Dealing with Caster hate

[Azoth]

Okay, so in my gaming group. Two of us play either 6/9 or 9/9 casters regularly. There is one guy who continuously bags on us for it. Typical remarks like "Just let the God (insert caster class here) handle it.", "Why are the rest of us here?", "Wonder what insanity you two built now?".

Now the other player and myself both have higher system mastery than the griper. We have offered to teach him, and been met with disinterest or schedule complaints. We have pointed him to the boards and he has ignored the advice.

We have even avoided God/Batman builds. Played Buffers, debuffers, summoning builds, even a few blasters...and are still met with the same responses. He calls out the group victories in hard fights as having hinged on the buffs/debuffs/control spells, so he is aware of the caster contribution, but is still inclined to gripe about it.

Any ideas on how to deal with this kind of thing? The other cater player and I are considering for the next game to just play completely mundane characters to show him what a game looks like without having casters, but are a bit loathe to do something like that out of spite.

[Venger]

Is he the gm's brother and you're forced to include him to play at that house, or what? Why would you want to continue to associate with a person like this? As with a lot of issues like this, this is an ooc issue and as a result does not have an ic solution.

[Particle_Man]

Well according to Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit, you should . . .

Let him have one "spell free" fight, where the casters do nothing at all except protect themselves (maybe invisibility would work here, or even dimension door/teleport themselves and the rest of the party who like spellcasters away). Either the player character gets their moment to shine, or the player character dies horribly.

[Gildedragon]

Well I'd ask them what's their problem. Try and solve it out of play.

[JNAProductions]

Yeah, this sounds like an OOC issue. And, assuming no bias, they sound like a tool.

[Azoth]

I am not necessarily sure it just caster hate, or if it is Anti Optimization thing.

I just remembered a few years ago when we tried doing a Changeling game. He flipped out and had issues over my Dual Kith character being able to easily grab two Changelings at the same time and drive them into a wall nearby for a OHKO, that nearly killed them. Granted the same character also ran down an SUV on the interstate and pulled a pit maneuver via shoulder bashing it. Guy was only good at a handful of things, but he excelled there.

He suggested Shadow Run at one point, but quickly dropped it when he realized I knew the system pretty well. Apparently just talking about Troll-Bow, Grenade Adepts, and Agent Smith were enough to make him not want to play the system.

He is a good guy, and fun to hang out with when not doing TTRPGs. TTRPGs just tend to bring out the whining. I might try suggesting Dragon Age or something really simple that you can't tweak the Baator out of.

[Venger]

He is a good guy, and fun to hang out with when not doing TTRPGs. TTRPGs just tend to bring out the whining. I might try suggesting Dragon Age or something really simple that you can't tweak the Baator out of.

Then not playing ttrpgs with him is indeed probably your best course of action.

[Fizban]

Well if you want to be antagonistic, you could always just build a non-caster that wipes the floor with him instead.

More difficult, get the DM to build an adventure as if you had casters, then show up with non-casters of the same power level as mr complainer, then watch as everyone dies horribly without spell support in a game that is designed for a party makeup of 2/4 casters.

[sleepyphoenixx]

It sounds like he's too lazy to learn a system enough to optimize himself but can't deal with the fact that he's then outdone in actual play. So he whines about it instead.

You can't really win that one. He doesn't want to optimize, he doesn't want you to help him optimize and he doesn't want you to optimize either, because nobody likes playing the sidekick.
So you can either put up with his whining, play only boring characters or stop playing with him.

[tiercel]

I'll add to those saying there is an OOC issue here that needs to be dealt with out of game.

This person is being a jerk instead communicating more directly what he'd prefer to do.

Is it because he'd rather be playing in a more "beer and pretzels"-playstyle group? Or even a "Tier 3+" or even "Tier 4+" kind of game? It can be frustrating (in either direction) when you feel like your playstyle or optimization level doesn't mesh with the rest of the group, and being told "well you're just not playing right" -- either him being told he needs to optimize more, or him telling you to optimize less -- can be frustrating.

Does he have the reasonable option of being in a different game? (Especially if the DM and other players are all comfortable with the existing style/optimization.). Sometimes the frustrating thing is that it's not easy to find a different gaming group -- but if I were the "odd player out" I'd try to figure out whether I could match my group a little better (or at least make my playstyle complement, if not match, theirs better) or simply not play with them.

I'm not saying you lead with threatening to eject this person from your group, but find out why he wants to play D&D (1) at all and (2) with your group before you can figure out what would make the game work better for all of you -- or, if nothing else, if he'd actually be happier in a different game/group.

[Darth Ultron]

Any ideas on how to deal with this kind of thing? The other cater player and I are considering for the next game to just play completely mundane characters to show him what a game looks like without having casters, but are a bit loathe to do something like that out of spite.

Talk to him, never know it might work.

You could just ignore it.

You could always change your playstlye, though he likely won't notice if your still a spellcaster character.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You've taken every reasonable step to solve this.

Tell him to shut the hell up with his whining. He doesn't have to play and he's bringing everybody else down.

When you extend the olive branch and they set it on fire, you beat them with the burning branch until they flee or take the stupid thing; metaphorically speaking.

[Vizzerdrix]

Tell him to shut the hell up with his whining. He doesn't have to play and he's bringing everybody else down.

This! A thousand times this!

[Aetis]

I've met players like this before.

If you wish to play them where you and they can both enjoy the game, then you should find a game where character creation/customization isn't a thing.

If you can find a game where the player characters start at equal footing, they tend to enjoy those kind of games a lot more.

[Zombulian]

Okay, so in my gaming group. Two of us play either 6/9 or 9/9 casters regularly. There is one guy who continuously bags on us for it. Typical remarks like "Just let the God (insert caster class here) handle it.", "Why are the rest of us here?", "Wonder what insanity you two built now?".

Now the other player and myself both have higher system mastery than the griper. We have offered to teach him, and been met with disinterest or schedule complaints. We have pointed him to the boards and he has ignored the advice.

We have even avoided God/Batman builds. Played Buffers, debuffers, summoning builds, even a few blasters...and are still met with the same responses. He calls out the group victories in hard fights as having hinged on the buffs/debuffs/control spells, so he is aware of the caster contribution, but is still inclined to gripe about it.

Any ideas on how to deal with this kind of thing? The other cater player and I are considering for the next game to just play completely mundane characters to show him what a game looks like without having casters, but are a bit loathe to do something like that out of spite.

Honestly... why do you care what he thinks? If he's unwilling to gain system mastery why would he care about disparate power levels in the first place? If you don't have the imagination/drive to build something beyond "I hit it with my suhwaaard" then why do you care that there are other people who don't want to play that way?
That's like a 3 year old crushing a cookie in his hand and upon realizing he can't eat a crushed cookie, he cries until the parents make the older kids crush their cookies too. Like... that's not how it works. Just don't crush your cookie ya dingus.

Edit: Most of all I'm curious about how bad the whining is. Is he *really* whiny enough to make you want to intentionally make your own play less fun?

[syryous]

Save this person! If they are not interested in the way you play the game, suggest they find people that think more like them. This is a board for optimizing a 15 year old system that like 14 people still care about, not so much for psychiatric help. If it were me, I would help them find people that want to play similarly and not let if affect my game.

[Zanos]

I've encountered people like this before. From folks who rag on people who play casters with passive aggressive statements like "Yeah, I just prefer classes where everything isn't handed to me" and "why don't we just let X do everything?", despite the caster pretty much never taking the spotlight and the persons own character either being dumpster tier or being so tweaked out that it's actually them that's constantly doing everything, and screwing with game balance while they can't stand not being the center of attention for a single encounter or scene.

Sounds like you know this guy pretty well, so I'd just call him out on his complaining.

[Azoth]

The whining isn't so bad in any one session, but after 2+ years of it once a week for 7+hrs every session it gets old.

One of his biggest problems with us/optimization in general is the divorce of fluff and crunch. The other caster player and I are more than capable of adapting fluff to match our mechanics. He tries to shoehorn mechanics around fluff.

He doesn't get things like stealth is all but useless without ways to negate special senses, or a way to trigger it without cover/concealment.

Then again he got a bit flustered when he said you can't build a Necromancy based Druid in Pathfinder, and I pointed out a Samsaran Druid with Groves of Uskwood and Dreamed Secrets feats can do it. Won't be optimal, but it can function.

[syryous]

One of his biggest problems with us/optimization in general is the divorce of fluff and crunch. The other caster player and I are more than capable of adapting fluff to match our mechanics. He tries to shoehorn mechanics around fluff.


THIS is the disconnect. You nailed it. No matter how much fluff you give your mechanics, you're still playing mechanics and not a character.

[Zanos]

THIS is the disconnect. You nailed it. No matter how much fluff you give your mechanics, you're still playing mechanics and not a character.
Balls of fluff tend to lack for die faces, so I prefer not to roll them at my table.

[syryous]

Balls of fluff tend to lack for die faces, so I prefer not to roll them at my table.

That's great. Doesn't make sense, but great none the less.

[Zanos]

That's great. Doesn't make sense, but great none the less.
It's a joke, but I'm pointing out that even characters made to focus on their backstory at the exclusion of mechanical aspects have to roll dice to hit stuff at the end of the day, and if your character concept is of someone competent at a task, they need to be mechanically competent at that task.

You don't roll your backstory to hit.

[syryous]

Your assumption is that a character is backstory? It's not an ongoing, living, and organic thing? I love optimization, don't get me wrong, but the echo chamber will never get it.

You play your game the way you want, if this person does not like it, send them on their way.

[atemu1234]

I can't think of too much outside of what has already been said.

Talk to the DM about dropping him; he clearly disagrees with the core intent of the game (which is to say, a party including casters) and is probably better off opening up his 'busy schedule' doing something else. He'd probably enjoy it more.

[Potato_Priest]

When you extend the olive branch and they set it on fire, you beat them with the burning branch until they flee or take the stupid thing; metaphorically speaking.

May I sig that?

[Zanos]

Your assumption is that a character is backstory? It's not an ongoing, living, and organic thing? I love optimization, don't get me wrong, but the echo chamber will never get it.
Their personality and level? Sure are organic. Your, strength score, feat choice, and class selection? Not as mutable. A character that starts with strength 10 so you could RP someone coming into the role of a strong fighter over time is pretty much always going to suck at fighting.


You play your game the way you want, if this person does not like it, send them on their way.
Neither the op or the person he had an issue with is the DM. And that's a pretty terrible philosophy because it assumes disagreements can't ever be worked out or someone can't accept something they disagree with if they have the rationale explained. Not gonna tell the guys I've been buddies with for decades to stop playing in my game because they say something negative about my tables style.

That said this guy does just seem like a grumpy jerk.

[syryous]

Neither the op or the person he had an issue with is the DM. And that's a pretty terrible philosophy because it assumes disagreements can't ever be worked out or someone can't accept something they disagree with if they have the rationale explained. Not gonna tell the guys I've been buddies with for decades to stop playing in my game because they say something negative about my tables style.

So if someone at your table wasn't enjoying your game and you were not willing to cater to their play style, no part of you would suggest they find a more appropriate group? I would hope my "buddies" would do that for me.

[Zanos]

So if someone at your table wasn't enjoying your game and you were not willing to cater to their play style, no part of you would suggest they find a more appropriate group? I would hope my "buddies" would do that for me.
Depends on a thousand different factors, but kicking people from my table is only my first reaction to a problem if it's an extreme situation.

[syryous]

Everyone else at the table wants to play Monopoly but one person want's to play Life, it's really no different. Either that person gets on board and plays Monopoly or, if you're a "buddy", you help them find other people that want to play Life. Seems simple to me.

[Calthropstu]

Actually, I'm going to defend him.

A lot of the people on this forum come off as colossal jerks. I have seen some ridiculous over optimization and, even accounting for less optimization than supremely necessary, it is hard to not pick up a good number of tricks from here especially when you get into the nitty gritty of how to use practical optimization.
Which is going to frustrate players who don't WANT to optimize, rendering their characters seriously sub par. It becomes a matter of either doing something they don't want to do, or watching the other characters shine.
Maybe my ridiculous crossbow wielding ranged disarm specialist isn't going to be able to lay waste to an enemy horde, but it's FUN. And then comes along mr practical optimization trying to tell me I'm doing it wrong.

Yeah, I'm gonna be a little pissed off.

[Gruftzwerg]

How about switching roles/characters next time? He has to play a caster for 1 session and you play the noncaster for a session. Everybody gets a feeling from the other "side" and maybe something good will come out?^^

[Vitruviansquid]

Okay, so in my gaming group. Two of us play either 6/9 or 9/9 casters regularly. There is one guy who continuously bags on us for it. Typical remarks like "Just let the God (insert caster class here) handle it.", "Why are the rest of us here?", "Wonder what insanity you two built now?".

Now the other player and myself both have higher system mastery than the griper. We have offered to teach him, and been met with disinterest or schedule complaints. We have pointed him to the boards and he has ignored the advice.

We have even avoided God/Batman builds. Played Buffers, debuffers, summoning builds, even a few blasters...and are still met with the same responses. He calls out the group victories in hard fights as having hinged on the buffs/debuffs/control spells, so he is aware of the caster contribution, but is still inclined to gripe about it.

Any ideas on how to deal with this kind of thing? The other cater player and I are considering for the next game to just play completely mundane characters to show him what a game looks like without having casters, but are a bit loathe to do something like that out of spite.

Your friend constantly complains about OP casters, so you and the other optimizer offered to teach him to become the thing the hates?

Of course that doesn't work. Your friend never learned to play an OP caster, because he doesn't like OP casters, not because he's lazy.

You tried other systems, but then you optimized in those systems too, so of course your friend's problem doesn't go away.

Look at it this way:

For many players, when they first discover RPGs, they find a wondrous hobby where you can experience epic adventures, whether they're Lord of the Rings or Beowulf or Game of Thrones or Harry Potter, and such. But better than simply re-telling the stories, you get to BECOME the stories, and better than in a video game, you get to do so without having to stay within the confines of a computer's pre-programmed assumptions. Imagine opening up the player's handbook of a fresh D&D, and finding all these cool archetypes of characters that all seem to do things in different ways and have their different personalities and each are presented as being cool in their own way.

Then you inevitably discover optimization. And what optimization does, is tells you, "no, these characters aren't all cool in their own ways. The Fighter sucks, the Rogue sucks, and the Wizard is an all-powerful god."Finding out about optimization in DnD is the understanding that DnD isn't actually Lord of the Rings because Legolas sucks and Gandalf isn't a subtle ally of good, but a garish Naruto character.

Some players embrace optimization. They see it as a new way to play, an interesting puzzle to figure out, or an engine to create fun insanity. They're the kind of players who go onto internet forums to read about optimization, like you and I. Other players make peace with it and find ways to ignore optimization. They're the kind who refer often to "The Stormwind Fallacy" and who tend to not mind crippling their characters "for roleplay purposes." But there's also a type of player who, at some intersection of competitiveness and sense of fair play and nostalgia and stubbornness, can't handle the existence of optimization. They aren't happy to play optimized, because it feels unfair and against roleplaying to them. They aren't happy to play unoptimized because then they feel underpowered and feel they don't get any spotlight. These are the kinds of players that your friend belongs to.

And the thing about Optimization is, once you understand that it exists, you can't un-understand it. The Djinni is out of the bottle. Unless you switch system.

Yes, you have switched systems before, but you have also brought optimization into those systems immediately upon switching. So that didn't work. Instead, you can try two tricks:

1. Switch system again, and this time, it's a new system for everybody. You all learn the new system together, and try not to read anything online about it.

2. Switch system again, and this time, you don't talk about optimization. Instead, you even explain that optimization isn't really much of a thing in this new system, because it's designed to keep characters all at about the same power level (whether or not this is actually true).

Or another possibility is your friend just enjoys whining for the sake of whining.

[Azoth]

Actually, I'm going to defend him.

A lot of the people on this forum come off as colossal jerks. I have seen some ridiculous over optimization and, even accounting for less optimization than supremely necessary, it is hard to not pick up a good number of tricks from here especially when you get into the nitty gritty of how to use practical optimization.
Which is going to frustrate players who don't WANT to optimize, rendering their characters seriously sub par. It becomes a matter of either doing something they don't want to do, or watching the other characters shine.
Maybe my ridiculous crossbow wielding ranged disarm specialist isn't going to be able to lay waste to an enemy horde, but it's FUN. And then comes along mr practical optimization trying to tell me I'm doing it wrong.

Yeah, I'm gonna be a little pissed off.

Dude, I get being told you're doing it wrong will piss anyone off.

Just like when you roll up a Samsaran Pact Wizard with the Healing Patron who snagged some cures/Heal from the Witch List, and is using the Transmutation (Enhancement) School to make a support/buff based caster...and hearing about how that is more BS than going Divination (Foresight) or Conjuration (teleportation) because now you can be a healbot AND a Wizard!

Just like hearing how it is BS that when no one can find the next plot hook with any Knowledge check, Gather Information check, or talking to random NPCs that the Wizard casts Contact Other Plane to ask a god directly what in the Abyss do we do next.

[Calthropstu]

How about switching roles/characters next time? He has to play a caster for 1 session and you play the noncaster for a session. Everybody gets a feeling from the other "side" and maybe something good will come out?^^

I second this suggestion.

Another suggestion? Make a noncombatant wizard. No buffing, no summons, no minionmancy, no attack spells, no dominates, no save or sucks. Only use spells outside of combat. Teleport, dimension door, locate object, overland flight, control weather etc. Maybe able to use wall of ice/force etc in combat.
Let his great axe barbarian shine in combat, while you shine out of it.

[Calthropstu]

Dude, I get being told you're doing it wrong will piss anyone off.

Just like when you roll up a Samsaran Pact Wizard with the Healing Patron who snagged some cures/Heal from the Witch List, and is using the Transmutation (Enhancement) School to make a support/buff based caster...and hearing about how that is more BS than going Divination (Foresight) or Conjuration (teleportation) because now you can be a healbot AND a Wizard!

Just like hearing how it is BS that when no one can find the next plot hook with any Knowledge check, Gather Information check, or talking to random NPCs that the Wizard casts Contact Other Plane to ask a god directly what in the Abyss do we do next.

You're not getting it are you? Your optimization is what is pissing this guy off. Why did you need to pick up the healing spells from the witch list? You're playing a wizard: the one class with the best spell list in the game then you are adding more to it. The wizard buffs are already amazing, you need to do the healing too? No wonder this guy is on your case, you really ARE putting together fairly potent characters.
The Contact Other Plane thing, sure it might be overreacting. But it kinda sounds like you regularly do things the rest of the party can't. So you're going to get some overreacting.
Tone down your characters about 3 notches.

[Fizban]

Just like hearing how it is BS that when no one can find the next plot hook with any Knowledge check, Gather Information check, or talking to random NPCs that the Wizard casts Contact Other Plane to ask a god directly what in the Abyss do we do next.
Yeah, that really supports the "just drop all the casters and laugh at what happens"-"plan." Adventure stalls out and the world ends because the enemy has magic that you can't counter because someone can't stand having a caster in the party? Awesome.

Unless pathfinder has some "mundane" guys that can do all the stuff, which would be even better. There's gotta be some tunnel of feats and ACFs that'll get you ridiculous info gathering or smelling portals or whatever this guy doesn't want people to do.

[Calthropstu]

Yeah, that really supports the "just drop all the casters and laugh at what happens"-"plan." Adventure stalls out and the world ends because the enemy has magic that you can't counter because someone can't stand having a caster in the party? Awesome.

Unless pathfinder has some "mundane" guys that can do all the stuff, which would be even better. There's gotta be some tunnel of feats and ACFs that'll get you ridiculous info gathering or smelling portals or whatever this guy doesn't want people to do.

Only if the GM really sucks at his job. In that situation, normally the GM throws the party a bone and they get the info they need.

[Azoth]

You're not getting it are you? Your optimization is what is pissing this guy off. Why did you need to pick up the healing spells from the witch list? You're playing a wizard: the one class with the best spell list in the game then you are adding more to it. The wizard buffs are already amazing, you need to do the healing too? No wonder this guy is on your case, you really ARE putting together fairly potent characters.
The Contact Other Plane thing, sure it might be overreacting. But it kinda sounds like you regularly do things the rest of the party can't. So you're going to get some overreacting.
Tone down your characters about 3 notches.

When you hear no one is playing a class that has those spells, and no one is taking UMD on their character for various reasons, you do SOMETHING about it. I can sack skill points I use for other things, or I can get those spells in house so I don't have to try and UMD wands or carry a portable hole full of potions

[Elysiume]

Yeah, that really supports the "just drop all the casters and laugh at what happens"-"plan." Adventure stalls out and the world ends because the enemy has magic that you can't counter because someone can't stand having a caster in the party? Awesome.

Unless pathfinder has some "mundane" guys that can do all the stuff, which would be even better. There's gotta be some tunnel of feats and ACFs that'll get you ridiculous info gathering or smelling portals or whatever this guy doesn't want people to do.If you need to jump through a dozen hoops to do something a caster's doing with a single spell...

Only if the GM really sucks at his job. In that situation, normally the GM throws the party a bone and they get the info they need.It also might explain part of the issue. If the GM is setting up contrived scenarios where every mundane, skill-monkey attempt to do something fails, answerable only with magic, maybe the complainer has a point?

That said, it sounds like the situation is aggravating everyone involved. After a certain point it doesn't matter who's right or wrong--if there's no option of OOC compromise and you're unwilling to have this continue, there's really only one option.

[Calthropstu]

If you need to jump through a dozen hoops to do something a caster's doing with a single spell...
It also might explain part of the issue. If the GM is setting up contrived scenarios where every mundane, skill-monkey attempt to do something fails, answerable only with magic, maybe the complainer has a point?

That said, it sounds like the situation is aggravating everyone involved. After a certain point it doesn't matter who's right or wrong--if there's no option of OOC compromise and you're unwilling to have this continue, there's really only one option.

Point conceded. This very well could be the GM's fault. Kinda sounds like the GM may be favoring the spell casters by not allowing skill monkeys to do their jobs.

[Mordaedil]

The thing about D&D is that you can make a party of only fighters and the DM is still going to let you get past encounters.

It sounds to me though as if the player is having issues that he's projecting as a problem with you. He can't escalate himself in his own bounds and thus he theorizes that the one that does excel must be at fault.

Try playing an eldirtch knight gish build and see if he still feels the same way.

[Mechalich]

3.X D&D has a massive optimization scale. The game rewards extreme levels of system mastery, sourcebook dumpster-diving, and builds that involve characters jumping through absurd numbers of hoops to synergize phenomenal power combinations. None of those are good things. In fact in order for the game to work the players and DM have to agree, either explicitly or implicitly, what range of optimization they are going to role with. Either that or some of the players have to accept that they are going to be comparatively ineffective and be willing to accept that.

The player being complained about here clearly has no desire to play in the same optimization range that the rest of the group intends to play - and apparently, based on the changeling example, is committed to regardless of game. That's a fundamental problem and, assuming that this player is in the minority, they should probably find a different group to play with.

However, that doesn't mean their viewpoint is wrong. Optimization is almost completely a matter of opinion. Insofar as it is not, in terms of where the Rules as Intended stand, the design is actually on the side of low (like extremely low) optimization. In truth high optimization characters and high optimization play in 3.X bear little to no resemblance to the kind of fantasy storytelling the average D&D fan expects their gaming experience to provide and arguably do not lend themselves to good storytelling at all.

[Florian]

When you hear no one is playing a class that has those spells, and no one is taking UMD on their character for various reasons, you do SOMETHING about it. I can sack skill points I use for other things, or I can get those spells in house so I don't have to try and UMD wands or carry a portable hole full of potions

This and what you wrote earlier about planar binding made me think: Could it be that you and your gm are all too much into the encounter/challenge kind of thinking that focuses primarily on mechanical solutions to things? I´d be miffed, too, if a game´d devolve into a situation where "who brings the best prepared toolbox wins" is the overall motto. Say, you ever tried something like Fate Core, where this mode of playing absolutely doesn´t work?

[Knaight]

The player being complained about here clearly has no desire to play in the same optimization range that the rest of the group intends to play - and apparently, based on the changeling example, is committed to regardless of game. That's a fundamental problem and, assuming that this player is in the minority, they should probably find a different group to play with.

Where "the rest of the group" is two players specifically, sure. If the group is a pretty standard size, that's either half or 40% of the players, not including the GM.

[Zanos]

You're not getting it are you? Your optimization is what is pissing this guy off. Why did you need to pick up the healing spells from the witch list? You're playing a wizard: the one class with the best spell list in the game then you are adding more to it. The wizard buffs are already amazing, you need to do the healing too? No wonder this guy is on your case, you really ARE putting together fairly potent characters.
The Contact Other Plane thing, sure it might be overreacting. But it kinda sounds like you regularly do things the rest of the party can't. So you're going to get some overreacting.
Tone down your characters about 3 notches.
Using wizard spell slots to heal is pretty much the opposite of optimization.

[Beheld]

Maybe my ridiculous crossbow wielding ranged disarm specialist isn't going to be able to lay waste to an enemy horde, but it's FUN. And then comes along mr practical optimization trying to tell me I'm doing it wrong.

Yeah, I'm gonna be a little pissed off.

But you are doing it wrong! You could disarm so many more people if you were a thri-keen!

[Mechalich]

Using wizard spell slots to heal is pretty much the opposite of optimization.

While this is true, a wizard with the ability to memorize healing spells can use them in place of wands or potions out of combat, which in the absence of a dedicated divine caster is a significant WBL booster. I suspect it also allows a wizard to trigger contingent self-healing, which might occasionally be a nice thing to have setup.

[logic_error]

He doesn't get things like stealth is all but useless without ways to negate special senses, or a way to trigger it without cover/concealment.



And he is right to be frustrated. If there is way too much "special" sense in your game, then the DM is intentionally gimping a rogue.

[Azoth]

And he is right to be frustrated. If there is way too much "special" sense in your game, then the DM is intentionally gimping a rogue.

When your level 10+ stealth based character can't slip past a dog or wolf because of Scent...there is a problem. Not even counting for other senses any number of bestiary/MM creatures have (tremorsense, blindsight, blindsense, life sight, ect). This isn't even touching on ways that an NPC Caster can detect you.

That aside, I am not here to argue that he needs to "Get good". I am more than willing to admit that I can be a bit overzealous in my building of characters. I have a habit, even when building to lower optimization standards, to check and see what can counter my character's schtick and then find ways around it or things to do when I can't use that particular tool.

If I am playing a Fighter type and, not using light armor, I buy a set of light armor to sleep in when not in towns. I will pick up Alchemical splash weapons to deal with swarms "just in case". I will buy Oil's of Silence for when I need to break down a door and not get caught. If I am not a Martial Initiator, I will probably grab a few Martial Scripts or Crown's of the White Raven to nab some utility maneuvers. I make sure to not just be a tripper/grappler/whatever and pick up some archery feats or items that grant them so I am not useless against flying enemies.

These things just seem common sense to me at this point. It is as natural a thought train as a Barbarian grabbing Power Attack as a feat. Just like if your party doesn't have a skill monkey your Wizard should grab a wand of Knock or at least a few scrolls of it. I am not advocating that Wizards should all have wands of Knock and that no one should play a Rogue, but if you don't have one you should have the other.

[Fizban]

Meanwhile, some people can't even be bothered to carry a ranged weapon. Please tell me he refuses to carry a ranged weapon.

[Silfazaris]

I don't know what resources you guys allow on your game, but that sounds like a very childish behaviour, and I don't like to deal with this in my games or in the games I play. You guys even tried to teach him and he doesn't want to learn, so tell him to deal with that and stop whining, simple like that.
This is annoying and most of my friends and myself would request him to be booted from the game or they would leave.

If he's not happy playing with his character, let him make another, if he can't create the "god" he talks so much about, tell him to stay quiet.

When someone says "I'm going to DM" everyone is entitled to make his/her own character. If his character is not good enough from his point of view, it's his fault, not yours or everyone else's.

I'm sorry but that's my opinion, that's what I would do.

[Jormengand]

Problem: You're making powerful casters which trivialise the player playing a noncaster.
Solution: Don't do that.
Other solution: Play a system where casters aren't intrinsically two or three times as powerful and literally hundreds of times more versatile than noncasters.
Another other solution: Play adepts, arcane order paladins with no battle blessing, truenamers without enough splat/UA support.
Additional solution: Play warlocks, warmages, healers, and dread necromancers. Hand friend a gestalt rogue/barbarian/fighter.
Yet another solution: Hand friend one of the mundane classes I (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?428437-quot-Stand-back-boy-and-let-me-show-you-war!-quot-%283-5-class-PEACH%29) literally (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?431473-The-Mundane-Trickster-Because-who-needs-spells-%283-5-class-PEACH%29) created (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?431660-quot-Mind-over-matter-matter-over-magic-quot-%283-5-class-PEACH%29) to (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?433533-quot-I-will-crush-you-puny-mage!-quot-%283-5-hypermundane-class-PEACH%29) solve (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?433945-quot-Suffer-not-the-witch-to-live-quot-3-5-hypermundane-PEACH) this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?512886-The-Virtuoso-(3-5-Hypermundane-bard-PEACH)) problem (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?481879-The-Hypnotist-%28Hypermundane-Telepath-Class-in-30-minutes-PEACH%29).
Technically a solution: Kick character out of game or force him to play a caster, or be really passive-aggressive at him until he leaves, allowing you to continue your game of caster superiority without any of those pesky fools who embarass themselves with swords.
Also technically a solution: Open tome of battle. Direct player to extraordinary [teleportation/invisibility/this weapon is now Mjolnr and travels at the speed of sound/punching your way through mountains]. Player is now playing a caster but all their abilities are marked as (ex) so they might not care.

Also, why in the infernal blazes are you avoiding "Player buffers", as in, "The one kind of wizard who can be hilariously OP while making the fighter actually feel as though they're doing something"?

[logic_error]

Actually, I'm going to defend him.

A lot of the people on this forum come off as colossal jerks. I have seen some ridiculous over optimization and, even accounting for less optimization than supremely necessary, it is hard to not pick up a good number of tricks from here especially when you get into the nitty gritty of how to use practical optimization.
Which is going to frustrate players who don't WANT to optimize, rendering their characters seriously sub par. It becomes a matter of either doing something they don't want to do, or watching the other characters shine.
Maybe my ridiculous crossbow wielding ranged disarm specialist isn't going to be able to lay waste to an enemy horde, but it's FUN. And then comes along mr practical optimization trying to tell me I'm doing it wrong.

Yeah, I'm gonna be a little pissed off.

I agree. D&D is hardly balanced. An optimised caster/semi-caster is going to trump Rogues/Rangers or what-have -you. If you actually do what the game advertises and roleplay a samurai you are intentionally gimping yourself if the DM does not some how help you. In this game the DM seems to have it in for the poor guy. He seems have done nothing really horrible? (or has he?) like a Monk bard hybrid or stuff.

[sleepyphoenixx]

However, that doesn't mean their viewpoint is wrong. Optimization is almost completely a matter of opinion. Insofar as it is not, in terms of where the Rules as Intended stand, the design is actually on the side of low (like extremely low) optimization. In truth high optimization characters and high optimization play in 3.X bear little to no resemblance to the kind of fantasy storytelling the average D&D fan expects their gaming experience to provide and arguably do not lend themselves to good storytelling at all.
By that metric a Wizard 20 with no feats who is only using PHB spells like Stinking Cloud and Solid Fog isn't playing the game as intended.
Which is a little hard to believe, seeing how those spells are in core.

And optimization level has little to do with actual roleplaying unless you're going straight into TO, except that characters who are supposed to be competent at something are actually competent if you optimize.
I'd even go so far to say that optimized characters make for better storytelling. Unless you're in a comedy campaign that is. "Worlds funniest protagonist deaths" might make a hilarious oneshot, but i don't think it's what most players are looking for in a game.

A warrior is a warrior, low-op or high-op. The only difference is that the optimized warrior actually gets to feel heroic, plowing through groups of mooks and going toe-to-toe with the BBEG.
The non-optimized warrior dies to kobold arrows before closing into melee range. Not that it matters, because he wouldn't manage to kill anything even if he got that far.

The non-optimized rogue can't even manage to reliably sneak past some low level guards, and god forbid they have guard dogs with them. If he tries to assassinate someone from hiding chances are he's going to need a minute or more to actually manage a kill. That doesn't sound like the sneaky, street-smart stealth expert who brings death from the shadows to me, it sounds like the comic relief.
The optimized rogue manages that. He's a master of stealth, and only exceptionally alert enemies are going to find him. If he sneak attacks someone chances are they're dead unless they're prepared for an attack. That sounds more like the guy i want to play in a serious game.

The same applies to casters. A non-optimized cleric is a glorified band-aid. I don't know who would find playing that fun. I've certainly never met them.
A non-optimized wizard can cast a few Fireballs that likely won't kill anything actually threatening, then he's out of spells until the day after. Maybe if he's lucky he gets to be party taxi once he gets teleport.

And i don't know what kind of fantasy storytelling the average D&D fan expects by your standards, but a lot of fantasy storytelling as seen in books and movies doesn't work in a PnP campaign at all.
Nobody wants to play Frodo, because being the useless deadweight is no fun. Nobody wants to play Gandalf and only get to cast like 4 spells the whole campaign.
Nobody even wants to be the poor sucker who has to babysit the Frodo DMPC, because escort missions suck.


While this is true, a wizard with the ability to memorize healing spells can use them in place of wands or potions out of combat, which in the absence of a dedicated divine caster is a significant WBL booster. I suspect it also allows a wizard to trigger contingent self-healing, which might occasionally be a nice thing to have setup.
A wand of CLW provides enough healing to get a 4-man party through several levels worth of encounters and costs less than 2nd level WBL. A wand of Lesser Vigor provides even more.
Suffice to say it's not a WBL booster.

As for contingent self-healing, you can. It's just not effective.
Trying to out-heal damage is a losing game in D&D by numbers per action alone, without even counting in the limited nature of spell slots vs the non-limited nature of damage dealing.
It's a vastly more efficient survival strategy to use your spells to either buff your defenses so you're not getting hit in the first place or stopping your enemies from attacking effectively (or at all) via debuffs/BFC. Both of which are perfectly possible with the native wizard list.
If you want a contingency you should get one that gets you out of danger, not a self-heal.
Because chances are the self heal won't actually keep you alive anyway unless you get a Heal spell, and even that won't help against an attack that doesn't deal hp damage.

So i have to agree with Zanos here. Getting healing spells on your wizard is exactly the opposite of optimization.
Using them would be even if you got them for free, and you're actually spending resources on it.

[Mordaedil]

Yeah, arcane casters possessing healing spells doesn't break some kind of balancing act that must be carefully maintained, it only breaks the theme of the class, which is really just kind of a thing I'd leave to each DM to determine on their own.

[Cosi]

I fundamentally disagree that casters are not how the game is supposed to function. The majority of high level monsters have a pile of SLAs from caster's lists, or just straight up are casters. If you're not supposed to play a Cleric, why is the Trumpet Archon a 14th level Cleric? Why does every dragon get a bunch of Sorcerer casting?


Problem: You're making powerful casters which trivialise the player playing a noncaster.

Have I mentioned how much I hate this attitude? Because I hate this attitude.

If your character is overshadowing someone else's character, that's his fault too. He made a sucky character, you made a good one. If it's legitimate to describe the problem as "trivializing his character", it is exactly as legitimate to describe the problem as him making a useless character.

The exception to this is if the game has established an explicit guideline for power targets. If you do that, it is then the fault of whoever diverges from those guidelines.

Picking on powerful characters for being powerful is just being petty.

[Jormengand]

The exception to this is if the game has established an explicit guideline for power targets. If you do that, it is then the fault of whoever diverges from those guidelines.

It has. It's this weird and wonderful concept of a "Challenge rating" or "Encounter level." Sure, some of them suck horribly (Dragons, that damn crab, adamantine horrors) but they at least give some indication that in general, a 10th-level rogue who is soloing this dungeon for some reason making the life-or-death disable device check to disable a CR 10 poisoned spike pit trap is probably okay and the fifth-level wizard who cast fly to bypass it probably isn't, and that the fourth-level barbarian, ranger, paladin and psychic warrior who are having an interesting time trying to fight, but ultimately defeating with a relatively heal-able loss of hit points, a minotaur should be okay, and a wizard, wizard, wizard and wizard standing at long range and firing spells at the damn thing from 560 feet away probably isn't. It's why we have this general idea that maybe a 9th-level party shouldn't be able to cast a single third-level spell each and then, hells, they can use their amazing elven longbow proficiency to finish off that triceratops, they have 90 rounds to do it in. I mean, they can do the same thing against eight That Damn Crabs which are also EL 9.

Plus, if you're a fighter who's good at fighting, you don't have the option to do something the wizard's not already trying to do. If you're a wizard who's good at fighting, buffing, debuffing, opening doors, disabling traps, and anything else you want, and can change what you're good at each day (or a sorcerer who can ration what he's going to spend his slots being good at more often) then you do have the option to do something that the fighter's not already trying to do, ie stop overshadowing him.

[Cosi]

It has. It's this weird and wonderful concept of a "Challenge rating" or "Encounter level."

Yes. As I've pointed out, it seems hard to:

1. Point at CR as a good measure.
2. Claim non-casters meet that measure best.
3. Accept the existence of creatures like the Trumpet Archon that simply are casters.

I assume the answer here is that the Trumpet Archon is obviously overpowered, but that seems rather circular to me. The Trumpet Archon is overpowered because it can beat level appropriate characters, who are level appropriate because they beat encounters that aren't overpowered.


a 10th-level rogue who is soloing this dungeon for some reason making the life-or-death disable device check to disable a CR 10 poisoned spike pit trap is probably okay and the fifth-level wizard who cast fly to bypass it probably isn't,

Hasn't the Wizard in this example spend more of his resources to bypass the encounter than the Rogue? The Rogue made a skill check which he can do as often as he wants, whereas the Wizard burnt a top level spell slot. Also, traps are really weird and not terribly well designed as encounters.


and that the fourth-level barbarian, ranger, paladin and psychic warrior who are having an interesting time trying to fight, but ultimately defeating with a relatively heal-able loss of hit points, a minotaur should be okay, and a wizard, wizard, wizard and wizard standing at long range and firing spells at the damn thing from 560 feet away probably isn't.

How are you getting to long range on something that lives in a maze? If you can do that, why are the martials not using their ranged weapons to knock it down?


It's why we have this general idea that maybe a 9th-level party shouldn't be able to cast a single third-level spell each and then, hells, they can use their amazing elven longbow proficiency to finish off that triceratops, they have 90 rounds to do it in. I mean, they can do the same thing against eight That Damn Crabs which are also EL 9.

Flight is very effective against enemies that don't have ranged attacks or flight of their own. But it is not meaningfully more effective than simply riding a horse (itself faster than the triceratops), and peppering it with arrows.

[Beheld]

CR is still balanced against Wizards and Druids and Clerics and Rogues, and still not balanced against Fighters and Truenamers and Warlocks, just like the last 40 times this has come up, and the exact opposite of reality has been claimed by people.

[Zanos]

Problem: You're making powerful casters which trivialise the player playing a noncaster.
Solution: Don't do that.
I admit I've been taking OP at face value, but it doesn't seem like this is the case. He admits some of his caster builds are powerful, but he also says he and his friend have played intentionally sub-optimal concepts like blasters, or inherent party players like buffers that exist specifically to make other characters shine. He also complained about optimization in other systems where casters weren't necessarily the best. Hell, he even specifically complained about a tough encounter because the caster buffs were key to them winning it, but in a tough encounter you should need everyone strongly contributing to win. I 100% agree that in a party with a fighter a wizard shouldn't be animating every strong monster he comes with and planar binding beatsticks and polymorphing into huge creatures with 50 strength because it's rude to the fighter player, but that really don't seem to be the case here.

So to me it just seems like this guy hates not being the toughest guy around, even when people are letting him be the toughest guy around. He's a chronic whiner.

[atemu1234]

Problem: You're making powerful casters which trivialise the player playing a noncaster.
Solution: Don't do that.
Other solution: Play a system where casters aren't intrinsically two or three times as powerful and literally hundreds of times more versatile than noncasters.
Another other solution: Play adepts, arcane order paladins with no battle blessing, truenamers without enough splat/UA support.
Additional solution: Play warlocks, warmages, healers, and dread necromancers. Hand friend a gestalt rogue/barbarian/fighter.
Yet another solution: Hand friend one of the mundane classes I (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?428437-quot-Stand-back-boy-and-let-me-show-you-war!-quot-%283-5-class-PEACH%29) literally (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?431473-The-Mundane-Trickster-Because-who-needs-spells-%283-5-class-PEACH%29) created (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?431660-quot-Mind-over-matter-matter-over-magic-quot-%283-5-class-PEACH%29) to (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?433533-quot-I-will-crush-you-puny-mage!-quot-%283-5-hypermundane-class-PEACH%29) solve (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?433945-quot-Suffer-not-the-witch-to-live-quot-3-5-hypermundane-PEACH) this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?512886-The-Virtuoso-(3-5-Hypermundane-bard-PEACH)) problem (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?481879-The-Hypnotist-%28Hypermundane-Telepath-Class-in-30-minutes-PEACH%29).
Technically a solution: Kick character out of game or force him to play a caster, or be really passive-aggressive at him until he leaves, allowing you to continue your game of caster superiority without any of those pesky fools who embarass themselves with swords.
Also technically a solution: Open tome of battle. Direct player to extraordinary [teleportation/invisibility/this weapon is now Mjolnr and travels at the speed of sound/punching your way through mountains]. Player is now playing a caster but all their abilities are marked as (ex) so they might not care.

Also, why in the infernal blazes are you avoiding "Player buffers", as in, "The one kind of wizard who can be hilariously OP while making the fighter actually feel as though they're doing something"?

You know, it's not OP's job to teach the complainer or persuade him to play something different; it's the complainer's job to not be complaining.

I'd guess OP is avoiding player buffs that affect the caster, like polymorph spells or something.

[Jormengand]

You know, it's not OP's job to teach the complainer or persuade him to play something different; it's the complainer's job to not be complaining.

Ah yes, clearly when something goes wrong which is someone else's fault, it's my job not to complain about it, not their job not to fix it.

And yes, I count "Optimise in ways that make you better at someone else's job, and everything else, than that person, and proceed to do their job even though you could do one of a lot of different things which aren't their job and don't render them obsolete because, y'know, you're the one with the massive amount of versatility and they aren't" to be the fault of the person doing it.

[Cosi]

Ah yes, clearly when something goes wrong which is someone else's fault, it's my job not to complain about it, not their job not to fix it.

If you make a character that can't contribute, you screwed up and you have to fix it.

I understand that as someone who thinks that the Truenamer is a real class, you have a vested interest in power imbalances being the fault of effective characters, but the reality is that if you refuse to make an effective character, you can't complain about people who do.

[Segev]

Instead of offering to teach him, you could offer to build his character for him. Or, you could ask him to build yours. If he balks at both suggestions, point out that you can't design something to his unspecified specifications. "Just don't build something ridiculous" is not a specification when "ridiculous" could be anything he says it is, and - you should point out - you feel like anything you build will be called "ridiculous" by him since you've tried (and failed) to build something he doesn't call out as such.

I don't suggest you "teach him a lesson." Even if you do so by trying to build something that never buffs or contributes, he'll just hold THAT against you. This needs to be dealt with OOC; talk to him. Ask him what it is he wants you to do. Tell him that you're trying to have fun playing with him, but his constant insults and snide comments make you feel like you're doing something wrong by daring to play the game.

Make him be specific about what he wants. And if what he wants won't be fun for you...still, give it a try for one game, maybe. Maybe only a few sessions. If it truly doesn't work, revisit it, now having legitimately given it a try. Maybe he'll find that it wasn't as much fun for him, either, as he expected.

(Seriously, though, if he's whining that buffing his PC makes it so that it's not him playing, I don't know how to help him.)

Actually, I'm going to defend him.

A lot of the people on this forum come off as colossal jerks. I have seen some ridiculous over optimization and, even accounting for less optimization than supremely necessary, it is hard to not pick up a good number of tricks from here especially when you get into the nitty gritty of how to use practical optimization.
Which is going to frustrate players who don't WANT to optimize, rendering their characters seriously sub par. It becomes a matter of either doing something they don't want to do, or watching the other characters shine.
Maybe my ridiculous crossbow wielding ranged disarm specialist isn't going to be able to lay waste to an enemy horde, but it's FUN. And then comes along mr practical optimization trying to tell me I'm doing it wrong.

Yeah, I'm gonna be a little pissed off.
I can certainly see that. But at the same time, imagine being the kid who really likes baseball. So he practices batting every day. He runs laps around bases. He practices timing his runs so he can judge where he can be safely and make it back, or how he can steal a base. He exercises his throwing arm and practices precision throws. He works on eye hand coordination.

You're him; you work hard on this stuff because you love baseball. It's so much fun for you that all this extra-curricular stuff is also fun.

And now, when you join a little league, your friends - cool people to hang out with otherwise - start whining that you're stealing the show. It's no fun to play with you, because you overshadow them. They snidely comment about how they can just leave playing to you. Why does the rest of the team bother showing up?

In their defense, somebody pipes up how unfair it is that you're so much better. These other kids aren't as in to baseball as you are. They don't want to practice every aspect of the game for fun in their off-game time. Why should they have to? How dare you actually practice and work on your game and then show up with so much more skill and athletic ability than they have? Of course they're pissed!



Now, high-op players can try to optimize for different things, lower-op things, but the fact remains that if the bar set by the low-op players is based on apparent system mastery, it's never going to be enough. If you are a high-op player who takes Truenamer/Monk and has fun trying to make it viable, the mechanics you're going to pull out won't bring you above T3, most likely, but they'll be so far-ranging in source material and rules mastery that the low-op player is going to see it and assume you've "made something ridiculous" again. And, thanks to confirmation bias, anything you do that demonstrate competency in an area he's not good at will be proof that you "do everything," and anything you do that even approaches competency in an area he is good at will be a reason to ask "why do we even show up to the game?"

If you ever fall flat, he'll probably snidely snark, "What? Didn't have this one handed to you on a silver platter?" if he even notices. Confirmation bias will say that he'll ignore, miss, or assume you "let him win" at it, rather than that your character actually has flaws and isn't a sign of you being a powergaming jerk.



So, again, I suggest offering to either build his character for him, or let him build yours for you. At least that way he'll have mechanics on par with yours, one way or the other.

[Zanos]

Ah yes, clearly when something goes wrong which is someone else's fault, it's my job not to complain about it, not their job not to fix it.
Just because someone complains doesn't mean they're in the right.


And yes, I count "Optimise in ways that make you better at someone else's job, and everything else, than that person, and proceed to do their job even though you could do one of a lot of different things which aren't their job and don't render them obsolete because, y'know, you're the one with the massive amount of versatility and they aren't" to be the fault of the person doing it.
As I've already said, OP's description doesn't even suggest that his caster builds are overshadowing the other player.


If you make a character that can't contribute, you screwed up and you have to fix it.

I understand that as someone who thinks that the Truenamer is a real class, you have a vested interest in power imbalances being the fault of effective characters, but the reality is that if you refuse to make an effective character, you can't complain about people who do.
No, this depends on the table. If 3 people are playing a sword and board fighter, a healbot cleric, and a trapfindy rogue, you should not roll an abjurant champion incantatrix who polymorphs into trolls and walks through walls.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Ah yes, clearly when something goes wrong which is someone else's fault, it's my job not to complain about it, not their job not to fix it.

And yes, I count "Optimise in ways that make you better at someone else's job, and everything else, than that person, and proceed to do their job even though you could do one of a lot of different things which aren't their job and don't render them obsolete because, y'know, you're the one with the massive amount of versatility and they aren't" to be the fault of the person doing it.

Except that the OP has already stated several times that he and the other caster player go out of their way to not do that. And it's still not enough.
Apparently even buffing the guy is "those damn optimizers flaunting their caster superiority".

If you can't build an effective character, refuse to learn how to build an effective character, refuse to let others help you build an effective character and then complain that the rest of the party has to carry your ineffective character because he's ineffective?
Yes, that's absolutely your own fault.

[Kelb_Panthera]

May I sig that?

Go right ahead.

[Cosi]

No, this depends on the table. If 3 people are playing a sword and board fighter, a healbot cleric, and a trapfindy rogue, you should not roll an abjurant champion incantatrix who polymorphs into trolls and walks through walls.

I guess it depends on what you think the appropriate etiquette is with regards to power. My view is that if you want people to stick in a certain power range, you should make that explicit, just as you should make things like "Core Only" or "no Evil PCs" explicit. You can't expect new people to come to your game and figure out how things work without being told.

[Zombulian]

Except that the OP has already stated several times that he and the other caster player go out of their way to not do that. And it's still not enough.
Apparently even buffing the guy is "those damn optimizers flaunting their caster superiority".

If you can't build an effective character, refuse to learn how to build an effective character, refuse to let others help you build an effective character and then complain that the rest of the party has to carry your ineffective character because he's ineffective?
Yes, that's absolutely your own fault.

Don't crush your cookie

[Azoth]

Wow this got some length while I was sleeping.

Okay, to lay a few things in perspective, I nor the other caster player design or use our spells/abilities to do someone else's job. We don't go CoDzilla and step into melee to show fighters how it's done. We don't run around with Greater Invisibility up spamming Knock to do the skill monkey's job. We don't Dominate/Chain of Eyes to gather information/handle social situations instead of letting the party face do his job.

I know I primarily mentioned our full caster builds getting the most grief, but even 6/9 casters get it. Being a Bard and tricking out Inspire Courage is a sin because now we could handle everything but the BBEG with commoners. Change out Inspire Courage for DFI and cue him going on about how now everyone has more bonus damage than a Rogue that they didn't have to work for. Give yourself the ability to do both at the same time and the game might as well not be played when every party member is swinging with +12 to hit and +12d6 bonus damage on every swing.

Hell, I showed him an old Hexblade build I used years ago, and when he realized it managed to drop -32 to pretty much everything and hand out Negative Levels + Con Damage like candy at Halloween the very idea was appalling to him. That build was also a pure Hexblade no dips or PRCs. Yeah it jumped through hoops to get Channel Energy and Bardic performances without multiclassing, but I did it.

[OldTrees1]

Except that the OP has already stated several times that he and the other caster player go out of their way to not do that. And it's still not enough.
Apparently even buffing the guy is "those damn optimizers flaunting their caster superiority".

If you can't build an effective character, refuse to learn how to build an effective character, refuse to let others help you build an effective character and then complain that the rest of the party has to carry your ineffective character because he's ineffective?
Yes, that's absolutely your own fault.

The opening post described a different story:
The OP tried switched from overtly overshadowing(God caster) to indirectly overshadowing(when the buff handily wins the day the warrior is still overshadowed). The other player was not blinded to the fact that they was still massive demonstrated disparity in the area they were supposed to be acceptable-decent in.

People have different reactions to seeing that disparity, but the OP has not stated any attempt to not be that overpowered.

[JNAProductions]

So what should he do? The OP clearly enjoys playing casters, so what SHOULD he do? Just not contribute? Well that's no fun.

I'm not saying the other guy is in the wrong-but I am saying that there might be a style mismatch here, and one of them just won't have fun if playing at the same table.

[Segev]

I'm sorry, but if buffing somebody "overshadows" them, then what are casters 'allowed' to do without being unfair? I get the impression that if he just sat back with unoptimized fireballs and did nothing else, he'd be "overpowered" for taking out a squad of orcs. And he'd better not THINK about casting fly on the fighter! That's overshadowing the fighter by making the fighter's ability to fight in the air all thanks to that wicked, evil, glory-hogging caster!

[OldTrees1]

So what should he do? The OP clearly enjoys playing casters, so what SHOULD he do? Just not contribute? Well that's no fun.

I'm not saying the other guy is in the wrong-but I am saying that there might be a style mismatch here, and one of them just won't have fun if playing at the same table.

I see no evidence either side has given a fair & informed shot at creating a solution. So an attempt would be a good test.

However if there is a style mismatch, which does sound likely, then separate games does sound wise.


I'm sorry, but if buffing somebody "overshadows" them, then what are casters 'allowed' to do without being unfair? I get the impression that if he just sat back with unoptimized fireballs and did nothing else, he'd be "overpowered" for taking out a squad of orcs. And he'd better not THINK about casting fly on the fighter! That's overshadowing the fighter by making the fighter's ability to fight in the air all thanks to that wicked, evil, glory-hogging caster!

Overshadowing buffing is overshadowing. Non overshadowing buffing is not overshadowing.

If I could cast a spell to grant a medium level Fighter 12 attacks each with +20 attack and +100 damage. Can you think of a medium level Fighter that would not be overshadowed by that? In the shadow of that buff most of their abilities and features would be obsolete.

If I could cast a spell to grant a medium level Fighter +1 on Will saves vs Fear. Can you think of a medium level Fighter that could be overshadowed by that?

I used extremes to make a point. It does not matter if the the overshadowing is a buff or a direct attack, what matters is if it overshadows the other character. And even that only matters if one of the players cares about the overshadowing(like in the OP's case)

[Zanos]

I guess it depends on what you think the appropriate etiquette is with regards to power. My view is that if you want people to stick in a certain power range, you should make that explicit, just as you should make things like "Core Only" or "no Evil PCs" explicit. You can't expect new people to come to your game and figure out how things work without being told.
Honestly I consider tables where fighters and wizards live in harmony and people don't talk about tiers and expected DPR to be gems to be preserved rather than people that need to be condescendingly educated about optimal builds. Because it almost always does come off as condescending.

So when I find a table like that I just keep my mouth shut and cast haste.


I know I primarily mentioned our full caster builds getting the most grief, but even 6/9 casters get it. Being a Bard and tricking out Inspire Courage is a sin because now we could handle everything but the BBEG with commoners. Change out Inspire Courage for DFI and cue him going on about how now everyone has more bonus damage than a Rogue that they didn't have to work for. Give yourself the ability to do both at the same time and the game might as well not be played when every party member is swinging with +12 to hit and +12d6 bonus damage on every swing.

Hell, I showed him an old Hexblade build I used years ago, and when he realized it managed to drop -32 to pretty much everything and hand out Negative Levels + Con Damage like candy at Halloween the very idea was appalling to him. That build was also a pure Hexblade no dips or PRCs. Yeah it jumped through hoops to get Channel Energy and Bardic performances without multiclassing, but I did it.
In his defense, those builds are pretty big gamechangers when it comes to the numbers enemies have to put out to even threaten you.


I'm sorry, but if buffing somebody "overshadows" them, then what are casters 'allowed' to do without being unfair? I get the impression that if he just sat back with unoptimized fireballs and did nothing else, he'd be "overpowered" for taking out a squad of orcs. And he'd better not THINK about casting fly on the fighter! That's overshadowing the fighter by making the fighter's ability to fight in the air all thanks to that wicked, evil, glory-hogging caster!
They are permitted to stand still and consider their life choices. They may not buff themselves to be survivable, because that would overshadow the fighter's role as "tank."

[Dagroth]

In his defense, those builds are pretty big gamechangers when it comes to the numbers enemies have to put out to even threaten you.

Gods yes, this.

Seriously. A Bard providing +12 to hit & +12d6 damage? That's disgustingly OP. Compare that to a basic, core-only Bard. Inspire Courage stops at +4 at level 20! Even with DFA, that's only +4d6.

This guys strikes me as the kind of player who sees a 14th level Bard providing +3 to hit & damage & +3d6 DFA as being "impressive".

Even if a Wizard's player goes hunting for semi-obscure spells, this guy's probably not going to complain... but when they're doing stuff like Battle Dancer (or whatever it is) to get free Metamagic, it triggers his disgust again. Divine Metamagic (of any flavor) probably makes him flip his lid, while Arcane Strike would be "cool and impressive".

[sleepyphoenixx]

The opening post described a different story:
The OP tried switched from overtly overshadowing(God caster) to indirectly overshadowing(when the buff handily wins the day the warrior is still overshadowed). The other player was not blinded to the fact that they was still massive demonstrated disparity in the area they were supposed to be acceptable-decent in.

People have different reactions to seeing that disparity, but the OP has not stated any attempt to not be that overpowered.

So what, nobody is allowed to play casters because warrior guy doesn't like it?
Or do you have to run whatever numbers you provide by the guy who has no clue about the system for approval until he's satisfied that his completely non-optimized warrior is the star of the group?

Because while i support optimizers trying to tone things down when you have newbies in the party there's a certain minimum standard of competence.
Optimizers want to have fun too - and i don't know about you, but i find it immensely frustrating to play a character that is completely incapable of actually doing anything.

So no, i see no problem in someone building a character that makes the whole party better, no matter by how much.
The DM builds the encounters to fit the party anyway, so everyone still gets to contribute the same. No matter if the bard provides a +3 or +12 to hit and damage.
On the contrary, the buffs provided enable the DM to provide more interesting and varied encounters. Do you have any idea how easily low-op characters (particularly mundanes) die?
Getting the numbers up means he has a greater variety of monsters to choose from, and he can rely on your optimized buffer to provide crucial buffs and counters that a newbie might not know about.
Your DM plays D&D to have fun too, and having to throw out half the MMs because your group is too weak to deal with monsters that do something besides hp damage is boring as hell.

There's also an expectation that the newbies are at least trying to get better. Hell, if this is a recurring problem i'd have expected him to have picked up some common optimization wisdom just by osmosis.
Not to mention the fact that he also refused the offer of help. I've known a guy who only came to D&D to spend time with his friends, drink beer and relax, so he let someone else build him a warrior with the requisite numbers. That's fine too.
But if someone can't even be bothered to try i don't know why i should stop having fun so he can use my hobby time to whine and complain at me.

I think the OP has been quite accomodating to a guy who refuses to put in any effort at all.

D&D is not a video game where you grab your controller and just get to it - it requires a bit of reading, a bit of time.
And an interest in actually learning the game. All of which the player in question is apparently unwilling or unable to invest.

If someone is unwilling to put in that effort then maybe PnP gaming is not for them, or at least they should consider a more rules-light system.

[Zombulian]

If someone is unwilling to put in that effort then maybe PnP gaming is not for them, or at least they should consider a more rules-light system.

This was my conclusion as well. Maybe your group should try 5e? I also heard recently about a more modern formatting of 1st or 2nd edition.

Bottom line: Pathfinder/3.5 is not the right system for this player and his mindset. He'll never be happy playing it because he refuses to acknowledge how the system works and play into it.

[Particle_Man]

This was my conclusion as well. Maybe your group should try 5e? I also heard recently about a more modern formatting of 1st or 2nd edition.

I would have thought 4e, as that is meant to be more explicitly balanced between the classes.

[Zombulian]

I would have thought 4e, as that is meant to be more explicitly balanced between the classes.

Actually 4e might be perfect for this player because every class gets MMO-style abilities which may be the type of spotlighting without putting in work that this player is looking for.

[OldTrees1]

So what, nobody is allowed to play casters because warrior guy doesn't like it?
Or do you have to run whatever numbers you provide by the guy who has no clue about the system for approval until he's satisfied that his completely non-optimized warrior is the star of the group?

Because while i support optimizers trying to tone things down when you have newbies in the party there's a certain minimum standard of competence.
Optimizers want to have fun too - and i don't know about you, but i find it immensely frustrating to play a character that is completely incapable of actually doing anything.

So no, i see no problem in someone building a character that makes the whole party better, no matter by how much.
The DM builds the encounters to fit the party anyway, so everyone still gets to contribute the same. No matter if the bard provides a +3 or +12 to hit and damage.
On the contrary, the buffs provided enable the DM to provide more interesting and varied encounters. Do you have any idea how easily low-op characters (particularly mundanes) die?
Getting the numbers up means he has a greater variety of monsters to choose from, and he can rely on your optimized buffer to provide crucial buffs and counters that a newbie might not know about.
Your DM plays D&D to have fun too, and having to throw out half the MMs because your group is too weak to deal with monsters that do something besides hp damage is boring as hell.

There's also an expectation that the newbies are at least trying to get better. Hell, if this is a recurring problem i'd have expected him to have picked up some common optimization wisdom just by osmosis.
Not to mention the fact that he also refused the offer of help. I've known a guy who only came to D&D to spend time with his friends, drink beer and relax, so he let someone else build him a warrior with the requisite numbers. That's fine too.
But if someone can't even be bothered to try i don't know why i should stop having fun so he can use my hobby time to whine and complain at me.

I think the OP has been quite accomodating to a guy who refuses to put in any effort at all.

D&D is not a video game where you grab your controller and just get to it - it requires a bit of reading, a bit of time.
And an interest in actually learning the game. All of which the player in question is apparently unwilling or unable to invest.

If someone is unwilling to put in that effort then maybe PnP gaming is not for them, or at least they should consider a more rules-light system.

1) Be respectful. Don't put words in my mouth that you know are a misrepresentation.
2) We want everyone to have fun even if at separate games. Neither party is in a privileged position.
3) The OP has wanted to be accomodating, but I already highlighted why it might have been "just more of the same" rather than an accommodation.

If someone has a problem with me playing a god caster, I am not "being accommodating" by switching from a God Wizard to a God Cleric. Likewise someone has a problem with me playing an OP caster, I am not "being accommodating" by switching from an OP God Wizard to an OP buffing Wizard. To be accommodating requires the change made be related to the concern being addressed.

4) You don't see a problem with someone building a buffer regardless of how much the buff is. Personally I don't care either unless the buff is so strong the difference between buffing a teammate and buffing a nobody is negligible(aka the teammate has no real contribution). However neither you nor I are involved. The OP(it doesn't both them) and the other player(it does bother them) are involved.

5) Do I have any idea how often low-op mundanes die? Barely. My 1st character was a Fighter 3 that died in an inch of water. However the rest were mid-op martials and casters alike. However everyone agrees the DM should have fun too so I question the relevance of the question. We should want everyone to have fun.

6) I make no excuses for the other player. There might be (likely is) a playstyle mismatch. However the least I can do is explain why the OP's attempts did not work.

[Honest Tiefling]

So what should he do? The OP clearly enjoys playing casters, so what SHOULD he do? Just not contribute? Well that's no fun.

I'm not saying the other guy is in the wrong-but I am saying that there might be a style mismatch here, and one of them just won't have fun if playing at the same table.

I think I agree with this, for the most part. Perhaps the OP is a little too good at optimizing for his own good, but I think that a lot of it boils down to the fighter guy wanting the spotlight and not wanting to optimize, which is a fine play style for some people. But not the OP, it would seem, hence the difficulty.

But I must ask, what level of optimization is the DM expecting? Yes, I know that they are only a part of the gaming table, but they are presumably the ones doing most of the work and approving characters.

[Mechalich]

But I must ask, what level of optimization is the DM expecting? Yes, I know that they are only a part of the gaming table, but they are presumably the ones doing most of the work and approving characters.

This strikes me as the key question. A GM who allows players to produce high-OP and low-OP characters in the same party, and to let it happen repeatedly is not managing the table correctly. Also, a GM who is allows even moderately optimized Tier I characters into a party is presumably regularly sending enemies that are much more powerful than standard CR monsters at the group or is watching all their monsters die pathetically pretty much constantly. Of course once you start optimizing monsters the contribution of martials drops off even more precipitously than before.

[tiercel]

This strikes me as the key question. A GM who allows players to produce high-OP and low-OP characters in the same party, and to let it happen repeatedly is not managing the table correctly. Also, a GM who is allows even moderately optimized Tier I characters into a party is presumably regularly sending enemies that are much more powerful than standard CR monsters at the group or is watching all their monsters die pathetically pretty much constantly. Of course once you start optimizing monsters the contribution of martials drops off even more precipitously than before.

This seems like a big part of the question to me. I don't think that there is a single "right" way to play D&D.

It rubs me the wrong way if someone just assumes that of course every bard takes Words of Creation and of course it doubles the full IC bonus after other bonuses and that if you try to play a buffing bard any other way than Full IC TO then You Are Doing It Wrong because Higher Optimization is Better. Having said that, if someone is playing a sword-and-board Fighter 7 and complaining they never get to do anything "cool" but refuse to consider Warblade, Duskblade, or even Daring Outlaw then I wonder "what you complaining about?"

The problem isn't "someone with less system mastery is a poorer player." The problem is that a mismatch of playing styles means that the beer-and-pretzels player will see the optimizer as a munchkin who is ruining his fun by making his character irrelevant and the optimizer will see the beer-and-pretzels player as a drag on the party who is ruining his fun by crying foul whenever he tries to use any of the cool options he's set up through his character design.

How does a DM balance for both? DM either balances toward the beer-and-pretzels player, and the optimizer either curbstomps everything or sits around grinding teeth, or the DM balances toward the optimizer and the B&P character is dead/is useless/is nothing more than a delivery vehicle for the optimizer's buffs, which far outshine anything B&P Guy can do alone.

You might as well try to run a game for
(A) a player who has a novella backstory, fully fleshed out family tree, a completed character Myers-Briggs profile, and always speaks 100% in character at the gaming table
(B) a player who totally wings his character's actions (and backstory, if he has one), has more dice than known NPC (or even PC) names, and speaks entirely in game mechanics terms and Monty Python quotes

and then take sides over who is the "better" player.

[ryu]

You might as well try to run a game for
(A) a player who has a novella backstory, fully fleshed out family tree, a completed character Myers-Briggs profile, and always speaks 100% in character at the gaming table
(B) a player who totally wings his character's actions (and backstory, if he has one), has more dice than known NPC (or even PC) names, and speaks entirely in game mechanics terms and Monty Python quotes

and then take sides over who is the "better" player.

And if I tell you I did both? At the same time? While deliberately getting NPC names wrong and handing out free candy both in and out of game context whenever someone critically succeeded?

[atemu1234]

And if I tell you I did both? At the same time? While deliberately getting NPC names wrong and handing out free candy both in and out of game context whenever someone critically succeeded?

Yeah like that seems to be the mix of players I wind up with anyways.

[ryu]

Yeah like that seems to be the mix of players I wind up with anyways.

Yes but were any of them both at the same time? That was a fun campaign. The entire manifesto of that character's design was to be a more coherently written yet still clearly insane wizard version of Old Man Henderson.

[tiercel]

And if I tell you I did both? At the same time? While deliberately getting NPC names wrong and handing out free candy both in and out of game context whenever someone critically succeeded?

Yeah, okay, that's wacky :) but not designed to inspire "A is inherently better than B" or "B is inherently better than A" arguments like you get with optimization playstyle.

For some reason folks often see roleplaying playstyle as just a personal preference (albeit one that works better as long as preferences match up between players/between players and DM) but seem more often to get really intense about the "right" way of optimization playstyle.

[Florian]

This seems like a big part of the question to me. I don't think that there is a single "right" way to play D&D.

In a sense, there actually is. In a d20 game, the rules have primacy and should be non-negotiable. That in turn leads to the situation that you need some discreet rules element to gain the narrative right to affect the game world, meaning no matter how well you describe your character swinging with his sword, without power attack, nothing will change.

This in turn can lead to the situation that a class with more discreet rules elements available simply has more actions at hand to interact with the game world in a meaningful way.
The effect should be obvious: It moves the actually challenge from the encounter over to character creation.

[tiercel]

In a sense, there actually is. In a d20 game, the rules have primacy and should be non-negotiable.


And we get the "more optimization is inherently better" argument. Let me pause you right here though.

Games I've played in have an actual Dungeon Master who interprets the rules and sets down groundrules for which ones are OK in his game. "Non-negotiable" just went out the window to be replaced with "these are the options I will allow in my game" or "the more options you as players employ, the more options I as DM will have to employ to keep the game challenging" (with the corollary "and I only have so much time").

If your DM is going to run, e.g., Red Hand of Doom straight from the module, and you as players roll up a group of fully optimized Tier 1 characters, it will hardly even be a game; it will be Elminster goes to Candyland.

(If your DM has read the Red Hand of Doom handbook thread and has and uses full system mastery while you and your buddies play Jozan, Mialee, Regdar, and Lidda, then it's going to look more like Saw, and your campaign will last either about one battle or until you get tired of rolling new characters.)

[Florian]

And we get the "more optimization is inherently better" argument. Let me pause you right here though.

No, not necessarily. That one comes up later, if at all.

Examine two things first: Who is going to be challenged, the player or the character? How are challenges designed, are they binary or fail forward?

That in turn will have a huge influence an how to understand and use the system as presented.

[Azoth]

In regards to our DM, he tends to throw varied encounters at us. Some combat, some puzzles, and sometimes a mixture of the two in the same encounter. It is pretty rare to face just one or two enemies in an encounter.

I have talked to the DM before and he has admitted that he likes having two casters in the group. He feels we are a safety net if he underestimates the lethality of an encounter. Between the two of us, we have some method to bring it back in line to manageable or taxi the party out.

Personally, I can say that I have rarely felt my characters were in danger, even the 6/9 casters. As many on this forum can attest, after a certain point you just know how to get your numbers where they need to be in regards to most CR range enemies. Even if my values were lacking in some area as a caster you have enough "NO" buttons to tell any other noncaster to bugger off.