"I'm Sorry my Half-Orc barbarian Fighter hit so hard" - he has to say to the DM

[Oddman80]

So apparently, going Whirling Frenzy/Spirit Lion Totem/Wolf Totem Barbarian 2/Fighter 4 with 2 flaws, Power Attack, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack and a +1 Valorous Heavy Flail was TOO Optimized for my DM.

This is my first time playing D&D ever, and I had assumed my DM saw where I was headed with my character after having taken Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, and purchasing the Valorous enhancement.... but apparently I assumed too much. I am in a party made up of a Wizard, Cleric, Ranger Monk & a Rogue. most talk a good deal about optimization - but it is starting to look like, despite my newness to D&D, I have done the most homework here on this forum.

So when our level 6 party stumbled across what looked like a colossal Gargoyle Queen (having just defeated 6 of the normal gargoyles in the previous session), and the Gargoyle queen seemed to attack us (before we did anything to it) - rather than running away in fear - I let it rip. And in a single Whirling Frenzy / Leap Attack / Pounce (3 hits) did roughly 300 hp damage. It grappled me - threw me against a wall across the room - but that only meant I could charge again on my next round. The DM decides on the fly it not only had more HP than it started with, but that it now has Fast Healing 100 or something like that - because (as the DM now put it) "this guy was not supposed to die!"

Well excuse me for not standing by and watching what looked like an inevitable TPK.

ANYWAY... it looks like I may need to rebuild my character a bit to bring it down a notch or two. It probably didn't help when the Party's Ranger decided to stop worshiping his deity, and start worshiping my character instead...

So I guess this is 1 part Gripe Post, and 1 part Advice Request.

Any recommendations for what feats to substitute out that would still be useful to helping out the party - but maybe isn't quite so powerful?

Stats are STR 18 / DEX 14 / CON 17 / INT 10 / WSI 12 / CHA 4.

Any recommendations are welcome. FYI the following has been banned from the campaign

Books: Tome of Battle, Book of Erotic Fantasy, Exemplars of Evil, Book of Vile Darkness, Complete Psionic, Expanded Psionic Handbook

Feats: Leadership

[pilvento]

I was a DM 3/4 of the time i played DnD... I understand your DM from the bottom of my heart, you had fun with your "character" now try to build something acording to the power lvl of the game you are playing.

We all can rise the numbers to the sky, but if you are really ECL 6 then you should know how much HP the monsters you face have. You also know the damage that your friends can pull off. Find a balance.

After saying all that, the fault is on your DM, he should have looked at your character from the start.

If you take all the barbarian variants away and at least 1 flaw you will be ok. IMO.

[Talya]

While you certainly out-optimized your DM's expectations (Kudos! You're a brand new player, you just used the feats and abilities in the game as they were meant to be used!), and I can appreciate the pickle that put your DM in, he just basically told the players it doesn't matter what they do, they can't win unless he's fore-ordained it. Right there is when I quit the game. Generally, newbies have the opposite problem - they underoptimize and end up useless. You've overoptimized (for your particular game), which, while problematic, is understandable for a mathematically-minded person reading through the source material for the first time. None of this matters. The DM was going to have this same reaction even if it took you 10 rounds to kill the baddie instead of 1.

If I'm the party wizard, my next thought is, "Hey, if I'd cast a save-or-lose/die/suck, and the monster had rolled a 1 or 2, is the DM going to fudge it because 'it's not supposed to die yet?'"

Either party tactics and strategy (character build is strategy, spell choice is part of tactics) matter, or they don't. Your DM has decided that they don't.

[eggynack]

I get the feeling that you should try a different class, instead of compromising build integrity. Damage is scary, because it's very clear how much you're doing in the game, particularly compared to your allies. I suspect that, if you swapped over to a more magic based class, and dominated the game in that fashion, then you wouldn't receive as much flak. You could even do things like successfully take down a gargantuan gargoyle queen, mostly single handed, and make it look like enough of a team effort that you wouldn't get glares of cruelty. In other words, be god. Any full caster would do, really, though I'd obviously advise against optimizing for damage (so tend away from mailman, DMM persist face-beatery, and venomfire). Things would probably go better.

[Azoth]

Sorry, but I have to chuckle slightly. Charging, while a great way to do massive damage, is easily controlled and shut down. I can understand a desire to bring your damahe in line with the powerlevel of the group, and advise towards it.

Maybe you can give us a bit of info on what your other party members do, and their main schticks so we can help generate something in line with what is acceptable.

This board is rife with builds to make a DM cry. Hell one of my not so optimized builds centers around giving enemies anywhere from -20 to -30 to just about everything. I don't recommend him for your group though he is fun and straightforward to play.

[Gildedragon]

I agree with Talya:
Talk to the DM on the "so you won't let us kill things you don't want killed" thing.
Nip the DM vs Players thing in the bud. Sure bringing the fella down in tone might be warranted (though the Wizard and Cleric will soon start passing everyone in power)

Your shtick in the part is to hit things hard: that is what you did.

Subbing some of the Fighter levels for Swordsage (drop your BAB) might be useful. You get some utility moves, and the DR bypasser; Tiger Claw maneuvers (esp the +10' to jump stance) are things that might gel for you.

get rhino-hide armor. For a charger that is something you'll get some mileage out of.

[Story]

Subbing some of the Fighter levels for Swordsage (drop your BAB) might be useful. You get some utility moves, and the DR bypasser; Tiger Claw maneuvers (esp the +10' to jump stance) are things that might gel for you.

It looks like ToB is inexplicably banned as usual.

[eggynack]

It looks like ToB is inexplicably banned as usual.
Indeed, which is especially problematic because transferring to ToB would be a pretty good plan. Less swingy, less damage, more consistency, more versatility. It seems like it'd fit quite well.

[Juntao112]

Any recommendations for what feats to substitute out that would still be useful to helping out the party - but maybe isn't quite so powerful?

I have the sneaking suspicion that anything which might prove useful (battlefield control, for instance) is going to challenge the narrative and be negated.

[Xerlith]

It looks like ToB is inexplicably banned as usual.

Well, maybe the DM is worried about damage the ToB classes can deal...
Which, funnily, is somehow less than that of a Pouncebarian. :smallbiggrin:

Anyway - maybe you can go Savage Divine Bard instead, give DFI to your entire group while keeping flavor of the character mostly intact.

WhirlPounce Barb2/Savage Bard 4 losing Shock Trooper SHOULD be able to pass under the radar while you give your team +3d6 damage/hit.

[Segev]

Hrm. Sounds like your DM isn't hugely familiar with the rules, either; a colossal creature has plenty of reach to have you provoking multiple AoOs when you charge it. If it can knock you around like that, an AoO should be all it needed to terminate your charge completely, rendering you unable to attack it.

Maybe point your DM to the boards here and let him ask for advice on how to build for his party? He might have more perspective on what he thinks the party should be able to do, and what the party CAN do, as a whole, so we can help him design encounters appropriately.

[Oddman80]

Well, maybe the DM is worried about damage the ToB classes can deal...
Which, funnily, is somehow less than that of a Pouncebarian. :smallbiggrin:

Anyway - maybe you can go Savage Divine Bard instead, give DFI to your entire group while keeping flavor of the character mostly intact.

WhirlPounce Barb2/Savage Bard 4 losing Shock Trooper SHOULD be able to pass under the radar while you give your team +3d6 damage/hit.

The savage bard sounds pretty cool.. But unless he magically had access to spells of level "negative six" , I think my Charisma score may nix that... I will try to remember it for the future though.

[weckar]

Hrm. Sounds like your DM isn't hugely familiar with the rules, either; a colossal creature has plenty of reach to have you provoking multiple AoOs when you charge it. If it can knock you around like that, an AoO should be all it needed to terminate your charge completely, rendering you unable to attack it.

Maybe point your DM to the boards here and let him ask for advice on how to build for his party? He might have more perspective on what he thinks the party should be able to do, and what the party CAN do, as a whole, so we can help him design encounters appropriately.Only if the creature has combat reflexes, right?

[Oddman80]

Hrm. Sounds like your DM isn't hugely familiar with the rules, either...

Maybe point your DM to the boards here and let him ask for advice on how to build for his party? He might have more perspective on what he thinks the party should be able to do, and what the party CAN do, as a whole, so we can help him design encounters appropriately.

Yeah... Might be a good idea.. I would need to be more careful with gripe posts moving forward. At least two party members have found me on the boards so far.

[Xerlith]

The savage bard sounds pretty cool.. But unless he magically had access to spells of level "negative six" , I think my Charisma score may nix that... I will try to remember it for the future though.

Divine Bard casts off Wisdom, not Charisma.

[RedMage125]

I'm sorry, but a DM altering things on the fly on the basis of "this character was not supposed to die", is poor DMing.

It invalidates player agency, shows that you (the DM) are more interested in controlling what happens, rather than have your players make a difference, and makes players feel like they're just there to sit and listen while the DM tells a story that they can do nothing about.

If a DM had a problem with that level of optimization, he should have made it clear when the character was made.

I'm sorry, Oddman80. You have my sympathy.

[weckar]

A similar thing happened to me recently, when the DM told us that he lowered the HP of a boss halfway through the battle because it looked like we were losing.

We were not amused.

Player agency is important. Still, if you are going to play a build like that, I'd like to see it justified in the character background.

[3drinks]

I'm sorry, but a DM altering things on the fly on the basis of "this character was not supposed to die", is poor DMing.

It invalidates player agency, shows that you (the DM) are more interested in controlling what happens, rather than have your players make a difference, and makes players feel like they're just there to sit and listen while the DM tells a story that they can do nothing about.

If a DM had a problem with that level of optimization, he should have made it clear when the character was made.

I'm sorry, Oddman80. You have my sympathy.

I agree. While as a DM I understand it's sometimes lacklustre to have your super cool boss fight trivially ended in a non-consequential manner, sometimes, hey, that happens. The party gets lucky or they found an exploit I missed. 'Grats to them - now, are you ready for that demonprince you pissed off by killing this BBEG so easily? Or whatever else it may be - point is, "there's always something bigger 'round the corner", and thus there is no reason to undermine player capabilities.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

When the DM's story is more important than the characters' capabilities, it's time to have a chat with your DM. This is not your DM's game, it's everyone's game, and the players have every right to push the story in whatever direction they're capable of pushing it. When the DM determines ahead of time how an encounter is supposed to go, regardless of what the PCs do, that's the point when you start asking him what your characters do, because your own decisions won't matter any more. It's not the DM's job to tell you a story, it's his job to come up with situations for your characters to react to, and to make the setting react to your characters' decisions and actions.

There's nothing wrong with your character, the only problem is how your DM is handling things.

[Juntao112]

Player agency is important. Still, if you are going to play a build like that, I'd like to see it justified in the character background.

WAAAGH! What doz dis git o' a humie know about da propa orky way ta fight?

[HunterOfJello]

Your DM was generally in the wrong.
You were also generally in the wrong.

A DM shouldn't introduce any creature and not expect the party to find some way to kill, dismantle, eat it. If you introduce a CR 50 god in front of a group of strong level 15 PCs, then expect them to try and tear it down from its heavenly throne to devour its power. That's just what PCs do.

At the same time, stacking charge damage multipliers and finally unleashing them on an unsuspecting DM is generally not cool. Both the DM and the player should attempt to make sure that both individuals understand the Player Character's abilties and potential in order to make sure that a fun game occurs. This isn't a competitive game and it isn't one that should hold secrets from a DM just because. There was obviously a failure in communication going on, which means both parties failed to establish things properly.

I have been guilty of this in the past and made my DM blow a gasket in response. I knew better and should have considered his feelings and position as a player playing a game as a DM and not some automated computer just running things with 0s and 1s. DMs have feelings too and they do get hurt.

I may be wrong, but I also suspect that you had not shown this character's full potential until you ran up and supercharged the gargoyle queen. That's probably why things went so haywire.

In the future, show the DM your character with all of its stats, power, abilities, and what you intend to use them all for. Make sure he takes a look at them and gets a head for what's going on.


~~~

On a slightly seperate note, DMs should run a game using Rule 0 and are free to increase or add templates onto their monsters as they deem appropriate for the fun of the game. I have DMed games where I maxed out and doubled the hp of monsters while announcing to the players that the mob they encountered looks similar to others but different in that it is more solid, substantial, and has a denser looking body. Players should get the hint. If they aren't listening, then that's their issue.

At the same time, I have also set up an interesting boss fight and then had a Warblade straight up charge the creature with his greataxe and crit it with a leaping power attack. The warblade did more damage than the boss had (even with max hp) and rolled two 20s in the process. Because he did enough damage to kill it and it would be more fun to have it die in a single interesting crit than extend its hp and artificially screw with the encounter, I chose to have it die as the rules would dictate.

Rule 0 exists to make the game more fun, not to make it play out more in line with what the DM thinks would make a more appropriate fantasy story.

[Xerlith]

I'm going to step out the line here and play the Devil's advocate - While not saying the DM's way of handling this was good, I think he is justified in trying to salvage the encounter. Some of us don't have enough courage to let a "boss" encounter end in one shot. It'd make an awesome story, but maybe, just maybe the DM wanted to show something different.

He didn't have to TELL you he fudged her HP, but if he did it and made it a memorable, challenging encounter - would that be bad?

He was wrong, and it's his fault for being unprepared for the PC's capabilities, but I feel like he's getting slack for an entirely wrong reason - it's not what he did, it's how he did it.

Because if your players are approaching TPK, you sometimes fudge the odds in their favor. It's not really unfair, because it's not a competitive game. I avoid doing so, since if players find out, it feels cheap. But if they don't mind or like it - it's not wrong.

Here it's the other way round - The DM basically negated whatever the PC did. But it's still an application of the same principle - adjusting the situation at hand.

Of course, this is mostly a rant and should be treated as such. :smallbiggrin:


EDIT: HunterOfJello put it more nicely.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I have the sneaking suspicion that anything which might prove useful (battlefield control, for instance) is going to challenge the narrative and be negated.

This is the worst trait any DM can have.

They forget that what is going on isn't THEIR (the DM) story but the group's story. If the players have no control to effect the world in which they play in outside of what the plot/god/dm has previously decided... Then what the hell are the players there for? To be talked at?

[The Insanity]

Some people just aren't a good DM material.


Still, if you are going to play a build like that, I'd like to see it justified in the character background.
How do you know it wasn't?

[Stella]

While [snippage for brevity] I can appreciate the pickle that put your DM in, he just basically told the players it doesn't matter what they do, they can't win unless he's fore-ordained it. Right there is when I quit the game.

If I'm the party wizard, my next thought is, "Hey, if I'd cast a save-or-lose/die/suck, and the monster had rolled a 1 or 2, is the DM going to fudge it because 'it's not supposed to die yet?'"

Either party tactics and strategy (character build is strategy, spell choice is part of tactics) matter, or they don't. Your DM has decided that they don't.

I get the feeling that you should try a different class, instead of compromising build integrity. Damage is scary, because it's very clear how much you're doing in the game, particularly compared to your allies. I suspect that, if you swapped over to a more magic based class, and dominated the game in that fashion, then you wouldn't receive as much flak.No, because of what Talya said. Some DMs just don't appear to have the skill to handle situations which don't go as they envisioned them as going. And it won't matter what class you play or how you do what you do. The train has a full head of steam and there's nothing ahead on the railroad but miles and miles of things being changed in mid-stream by the DM so that what he wants to happen is what will happen.

I had almost the exact problem as Oddman80 in a much less optimized setting. The first time my Human Barbarian 1 Fighter 2 Spiked Chain wielder got more than 3 AOO + Trip + Free attack when they get tripped + AOO when they try to stand up he yelled out "I'm nerfing that!"

It never appeared to occur to him that the Druid was able to:

Attack an opponent in melee (Standard action);
Direct his Flaming Sphere to attack the same or another opponent (Move action);
Have his Wolf attack one of those two or a third opponent, also potentially granting a flanking bonus.


And all that without spending a single Feat, while my melee character had to spend every single Feat she had (Combat Reflexes, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Spiked Chain) to pull off a set of attacks which required:

A specific set of circumstances to be possible;
Had risks involved (getting tripped yourself);
And loses a lot of effectiveness as the character level goes up and Large monsters become much more common opponents.


And when I retired that character after losing all the discussions where I pointed this out plus the comparisons to the other two Tier 1 characters (Wizard and Cleric) and started a specialist Conjurer instead, the records I kept of my spell effectiveness showed that either the opponents rolled very well across a very large number of saving throws, or the DM was simply nerfing my results because I wasn't using Magic Missile or other "simple" damage spells.

I'd advise Oddman80 to have a long, calm talk with the DM, pointing out all of the above plus the fact that there are other, better ways to handle "the monster which isn't supposed to die." Having it run away is the first option which occurs to me, since it has wings and the barbarian doesn't. But if that can't happen, then a good DM will simply bow to the situation, let the monster die, and come up with a different monster to be the recurring opponent. If that was indeed the DMs intent...

And if things don't change, you really have only a couple of options. Quitting, or trying to figure out how your DM expects play to go and building a character which can conform to that expectation.

[Oddman80]

For the record:

Over a month ago, when party was level 2 or 3, I made a spreadsheet that would help quickly calculated extra damage from Valorous, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper and a few other things. I shared that spreadsheet with the DM, to make sure he would be cool with me using it in lieu of showing math on Roll 20 rolls - as it would get ridiculous to enter the equations each time

Also, as the campaign is on Roll 20, the group skype chats a lot throughout the week leading up the the D&D sessions. The DM is part of this group chat. Throughout last week, I made numerous references to the mega damage i was planning on unleashing during the upcoming session through my newly acquired feats.

SO..... Yeah - I did not surprise the DM with ths in any way.
He just either never bothered to look at what i was sharing with him, or... well... i don't know what else...

[eggynack]

No, because of what Talya said. Some DMs just don't appear to have the skill to handle situations which don't go as they envisioned them as going. And it won't matter what class you play or how you do what you do. The train has a full head of steam and there's nothing ahead on the railroad but miles and miles of things being changed in mid-stream by the DM so that what he wants to happen is what will happen.

That's the point of playing a wizard type. You do things subtle. If you attack someone for several hundred damage, then the DM can just feel his train going off the tracks. It's almost like you're attacking the railroad itself. However, if you just toss out a haste, or maybe cover the battlefield in fog, then he probably won't even feel his carefully constructed plan slipping away. Better yet, when the gargoyle dies, it will be at the hands of all of your other party members, equally divided. It will look less like a single player destroying everything in his path, and more like a well oiled machine of a team, working together to defeat an enemy that should be stronger than them.

I mean, really, the rest of your post actually seems to support that idea. Just by splitting damage across a number of spells and abilities, you get to a place where it doesn't look like you're doing as much as you are. With the god strategy, the more you're impacting the game, the less it looks like you're impacting the game. For example, let's say that druid swaps out flaming sphere for something like kelpstrand, blinding spittle, or mass snake's swiftness. Now the druid is doing something significantly more powerful, locking down opponents with low chance of failure, or adding attacks to everyone in the party, and it looks like the guy who's stabbing everyone in the face is doing all the work. This plan won't definitely work, because the DM could catch on and screw with this new caster also, but it's a plan worth consideration.

[shadowseve]

Man can I sympathize with you on this. If you poor your heart into building your character only to be smacked by DM shenanigans is a pain. I agree this is the DM's fault. He approved your character, thus justifying you kicking his BBEG's ass to kingdom come. If he didn't realize the power that you had, he should have addressed it one on one with you and worked to create a balance. As far as the BBEG and the DM not wanting it to die, sometimes unexpected things happen. As a DM he should learn from his mistakes and move on.

I had a situation where our party was constantly put up against level 20+ npc's to fight at level 7 and the DM said "it's to show you your place." Soooo I understand. I say either talk it over with the DM or quite and find a new one.

[3drinks]

No, because of what Talya said. Some DMs just don't appear to have the skill to handle situations which don't go as they envisioned them as going. And it won't matter what class you play or how you do what you do. The train has a full head of steam and there's nothing ahead on the railroad but miles and miles of things being changed in mid-stream by the DM so that what he wants to happen is what will happen.

I had almost the exact problem as Oddman80 in a much less optimized setting. The first time my Human Barbarian 1 Fighter 2 Spiked Chain wielder got more than 3 AOO + Trip + Free attack when they get tripped + AOO when they try to stand up he yelled out "I'm nerfing that!"

It never appeared to occur to him that the Druid was able to:

Attack an opponent in melee (Standard action);
Direct his Flaming Sphere to attack the same or another opponent (Move action);
Have his Wolf attack one of those two or a third opponent, also potentially granting a flanking bonus.


And all that without spending a single Feat, while my melee character had to spend every single Feat she had (Combat Reflexes, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Spiked Chain) to pull off a set of attacks which required:

A specific set of circumstances to be possible;
Had risks involved (getting tripped yourself);
And loses a lot of effectiveness as the character level goes up and Large monsters become much more common opponents.


And when I retired that character after losing all the discussions where I pointed this out plus the comparisons to the other two Tier 1 characters (Wizard and Cleric) and started a specialist Conjurer instead, the records I kept of my spell effectiveness showed that either the opponents rolled very well across a very large number of saving throws, or the DM was simply nerfing my results because I wasn't using Magic Missile or other "simple" damage spells.

I'd advise Oddman80 to have a long, calm talk with the DM, pointing out all of the above plus the fact that there are other, better ways to handle "the monster which isn't supposed to die." Having it run away is the first option which occurs to me, since it has wings and the barbarian doesn't. But if that can't happen, then a good DM will simply bow to the situation, let the monster die, and come up with a different monster to be the recurring opponent. If that was indeed the DMs intent...

And if things don't change, you really have only a couple of options. Quitting, or trying to figure out how your DM expects play to go and building a character which can conform to that expectation.

This sounds like fascinating set of information you've gathered. Do you still have it saved? Does it have any cliff notes or the like to discuss your findings? I'd like to take a look at it if so.

[Threadnaught]

Check my sig, Kelb speaks the truth. And was kinda shocked by something I did as DM, but that one isn't as important.

Your DM has failed to adhere to this unwritten and unspoken rule that everyone at the table is required to follow. You were following it as closely as you could, while managing to hog all the limelight.


Instead of making the next super boss an invincible monstrosity that you won't be able to kill no matter how many thousands of HP in damage you deal, they should be more creative. Explain to your DM that your character is a monster in melee, but only when they are able to use all of their abilities.
If your DM were to make it harder for you to get a straight charge, or even try grappling you, that should slow you down and limit how much damage you can do to the campaign. Though if you do explain your weaknesses or otherwise give your DM ways to counter you, keep a careful eye out for how frequently he completely stops you from doing anything meaningful.

If he does this then you'd benefit from just playing a Tome of Battle character. I know "But Threadnaught, ToB is banned." We all know this, which is why you'll have to use something called the Horizon Tripper. It's like ToB, in Core.

[shadowseve]

I never understood the banning of TOB. Sure they're some solid choices there, however; neither a crusader nor warblade can pull the shenanigans a wizard, druid, or cleric can pull. Granted a lock down crusader is fun as hell but they can be countered and shut down. So why ban a book that has really solid classes that are fun when there are core classes that can still kick there ass?

[torrasque666]

I never understood the banning of TOB. Sure they're some solid choices there, however; neither a crusader nor warblade can pull the shenanigans a wizard, druid, or cleric can pull. Granted a lock down crusader is fun as hell but they can be countered and shut down. So why ban a book that has really solid classes that are fun when there are core classes that can still kick there ass?

Judging from the fact that psionics are also banned its likely "unfamiliar system, must ban it, must be broken."

[ericgrau]

Ya match the optimization of your group. For starters ditch all the abilities that sound like forum buzzwords: shocktrooper, whirling frenzy, valorous. From there see what others are playing.

Just because they're veterans doesn't mean they're internet veterans. Many offline people have never heard of all the uber tricks after years of playing simply because they have never discussed them online before.

I can understand banning ToB if there optimization is pretty low. If they're pretty well or moderately optimized except for not allowing uberchargers, then I don't understand it for power reasons. But some people have fluff reasons, like the banning of book of erotic fantasy.


Judging from the fact that psionics are also banned its likely "unfamiliar system, must ban it, must be broken."
Ooh that sounds like the more likely reason. Except it could be more like the DM doesn't want to deal with stuff he doesn't understand. That's a red flag right there not to pull any crazy tricks.

[HighWater]

So apparently, going Whirling Frenzy/Spirit Lion Totem/Wolf Totem Barbarian 2/Fighter 4 with 2 flaws, Power Attack, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack and a +1 Valorous Heavy Flail was TOO Optimized for my DM.
(...)despite my newness to D&D, I have done the most homework here on this forum.
I'm not surprised your optimisation has come out ahead. This forum is very minmax-capable and building a character with some crowdsourcing on GitP can very easily overclass any "optimisation" done by people who have less of a knack for spotting killer builds on internet fora. The build you mention is pretty strong when the DM doesn't know the counters (and throwing in counters can feel like he cheats you out of victory pretty much the same way as he cheated you out of victory this time).

The golden rule of practical optimising isn't min/maxing everything, it isn't "don't lose any casterlevels", it's attuning to the optimisation of the group. This includes self-nerfing your build if it comes out as considerably more powerful than the party. Could I whip out a Sorcerer that's less vulnerable and more powerful than the one I'm playing now by browsing around the playground for a bit? Certainly, I already know tricks that would make him better that I'm not using. Am I going to? No, my party is not at that level of OP and I much prefer my sorcerer as fitting in powerwise. Party balance is not solely a DM responsibility and many DMs struggle with maintaining it on their own. It's quite possible your DM does not have the knack for upping the OP of the challenges to fit your new powerlevel, if so, the game will derail quickly. Compare with your party mates, and maybe drop your "flaws", so at least he has a more homogenous group-level of power to target. That said, your DM handled the consequences of your unexpected power less than great.
"this guy was not supposed to die!" Is not a good exclamation unless uttered after the Dm has let you kill the thing. Villain redundancy is a very important aspect of any more stable plot. Plots having more than one possible outcome (including outcomes unforeseen by the DM) is another. DM's should assume that you miss all the hints they want you to pick up, that you'll successfully retrieve information that you shouldn't have, that you'll ignore all his obvious antagonists and that you'll kill every person you shouldn't be able to kill. If the plot can deal with all these occurrences while still providing interesting outcomes, it allows for a lot of player input in the story. Hostile encounters that can't be won because of DM fiat should not be used, or if they are used, should be limited to "cutscenes", which is cheap, but better than letting PC's "act" without any chance of consequences. That's just a Lesser Rocks Fall.

Try talking it out with your DM. Try to avoid the blame-game and instead focus on constructive measures: you attune with the group's power and maybe help him manage, he abandons "unkillables" and the very obvious fudging involved as a story technique... Be civil.

[torrasque666]

But some people have fluff reasons, like the banning of book of erotic fantasy.

I thought that one was just a given...

[ericgrau]

I thought that one was just a given...
That banning for fluff reasons is always fine, or that BOEF is always banned even when it isn't mentioned? :smalltongue:

I skimmed it once and it seemed surprisingly dull and mechanical. I don't think I saw a single nightmare inducing tentacle spell :smalltongue:. As long as everyone's an adult I don't see why you wouldn't allow material from it like everything else.

[torrasque666]

[QUOTE=ericgrau;17594065]That banning for fluff reasons is always fine, or that BOEF is always banned even when it isn't mentioned? /QUOTE]

That BOEF is usually banned.

[Sir Chuckles]

By the sound of it, the whole group did not do their "homework". I concur with the above about ToB and Psionics. If they're not banned due to setting, they're banned because someone mistakenly thinks that it's OP.

Really, it looks like you're not going to be able to play anything that stronger than "Hit thing with sword" or "Fireball every turn", as anything else will be hit by the fiat-hammer.
How does your party play? Is the Monk going to get banned because he's actually hitting things? Has your Cleric been healbotting, or has he realized that he can buff himself to godhood and back?

Generally, the ideas here are Theoretical Optimization. Practical Optimization changes from group to group, and in my old group, a 3rd level Cleric casting Enlarge Person on himself and then using the Strength Domain's granted power to charge (doing half the boss' HP) instead of buffing the Monk was considered over-powered.

When the board gives you a build, you ask yourself "How do I make this build into MY build?", and then "How do I make this build appropriate to the campaign and party?"

[squiggit]

BoEF is third party anyways, don't need to single out that it's banned.


Judging from the fact that psionics are also banned its likely "unfamiliar system, must ban it, must be broken."

Maybe. But OP didn't mention MoI, Warlocks or Binders though, and those are usually targets for that sort of ruling... or Artificiers.

[Oddman80]

BoEF is third party anyways, don't need to single out that it's banned.



Maybe. But OP didn't mention MoI, Warlocks or Binders though, and those are usually targets for that sort of ruling... or Artificiers.

There is a list of acceptable classes and races we have to abide by. Didn't feel the need to go into that as it was irrelevant to op. However only phb class banned is druid for being too overpowered. While originally, the DM said psionics were banned for being overpowered, he later admitted that he wasn't familiar with the system enough. I respected that answer more.
As for TOB, he just said he hated the book. Never really explained his reasoning though...

One other thing I feel I should mention, the colossal gargoyle queen thing wasn't the dungeon boss, or a reoccurring BBEG. The DM said the thing was important to the plot, but all he had it do was take make everyone panicked, and then take something we had, and use it to exit the dungeon via some interplanar dimension portal (maybe). BUT WE ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE PORTAL!!! He had told us about it earlier in dungeon. He had also made clear that the dungeon boss was in different room all together. Which is why I had presumed - upon swing the monstrosity- that we should be able to handle it... You know, cuz its not even the boss....
So I still don't get why it would have been such a bad thing to let it die.. But whatever.

Anyway... Yeah... I need to just talk to the DM. I know that. Otherwise, like others have mentioned, this will keep happening.

The purpose of op, was to get recommendations of alternate melee builds that people have found to be fun.
I am still interested in that if people want to chime in.

[aleucard]

That banning for fluff reasons is always fine, or that BOEF is always banned even when it isn't mentioned? :smalltongue:

I skimmed it once and it seemed surprisingly dull and mechanical. I don't think I saw a single nightmare inducing tentacle spell :smalltongue:. As long as everyone's an adult I don't see why you wouldn't allow material from it like everything else.

It doesn't have one because the perverted tentacles spell has already been made, and is core to boot. Hell, the Giant references this fact in his comic. I wonder if people realize that this is what the grapple from it actually means? XD Would also go a long way towards explaining why the caster isn't immune, although it would probably start making people wonder just how exactly the creator of the spell managed to off themselves...

[Stella]

That's the point of playing a wizard type. You do things subtle. If you attack someone for several hundred damage, then the DM can just feel his train going off the tracks. It's almost like you're attacking the railroad itself. However, if you just toss out a haste, or maybe cover the battlefield in fog, then he probably won't even feel his carefully constructed plan slipping away.
I think we're taking at cross purposes here.

"Doing things subtle" for one person, like me, might be to play a caster tossing out a pile of SoS and SoD spells instead of just doing a lot of HP damage personally. The railroading DM can easily respond with "Whoops, the enemy made their saving throw." And that shuts down the "subtle" caster just as much or more as it does the direct damage Evocation specialist when the DM arbitrarily gives the monster a few spare Hit Points. But perhaps you meant the kind of subtlety which a caster who prefers to buff his companions might attempt to introduce. And in this case, sure, you are using your spells to allow the other characters to appear as though they are equal contributors in any given fight. And that is an altruistic position for you to take. But it still doesn't counter the DM who decides via fiat that the boss monster in any given encounter is just "not supposed to die!"

The plain facts of the matter seem to be that the DM in question is either playing against his players, which is never a good thing, or he is simply not equipped to adapt to players who manage to beat the challenges which he has decided to pose his players via with methods which he did not consider. Again, it shouldn't be any great hardship for a DM for a monster he assumed would be a strong challenge, and perhaps a repeating villain, to be killed in the first encounter. The DM has all of the story crafting tools at her disposal, she can relegate the prior "boss mob" to the graveyard and work on building the animosity between the characters and the villains who survived the encounter. Or their patrons. Really, the DM is not the one who ever needs to worry about a single "that monster shouldn't have been killed!" encounter which went against the odds.

I hope that the DM foir Oddman80's campaign reads this thread. It might go a long way to improving the way that campaign is run, and also it might improve the play experience of anyone who plays in a game which Oddman80's DM runs.

When I DM I roll everything in plain sight, except for rolls which are specifically supposed to be hidden. Rolls to hit, rolls for damage, saving throws, etc. That way the players know that I'm not screwing them. And it also helps me, because it isn't infrequently that a player knows some rule tidbit that I am ignorant about and helps me ensure that I'm playing by the rules.

[VoxRationis]

Kudos! You're a brand new player, you just used the feats and abilities in the game as they were meant to be used!

I don't think a level 6 character dealing enough damage to one-shot pretty much any CR 6 creature, as well as a good deal of creatures above that CR, counts as how the aspects of that character's build were "meant" to be used.

[eggynack]

I think we're taking at cross purposes here.

"Doing things subtle" for one person, like me, might be to play a caster tossing out a pile of SoS and SoD spells instead of just doing a lot of HP damage personally. The railroading DM can easily respond with "Whoops, the enemy made their saving throw." And that shuts down the "subtle" caster just as much or more as it does the direct damage Evocation specialist when the DM arbitrarily gives the monster a few spare Hit Points. But perhaps you meant the kind of subtlety which a caster who prefers to buff his companions might attempt to introduce. And in this case, sure, you are using your spells to allow the other characters to appear as though they are equal contributors in any given fight. And that is an altruistic position for you to take. But it still doesn't counter the DM who decides via fiat that the boss monster in any given encounter is just "not supposed to die!"

The plain facts of the matter seem to be that the DM in question is either playing against his players, which is never a good thing, or he is simply not equipped to adapt to players who manage to beat the challenges which he has decided to pose his players via with methods which he did not consider. Again, it shouldn't be any great hardship for a DM for a monster he assumed would be a strong challenge, and perhaps a repeating villain, to be killed in the first encounter. The DM has all of the story crafting tools at her disposal, she can relegate the prior "boss mob" to the graveyard and work on building the animosity between the characters and the villains who survived the encounter. Or their patrons. Really, the DM is not the one who ever needs to worry about a single "that monster shouldn't have been killed!" encounter which went against the odds.

I hope that the DM foir Oddman80's campaign reads this thread. It might go a long way to improving the way that campaign is run, and also it might improve the play experience of anyone who plays in a game which Oddman80's DM runs.

When I DM I roll everything in plain sight, except for rolls which are specifically supposed to be hidden. Rolls to hit, rolls for damage, saving throws, etc. That way the players know that I'm not screwing them. And it also helps me, because it isn't infrequently that a player knows some rule tidbit that I am ignorant about and helps me ensure that I'm playing by the rules.
There are certainly deeper issues at work here that need to be solved, and my idea isn't one with a 100% success chance. I just think that it's a plan that could yield somewhat better results than what is going on currently. Tending towards buffs and battlefield control isn't so much about altruism as it is about not apparently taking up the spotlight. The fact that there is more group participation is a nice side benefit, however.

It also helps that god wizard tactics are often quite difficult to counter without being really overt. If something like that happens, and opponents start spontaneously exploding walls of force with no appropriate mechanism, or something of that kind, then at the very least that'll give everyone a better idea of the terrain. As a final benefit of casterish plans, casters, unlike barbarians, tend to be very adaptive in strategy. If the DM arbitrarily decides that transumute rock to mud is a jerk spell, and needs to be banned for some reason, then a player can easily ignore the spell completely and never stop being viable. Because of that, after communication, casters tend to be my primary solution to odd DM problems. Casters can adapt to a lot of tomfoolery, and can exist in a lot of game environments without issue. It's a good thing.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I don't think a level 6 character dealing enough damage to one-shot pretty much any CR 6 creature, as well as a good deal of creatures above that CR, counts as how the aspects of that character's build were "meant" to be used.

That character took a -8 AC for the round to do that, though. Dealing enough damage to outright kill one opponent doesn't matter when a single creature is 1/5 the encounter, and four other creatures turn and swing on the guy who just showed himself to be the greatest threat. Furthermore, flying opponents, difficult terrain, and other factors can completely neutralize this character's gimmick. Flagstone or hewn stone floors should always require a Balance check to charge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/balance.htm), and a 6th level Barbarian/Fighter can have at most 4 ranks plus he takes his armor check penalty to that. That means he has at least a ~20% chance to automatically fail his attempt to charge any time he's in a dungeon that doesn't have a brick or cobblestone floor, as well as any time he's outdoors and the ground isn't perfectly level. Plus his volume of damage is based on making three attacks, if his first swing is enough to vaporize the opponent and nothing else is in reach, his other two attacks are wasted and as I said above, the other opponents in that encounter will most likely focus on him. A first level Adept with Earth Devotion can automatically interrupt his charge, from a CR 1/2 opponent. There are plenty of vulnerabilities in what this character does, but a DM who doesn't know how to build varied and interesting encounters won't know what to do when faced with such a character.

[Red Fel]

I don't think a level 6 character dealing enough damage to one-shot pretty much any CR 6 creature, as well as a good deal of creatures above that CR, counts as how the aspects of that character's build were "meant" to be used.

I think that, from the player's perspective, that's exactly how his build was "meant" to be used. Maybe he didn't specifically want to "one-shot pretty much any CR 6 creature," but a player designing his build around battlefield control intends to maximize control of the battlefield, a player designing his build around buffing intends to maximize the effectiveness of himself and/or the party, and a player designing his build around melee damage intends to maximize his melee damage. In that player's mind, the fact that a creature gets one-shotted means situation normal - everything operating as intended.

Now, from the DM's perspective, that may not be what he wanted or intended. And if a player bent (or broke) the rules to get there, shame on the player, the DM is absolutely right to bring the hammer down. But if a player (particularly a new player, echo on the kudos) manages to pull off something that impressive and one-shot a party-appropriate encounter, that's not a case of the character not operating as it was meant to be used; that's a case of the build doing what it was designed to do, and a DM needs to either prepare better or have a sit-down with the player.

That, and the CR system is rubbish anyway. Hardly reflective of anything except minimum tactics.

[CryptbornAkryea]

As a brand new DM running my first game, as well as a player in a friend's first game, I feel like I'm learning a whole heck of a lot here about running a game versus railroading a game.

At the end of every session of my game I ask both players if they have any questions, comments, criticisms or complaints. So far only compliments have come up.
I kinda wish I'd get some criticisms for my game... so I'd know how to improve it.

...

...

...

And then there's our buddies game...
We are debating getting him a train conductor's hat. We've spoken to him about it numerous times to no effect. We have thought of walking the dungeons naked because we have no fear of death at this point.

gah

[Oddman80]

I think that, from the player's perspective, that's exactly how his build was "meant" to be used...

This is true, my goal was to have this one trick in my pocket that I would be able to use in the right circumstances. Assuming that more often than not the the stringent restrictions placed one charging would limit the frequency with which i could use it. I even picked up the twisted charge skill trick a level or two ago as a insurance policy that I could overcome at least one of the many ways a charge can be prevented. I planned on picking up a few items along the way to overcome others (e.g., MIC has a pair of boots that let you overcome difficult terrain)

It seems like the DM is just unfamiliar with the ways to prevent the charge.
(SIDENOTE: Is it my job to teach him how to stop me? I get that D&D isn't about winning. but if role playing - you are trying to get into the mindset of the character - your character does not want to die. And in the case of my character - he wants to be the biggest, strongest, hardest hitting half-orc this plane has ever seen. Maybe for people who have played a while - this isn't that big of a deal. but as a first time player - i want to hulk out and smash things. Maybe i will get it out of my system after a few campaigns are under my belt....)
This was made clear when we did get to the boss room, and mirror versions of ourselves appeared as our foes. 2x the hp on them, but otherwise, they had everything we had.... And my doppelganger was positioned 40 ft away from me.... In a straight line with no obstructions, and in a room with a nicely tiled floor.

So I'm thinking- I sure hope I win initiative on this guy.... And I do. It took two hits, but I got him in the first round. None of the others doppelgangers attack me- despite sacrificed AC. They all focus on their respective twins.

So I take my character out of play
(try making friends with the Ranger dopplegangr's animal companion). A round goes by, and the DM does do something creative (even if possibly out of spite) - he brings back my doppelganger again (this time a "shadow" version). But rather than having him charge me, he has him manifest directly next to me and strike. He rolls damage, and tells me to use my spreadsheet to let him know how much damage the npc did against me.

Me: "was he raging?"
DM: "No"
Me: "OK... Well he didn't charge me, so neither shock trooper nor leap attack damage come into play... And you didn't take a power attack penalty on your roll... So... 16 damage"

The DM wasn't thrilled.

[Sir Chuckles]

So I still don't get why it would have been such a bad thing to let it die.. But whatever.*

Anyway... Yeah... I need to just talk to the DM. I know that. Otherwise, like others have mentioned, this will keep happening.**

The purpose of op, was to get recommendations of alternate melee builds that people have found to be fun.
I am still interested in that if people want to chime in.***

* From his perspective, it was probably an "I have no alternate plan, no calculated treasure or exp rewards" situation. As a DM, I've been in those situations. The big difference? Suddenly giving the enemy plot +5 Plot Armor of DM Fiat. There were many far better ways, which would take up a thread of it's own, to handle the situation.

** Ask your group about it before talking to him, so that you don't end up with a "Well the rest of the group didn't mind!" come back, and can find wether or not the group did mind.

*** What's the rest of the part like? I can't gauge the optimization level (well) with just class names.

[Aquillion]

It looks like ToB is inexplicably banned as usual.What they should really do is talk to their DM about that. The ToB, while higher-power than the corebook fighter overall, is generally going to be less "disruptive" to it than a really overbuilt power-attacking fighter, since the power-attacking fighter breaks the damage scale in a way that fundamentally changes the context of the game.

Yes, as people said, there are plenty of ways to stop them -- but it changes the game by making HP and so forth matter significantly less, with only the question of whether the fighter can get off a charge being really decisive. A ToB class is more well-rounded -- unlikely to be shut down if they can't apply one shtick, but less likely to instantly resolve an encounter if they happen to click.


This is true, my goal was to have this one trick in my pocket that I would be able to use in the right circumstances. Assuming that more often than not the the stringent restrictions placed one charging would limit the frequency with which i could use it. I even picked up the twisted charge skill trick a level or two ago as a insurance policy that I could overcome at least one of the many ways a charge can be prevented. I planned on picking up a few items along the way to overcome others (e.g., MIC has a pair of boots that let you overcome difficult terrain)

It seems like the DM is just unfamiliar with the ways to prevent the charge.
(SIDENOTE: Is it my job to teach him how to stop me? I get that D&D isn't about winning. but if role playing - you are trying to get into the mindset of the character - your character does not want to die. And in the case of my character - he wants to be the biggest, strongest, hardest hitting half-orc this plane has ever seen. Maybe for people who have played a while - this isn't that big of a deal. but as a first time player - i want to hulk out and smash things. Maybe i will get it out of my system after a few campaigns are under my belt....)
This was made clear when we did get to the boss room, and mirror versions of ourselves appeared as our foes. 2x the hp on them, but otherwise, they had everything we had.... And my doppelganger was positioned 40 ft away from me.... In a straight line with no obstructions, and in a room with a nicely tiled floor.

So I'm thinking- I sure hope I win initiative on this guy.... And I do. It took two hits, but I got him in the first round. None of the others doppelgangers attack me- despite sacrificed AC. They all focus on their respective twins.

So I take my character out of play
(try making friends with the Ranger dopplegangr's animal companion). A round goes by, and the DM does do something creative (even if possibly out of spite) - he brings back my doppelganger again (this time a "shadow" version). But rather than having him charge me, he has him manifest directly next to me and strike. He rolls damage, and tells me to use my spreadsheet to let him know how much damage the npc did against me.

Me: "was he raging?"
DM: "No"
Me: "OK... Well he didn't charge me, so neither shock trooper nor leap attack damage come into play... And you didn't take a power attack penalty on your roll... So... 16 damage"

The DM wasn't thrilled.I think it sounds like there's a serious OOC issue here which you need to talk over with your DM.

Do remember that, while they're handling this a bit badly (they should be talking it over with you already, not using your evil doppelganger to murder you out of nowhere), it's ultimately their game -- it's perfectly reasonable for them to say "I want to run a low-optimization game" or "this build is too much for me to challenge in a balanced fashion while keeping the game running smoothly, given my current level mastery of the system." At that point it's up to you to decide if their game is worth sticking with!

But try not to make things hard for them, even if they seem like they're handling things badly. DMing is a tough job, especially if you don't know the system too well (as seems to be the case here.)

[Oddman80]

* From his perspective, it was probably an "I have no alternate plan, no calculated treasure or exp rewards" situation. As a DM, I've been in those situations. The big difference? Suddenly giving the enemy plot +5 Plot Armor of DM Fiat. There were many far better ways, which would take up a thread of it's own, to handle the situation.

** Ask your group about it before talking to him, so that you don't end up with a "Well the rest of the group didn't mind!" come back, and can find wether or not the group did mind.

*** What's the rest of the part like? I can't gauge the optimization level (well) with just class names.

* DM did give us a hefty XP reward despite not doing what he wanted - so that was nice at least.

**Good Idea. Will do.

***As I haven't played any of the other player types - im not really sure how optimized they are. The Cleric just picked up a 20 count skeleton army to do her bidding (1 hit die each) the Kobold Sorcerer seems to know what he is doing - just picked up a metamagic feat - that makes his attacks come from unexpected locations (i think that its supposed to make the saves more difficult or something) Both of them have a tendency to cast enlage or bulls strength buffs on me and send me out to smash stuff. The monk is focusing on tripping and grappling.... The ranger is a twf build... i'm not really sure what feats they have taken so far. I know most have flaws for extra feats... i wish i could be more helpful. I am clearly a standout damage dealer - but this is partly a result of somethings that happened earlier in the campaign which resulted in i being the only one who had been able to make some magic item purchases up to this point.

[RegalKain]

* DM did give us a hefty XP reward despite not doing what he wanted - so that was nice at least.

**Good Idea. Will do.

***As I haven't played any of the other player types - im not really sure how optimized they are. The Cleric just picked up a 20 count skeleton army to do her bidding (1 hit die each) the Kobold Sorcerer seems to know what he is doing - just picked up a metamagic feat - that makes his attacks come from unexpected locations (i think that its supposed to make the saves more difficult or something) Both of them have a tendency to cast enlage or bulls strength buffs on me and send me out to smash stuff. The monk is focusing on tripping and grappling.... The ranger is a twf build... i'm not really sure what feats they have taken so far. I know most have flaws for extra feats... i wish i could be more helpful. I am clearly a standout damage dealer - but this is partly a result of somethings that happened earlier in the campaign which resulted in i being the only one who had been able to make some magic item purchases up to this point.


Maybe this is the odd DM habits coming out in me but, as I DM I never mind if a player is crazy OP, it challenges me sure, the only time I tell a player to check it, is if the rest of the party asks me to do so, in that regard, ask your party how they feel about you being hulk smash there, if they have no problems with it, and are cool with you doing tons of damage to a single target under X circumstances, sit down and talk with your DM, tell him how you and the party feels, ask him if there's somehow you can help, or GITP can help so that you don't shine in every encounter, only every once in awhile etc, communication is the BIGGEST downfall of every D&D campaign I feel. If no one wants to communicate and work out a solution the problem persists and ruins the game. The only way you're playing D&D wrong is if no one at the table is having fun.

[Sir Chuckles]

As I haven't played any of the other player types - im not really sure how optimized they are. The Cleric just picked up a 20 count skeleton army to do her bidding (1 hit die each) the Kobold Sorcerer seems to know what he is doing - just picked up a metamagic feat - that makes his attacks come from unexpected locations (i think that its supposed to make the saves more difficult or something) Both of them have a tendency to cast enlage or bulls strength buffs on me and send me out to smash stuff. The monk is focusing on tripping and grappling.... The ranger is a twf build... i'm not really sure what feats they have taken so far. I know most have flaws for extra feats... i wish i could be more helpful. I am clearly a standout damage dealer - but this is partly a result of somethings that happened earlier in the campaign which resulted in i being the only one who had been able to make some magic item purchases up to this point.

Well they're clearly not clueless.
So the way I'm seeing it is:
Standard Sorcerer (He's probably using Deceptive Spell (http://dndtools.eu/feats/cityscape--53/deceptive-spell--543/), from CityScape. It does nothing except make the spell come from a different direction, as the feat explicitly states it cannot be used to gain a numerical or mechanical advantage.)
NecroMinionmancer Cleric, who seems to be moderately optimized (20HD of undead requires some resources put into necromancy)
A Monk
And a Ranger with an unknown optimization level

If this is the case, it seems like you might not be the problem. You've explicity stated to your DM that you are built for Sprinting in like a mad man and pummeling your target into chunky salsa. If he then responds with a single giant enemy, AKA "A dude wearing a 'I come with my own seasoning packet' sign taped to a target ring.", then he's making DM mistakes and responding to you and his own mistakes in the worst possible way.

Reducing your optimization is not wholly necessary, as you have self-control (shown in the doppelganger encounter). Try giving him the DM advice seen in this very thread, as well as hinting to him that you're specifically built as the giant slayer, and that any time he puts a giant in front of you, it's going to be slain. You know what you're not built for? 17 Halflings with slings and darts using Brachiation to surround you.

[RegalKain]

Snip

I kinda touched on it in my post as well, as have others. But really, instead of re-working your entire character and concept (It sucks being a first time playing and having to do so, especially if you enjoy the character.) get your GM to come to GITP, have him look around, hell have him read this thread, you were a little annoyed in your OP sure, but in some ways, rightfully so. Help him learn and grow as a player and as a GM, you'll both be happier in the long run, if he adamantly refuses, and doesn't want to learn at all, then I'd say abandon ship and find a new group. =/ I've been forced to learn more and more of this system and others as I've played these games, and my players have brought more and more oddities to the table.

[Spore]

I never understood the banning of TOB. Sure they're some solid choices there, however; neither a crusader nor warblade can pull the shenanigans a wizard, druid, or cleric can pull. Granted a lock down crusader is fun as hell but they can be countered and shut down. So why ban a book that has really solid classes that are fun when there are core classes that can still kick there ass?

Point is while Wizards and all casters can be SUBTLE about their mechanics (and the players need to prepare a lot for evenings) a warblade doing a gazillion points of damage - tearing your carefully prepped encounter limb from limb - is less gamebreaking but more brutal.

A DM can live with a wizard slowly but surely becoming invincible due to Contingency, can manipulate the king with Charm Person or the druid stops a whole army with one casting of [create instant moat]. But a barbarian goes through the enemy lines jumps the enemy Aristocrat 9/Fighter 3 general and cuts his head off.

[Vizzerdrix]

Reroll as a commoner. When you are subject to any negative effect just say " Nope. Herbert isn't supposed to die yet."

[RedMage125]

I think the people who are crying "he would only ban psionics and TOB because he mistakenly thinks they're OP" need to back off a bit.

As someone who DMs a lot, I am extremely hesitant to allow any of the books that introduce new systems into the game, and I do not allow ones I am not familiar with. That may be the case.

For instance:
I know nothing of Incarnum, therefore I do not allow it. Not saying it's OP, but if I know nothing of the system, I can't even begin to properly make some stuff for that PC that he/she might find unique and enticing for him/her.
I have the XPH and have read it thoroughly. I have only ever banned psionics in some campaigns where it was not thematically appropriate to the setting. I usually allow it, but if I'm running in my homebrew world, I forewarn players that psionics are fairly uncommon in my world, so while the wizard will find scrolls like they're going out of style, don't expect a whole bunch of psionic items. I'll include some, but they're less common.
I have only briefly skimmed the ToM, and everything I saw revolted me. I disallow that one because I just plain don't like it. I don't like the thematics or the mechanics of truename magic; shadow magic just seems kind of watery and lame; and vestige magic...has some interesting flavor, but I just don't like the way it was executed. I freely acknowledge all of this as personal preference.
Now, to the much-debated ToB. I don't own the book. I have only ever briefly skimmed it. Someone gave me a PDF of it, but I've never been able to muster the interest to actually read up on it. I prefer actual books, and if a player in my game really wanted to make a ToB character, and owned the book, this is what I think I would do: If we were planning on starting that session, I would tell them to make another non-ToB character for the interim, if I could borrow their book until the next week's session and read up on the material. Once I read it, I would let them know if they could re-make their character as a ToB class, basically retconning it ("Oh no, John's Ranger was always a swordsage and not a ranger...:smallsmile:"). I've heard good things about the ToB, in terms of game balance. I just don't know how it works.

So, while we're all pretty much on board with judging that Oddman's DM made a big mistake as a DM, let's not jump to conclusions and get all uppity over other choices that we may know nothing about his reasons for.

Oh, and I don't allow the BoEF. Then again, I don't allow any other 3rd party material, either. So BoEF isn't exactly singled out in that regard.

[Threadnaught]

(SIDENOTE: Is it my job to teach him how to stop me? I get that D&D isn't about winning. but if role playing - you are trying to get into the mindset of the character - your character does not want to die. And in the case of my character - he wants to be the biggest, strongest, hardest hitting half-orc this plane has ever seen. Maybe for people who have played a while - this isn't that big of a deal. but as a first time player - i want to hulk out and smash things. Maybe i will get it out of my system after a few campaigns are under my belt....)

I've already advised you not only to teach your DM how to counter you, but to also keep a close eye on how often they completely shut you down as opposed to all the other players.


This was made clear when we did get to the boss room, and mirror versions of ourselves appeared as our foes. 2x the hp on them, but otherwise, they had everything we had.... And my doppelganger was positioned 40 ft away from me.... In a straight line with no obstructions, and in a room with a nicely tiled floor.

So I'm thinking- I sure hope I win initiative on this guy.... And I do. It took two hits, but I got him in the first round. None of the others doppelgangers attack me- despite sacrificed AC. They all focus on their respective twins.

So I take my character out of play
(try making friends with the Ranger dopplegangr's animal companion). A round goes by, and the DM does do something creative (even if possibly out of spite) - he brings back my doppelganger again (this time a "shadow" version). But rather than having him charge me, he has him manifest directly next to me and strike. He rolls damage, and tells me to use my spreadsheet to let him know how much damage the npc did against me.

Me: "was he raging?"
DM: "No"
Me: "OK... Well he didn't charge me, so neither shock trooper nor leap attack damage come into play... And you didn't take a power attack penalty on your roll... So... 16 damage"

The DM wasn't thrilled.

Your DM was quite lazy here, hoping to use your character's most powerful ability against him, but without using the tactics you use that make him so powerful. Please tell me he didn't spend the entire combat reviving your character's doppleganger until everyone else finished with theirs.


Seeing as you are trivially making life difficult for your DM due to your superior system mastery, I think you should have a go at DMing. It will at the very least, give your DM the opportunity to experiment with these kind of builds himself.
If this doesn't fix the problem, then go Horizon Tripper if you want to stick to melee.

[nedz]

Charging is situationally OP, at least until you can fly, because terrain can shut it down easily. BC can also shut it down without too much trouble, even if you can fly, so it is all or nothing.

We could suggest a lock down build, unfortunately Stand Still is in Expanded Psionic Handbook (even though it's not a psionic feat) and several other options are in ToB. This leaves fear stacking options which are described here (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=8759).

[Synar]

It doesn't have one because the perverted tentacles spell has already been made, and is core to boot. Hell, the Giant references this fact in his comic. I wonder if people realize that this is what the grapple from it actually means? XD Would also go a long way towards explaining why the caster isn't immune, although it would probably start making people wonder just how exactly the creator of the spell managed to off themselves...

That is your interpretation. Actual animals with tentacles or tentacle-like appendices or body (like serpents) do grapple things without doing anything remotely perverted, unless you've got a thing for octopus. (And some of them actually do bludgeoning damages or kill by constricting.) I find the fact that you assume this is the 'normal' and intended interpretation a bit scary and offensive, honestly.
Of course this spell is best used at a mature table.

[Red Fel]

I think the people who are crying "he would only ban psionics and TOB because he mistakenly thinks they're OP" need to back off a bit.

As someone who DMs a lot, I am extremely hesitant to allow any of the books that introduce new systems into the game, and I do not allow ones I am not familiar with. That may be the case.

This is a perfectly valid position, and one I respect. I think a DM is wise to exclude from the table any material with which he is unfamiliar, because having to cross-reference and double-check everything bogs down everyone's fun and creates an air of mistrust that nobody needs.

That said, in the OP's case, it sounds like a combination of "not at my table because I don't know it" (which is fine) and "melee can't have nice things" (which is not fine). The OP's character was built without ToB, with what on this board constitutes fairly standard melee fare, and did an excellent job at its admittedly narrow function. The DM's response was disproportionate and is now resulting in a rebuild. This suggests that the DM is not okay with melee being adept at its narrow band of abilities (i.e. "melee can't have nice things,") which would explain the banning of ToB.

That said:


Now, to the much-debated ToB. I don't own the book. I have only ever briefly skimmed it. Someone gave me a PDF of it, but I've never been able to muster the interest to actually read up on it. I prefer actual books, and if a player in my game really wanted to make a ToB character, and owned the book, this is what I think I would do: If we were planning on starting that session, I would tell them to make another non-ToB character for the interim, if I could borrow their book until the next week's session and read up on the material. Once I read it, I would let them know if they could re-make their character as a ToB class, basically retconning it ("Oh no, John's Ranger was always a swordsage and not a ranger...:smallsmile:"). I've heard good things about the ToB, in terms of game balance. I just don't know how it works.

I... kind of have an issue with this one. I like that you're open-minded about it; I think that's the mark of a good DM. But that not-quite-retcon just seems a bit sloppy, to me, honestly. In a situation where the players meet exceedingly infrequently, or have very busy schedules, (and I don't know yours, so I can't comment on it) it would make sense. But where players live in the same general area, or can see each other on a reasonably regular basis, it seems a better option to me to have players interested in new material (e.g. ToB) to bring it to the DM in advance of the session (perhaps by a week), and for the DM to enter judgment in advance of the session, rather than to have to build a character, hoping that the DM will retcon.

After all, what if the player's second choice wasn't melee at all, but a Wizard? He rolls a Ranger (or maybe a Monk) because it's close to the Swordsage he wanted, and easy to retcon... And is then told, "No, I looked this over and I don't think I'm ready to have it at my table." Which is a fair ruling, but now the player has this Monk, and what's he going to do with a Monk, I mean it's so... Ugh... And now he basically has to scrap the character, wasted effort, sore feelings.

Sorry. Bit of a tangent.

[Teapot Salty]

I get the feeling that you should try a different class, instead of compromising build integrity. Damage is scary, because it's very clear how much you're doing in the game, particularly compared to your allies. I suspect that, if you swapped over to a more magic based class, and dominated the game in that fashion, then you wouldn't receive as much flak. You could even do things like successfully take down a gargantuan gargoyle queen, mostly single handed, and make it look like enough of a team effort that you wouldn't get glares of cruelty. In other words, be god. Any full caster would do, really, though I'd obviously advise against optimizing for damage (so tend away from mailman, DMM persist face-beatery, and venomfire). Things would probably go better.

The sheer novelty of becoming a caster to "reduce optimization" is kind of funny. Although I'm pretty sure it's just to shift the spotlight. Regardless, drop one of the barbarian levels, or go normal rage instead of whirling frenzy, it won't quite stop you from being a smasher that the hulk would be proud of, but it makes things a lot closer.

[Oddman80]

** Ask your group about it before talking to him, so that you don't end up with a "Well the rest of the group didn't mind!" come back, and can find wether or not the group did mind.

So I spoke with the individual members of the party, and they were all apparently thrilled with my damage output. It wasn't stunting their enjoyment in any way... And in fact, most of them felt like I was one of their weapons. Hmmm not sure I can phrase this clearly...
They know I am my own character, and I am in control of him... But he it part of THEIR adventuring party , and is therefore also like a weapon in their arsenal that they can deploy (I am a cautious player- so I am unlikely to charge something that we haven't already engaged in combat, without seeking approval from the group).

So yeah... Time to have a conversation with the DM.

[Juntao112]

So I spoke with the individual members of the party, and they were all apparently thrilled with my damage output. It wasn't stunting their enjoyment in any way... And in fact, most of them felt like I was one of their weapons. Hmmm not sure I can phrase this clearly...

They think you're a tool.

[Oddman80]

:confused:
They think you're a tool.
hrmmm... when you phrase it like that...
I guess... Technically. But they certainly phrased it better than that.

[The Insanity]

They think you're a tool.
OR they think he's useful.

[Oddman80]

OR they think he's useful.

Yeah. Lets go with this :)

[aleucard]

That is your interpretation. Actual animals with tentacles or tentacle-like appendices or body (like serpents) do grapple things without doing anything remotely perverted, unless you've got a thing for octopus. (And some of them actually do bludgeoning damages or kill by constricting.) I find the fact that you assume this is the 'normal' and intended interpretation a bit scary and offensive, honestly.
Of course this spell is best used at a mature table.

And I find the fact that you apparently need tinted text to tell if I'm being a smartass to be worrying about your cognitive functions and reading comprehension. Interesting how things can turn out, innit?

Alright, so it seems the only part of the group that has problems with you being a living ballistic missile is the DM. What you need to do is, as a group, ask him why he's being a hardass about this when your character's entire design philosophy revolves around doing this, to the detriment of almost any other action in combat? If needs be, direct him to this thread. Tie him up and plop his ass in front of a computer if you have to. This guy needs to understand just how less powerful an Ubercharger is against basically half the party by default.

[HighWater]

And I find the fact that you apparently need tinted text to tell if I'm being a smartass to be worrying about your cognitive functions and reading comprehension. Interesting how things can turn out, innit?
Sarcasm, irony, or whatever you want to call it, is surprisingly hard to judge correctly and consistently in written form. Seeing as it's often hard to tell the difference between someone being weird and somebody parodying being weird, perhaps you should consider being slightly less hostile when somebody misses your jest and mistakes it for a serious statement. A reply along the lines of "Dude, j/king!" would have sufficed. :smallsigh:

@Oddman80
"Be careful or we UNLEASH THE ODDMAN" is a fun party-function. Sounds like the party would be interested in setting up their battleplan in ways that enable you to do your shtick more consistently. Well, after the DM's been amended, of course. :smallwink:

[atemu1234]

The thing is, my PCs understand this: I need to learn a system before it can be incorporated into the game. If one of them really wanted to run Incarnum, I'd get around to reading Incarnum. If one of them really wanted a Wilder, I'd read up on psionics (of which I have a passing knowledge). I allow Tome of Battle classes, even though I'm a little below par on my understanding of it. I allow third-party content on a case-by-case basis. For example, I'd never let a PC run a Dedicated Evoker. Just no. But when a player optimizes I hold nothing against them (indeed, it's part of the reason I love the game- PCs doing things you don't expect) but this DM sounds downright unreasonable. For beings that need to survive for plot reasons, give some warning. At least stat the thing, so that if the PCs want to kill it, they can. But also don't encourage it. I'm not against saying, "That was an important NPC. You just killed him. Congrats, but you don't get XP." This may seem unfair, but at the same time, I like to have a basic plot. Basically, when PCs roleplay well there is no such thing as a bad move for them. If they kill an important NPC because it would solve the plot even though I didn't plan on it, good for them, they get XP. But if one of the children in this village is an Unholy Scion, then killing every child in the village is not a viable option. Just saying.

But I would never, and I mean never, give an NPC plot armor. I always give the important NPCs an out anyway. I don't want him to die, he's going to be followed by an entourage of bodyguards and other NPCs. Or a powerful caster in his own right. And if I really, really need to keep the PCs alive, I'll fudge a few rolls. For example, the old, "No one saw that roll" cheat is a good way to stop the game from taking the short route from fun to TPK. And if one of the villains wasn't supposed to die, this game has no shortage of ways to resurrect him. I may as well let the PCs kill himself. I once had an NPC lich with Revive Undead contingencied onto him. So if he died, it'd say when his corpse was safe to have it happen to him, he'd be revived. It made him so much more of a pain for the players when they found out the lich, who'd they'd killed a tarrasque to destroy the phylactery of, was undead and kicking. Of course, I had to explain how later. But at least it made sense.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Yeah. Lets go with this :)

Or totally start calling yourself King Tool?

Has a nice ring to it... (Read erfworld btw)

[Sir Chuckles]

:confused:
hrmmm... when you phrase it like that...
I guess... Technically. But they certainly phrased it better than that.

You built a tactical nuke (Well, maybe not a nuke, but pretty close). Emphasis on the tactical.

I'd say that you should spend build resources upping a secondary option, and saving your charge attack for glaringly obvious enemies. When it's six normal gargoyles, start throwing hammers or something similar, and pick up some Masterwork Tools to bump up certain skills and put that strength to use for Climbing and such. That will quell the party.

Come back after you talk to the DM, as that will be the ultimate deciding factor. Try typing/writing out his response interview style! That would be great for us to help.

...as for that tangent before about ToB and such, if a player asks you to play something and you're willing learn, especially if it's absolutely no hassle to obtain the information, you shouldn't tell them to build an alternate character, you should do everything in your power to allow his character. I didn't really know Psionics until one of my players wanted to try it, so his character was a trial test of it. It worked wonderfully, and now the whole group understands the system.