. It sounds like despite the high baseline power level, everyone is playing low op enough that it may as well be a level 6 game. So I'm not entirely sure what the OP's issue is.

The OP doesn't like how they are so powerful (high level) that they are able to treat creatures worthy of legend and respect (high CR) like they used to treat kobolds.

Honestly this is a reasonable preference.

[SouthpawSoldier]

I'm hooked on 3.5/D20 because I'm familiar with the material. Lots of Forgotten Realms books and the like, and Neverwinter Nights was my introduction into the mechanics of DnD.

I tried bringing in Dresden Files, as I thought it would be great; FATE based narrative gameplay, and short of Tippy joining in, optimization really isn't a part of gameplay. Heck, you're supposed to spend one or two sessions building characters, building a narrative and backstory showing how the characters are connected. FATE and Dresden was met with a big fat "nope".

Economics is the other issue. I hate buying books that may not get used. Already dealt with that from Dresden, and my purchase of the core 3 (PHB, MM, and DMG) was abouyt my limit. I'd hate to get elbows and wallet deep into a new system that I won't get a chance to play.

[Windstorm]

Not really sure what to tell you then, in my experience this kind of thing isn't usually something that can be dealt with too much in character.

What are you currently playing as? maybe we can help you find something easy to run and somewhat versatile at the same level/tier as your other party members. More information is helpful here: current levels, what you currently have to work with, allowed material, etc.

[SouthpawSoldier]

I'm not currently playing; I've been out of the game for a month due to work.

One ofthe guys in the group is really pressuring me to come back in. I figure if I must, I might as well bring something ready made, so I'm not spending as much time digging through books trying to put something together. Most of my info is coming from one of the players, a guy who just started 3.5 a couple months ago (he was the Cleric).

All I know is that they were running a 3.5 game at level 20, and that the +1 guy who may or not be trading off DM duty (was implied in conversation, but not outright stated) was talking about incorperating 5 mythic levels. Story was they all had been imprisoned in Hell, and were fighting tiers of nasties on their way out. DM hadn't prepped for a party of that strength, so he dropped a Tarrasque on them.

Really seems more like a video game than an RPG, but *shrug*.

[eggynack]

You should probably put something together that's in tier three. Low tier classes require a lot of the ACF's and/or dipping that you have such a distaste for in order to be really good, while high tier classes can basically just run fine as a wizard 20 without issue, but they have spells, and require more book keeping than you would apparently like. In the middle of the two, I think you'll find something that you like.

Make a beguiler or dread necromancer 20, and have full access to your short list at all times. Make a factotum 20, take a bunch of font of inspiration (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070606), and enjoy high levels of versatility with a low quantity of spell choice. Make a warblade, crusader, or swordsage 20, and beat people up with style. Relatively low requirements of book keeping compared to wizards, relatively low requirements of build optimization when compared to fighters, and unlikely to break the game too bad.

[Krazzman]

@DM ADS (ADHS is... well let's just say failing to long-term-concentrate on one system should probably be ADS not the far more severe hyperversion of it...)
Has someone else tried DMing? If you can't stand switching systems all the time then... just try to establish a chain of DMing. Like we play campaign X in system Y with DM Z and after that DM A is going to DM system B.

In our group we played (currently on hiatus due to exams/other real-life stuff) SWSE, 3.5, PF and Warhammer so far. Collectively voted against DSA due to not wanting to play both low-power and learn new rules after Warhammer.

And Dresden or Fate or whatever might not suite your players style.

In my old group we had mostly one-shot-campaigns over the weekends. The Marvel system... I still don't really get how it works with the counters and such but I am thinking about buying some Superhero-esque Gamesystem. Or I bought All Flesh Must be Eaten because I thought that maybe we could play it but except for 2 one-shots we couldn't get to it. Or SWSE we played a bit and basically just got one level up so far. (Karneval + Exams really cut our time this year...). It is a money investment but a thing that "needs" to be done. You can do research without buying the rulebooks and present your findings with your group and ask if they would be interested. If they are not then no problem no harm done if yes then you can THINK about buying them... as you can even lend them in few cases or buy them used.

@Easy to understand builds?
Warblade, Crusader and Swordsage can all be taken from 1 to 20.
Incarnate and Totemist too but they might be too complex for you and I don't know how they fare in "Mystic" stuff.

Or how about a Wildshape Ranger? then into Warshaper (Prestige Class) and Master of Many Forms? 2 Prestige Classes and one Variant Class.

[Windstorm]

You might try a crusader from Tome of Battle. They're fairly straightforward and have a decent amount of versatility for a martial character, they're also quite easy to run ( just print a set of maneuver cards and play the hand you're dealt, if that's your kind of thing).

Have you a preference for character type/archetype? The party you describe didn't seem to be playing caster strengths tooo heavily, so that opens up a decent amount of options.

I can see what I can put together based on the above question.

[SouthpawSoldier]

Not too picky on character type, as long as I avoid Vancian casting. Not big on running familiars/companions/cohorts either. I prefer sponatious casting, since it seems more natural to me, more in line with a "points/energy" style of magic.

I tried the Bard gig once, going with a half-elf Diplomancer. I wanted to be Count Dooku, or Sideous; manipulating people with lots of Suggestion, using Grease to manipulate the battlefield, tricks like that. Ended up being shoehorned as the party Face; REALLY not the role I like to play.

Skilled melee is my real forte, since archery is so poorly treated in 3.5. Darfellan Harpooner/piker, turning kobolds into snacks on a stick. A fencer/duelist that pins enemies' feet to the ground. It gives the effect of battle field control without spamming Entangle and Grease.

[Windstorm]

Sounds like tome of battle is right up your alley then. Do you have access to that book? (Not DM approval wise, some kind of copy you can use for reference.)

If so then I'll jam something together tomorrow morning and PM it to you.

[Ziegander]

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, and is utterly irrelevant.

You mentioned that at high levels everyone is ludicrously powerful. Which is hilariously untrue. If run by the book, many high-level monsters will obliterate high-level non-casters (especially those without "no-derp" equipment) easily. I'm not even talking about caster classes, I'm talking about the monsters/encounters that players are expected to face. Even high-level traps are ludicrously powerful spells that are difficult for non-casters to deal with. Monsters, if played intelligently, can be insurmountable challenges to a party of high-level non-casters.

No, this doesn't have much to do with the OPs preference toward E6 play, but then again, the OP isn't playing E6. The entire reason he posted the thread in the first place is because he prefers E6, but is being forced to play at 20th level in standard D&D 3.5.


I fail to see how that (or rather, your opinion on that) is relevant to the point being made.

The game, or rather, the encounters that make up the game, is, at high-levels, always, or almost always, high-level spell effects, or creatures capable of casting high-level spell effects. Since high-level spell effects are, by far, the most powerful things in the game, an intelligent encounter will use those effects to the exclusion of any other effects whenever possible. At high-levels, this can be at-will or near enough as makes no matter. High-level D&D is akin to a high-level caster. Non-casters get raped by the system itself.


Nothing contributes to the game if the DM decides it's too powerful. :smallconfused:
Your point?

Yes, my point, you are missing it. The ubercharger can be shut down by flying enemies. Or incorporeal enemies. Or both. Or by any number of other one-step, simple decisions by the DM. A high-level Wizard on the other hand is much more difficult for the DM to deal with aside from simply "banning" Wizards, which if not done before the campaign has begun will lead to out-of-game problems. A DM can render an ubercharger incapable of contributing to gameplay in-game with relative ease, using nothing but game rules to do so. That same DM, when confronted with a Wizard that has become much more powerful than he/she knows what to do with, is faced with a much more difficult, much more complicated problem.


But you just said the system is itself a high level caster (whatever that means). You also implied a DM would ban a charger because it's too powerful, but you imply that spellcasters are more powerful and would not be banned...?

I'm having some serious problems following your logic.

If you have any further problems following my logic let me know. I never "implied" banning any characters. I think I've explained fully well enough what I meant about the system itself being a high-level caster, and what I meant about the DMs problems or lack thereof with charger Barbarians and high-level Wizards.

[SouthpawSoldier]

I think I may; I was given a data stick of PDF's a while back, but I tried to avoid using it (combination of information overload and distaste for using pirated material), so I'm not sure where it was squirreled away.

[OldTrees1]

I think I may; I was given a data stick of PDF's a while back, but I tried to avoid using it (combination of information overload and distaste for using pirated material), so I'm not sure where it was squirreled away.

Well if you do have ToB on the data stick, consider Swordsage. They are a good example of skilled melee that is on par with your Evoker wizard and Healer cleric allies.

If you don't like manuevers for some reason, I would consider Factotum from Dungeonscape or Rogue from the PHB.

[AnonymousPepper]

Not too picky on character type, as long as I avoid Vancian casting. Not big on running familiars/companions/cohorts either. I prefer sponatious casting, since it seems more natural to me, more in line with a "points/energy" style of magic.

May I suggest the spell points variant rule set?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm

Still have to prepare spells if you're a Wizard but it's more in line with what you're thinking off.

[NotAnAardvark]

The OP doesn't like how they are so powerful (high level) that they are able to treat creatures worthy of legend and respect (high CR) like they used to treat kobolds.

Honestly this is a reasonable preference.

The point of contention is that he said "cheesy" and "munchkiny" and then went on to describe a wizard who spammed fireball and a healer cleric.

[OldTrees1]

The point of contention is that he said "cheesy" and "munchkiny" and then went on to describe a wizard who spammed fireball and a healer cleric.

And I just described the opinion that would lead him to misuse those terms when grasping for a way to describe not liking being able to put legendary creatures in their place like kobolds.

[HammeredWharf]

I know it has Vancian casting, but a Druid 20 is a really powerful character. Just pick Natural Spell, trade your animal companion away via Druidic Avenger (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#druidVariantDruidicAve nger), turn into a Tyrannosaurus (or a cryohydra, if you prefer gouda) and enter DINOSAUR RAAAGE. Little to no optimization required. You can just pick as many buffs as you can and bash some skulls in. You could even pick Vow of Poverty and not worry about equipment!

ToB classes are great and fun, but require more careful optimization IMO. Of course, it looks like your party is really low-op, so that shouldn't be a worry. Warblade is, but the way, completely (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2) free (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a).

[Big Fau]

I'm hooked on 3.5/D20 because I'm familiar with the material. Lots of Forgotten Realms books and the like, and Neverwinter Nights was my introduction into the mechanics of DnD.

I tried bringing in Dresden Files, as I thought it would be great; FATE based narrative gameplay, and short of Tippy joining in, optimization really isn't a part of gameplay. Heck, you're supposed to spend one or two sessions building characters, building a narrative and backstory showing how the characters are connected. FATE and Dresden was met with a big fat "nope".

Economics is the other issue. I hate buying books that may not get used. Already dealt with that from Dresden, and my purchase of the core 3 (PHB, MM, and DMG) was abouyt my limit. I'd hate to get elbows and wallet deep into a new system that I won't get a chance to play.

Let me get this straight: You hate high-level characters due to their complexity, but like Forgotten Realms?

What is this, I don't even...

[Shinken]

Let me get this straight: You hate high-level characters due to their complexity, but like Forgotten Realms?

What is this, I don't even...

The OP mentioned Forgotten Realms books and a videogame. They might have high level characters, but they don't have the same complexity high level characters in D&D have. Also, there are plenty of books and videogames set in Forgotten Realms featuring lower level characters.



The game, or rather, the encounters that make up the game, is, at high-levels, always, or almost always, high-level spell effects, or creatures capable of casting high-level spell effects. Since high-level spell effects are, by far, the most powerful things in the game, an intelligent encounter will use those effects to the exclusion of any other effects whenever possible. At high-levels, this can be at-will or near enough as makes no matter. High-level D&D is akin to a high-level caster. Non-casters get raped by the system itself.
No, high level D&D is akin to high level magic, which can be used by both casters and non casters. That is the whole point behind magical items.


Yes, my point, you are missing it. The ubercharger can be shut down by flying enemies. Or incorporeal enemies. Or both.
Not if he has boots of flying and a ghost touch weapon or several other options available to deal with those issues, either from feats, from class abilities or magical items.


Or by any number of other one-step, simple decisions by the DM.
The same applies to any character, really.


A high-level Wizard on the other hand is much more difficult for the DM to deal with aside from simply "banning" Wizards, which if not done before the campaign has begun will lead to out-of-game problems. A DM can render an ubercharger incapable of contributing to gameplay in-game with relative ease, using nothing but game rules to do so. That same DM, when confronted with a Wizard that has become much more powerful than he/she knows what to do with, is faced with a much more difficult, much more complicated problem.
I still don't see how that is in any way relevant to the topic being discussed here.
You're also ignoring the DM may simply throw a challenge the wizard can't defeat at him, such as a higher level wizard, golems, several encounters in a row or all of it combined. I find that hardly "difficult" or "complicated".
On the other hand, by stating it is easier for a DM to create entertaining and challenging encounters for noncasters, you're making a case against playing high levle casters. Who wants to play through non-challenging encounters, anyway?



If you have any further problems following my logic let me know. I never "implied" banning any characters. I think I've explained fully well enough what I meant about the system itself being a high-level caster, and what I meant about the DMs problems or lack thereof with charger Barbarians and high-level Wizards.
You explained your reasoning very well. It is still far from being perfectly logical and far from being relevant to the thread.

[OldTrees1]

The OP mentioned Forgotten Realms books and a videogame. They might have high level characters, but they don't have the same complexity high level characters in D&D have. Also, there are plenty of books and videogames set in Forgotten Realms featuring lower level characters.


I think you reached the correct conclusion by the wrong reasons.


I hate munchkin builds. My ideal game would be an E6 game, starting at level 1. I want gritty fantasy. I can't stand the complexity that goes into high level builds.

I can't stand the idea of that type of game. Only two players (DM +1) have any experience playing like that. The rest of us are either new to 3.5, or have only played low-level games. The last session was like a video game; cleric spamming Mass Cure while the wizard (some wierd drow/dragon gig; that player was the +1) spammed Maximized Fireball and the fighter did full attacks when fighting a Tarrasque. Not my idea of DnD.

[Shinken]

I think you reached the correct conclusion by the wrong reasons.

I think you missed the context. The OP said he liked D&D because he was familiar with most of it due to Forgotten Realms books and videogames. Bug Fau said that it didn't make sense to like Forgotten Realms and not like high level D&D play.

[OldTrees1]

I think you missed the context. The OP said he liked D&D because he was familiar with most of it due to Forgotten Realms books and videogames. Bug Fau said that it didn't make sense to like Forgotten Realms and not like high level D&D play.

The OP's opening post said he does not like D&D to feel like a videogame. (second bolded section I quoted)

Your post implied to me that you thought the OP liked D&D to feel like a videogame.

[Windstorm]

I made a crusader and sent it to southpaw.

I counter that playing an effective martial character at high levels is possible, however there are a few boxes you need to check (the same as a wizard has a list of things he needs to do)

1) Gain some method of flight, preferably NOT magic item based. in this case a half-celestial template. (level buyoff)

2) gain as many immunities as you possibly can. stunning, death effects, etc. make yourself very hard to stop or shut down.

3) find a way of making the enemy spellcaster's life hell. thicket of blades + combat reflexes/stormguard warrior is MVP here.

4) play games with initiative. white raven is your friend.

while its true martial characters have a harder time applying what they can do in all situations, the ToB classes go a long way towards remedying things, and can provide easier solutions to some problems (especially initiative games) than spellcasters like a wiz or cleric can.

[Shinken]

The OP's opening post said he does not like D&D to feel like a videogame. (second bolded section I quoted)

Your post implied to me that you thought the OP liked D&D to feel like a videogame.

You either misunderstood me or I did not make my meaning clear. The OP mentioned he is into Neverwinter Nights. All I'm saying is that liking Neverwinter Nights does not mean one must necessarily like high level D&D play.

[SouthpawSoldier]

Thanks for the character sheet Windstorm. I've got a bit of reading to do, but your bullet points should help a lot.

Seems some clarification is in order.

Forgotten Realms books granted familiarity with the setting and style of DnD. Neverwinter Nights (only played the first one, and last touched it 6 or 7 years ago) gave some understanding of how the classes and magic worked, some of the mechanics etc. I vastly prefer the mutability of table top, interacting with other players to tell a story.

What I dislike about high-level/high optimization games is the expectation of using a dozen splatbooks to build a character. Splatbooks should provide options, maybe a different flavor or setting. Character building shouldn't feel like I'm researching a term paper. Give me enough customization to build a character for a specific purpose, or to match a certain flavor concept. Using RAW-legal combinations and tricks to min/max takes away from that.

I know it's a cliché gripe; "moar roleplay/less minmax" that's immediately followed by "give me an effective character". It may just be the nature of 3.5. *shrug*. Ideally, I'd find a better table (already listed the issues with these guys in different threads), or play a different system. However, when it's the only game in town, I'll suck it up to get my fix.

Whipping up something that's simple to play but still effective at those levels is the goal. Something that I'll spend my time playing, instead of building the sheet. If it manages to demonstrate why high level games are bad for the group, so much the better. Maybe in a year or two, after the rest of us catch up in experience with the game, we can run a game like this.

A good analogy would be giving a 16 year old kid a Ferrari. Sure, he may know how to steer and shift gears, but it's a bit much of a car for him. He's better suited driving a Mustang for a while, so he can truly appreciate the difference in performance. The DM and his +1 already have the experience to really work a high level game, but the rest of us are used to Ford Focuses and bicycles.

[squiggit]

What I dislike about high-level/high optimization games is the expectation of using a dozen splatbooks to build a character.

First of all you need to realize those first two things aren't the same.

Second, no, you don't need to use a bunch of splatbooks. Combining tons of splat is necessary for very high optimization, but certainly not regular high level play by any stretch of the imagination.

If anything you're going to have more trouble finding ways not to one up your fellow players, rather than struggling to keep up with them at the level of optimization you described.

You'd be better off settling on a primary concept and just building whatever you think feels right while using a modicum of sense and maybe a little help.

But at the level where maximized fireball is considered "cheese", building Frankenstein class combos and hunting down kernels of gold in whatever splat you can find is pure overkill.

As an aside, while crusaders are indeed awesome I worry a decently made one might make the fighter look bad.

[Windstorm]

As an aside, while crusaders are indeed awesome I worry a decently made one might make the fighter look bad.

I tried to build it to T3, some flexibility while focusing white raven/stone dragon.

as the fighter is a T5 outlier in a T3 party it was either make something to keep up with unopt casters or suck as much as a straight fighter. I think T3 was the better option given only 2 options.

[Ziegander]

No, high level D&D is akin to high level magic, which can be used by both casters and non casters. That is the whole point behind magical items.

You know very well, or at least you should, how warped that line of thought is. Casters also get magic items. Having access to magic items does not magically make non-casters competitive with highly magical encounters or high-level caster characters/creatures.


The same applies to any character, really.

You are still missing the point. Yes, it can possibly apply to any character, but it's so easy to apply to something like an Ubercharger that a DM can often do it accidentally.


I still don't see how that is in any way relevant to the topic being discussed here.

Perhaps I misunderstood the OP's intentions, now that I'm reading more of his responses. Initially I thought he wanted help with a simple, but absurdly powerful build that would wreck the campaign to illustrate how stupid level 20+ D&D is. In fact, I'm still not sure that's not what he was after when he started this thread.

Then suggestions like Rogue 20 or Barbarian 20 started to flow into the thread, along with assertions like, "at high levels, you don't need to be cheesy because everyone is ludicrously powerful anyways." The things I'm saying, I found to be relevant to the topic being discussed because, no, I don't think that everyone is ludicrously powerful at high levels, and no, I don't think Rogue 20 or Barbarian 20 is capable of doing what the OP seemed to be interested in doing. In other words, I was trying to explain how those suggestions were bad ideas and not helpful to the OP.


You're also ignoring the DM may simply throw a challenge the wizard can't defeat at him, such as a higher level wizard, golems, several encounters in a row or all of it combined. I find that hardly "difficult" or "complicated".

I'm not ignoring that. What you are ignoring is that such an encounter is the deliberate choice of the DM to screw over the Wizard, and you seem incapable of acknowledging how amazingly easy it is for a multitude of "standard encounters" to screw over non-casters such as the Ubercharger without the DM even trying. That's the big problem I've been trying to point out.


On the other hand, by stating it is easier for a DM to create entertaining and challenging encounters for noncasters, you're making a case against playing high levle casters. Who wants to play through non-challenging encounters, anyway?

I don't even know what you're talking about here.

[SouthpawSoldier]

Perhaps I misunderstood the OP's intentions, now that I'm reading more of his responses. Initially I thought he wanted help with a simple, but absurdly powerful build that would wreck the campaign to illustrate how stupid level 20+ D&D is. In fact, I'm still not sure that's not what he was after when he started this thread.

That was a part of my original post, but I've decided to not be a total troll; I don't want to be the final straw that causes the group to split. It looks likely, and the DM and the +1 are definitely the issues, but I'd still feel a bit guilty delivering the final blow. Besides, the rest of us aren't strong in DM department.

Now I'd like to be more subtle about it. A simple optimization build that's easy to follow, easy to play, but JUST strong enough to demonstrate my point, without being so overt that I'm dodging a DM screen. Sort of a passive-aggressive suggestion to go back to low-level core games, at least until the rest of the group can handle high level games.

[Shinken]

You know very well, or at least you should, how warped that line of thought is. Casters also get magic items. Having access to magic items does not magically make non-casters competitive with highly magical encounters or high-level caster characters/creatures.
That's exactly what it does. Magical items do stuff magically. Their whole point is enabling non-spellcasters. The items a spellcaster gets are different - they should complement the caster's spells.
Mind you, I'm not saying casters are not more powerful than mundane characters. I'm just opposing your view that playing an efficient non-caster at high levels is impossible. It's perfectly possible as long as you get the right magic items.


You are still missing the point. Yes, it can possibly apply to any character, but it's so easy to apply to something like an Ubercharger that a DM can often do it accidentally.
Only if the ubercharger in question has no magic items at all. You mentioned flight and etherealness, both easily dealt with using common magic items.


Perhaps I misunderstood the OP's intentions, now that I'm reading more of his responses. Initially I thought he wanted help with a simple, but absurdly powerful build that would wreck the campaign to illustrate how stupid level 20+ D&D is. In fact, I'm still not sure that's not what he was after when he started this thread.
I guess you're missing the point that his party is not optimized, they are just high level. An optimized ubercharger would break that game wide open.


Then suggestions like Rogue 20 or Barbarian 20 started to flow into the thread, along with assertions like, "at high levels, you don't need to be cheesy because everyone is ludicrously powerful anyways." The things I'm saying, I found to be relevant to the topic being discussed because, no, I don't think that everyone is ludicrously powerful at high levels, and no, I don't think Rogue 20 or Barbarian 20 is capable of doing what the OP seemed to be interested in doing. In other words, I was trying to explain how those suggestions were bad ideas and not helpful to the OP.
Seems like you missed the full context, then. This is a group that uses in-combat healing and spams blasting spells. An optimized Rogue 20 or Barbarian 20 would be miles ahead of characters that use those tactics.


I'm not ignoring that. What you are ignoring is that such an encounter is the deliberate choice of the DM to screw over the Wizard, and you seem incapable of acknowledging how amazingly easy it is for a multitude of "standard encounters" to screw over non-casters such as the Ubercharger without the DM even trying. That's the big problem I've been trying to point out.
Well, you failed in pointing that out. So far, you've mentioned flying and etherealness and both are not really problems, you just need the right equipment.


I don't even know what you're talking about here.
It's mostly about the OP's change of heart, choosing not to break the game after all, just sort of playing along.
Or so I thought. If the OP still wants to ruin everyone else's fun like his last post indicates, I really don't want to help him.

[SouthpawSoldier]

I don't want to ruin the game; 2nd and 3rd hand info says that most of the guys aren't really enjoying themselves. There's even RUMINT of them leaving and forming a new group on their own, after the shenanigans after the last session.

The player I spoke with brought up the idea of us setting up a new group, excluding the current DM and his +1. Both he and another player getting irritated; they're into the same flavor of game that I'm after. The problem is having enough players, especially enough players with DM experience, to get a table going. I'm hoping to use this as way of demonstrating to the current DM and his +1 jsut how they're ruining the fun for everyone else. They're the only two that are really into optimization and high level hijinks. I don't mind a high leve game, provided we get there eventually, starting at level 1. More time to build a party chemistry, and for character development.

It doesn't hurt that the two problem kids are bad enough that two of the wives have banned them both from their houses, changing the hosting rotation. Issues with them bullying the other players, being domineering and obnoxious. One of them can be worked with, sometimes, when the other isn't in the game. The other excaerbates the problem.

The suck of it is, they're the most experienced in the group, and best suited for DMing. I had thought the issue was DM Fatigue, but when I tried to run a one-shot to give them a break, they ran all over me. It was my first time DMing, and I was trying to feel my way. They saw it as weakness, and acted like sharks smelling blood. I want to keep at least the workable one in the group, so I'm hoping to just demonstrate to them the problems with running this type of game with this group.

Please excuse the typos and errors; I'm about 2/3rds of the way through a night shift, so things are a little fuzzy.

[SouthpawSoldier]

If I can get something that doesn't go overboard, and is still fun and fancy, who knows? Maybe it'll have a different effect, and we'll be a more cohesive group, instead.

[OldTrees1]

That was a part of my original post, but I've decided to not be a total troll; I don't want to be the final straw that causes the group to split. It looks likely, and the DM and the +1 are definitely the issues, but I'd still feel a bit guilty delivering the final blow. Besides, the rest of us aren't strong in DM department.

Now I'd like to be more subtle about it. A simple optimization build that's easy to follow, easy to play, but JUST strong enough to demonstrate my point, without being so overt that I'm dodging a DM screen. Sort of a passive-aggressive suggestion to go back to low-level core games, at least until the rest of the group can handle high level games.

1) Don't solve out of characters problems in character. If the group does not want high level play, then communication is your first and best resort.

2) This plan will not work.
If you bring a more optimized character to prove the high level game is a bad idea, the only conclusion that will be drawn is that higher optimization is the problem.

[Sir Chuckles]

1) Don't solve out of characters problems in character. If the group does not want high level play, then communication is your first and best resort.

2) This plan will not work.
If you bring a more optimized character to prove the high level game is a bad idea, the only conclusion that will be drawn is that higher optimization is the problem.

Or it will turn into a horrible arms race of Contingency Wizards that make Xanatos cry tears of joy, fear, and jealousy all at once, destroying any hope of salvaging a friendship or even acquaintanceship entirely.

I know your kind of flavor, I sometimes enjoy it, but, for me, it's like chinese food. Yeah, it can be good, but I'd prefer lamb gyros.
I had, had, a player like you once. He attempt to break my game with a Cleric 4/Wizard 4/Mystic Theurge 4, claiming it was the most powerful caster there could be.

After being put into an antimagic (setting relevant, long story, not planned as a foil to his character) island, he burst out, calling the setting stupid, deleted me from his friend's list on Facebook the next day, and hasn't said a word to me since. When he invited a friend of mine to a different game (2nd hand information) and that friend asked about me, he canceled the session outright.

Ultimately, he went from a friend, to a Lawful Stupid, to a Lawful Feminine Hygiene Product in less than 12 hours, all because the game wasn't going the way he wanted. I tried to reason with him, I tried to offer alternatives, but he would not parlay.

What I'm saying in the end is that the DM's primary class skill should always be Diplomacy, and a Player's should be the same.
If you don't solve flavor, OOC campaign problems, and personal issues like someone who wasn't playing a P&P game, then horrible, horrible things will happen.

[HammeredWharf]

What I dislike about high-level/high optimization games is the expectation of using a dozen splatbooks to build a character. Splatbooks should provide options, maybe a different flavor or setting. Character building shouldn't feel like I'm researching a term paper. Give me enough customization to build a character for a specific purpose, or to match a certain flavor concept. Using RAW-legal combinations and tricks to min/max takes away from that.

You have this preconception and it's flawed. Only low-tier classes really need to optimize on higher levels. Yes, that means that you've got to play a psychic warrior, a caster or a Tome of Battle class if you want an easy melee build. However, all well-made classes are perfectly viable at lvl 20 without splatbook diving.

I already posted one of the best lvl 20 builds. It's druid 20 with Natural Spell. That's it. You can go core-only, too, if you want. The best stuff is there, anyway. Maybe add Spell Compendium for extra options. However, using a dozen splats is completely unnecessary and something people do because they want an optimal build. Not a viable one.

[eggynack]

I already posted one of the best lvl 20 builds. It's druid 20 with Natural Spell. That's it. You can go core-only, too, if you want. The best stuff is there, anyway. Maybe add Spell Compendium for extra options. However, using a dozen splats is completely unnecessary and something people do because they want an optimal build. Not a viable one.
Pretty much, though I really dislike core druid 2nd's, possibly a bit more than is entirely justified. You can pull from a massive number of sources as a druid, more than nearly any class in the game between spells, monster forms, and feats supporting your many class features, but a simple build like that is going to outclass the majority of characters out there. You can pile yourself up with good feats that aren't natural spell, some of whom are sitting right near the top of the list in terms of overall feat power level, but you can get by with just natural spell, and you can even get by without it. Optimization and power level are definitely related, but you can get ridiculously far without ever pulling off Tippy level shenanigans.

[Aquillion]

The suck of it is, they're the most experienced in the group, and best suited for DMing. I had thought the issue was DM Fatigue, but when I tried to run a one-shot to give them a break, they ran all over me. It was my first time DMing, and I was trying to feel my way. They saw it as weakness, and acted like sharks smelling blood. I want to keep at least the workable one in the group, so I'm hoping to just demonstrate to them the problems with running this type of game with this group.

Please excuse the typos and errors; I'm about 2/3rds of the way through a night shift, so things are a little fuzzy.Do not do this. It is a bad idea. You cannot use the rules to resolve an out-of-character problem.

What you need to do is talk candidly to the other people in your group about your issues.

[Particle_Man]

I'm not sure if you prefer simplicity over sheer power or what, but Warlock is a very simple no-paperwork user of magic. You have 12 at-will powers that you can use all day long. Some builds don't even require high statistics.

The crusader is a great meelee build and also fairly simple. If you just pick two out of the three "schools" (I recommend white raven and devoted spirit) then you don't have to think about prerequisites - you will almost certainly meet them).

I think with mythic levels there are some "static" options for the mythic abilities (stat boosters and the like) which might cut down on the mental overload.

[Shinken]

Do not do this. It is a bad idea. You cannot use the rules to resolve an out-of-character problem.

What you need to do is talk candidly to the other people in your group about your issues.

100% agreed. Heed Aquilion's words coz they are words of wisdom.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by The Glyphstone
You might be better off trying to convince your group/DM to try another RPG better tuned for low-power games.


Originally Posted by SouthpawSoldier
I've tried. The problem is DM ADHD.

In the last 6 months, we've gone from PF, to 3.5, to M&M, to a Marvel game that everyone was trying to learn at the table, to a mishmash of 3.5 and PF, back to 3.5 (I tried to suggest an E6 game, but I got called away for a month at work and the DM got upset that I suggested a system and didn't stay aroudn to play), back to 3.5....

I really know how this is. The last campaign I joined had exactly that issue. The DM bounced between systems, created and abandoned campaigns, dropped off the grid for weeks at a time and then came back with something completely different.

He was a decent enough DM when we actually sat down to play, but he could not stick with anything.



As for group dynamics and personal issues:


Originally Posted by SouthpawSoldier
It doesn't hurt that the two problem kids are bad enough that two of the wives have banned them both from their houses, changing the hosting rotation. Issues with them bullying the other players, being domineering and obnoxious. One of them can be worked with, sometimes, when the other isn't in the game. The other excaerbates the problem.

This sounds extremely bad, and I can see how there might be some personality issues that contribute to your dislike of munchkinry. I'm getting a strong impression of these two, and they're not people I'd want to game with. I've never, ever heard of players being banned by wives before, and if that's not a huge red flag I don't know what is.

Since you've suggested a break is probably inevitable, I'd say go ahead and split off into your own group. Start a level 1 campaign, run a couple intro modules, take it slow, and just have a good time. I've enjoyed games with just two or three players; the attitude and camaraderie is more important than ticking off all the must-have party roles.

[The Glyphstone]

This sounds extremely bad, and I can see how there might be some personality issues that contribute to your dislike of munchkinry. I'm getting a strong impression of these two, and they're not people I'd want to game with. I've never, ever heard of players being banned by wives before, and if that's not a huge red flag I don't know what is.

Since you've suggested a break is probably inevitable, I'd say go ahead and split off into your own group. Start a level 1 campaign, run a couple intro modules, take it slow, and just have a good time. I've enjoyed games with just two or three players; the attitude and camaraderie is more important than ticking off all the must-have party roles.

Whoof. Yeah. The 'banned by wives' level is a grade of group dysfunction waaaaaaay beyond the 'high-level character' problem. Take the people who agree with you, pointedly exclude the two who don't. Or take the one who you think is salvageable, but don't hesitate to un-invite him the instant he starts causing trouble. Play low-level with them, or try a free, rules-lite system just for a breather - I like to point people at Everyone Is John (https://wso.williams.edu/~msulliva/campaigns/john/) for a fun, extremely rules-lite one-shot game system.

[SouthpawSoldier]

So, an update.

Turns out it was a Pathfinder game, and not a real campaign, or even a module. Just random matchups between the DM and PC's (that session involved a mob of Celestial-template cloud dragons being ridden by cloud giants, or some silliness like that). Fun for messing around every now and then for tactics and such, but definitely not worth my time.

Talking with a couple of the players, and counting myself, we have three who were really disappointed with that session. Thankfully it was low drama, low on the bullying, etc. It just wasn't what any of us had in mind as far as a fun game.

It seems even more likely that there will be a split in the group. Since I'm a bit of a fringe member thanks to my work schedule, I'm letting the other two hash out a schedule and location plan. We're on a similar page when it comes to what we have in mind, I think; I'm trying to host a get together to discuss specifics. No pressure, no gaming or even drawing up characters; just spending some time drinking beer and talking about what we'd like from a game, building our OOC cohesion beforehand.