Rant about a player/DM [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

MichielHagen

2018-01-24, 10:20 AM

Hi,

i just want some feedback, to know if i went out of line.

A while back, person A was the DM of a game. At some point person B wanted to play a Water Orc, which the DM declined, because it was too beneficial.
Now, two years later, another player (C) of our group will DM his first campaign. I just received the build player A created, to noone's surprise, he wants to play a Water Orc.
Not just that, he wants to play a Dragonborn Water Orc with a Spirit-totem Lion/Totem Wolf Whirling Dervish Barbarian with a dip in Cloistered Cleric for Knowledge Devotion, Law Devotion, Travel Devotion and Crusader (Stone Power).
His backstory in short involves "Nature focused warrior got recruited by Temple, now back to focusing on melee, he is torn between his chaotic nature and the lawful rules thought by the temple."

The DM was short on time, and asked me to review charactersheets for mistakes, besides some minor mistakes (forgot to spend 100gp for Dragonborn, has all knowledge skills as class skills despite changing Knowledge Domain to Knowledge Devotion) i pointed out the following:

1. Although he was given a choice of domains that would fit his character, he chose Law Devotion, while not being Lawful. Although there are no rules against this, it's an oddity.
2. I mentioned it's odd to be devoted to a Wolf totem as well as a Lion totem, altough there are no rules against this.

I specifically said it's up to DM to allow or disallow it, there is no rule against it, it's between him and the DM. I did feel the need to point it out, since i was asked to review the sheet and if i were the DM, i would have disallowed it.

In response to number 1 he responds that his character is torn between law and chaos and that's what his personality is based on, it shouldn't be changed.

At this point i become irritated, because he does this every time. He tries to powerbuild something, and if something looks like it's getting taken away, he claims to be sad for his story will not fit anymore, "see, it's even written in my background". While it's clear the story has been made as a response to his powerbuild and he already knew the Law Devotion was dubious, so he worked it into his background.

Because i became irritated, i also mentioned it's hypocritical to play a race, you as a DM would decline because it would be too beneficial.

At this point he felt i was being too hostile. The words i used are not different from the ones i am using here, but indeed, i am quite annoyed a this point.

Am i making to big a deal out of this? I have also reviewed other players, and i already know he will outshine two other melee-characters by far (i am a support character, so it won't affect my role), so i did feel the need to point out he is powerbuilding into something he would not allow himself.

weckar

2018-01-24, 10:54 AM

I feel like I should point out the Class-skill knowledges/Knowledge devotion is a moot point: He could have easily exchanged the domain later.

Covenant12

2018-01-24, 11:03 AM

He sounds like a hypocritical ****, but that's far from the end of the world as another player in a campaign you'll be in.

He's optimized a LA+0 mundane beatstick. Law devotion when not lawful is amusing but I don't think it truly breaks any rules.

The real concern is he fills a similar role as two other players and looks set to outshine them. That is a real issue and will likely make the majority present unhappy. Stress to the DM that he needs to be toned down or the other two need to be better optimized, or both. Honestly a party with three non-versatile melee beatsticks sounds like a bad plan, unless the game leans extremely heavy to roleplay side. If the other two aren't interested in CoDzilla, something like Psychic Warrior or Crusader may allow everyone to contribute in different ways, without one being strictly superior.

Sheogoroth

2018-01-24, 11:04 AM

People enjoy different things about D&D. Some people enjoy roleplaying, people like other aspects!
Don't alienate the unimaginative just because they like playing weird builds.

Edit: Even if he is a hypocrite. So I guess he did the same thing to you in trying to squash your fun, but you can be the bigger man.

MichielHagen

2018-01-24, 11:08 AM

I dont mind people playing weird builds at all. I am bothered by two things:

- He is playing a character he actually would disapprove if he were the DM
- When the DM tries to disallow something, he always claims his story won't fit the character anymore. While in fact the story was build after he powerbuild his character.

By the way, i just found out the rules actually do disallow Law Devotion as a neutral character (if you do not worship a deity).

Appropriate Theme: If you do not follow any specific deity, your basic system of beliefs should support your domain feat choices. A good rule of thumb is to designate one to three domains (in addition to that corresponding to your first domain feat) that are important to you. These beliefs must also be consistent with your alignment.

@weckar: i have, and always will assume you can only change the domain to the feat at the time you obtain the domain. When else can one exchange it? while in combat?

edit:
@sheagoroth: no, i am not player A, nor B, nor C. The only other time he spoiled my fun was when we were playing a level 3 campaign and he was casting two level 3 spells with persistent metamagic attached, that campaign was cancelled after a few sessions. That too was with a first time DM.

Deophaun

2018-01-24, 11:16 AM

- He is playing a character he actually would disapprove if he were the DM
So? You play characters that fit the expectations of the game. When the expectations change, the characters you build naturally change. That's not being hypocritical.

Alcore

2018-01-24, 11:30 AM

Give fair and honest advice. Remember; it's a different game. Is he being a ****? Probably. So far it seems like your response is reasonable and mature. Decide if your response (if any) will be public or private and ask yourself ahead of time if an argument is worth it; deciding consciously ahead time will make all the different when or if the argument happens

ExLibrisMortis

2018-01-24, 11:33 AM

You could vary power levels between campaigns, in which case you might play a water orc in one campaign but not in the next. In this case, I get the feeling that the group hasn't set a power level, and simply defers to the DM du jour, with implied continuity in power restrictions. In that case, A is being a hypocrite, and deserves to be called out on it. However, instead of banning the build, just keep it on file and bring it up next time you want to play a water orc (or something else interesting). The power level has just gone up.

Deities that offer the Law domain are generally (always) Lawful; a cleric must be within one step of their deity's alignment; a barbarian loses their rage if they turn Lawful. That means the character must be some form of Neutral. The only deities with Law, Knowledge, and Travel are Anu (a Babylonian/Mesopotamian deity), Ptah (a Pharaonic deity), and Taiia (creator aspect, a D&D example of monotheism). The first two are LN, which would require A's character to be N, and since the last one is probably not available (it requires an alternate cosmology), that's what we're at.

Is that in their backstory, too?

Segev

2018-01-24, 11:40 AM

So? You play characters that fit the expectations of the game. When the expectations change, the characters you build naturally change. That's not being hypocritical.

Yeah, different games, etc. Just because he felt it would be overpowered for his campaign and party doesn't mean it would be for this one. That is on this DM to determine. (I mean, think of it the other way: if he'd allowed powergamed optimized builds to the max in his own campaign, would that give him a right to push for a Batman Wizard Incantatar in this one, even if this DM ran a lower-key campaign?)

You obviously WANT him to take some of that optimization out, to tone down the build. But you're not sure you're right to do so.

My advice is to ignore his rules from his campaign; they simply do not apply here. You've done half of what you should: you've examined his build for legality. The other half is that you should compare it to the rest of the party and the kinds of threats you know you've already faced. If this is going to force the DM to escalate in a way that makes the others unable to keep up, or let him curbstomp everything while the others fight stuff but still watch him mow down their enemies that they're struggling with, either he needs to tone down or they need to beef up.

Tohsaka Rin

2018-01-24, 11:48 AM

So? You play characters that fit the expectations of the game. When the expectations change, the characters you build naturally change. That's not being hypocritical.

I used to have a problem player like the one the OP mentioned. Whenever he DM'd, he'd restrict as much as he could from players: Funds, equipment, classes, sometimes even character levels! (who wants to take levels of commoner, for a campaign where you're drafted into a war by level 10 knights?) He'd happily let the party roll up several rogues, then announce the game was heavily featuring undead, after the third encounter with them. And nothing BUT undead, it seemed. (in 3.5 before there was a way to get around undead crit/sneak attack immunities.)

But whenever he was a player, it didn't matter what the tone or theme of the campaign was, he HAD to have whatever he wanted. Whenever the hypocrisy was pointed out, his response was always 'so?' and if you restricted ANYthing from him, the response was 'I'll remember this'.

Now, I'm not saying the OP's problem player is like this, but people like this do exist. I've met them. They're whiny, vindictive jerks, who try to weasel their way out of playing the game fairly, and by the rules.

Darrin

2018-01-24, 12:54 PM

The DM was short on time, and asked me to review charactersheets for mistakes, besides some minor mistakes (forgot to spend 100gp for Dragonborn, has all knowledge skills as class skills despite changing Knowledge Domain to Knowledge Devotion) i pointed out the following:

The skill requirement on Knowledge Devotion is likely a mistake made by the designer or editor. None of the other Devotions have such a requirement.

1. Although he was given a choice of domains that would fit his character, he chose Law Devotion, while not being Lawful. Although there are no rules against this, it's an oddity.

A cleric of a lawful deity who is "conflicted" about being lawful or acting in a way that promotes chaos is likely to be stripped of his cleric powers, including access to domains/devotions. So while a non-lawful character taking the Law Devotion isn't technically against the rules for Domain feats, there is a rule in the PHB about this:

"A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god (generally by acting in ways opposed to the god’s alignment or purposes) loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons."

The sticking point would be this would need to be enforced by the DM, and a permissive DM could just ignore it.

2. I mentioned it's odd to be devoted to a Wolf totem as well as a Lion totem, altough there are no rules against this.

This rankles some people, but I personally allow it as a DM. My reasoning is totem poles usually have multiple animals, and a pan-theistic tribal culture could revere a variety of nature spirits without adhering to the mono-theistic concept popular with certain modern religions. A barbarian with a parent from two different tribes could also have a legitimate reason to worship two different spirit animals to placate two different parents or set of ancestors. (However, this pairing is so obviously better from a mechanical standpoint that maybe we should just lampshade the LionWolf Tribe into canon and move on.)

From a balance standpoint, giving meatbags easier access to Pounce helps them stay relevant longer, so I'm more inclined to allow it under the "Melee Can Have Nice Things" principle.

In response to number 1 he responds that his character is torn between law and chaos and that's what his personality is based on, it shouldn't be changed.

You can address this with an eye-roll and admonition along the lines of, "Dude, be honest. You wanted the mechanical benefits first, then you mangled up a backstory to make it fit. You will drop the backstory as soon as it becomes inconvenient or doesn't get you what you want."

Because i became irritated, i also mentioned it's hypocritical to play a race, you as a DM would decline because it would be too beneficial.

This something I'd keep in my back pocket for when I want to play a Magic-Blooded Frostblood Water Orc in the DM's next campaign.

Aside from that, I think your best tactic here would be two things:

1) Point out that if this was considered unbalanced for the DM's own campaign, then attempting to pull this on a *LESS EXPERIENCED* DM is a d-bag move. A new DM has an infinite number of things they have to keep track of to make sure the game doesn't spin out of control, adding this onto the pile is inconsiderate at best and loutishly egotistical at worst.

2) This sort of behavior is beneath what you expected from them.

The second point is meaningless if this person has no regard for the good opinion of the people around him. Shame is an unwieldy and imperfect tool, but you're essentially trying to enforce a "Gentleperson's Agreement" to be fair and considerate with the other players. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Am i making to big a deal out of this? I have also reviewed other players, and i already know he will outshine two other melee-characters by far (i am a support character, so it won't affect my role), so i did feel the need to point out he is powerbuilding into something he would not allow himself.

To a certain extent... you've got two concerns here:

1) The optimization level of the group is unbalanced. One player with a PC optimized well above the average level of the group has a tendency to bork up the balance of the game. A rare few DMs can handle this problem elegantly, but most of the time it's a recipe for disaster. Sometimes a talk with the player to "tone things down" can help.

2) You have a personal issue with one of the players being a twit. This is something you're going to need to discuss either with the twit or the DM outside of the game. The cost/benefit on this one is hard to predict.

Red Fel

2018-01-24, 12:56 PM

Yeah, I'm with other people on this. Be the bigger person here.

"But I wanted to before, and he wouldn't let me," isn't a reason to turn down the character - it's a reason to dislike the player. "But he's a hypocrite," is likewise not a reason to turn down the character, but to dislike the player. If you have a lot of reasons to dislike the player, the solution isn't to try to hammer his character - it's not to play with him.

Now, that's not to say there are no legitimate concerns. Is his character designed to overshadow other characters? Is his build not rules-legal? Those are grounds for saying, "No, this needs to change." If those come up, yes, refer them to the DM and say, "This is going to be a problem."

But here's the thing - it sounds like you're trying to find issues with the build, in order to justify turning it down for personal reasons. It's a little like, say, writing a character background in order to justify taking liberties with the build. So before you do anything, take a step back and reflect - are you being disingenuous?

Know what you're doing and why. It sounds like you're motivated in part by frustration. And I'm not saying you can't be - just be honest with yourself about it. And then, after that, look at his build again, and decide whether it's really, objectively problematic. Are you over-inflating problems, or are they really there?

And if they are - and not just the hypocrisy, I mean actual problems with the character or build - then tell the DM. That's your job in this, right? Letting him know if there are issues?

Don't listen to Player A's complaints. Not your job. You can tell him if there are any concerns, and that you will be referring those concerns to the DM. You can offer him the chance to address those concerns before you do so. But if he starts begging or arguing, that's not your scene. You're not there to negotiate, you're there to form an opinion and refer it to the DM - do that.

Additionally, if you are sufficiently frustrated that you're concerned it might color your experience at the table, it's worth telling the DM about those issues. Let him know that Player A has really gotten on your nerves, here and in the past. Don't make a bold "He goes or I go" proclamation (unless you're willing to follow through on it), but let the DM know if you think there might be drama.

MichielHagen

2018-01-24, 01:08 PM

So? You play characters that fit the expectations of the game. When the expectations change, the characters you build naturally change. That's not being hypocritical.

The expectations are not different. The race was deemed to strong by the DM, not because it was the wrong flavor. There is no reason why this campaign would be any different. I totally agree a Orc might be declined because it would not fit the setting in one campaign, but would be fine in the next campaign.

Deities that offer the Law domain are generally (always) Lawful; a cleric must be within one step of their deity's alignment; a barbarian loses their rage if they turn Lawful. That means the character must be some form of Neutral. The only deities with Law, Knowledge, and Travel are Anu (a Babylonian/Mesopotamian deity), Ptah (a Pharaonic deity), and Taiia (creator aspect, a D&D example of monotheism). The first two are LN, which would require A's character to be N, and since the last one is probably not available (it requires an alternate cosmology), that's what we're at.

Is that in their backstory, too?

He has no deity, which is why my former post applies, copied from Complete Champion:
Appropriate Theme: If you do not follow any specific deity, your basic system of beliefs should support your domain feat choices. A good rule of thumb is to designate one to three domains (in addition to that corresponding to your first domain feat) that are important to you. These beliefs must also be consistent with your alignment.

To a certain extent... you've got two concerns here:

1) The optimization level of the group is unbalanced. One player with a PC optimized well above the average level of the group has a tendency to bork up the balance of the game. A rare few DMs can handle this problem elegantly, but most of the time it's a recipe for disaster. Sometimes a talk with the player to "tone things down" can help.

2) You have a personal issue with one of the players being a twit. This is something you're going to need to discuss either with the twit or the DM outside of the game. The cost/benefit on this one is hard to predict.

This is the summary. I know two other melee players will get overshadowed by this player. I just hope they will be able to either have fun despite of that, or that they have the balls to actually stand up and say something. I fear it will be neither of those.

The other is a mayor problem indeed. He is a good DM, a really good one, but everytime he is a player he just....tries to win D&D.
Last time when the campaign went bad because he was extremely overpowered (the current build is nowhere near that power level) i confronted him and told him i did not appreciate this kind of play where he dominates every single encounter. The main problem was, i didn't get any help from the other players, altough they did mention i was right afterwards. I hope this time they will stand up and say something if it turns out it's not balanced.

By the way, in the current (upcoming) campaign i am playing a Shapeshifter Druid with spontaneous rejuvenation who only casts Cold themed spells and healing spells. I have no real competition for my role. I think my damage (mostly 2d4 Winter's Blast cones) won't be very significant. The only really good spell i have is Obscuring Snow/Snowsight which i already told the DM could proof problematic. I suggested the spell can be set to 1 min/level, so it's only usuable for one encounter.

The other non-melee is a Beguiler. We both decided not to powerbuild.

The other Melees are a straight Fighter and a swordsage build, but that last one had so many mistakes in the build, i am not sure it will end up that way.

Aimeryan

2018-01-24, 02:19 PM

I mentioned it's odd to be devoted to a Wolf totem as well as a Lion totem, altough there are no rules against this.

This rankles some people, but I personally allow it as a DM. My reasoning is totem poles usually have multiple animals, and a pan-theistic tribal culture could revere a variety of nature spirits without adhering to the mono-theistic concept popular with certain modern religions. A barbarian with a parent from two different tribes could also have a legitimate reason to worship two different spirit animals to placate two different parents or set of ancestors. (However, this pairing is so obviously better from a mechanical standpoint that maybe we should just lampshade the LionWolf Tribe into canon and move on.)

From a balance standpoint, giving meatbags easier access to Pounce helps them stay relevant longer, so I'm more inclined to allow it under the "Melee Can Have Nice Things" principle.

The spiritual totem is basically a spirit guide; being personal. The other totem is defined as being tribal; a matter of heritage, group inclusion, and/or respect for what you know. I don't see any conflict there.

I played a Barbarian that was from a wolf totem tribe with his spiritual totem being that of a lion.

The area was inhabited by cunning, powerful wolves - some of which had been bred to be used as hunting companions - so it made sense that the tribe would respect and revere the wolf. Indeed, the wolves were notorious for bringing down their prey using running hamstringing tactics (slashes across the legs) which would cause the prey to trip and fall - making for an easy kill there after. From this the tribe learned to value tripping their opponents.

Each member was encouraged to explore other animals for a spiritual connection, upon which they would form a bond with a spirit animal that would visit and guide them in their dreams. The Barbarian I played formed a bond with a spirit lion, who taught him to value not hesitating once he made a decision. This translated into being ready and capable of attacking with all his might the moment he charged at opponents.

Troacctid

2018-01-24, 02:50 PM

You must be Lawful in order to select the Law domain (and replace it with Law Devotion).

A cleric can select an alignment domain (Chaos, Evil, Good, or Law) only if his alignment matches that domain.

Deophaun

2018-01-24, 02:51 PM

GrayDeath

2018-01-24, 03:04 PM

I know such a player as well.

Dont try to get the hyppocrisy thorough to them, it wont work (and it will lead to shouting).

Explain to the DM that the level of Optimization will make this character vastly overshadow other Melee Mundanes.

From there on either reduce his OP (aside from the any way illegal law Devotion)

OR (which I would prefer, as I like to give Mundanes Good Things^^)

Optimize the other two by making the Fighter a Warblade and helping them both pick fitting races and maneuvers.

The Barbarian willstill rock, but not to the detriment of others.

Quertus

2018-01-24, 03:32 PM

3e has many different balance points. Except, they're not points, they're ranges. What range of Power is this group comfortable with? Is the space between his character and the other muggles in the party beyond this range? If so, that's a problem; if not, no problem.

Personally, one of my old groups used to look forward to players like that. Because, when they brought in an overpowered build, and didn't self-correct, I'd play something 10x stronger than them, and then ask if they'd care to tone it back to what the rest of the party was playing. It was always great times, driving home the point that way. But, then, I'm good at being a ****. It's kinda my thing. So YMMV.

Otherwise, rules legal is an issue. Unless, in your group, it isn't. Maybe your group doesn't care about legal builds, and would love for your GM to wave prerequisites, or grant free LA or eye lasers or whatever.

In short, I agree with the general tons of what's already been said.

2gig

2018-01-24, 04:23 PM

I actually don't see it as hypocritical at all. Different DMs are going to have different levels of optimization they like at their table. It's not a DMs job to apply their houserules and nerfs to the characters they play at another DM's table. If the other DM has a problem with it, then it's that's DM's job to say no, just like the first DM did.

When I'm a DM, I prefer to houserule all the tier 1 and tier 2 full-casting classes down to 6 spell levels (distributed over 20 levels, with spells per day rearranged to result in the same amount of spells). When I've played DMPCs and even BBEGs, I've always applied this rule to my characters. If I'm playing with a DM who does things differently, and I feel like playing a full-caster, then I'm going to play it the way that DM regularly allows, which is probably the usual 9 spell levels in the PHB.

Telonius

2018-01-24, 10:50 PM

Yeah, this sort of behavior annoys me as well. It's pretty clear that he's developed a Super Awesome Melee Build and kind of stapled a justification on it as a backstory. (Dragonborn Water Orc? Yeah, I'm sure you've exhaustively developed that character concept because you loved the inherent internal tension). But annoyance or not, that's not completely disruptive to the game on its own; munchkins and powergamers are things I can live with and deal with. The problem I'm seeing is that (as others have said) several people are trying to fill the same role in the party, with one apparently far more optimized than the others. That's extremely likely to be disruptive to the lesser-optimized players' fun.

So, where to go from there. My gut reaction is, ask him to tone it down, but that might not work if you've already kind of blown up at him. If he's going to dig in his heels, build around him. Talk to the DM and the other players; see if they're dead set on playing melee as well or if they might be open to something else. Asking the munchkin to change his character's party role is only going to lead to more trouble; lucky for you he's sticking with melee where he'll do the least damage to game balance as a whole.

Sleven

2018-01-25, 02:32 AM

Someone please let me know if I'm being too ****-ish or blunt.

But here's the thing - it sounds like you're trying to find issues with the build, in order to justify turning it down for personal reasons. It's a little like, say, writing a character background in order to justify taking liberties with the build. So before you do anything, take a step back and reflect - are you being disingenuous?

I'm going to have to agree with Red Fel here. Especially after hearing you're playing druid. You could have 3's in every stat and the bare minimum in wisdom and still be the most powerful character in your party.

No matter how much you try to not overshadow the other players, you're a druid. You get to sit at the table with a smug look on your face knowing you can handle any CR appropriate encounter the DM throws at you. You should be doing everything in your power to help the water orc, the other melees, and the beguiler become more powerful.

Something else feels "off" about your party role... the beguiler is going straight beguiler without any shenanigans, but you want to focus on supporting the party by controlling the environment and/or enemies? That's literally what the beguiler's spell list does. You're just using cold spells from the druid list instead of enchantments and illusions, to do it better. Recommend they go rainbow servant or something (please). Furthermore, wildshape and shapechange make you a better melee than your party's current melees (water orc included), and you still have a problem? Unless you're completely ignorant of a druid's class features, to me this is evidence enough that this is a personal matter between you two.

Honestly, threads like these are why people need to focus on the roleplay elements of D&D and drop the childish tit-for-tat nonsense that seems to stem from the mechanical aspects of the game. If he or she can pull off a conflicted water orc with a diverse background in-character why should anyone care? You said they were a good DM, so it sounds like they're capable of some decent roleplay by your standards (unless your group is into mechanical hack-n-slash adventures and that's what they do well). Should this person have allowed you to play water orc last campaign (or whatever) if they allowed anything tier 3 or above to see play at their table? Yes. But this game is about more than combat encounters. Once people start realizing that and DMing and playing accordingly, I hope I won't have to see threads titled "Ubercharger Ruined Game" or "Don't Allow Incantatrixes" anymore.

A free tip for your DM:

You know what I like to do when I DM? I take the characters who get marginalized the most during combat encounters and bring them forward the most in other encounters. For example, the king or queen might trust the good 'ole regular fighter who works diligently to defend the kingdom to marry his son or daughter, have a voice in court, etc. but not the beastly water orc who eviscerates everything in sight in under 6 seconds, or the wizard who manipulates and deals with unknown (and untrustworthy) otherworldly forces on a daily basis. This lets regular fighter have just as much screen time (and feel just as influential) when it comes to the party's affairs.

Mordaedil

2018-01-25, 02:55 AM

I don't think it is very hypocritical because it was bloody two years ago.

That is a really long time ago. People change political ideals, borders change on a global scale and people find jobs, leave universities and new discoveries are made in that time.

For a person to change their minds about playing a water orc isn't a huge stretch in that time.

Fizban

2018-01-25, 03:25 AM

While I might recommend them where appropriate on the boards, I don't use things that I've banned when building characters, because obviously. There are actually a bunch of things I haven't banned that are still on a sort of "top-shelf only" standing. Both categories include things I've used or would have allowed years ago.

Is two years a long time ago? Eh, I don't think I actually agree on that. Aside from the occasional epiphany, I've found myself and other gamers to be fairly slow to change: a couple years, especially if you haven't played constantly through them, isn't that long. I this case though, it probably is indicative of a change: they used to say no, then they discovered CharOp, now they want all the most powerful things they can wheedle in because wah.

As for weather this is just between him and the DM: no, it is not. The DM asked for your help reviewing characters and you just said you know this character is going to overshadow two other melee characters. One person does not outweigh two people, his build is OP and it needs to be nerfed (the DM should also be informed of any problems with the party makeup, like how having 3 melee characters competing for the same role means whoever rolls lower on initiative gets the worst place to stand and might not even be able to melee at all in cramped quarters).

I agree with others that you might want to double-check yourself and make sure its not personal, but with almost every part of that sentence being a red-flag "just plain better" feature, well I think it's pretty unlikely that the other two melee characters wouldn't be underpowered, there's almost nothing left this guy hasn't already crammed in short of big weapon.

Edit: and considering the lengths you say you've taken to reign in the druid, as long as you keep to them (and most of them can't be undone), then I'll back that too. The other spellcaster is a Beguiler? I'd actually rate that as more disruptive than druid with those two ACFs, mind control is mind control.

gooddragon1

2018-01-25, 03:50 AM

It's rules legal. It is a double standard, but different DM different rules. The part that is a problem as mentioned by others is whether their build is grossly inappropriate for the power level of the campaign and the party. Backstory is not an license to stomp a campaign. Review potential damage numbers and combat potential with the DM to see if they are appropriate. I have a feeling player A will see this as you gunning for him after not allowing a water orc. You must point out to him that a build that powerful could diminish the game and perhaps suggest that while a water orc race choice on its own is possible, the combination he has put forward is too much.

Also, I think you meant whirling frenzy (ua rage variant) instead of whirling dervish?

Looks like he might be going for an ubercharger. See if he has mounted feats, a lance, etc.

Mordaedil

2018-01-25, 04:40 AM

Is two years a long time ago? Eh, I don't think I actually agree on that. Aside from the occasional epiphany, I've found myself and other gamers to be fairly slow to change: a couple years, especially if you haven't played constantly through them, isn't that long. I this case though, it probably is indicative of a change: they used to say no, then they discovered CharOp, now they want all the most powerful things they can wheedle in because wah.

Yes, 2 years is a fairly long time unless you live in a vacuum.

It's certainly long enough for you to completely change your opinion on a subject.

Yahzi

2018-01-25, 06:24 AM

Because i became irritated, i also mentioned it's hypocritical to play a race, you as a DM would decline because it would be too beneficial.
It's not hypocritical of him to ask to play a Water Orc.

It is hypocritical for him to complain when the DM says no.

:smallsmile:

Darth Ultron

2018-01-25, 07:24 AM

I'm not a fan of such optimizing jerk players. Most often I will just never game with them in the first place.....but it's also fun to ''get'' the player in game play.

When a player has such a character, they are saying they are a jerk and want to ruin the game....so I have no problem striking back at them, in the game.

In there crazy optimizing haze they will think they have ''the greatest super duper awesome all powerful character 4ever'', but that won't work out for them in the game play reality.

And as such a jerk player will have lots of other problems that make them a problem player, they will all most always ''get'' their own character in trouble....so I can just sit back and watch.

Mordaedil

2018-01-25, 07:58 AM

So you love bullying people, but you hate it when people try to play on your level, got it.

Quertus

2018-01-25, 10:38 AM

It's not hypocritical of him to ask to play a Water Orc.

It is hypocritical for him to complain when the DM says no.

:smallsmile:

Unless, of course, he's one of those people, who thrive on conflict, and he only banned the Water Orc in his game to get the OP to fight about it.

Pyromancer999

2018-01-25, 06:06 PM

Ignoring the rest of the issues around the character, how is he getting around the fact that Dragonborn are the children of Bahamut, created from the faithful who wish to fight evil (especially evil dragons), but not having a deity? Just to note, though, having him as a deity would justify the Law Devotion, but does not explain how he is still either a Dragonborn or Cleric if he has turned away from Bahamut.

Zanos

2018-01-25, 06:26 PM

The expectations are not different. The race was deemed to strong by the DM, not because it was the wrong flavor. There is no reason why this campaign would be any different. I totally agree a Orc might be declined because it would not fit the setting in one campaign, but would be fine in the next campaign.
If the game is being played at the same level of balance and he thinks something is too strong, the DM needs to put his foot down. [Some Optimal Combination] being part of a characters "necessary" backstory is A class weaseling. I know because I've done it before.

Someone please let me know if I'm being too ****-ish or blunt.

I'm going to have to agree with Red Fel here. Especially after hearing you're playing druid. You could have 3's in every stat and the bare minimum in wisdom and still be the most powerful character in your party.

No matter how much you try to not overshadow the other players, you're a druid. You get to sit at the table with a smug look on your face knowing you can handle any CR appropriate encounter the DM throws at you. You should be doing everything in your power to help the water orc, the other melees, and the beguiler become more powerful.
Player>Build>Class. You can make a wizard that's weaker than a fighter, and people thought wizard wasn't good for a long time because they prepared Fireball instead of Haste.

In this case, Water Orc Lion Wolf Totem Barbarian is probably more of a problem than shapeshifter druid(considered worse than normal druid) that only casts healing and cold spells, which are bad.

Being a melee character isn't an excuse to do 400 damage per round to enemies with 100 health. An insane damage build damages the game more than a control wizard because the control wizard inherently plays to make their team better, where the damage guy focuses on having as much spotlight as possible.

Quertus

2018-01-25, 06:35 PM

Oh, and just to point out out, the correct response to "that won't work with my concept" is "ok, then bring another character".

Sleven

2018-01-25, 07:30 PM

An insane damage build damages the game more than a control wizard because the control wizard inherently plays to make their team better, where the damage guy focuses on having as much spotlight as possible.

It would seem I'm not the only one who would disagree with this statement.

If you look in this thread you'll find what people think of "control" and "support" wizards summarized quite nicely: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?548998-Mystic-Theurge-Build-and-Conversation

Example:

You can say till you're blue in the face that you're only buffing the allies and debuffing the enemy, but when it comes down to it, you're just being a puppet master with your own party. You hold all the keys to the world and you're just waiting for your party to come beg you for help. That's more degrading and worse than being a self-buffer.

And this poster agreeing with the above statement:

This 'man gets it.

Opinions like these reaffirm that people aren't blind to recognizing the true source of a party's power.

Which is why I find the best solutions to be:
#1 Roleplay
#2 Letting characters fulfill their "power fantasy"

If you have to reign them in for the sake of the story, then by all means do so. But trying to balance the mechanical aspect of the game almost never works, because people tend to look at numbers more than they do what it means to be truly effective and/or powerful in all manner of situations (not just punching monsters with lots of hit points). To me, DMs who try and "balance the game" by taking things away from fighters, while simultaneously allowing classes with spells in their games show a complete lack of understanding of how the game actually works.

Ask yourself if a 400 damage great cleave that kills 1-3 monsters in a round is more effective than a save-or-lose or save-or-die (or in the druid's case, no save, just lose) that just took the entire encounter out of the fight, utilizing less actions to boot. If the wizard or druid is god, why can't the fighter at least be the hulk?

In this case, Water Orc Lion Wolf Totem Barbarian is probably more of a problem than shapeshifter druid(considered worse than normal druid) that only casts healing and cold spells, which are bad.

In what world? For the sake of fairness, would you like to run a series of encounters where you play the water orc and I play a druid that sells away all of their class features while only keeping the spellcasting and limiting myself to healing and cold spells? I'd let you gestalt any other "melee" class and I still guarantee I'd outperform the water orc in every encounter.

zergling.exe

2018-01-25, 09:39 PM

It would seem I'm not the only one who would disagree with this statement.

Opinions like these reaffirm that people aren't blind to recognizing the true source of a party's power.

D&D is a team game, so long as everyone knows that the wizard's job is to control the enemies (4E even made it their Role) then they should understand that the character is fulfilling what their purpose in the party is.

In what world? For the sake of fairness, would you like to run a series of encounters where you play the water orc and I play a druid that sells away all of their class features while only keeping the spellcasting and limiting myself to healing and cold spells? I'd let you gestalt any other "melee" class and I still guarantee I'd outperform the water orc in every encounter.

The problem is primarily that there are three character vying for the melee position, with one of them being hyper-optimized over the other two. Even if the druid can outperform the orc, it doesn't matter if the druid isn't being compared as a 'melee' character.

Fizban

2018-01-25, 10:23 PM

And this poster agreeing with the above statement:
So you've quoted my and AnimeTheCat's exchange from a different thread*, and unfortunately, you've missed the part where I'm basically also the biggest crusader against OMGSPLTBBQPOUNCE! there is. I laid off a bit in this thread because it's more about the person than the build, but in any other thread where the topic of melee builds that one-shot monsters comes up, I'm right there smacking them with the DMG (literally quoting the lines from the DMG that define that as broken).

Playing puppetmaster with your own party is bogus, and demanding a character that can one-round enemies which are supposed to require the whole party is bogus. Yes, a melee character who deals 400 damage per round is more effective than control (and also moreso than even save-or-X). Zanos and are I quite in alignment here, unless they want to specifically disagree on save-or-X.

Claiming that "roleplay" focus can fix everything is pretty disingenuous when the whole group still has to participate in the mechanical side of the game. Unless you're shoving the char-op characters to the side in every roleplay situation (and you'd best believe they included char-op for "roleplay" situations), there's no balance here, and even if there were it'd just be a pendulum. The party must be made to function within the same zone of balance, and forcing that is the DM's job.

*Incidentally, the party mentioned in that thread also includes 2-3 conflicting characters (two 2-hand melees and a warlock), which I mentioned- ATC's response was confidence in the DM's ability to build encounters where they won't trip over and compete with each other. That's going to be a difficult balancing act, but its still easier than trying to do it for 3 full melees, one of whom is setting up to be drastically overpowered.

Sleven

2018-01-26, 04:19 AM

D&D is a team game, so long as everyone knows that the wizard's job is to control the enemies (4E even made it their Role) then they should understand that the character is fulfilling what their purpose in the party is.

So the wizard's job is to single-handedly end encounters while everyone else gets to roll numbers to "finish the job", and that's supposed to make everyone feel better about the inadequacies of their non-spellcasting characters?

I don't buy into the concept of party roles when one character or role is clearly doing more than the others, and I think there are plenty of other players who feel the same.

The problem is primarily that there are three character vying for the melee position, with one of them being hyper-optimized over the other two. Even if the druid can outperform the orc, it doesn't matter if the druid isn't being compared as a 'melee' character.

Rather than look at having three characters "with the same party role" as a problem, why don't people look at it as a roleplay opportunity? Maybe there's synergy to be found in the fact that they're all melee characters. Maybe it creates an element of friendly competition, or even a mentor/mentee relationship? Maybe [whatever your you can imagine here]. But perhaps most importantly of all: maybe it doesn't matter.

And if the mechanical aspects of the game are still the party's primary concern, due to the desire to run a hack'n'slash campaign, lack of creativity, or whatever, there are rules for things like retraining, etc. so that other characters can "catch up". Then mr/mrs/ms water orc doesn't have to be the only badass in town. If there must be differentiation, the water orc pounces and trips, but do they grapple? Or toss enemies (and friends) around the battlefield like pinballs? Are they indestrucable? The list of possibilities for optimized builds that the other melees could play goes on.

So you've quoted my and AnimeTheCat's exchange from a different thread*, and unfortunately, you've missed the part where I'm basically also the biggest crusader against OMGSPLTBBQPOUNCE! there is.

But I got the part where there exists a train of thought out there that spellcasters still hold the keys to the campaign, regardless of how much they try and pretend they're not doing or not capable of doing. And that's what matters, because that was my point. Players recognize that wizards, druids, etc. run things at the table, and that "battlefield control" and "party support" can be just as intrusive and marginalizing to other players (if not more) than just straight up outperforming them in their chosen role.

Even if you want to backpedal on this point, it doesn't matter. Other players feel this way, even if you don't. And that's what I was trying to get across. Pleasing everyone at the table isn't always as simple as saying, "Okay. You heal. I tank. You damage. But don't forget to keep it within this variable range."

I'm right there smacking them with the DMG

I wouldn't recommend smacking anyone with a DMG. There is an adult way to handle issues at the table.

Playing puppetmaster with your own party is bogus, and demanding a character that can one-round enemies which are supposed to require the whole party is bogus. Yes, a melee character who deals 400 damage per round is more effective than control (and also moreso than even save-or-X). Zanos and are I quite in alignment here, unless they want to specifically disagree on save-or-X.

The melee character is limited by reach, WBL, AC, etc., but perhaps most importantly by the fact that they're a melee that any competent DM can make useless for an entire fight with a swift action. Furthermore, most of the spells I had in mind cover more area (and thus more enemies) than a 400 damage a round melee build can ever dream of and a number of them don't even offer saves (you seemed to have missed the part where I mentioned that). It's really just clean up at that point, and that's assuming you didn't use any of the no-save-just-die spells, some of which can take out deities pre-epic.

Claiming that "roleplay" focus can fix everything is pretty disingenuous when the whole group still has to participate in the mechanical side of the game. Unless you're shoving the char-op characters to the side in every roleplay situation (and you'd best believe they included char-op for "roleplay" situations), there's no balance here, and even if there were it'd just be a pendulum. The party must be made to function within the same zone of balance, and forcing that is the DM's job.

I don't see how I'm being disingenuous here when you're the one selling your D&D experience short by focusing overmuch on combat while simultaneously downplaying the importance of roleplay at the table (at least, that's my assumption based on your wording). Worst of all, by limiting player decisions in an attempt to provide some semblance of "balance" to an incorrigible game that doesn't need it in the first place.

Hell, the mechanical aspects of the game encompass more than just combat. Furthermore, not every encounter is required to use the mechanical aspects of the game. Often times, good roleplay can suffice an entire session, and even the CharOp player can contribute. You can even add roleplay to your combat! I get the impression you haven't sat at tables with many CharOp players. And I don't mean people who read a handbook and are combining water orc with a barbarian dip to do 400 damage a round because they've never done it before or don't care one whit about the story. I mean players that really, truly, possess enough game knowledge that they are capable of optimizing characters in ways you've probably never seen before and break a game out of the gate without referring to a copy of Serpent Kingdoms. I have. And most of them are hardly any trouble even when they choose to bring this forum's nono classes, like Incantatrix (which has great roleplay fluff, by the way), to the table.

I've DM'd games with parties that included new players playing regular old fighters and experienced players playing builds on par with mind mages that possess nigh infinite caster level, often times with overlapping "roles". You would think such a power differential would cause them to step on each others' toes and cause "regular old fighter" to have a bad time. Yet, funnily enough, everyone enjoyed themselves. But then again, when I DM I make it very clear that the campaigns I run are story focused, and that the best way to be involved in the story and influence it is through good roleplay.

So please, reconsider, and don't be so quick to disregard the power of good roleplay at any gaming table. Never lose sight of the human and creative element when it comes to D&D, despite its mechanical aspects, but perhaps most importantly that they can be combined if it is your aim to do so.

I applaud everyone here for trying to create fun and meaningful roleplaying experiences for the majority of players at their table in their own unique ways, but I also feel these efforts are misguided for a number of reasons I've gone over in this thread. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

Darth Ultron

2018-01-26, 08:33 AM

So you love bullying people, but you hate it when people try to play on your level, got it.

I wish I could find more players that could play on my level.

MichielHagen

2018-01-26, 10:55 AM

AnimeTheCat

2018-01-26, 02:24 PM

Do I think this guy is a hypocrite? eh... not really. Do I think he's being a jerk? Yeah. Do I think he should rein it in? yeah.

You're going to have to ask yourself and your group a pretty hard question, and that questions is where are you drawing the line. You personally and you as a party. Where do you draw the line before you stop tolerating it? If you can't handle another session like this last one, tell the DM that you don't want to play anymore. If the whole party can't handle it, just have them do the same. If this guy is a friend, he should understand. If he truly wants to play the game, he'll understand. If he's just being a jerk and doesn't care, he won't understand and unfortunately he'll have ended the game.

If you and the others aren't enjoying yourselves, what's the point of even playing the game?

Zanos

2018-01-26, 02:28 PM

He should play a different character, because what he thinks is balanced and what the party thinks is balanced are clearly not in the same ballpark.

Jiece18

2018-01-26, 03:13 PM

Blaming the DM is generally a weak argument for making an unbalanced character, especially if you know better. It sounds like he knew the current DM wasn't as experienced and took advantage of it. No backstory can be used as an excuse to just throw a bunch of classes/abilities together to make an over optimized character.

The Dragonborn aspect alone requires you to swear allegiance with Bahamut and the destruction of all evil dragons. If he is not doing that, the DM has every right to have the dragon god strip him of his Dragonborn form.

The glaive does a 1d10+9 dmg with rage based on the stats given. Does he have any magic items or feats that would boost that? Cause the multiple is a X3, but only on a roll of 20.

I would agree that limiting books would not completely solve optimization, but restricting races and the number of core classes you can have could help. Generally, if a DM has no plans on using a particular race fo NPCs, then Players shouldn't be able to use them unless permission is granted. The guy is using three core classes and while there is no rule against such a thing, restricting to one core class and any number of prestige classes might reduce some of the problems.

Granted if the guy just wants to be a jerk about it, their is little you can do.

MichielHagen

2018-01-26, 03:25 PM

The glaive does a 1d10+9 dmg with rage based on the stats given. Does he have any magic items or feats that would boost that? Cause the multiple is a X3, but only on a roll of 20.

Sorry for not being clear. The Powerbuilder was using Knowledge Devotion, Whirling Frenzy, Law Devotion, +4 STR race, custom made item to get Enlarge Person (3/day for 1200gp instead of the regular Belt of Growth we use a lot and he knows of, which is 1/day and 3000gp) and probably some more stuff, i wasn't bothered by the numbers, because this was all getting exactly to a point i personally was hoping for (that the other players realized this was not right). His average rolls on attacks got above 20 damage, and with two attacks he did over 40 damage per round.
But when the Beguiler player confronted him with those numbers compared to Spiked Chain Fighter, the Powerbuilder responded that a simple barbarian with the abilities i mentioned, would do 40+ damage on a critical, so what is the problem.
I understand you get confused, because this makes absolutely no sense, but this was his explanation on why it's fine.
I would want to note this guy is not retarded (altough he is acting the contrary), he has a PhD and possibly makes more money than all the other players combined.

I would agree that limiting books would not completely solve optimization, but restricting races and the number of core classes you can have could help. Generally, if a DM has no plans on using a particular race fo NPCs, then Players shouldn't be able to use them unless permission is granted. The guy is using three core classes and while there is no rule against such a thing, restricting to one core class and any number of prestige classes might reduce some of the problems.

The problem with limiting books, is that you are limiting all players and not solving the problem. You can make an equally strong power build with just PHB. And in the meanwhile you are cutting off al kinds of interesting abilities, classes, feats that could be used to make a character that is not broken.

sleepyphoenixx

2018-01-26, 03:47 PM

As several people have already said the correct response to his character would have been "tone it down to fit the rest of the party". Frankly he shouldn't ever have brought that build to the first session.
That's largely on him being a jerk, but a part of the fault also falls on you (as the guy who vetted the builds) and the DM (because the correct response to "but i don't want to tone down my build" isn't "okay fine, just stop bothering me" it's "then you don't get to play").

That's what it comes down to. The moment the session started and he plopped down his character sheet you and the DM should have said "that character was explicitly rejected because it's too strong for this game/this party".
You didn't, so now you're in damage control mode. You can either appeal to the problem player's sense of fair play/group fun ("you saw how much you overshadow the others. That's no fun for anyone"), but that's most likely a lost cause from what has already happened.
You can get together with the rest of the group and give him an ultimatum - make a build that fits the groups powerlevel or don't bother showing up to the next session.
Or you can let him get away with it, but that's likely to have the other players lose interest, breed resentment and just encourage the problem guy to escalate.

Either way it's very likely to cause strife in your group, but that's unavoidable at this point.
The third option is the most likely one to disintegrate your whole group though, so i'd recommend the second (group pressure). You'll either get through his skull that D&D is a group game and that the rest of the party has no fun playing sidekick or he'll throw a tantrum and leave.

I would agree that limiting books would not completely solve optimization, but restricting races and the number of core classes you can have could help. Generally, if a DM has no plans on using a particular race fo NPCs, then Players shouldn't be able to use them unless permission is granted. The guy is using three core classes and while there is no rule against such a thing, restricting to one core class and any number of prestige classes might reduce some of the problems.
Bans only help if one option is significantly stronger than other options for the same niche. Here it's just stacking a lot of things that are fine individually and arguably necessary to make melee fun and competitive, so it would backfire.
Not to mention that there was a review of builds by the OP specifically to catch problems like this. The DM just didn't stick to that and let the problem player bring in his build anyway once he whined enough.

A ban wouldn't help anything in this case. If book restrictions prevent him from optimizing a melee character he'll just use a caster which can be optimized in core-only if necessary. Or whine about the bans until the DM allows them in just to shut him up.
This is a problem with player mentality, not with book access.

MaxMAnAtArms

2018-01-26, 04:20 PM

So hes wanting insert Power Set
" Dragonborn Water Orc with a Spirit-totem Lion/Totem Wolf Whirling Dervish Barbarian with a dip in Cloistered Cleric for Knowledge Devotion, Law Devotion, Travel Devotion and Crusader (Stone Power)"

Okay so lets break this down shall we?

dragon born In order to be accepted as a suitable candidate, the supplicant must be non-evil and have an Intelligence score of at least 3.
Then there is this tid bit you should give to the DM "These servants of Bahamut epitomize devotion to righteousness. Their very appearance gives an impression of virtuous purpose. Dragonborn carry themselves with good deportment, seeing themselves as humanoid representations of noble dragonkind. "

I.e there is no chaotic or unsure. They are of good and of order and law.

Now the fun part about the barb levels he is wanting.
Spirit loses level 1 class feature fast movement for a pounce
Wolf totem replaces level 2 uncanny dodge for improved dodge

No issues right? Now the one chipped corner.

"Barbarian Alignment Any nonlawful. " which shouldnt be to hard normally. But Dragon born would go against it as they are "epitomize devotion to righteousness" I.e a lawful good...

And then ontop of that the cleric dip

"Alignment : A cleric’s alignment must be within one step of his deity’s (that is, it may be one step away on either the lawful-chaotic axis or the good-evil axis, but not both). A cleric may not be neutral unless his deity’s alignment is also neutral or one step away "

He cant be both a cleric "uncertain of his nature" unlawful barbarian and a Righteous dragon born. His class and "templates" clash heavily.

I would show the DM the Books and where it shows em and have em Smack the "power game orc " into the No pile.

He wants to play Power Race power template mix melee god char. He needs to be more "sure" of his alienment and play to it or as a DM i would wait till he didnt play to his "backstory"
Ask if he is sure of his action he is doing when he fails to uphold his story up. The moment he breaks his characters morals Hit him with all the punishment of doing so. I.e Bahamut taking away his "boon" i.e no more dragon or bounses and loss of feats when be fails to uphold the ideal of a dragon born etc. Or his god forsaking him for being so washy. etc.

EDIT:

Depending on the levels of barb he is taking. he cant take level 5 of both since thye conflict so that may be another good point to point out the broken ness. See if the game Dm will ask for a set "what level did you be come this or that" to see if it holds up if you did do it level by level.

ComaVision

2018-01-26, 04:26 PM

Depending on the levels of barb he is taking. he cant take level 5 of both since thye conflict so that may be another good point to point out the broken ness. See if the game Dm will ask for a set "what level did you be come this or that" to see if it holds up if you did do it level by level.

This is attacking the symptom rather than the cause. As OP has noted, the root issue (the player's mentality) needs to be addressed.

MichielHagen

2018-01-26, 04:28 PM

That's largely on him being a jerk, but a part of the fault also falls on you (as the guy who vetted the builds) and the DM (because the correct response to "but i don't want to tone down my build" isn't "okay fine, just stop bothering me" it's "then you don't get to play").

While i understand this reaction, i was only asked to review mistakes in the sheet. Being overpowered is not against the rules.

While i did mention his character was too overpowered, it got into a discussion that ended in him saying "if you don't drop this, i quit the group". In contrary to what some might think, i do not want this player to quit. But most of all, i didn't want to be the one to tell the rest of the group one of their friends quit because of me.

In the current situation the rest of the group have played a session with this character, and at this point they understand the problem as well and it can be handled as a group, instead of me alone.

zergling.exe

2018-01-26, 04:41 PM

While i understand this reaction, i was only asked to review mistakes in the sheet. Being overpowered is not against the rules.

While i did mention his character was too overpowered, it got into a discussion that ended in him saying "if you don't drop this, i quit the group". In contrary to what some might think, i do not want this player to quit. But most of all, i didn't want to be the one to tell the rest of the group one of their friends quit because of me.

In the current situation the rest of the group have played a session with this character, and at this point they understand as well and this problem can be handled as a group, instead of me alone.

The most important thing your group needs to do now, is put their foot down. If it's either he plays his OP char to everyone else's detriment, or he leaves the group, you all as a group need to let him go. Don't continue to game with him just because he is a friend. His play style doesn't mesh with the rest of the group and everyone needs to accept that and move on. There is also the possibility that seeing the entire group aligned against him will cause him to reel it in, but don't count on it. You can't back down, as a group, if you want the problem resolved. Friends don't let friends walk all over each other.

And who knows? Maybe after you kick him out he'll come crawling back for a second chance in a few months. Give it to him with the clear expectation of building to the group's power level.

sleepyphoenixx

2018-01-26, 04:55 PM

While i understand this reaction, i was only asked to review mistakes in the sheet. Being overpowered is not against the rules.
My mistake then. Though i suppose you tried to do that anyway from the rest of your post.

While i did mention his character was too overpowered, it got into a discussion that ended in him saying "if you don't drop this, i quit the group". In contrary to what some might think, i do not want this player to quit. But most of all, i didn't want to be the one to tell the rest of the group one of their friends quit because of me.
Friends don't hold their friendship hostage. Though i understand wanting to leave it up to the whole group, so i can't fault you for backing down here, especially since you aren't the DM.

In the current situation the rest of the group have played a session with this character, and at this point they understand the problem as well and it can be handled as a group, instead of me alone.
Probably the best you're going to get. You could've brought it up before the start of the session, but it wouldn't change anything at this point and like this, with the other players having seen the problem first hand, it might be better in the end.

There isn't anything else i can do but wish you good luck with the confrontation, so good luck.

GrayDeath

2018-01-26, 05:13 PM

MichielHagen

2018-01-26, 05:30 PM

Just worth reiterating: it is ALSO a valid Solution to make the other Characters "better", eg help the Swoprdsage to a Telflammar Shadowlord or similar Shadowpunce class, make the Fighter a Warblade or give him better Race/Feat Setup for his spiked chain build (which is usually not damage but control/trip focussed anyway), and you ahve 3 Meleeists focussing on: Max Damage, Battlefield Control, Flexible melee".

Not ideal, as the situation seems to point towards the WorkDB Player being a real problem, but it might help solve the imminent dissolution of the group without further shouting/strife.

While this could be true, this would not work.

1. There are players in our group who are not capable of power building, because they do not have the time to actually find all the broken stuff. I have helped players before to get to a bit higher powerlevel than they would be without my help, but never the powerlevel that is being problematic at this point.
2. How would one determine the level of brokeness that is allowed? He created a custom magic item (which i missed while reviewing the sheet, or maybe it wasnt there), which should never have been allowed. But if we let this character go, then what's stopping anyone to take it one step further and create a continious true strike item for 2k or something similar ridiculous.

I guess the power level we are going for now is pretty low-optimization. A Dwareven Fighter level 3 with a greatsword, power attack and weapon focus would already be on-par with what the current melee-ers are doing.

GrayDeath

2018-01-26, 05:50 PM

While this could be true, this would not work.

1. There are players in our group who are not capable of power building, because they do not have the time to actually find all the broken stuff. I have helped players before to get to a bit higher powerlevel than they would be without my help, but never the powerlevel that is being problematic at this point.

I assumed that, hence the "Help them" suggestion. :)

2. How would one determine the level of brokeness that is allowed? He created a custom magic item (which i missed while reviewing the sheet, or maybe it wasnt there), which should never have been allowed. But if we let this character go, then what's stopping anyone to take it one step further and create a continious true strike item for 2k or something similar ridiculous.

My Suggestions, and actually even the problem Players build, are not broken in any way.
They are simply more than your table is used to.
Broken are other things, but nearly nothing melee.

Now letting him build a custom magic Item is however simply unfair.
Remove it, explain it slippeed the DM`s inexperienced eyes, and be done with it.

I guess the power level we are going for now is pretty low-optimization. A Dwareven Fighter level 3 with a greatsword, power attack and weapon focus would already be on-par with what the current melee-ers are doing.

So there ar eno casters in your Group, and the Sword Sage decided never to ready any maneuvers?
Because the Power of the above example is about one step above a Sowrd and Board Figheter, ergo as close to an NPC as youc an get while still using a PC Class.

Now please dont get this wrong, but that is not a build/way to paly that allows the Melee Guy to be useful as anything more than an ornament.

To sum it up::

I see 2 Options.

Set an ultimatum for the problem Player to change the build, or leave. See what happens.

Or tell him to remove the illegal item and (mayhap with the forums help) build the remaining martials to a good, useful standard, as suggested above.

sleepyphoenixx

2018-01-26, 06:05 PM

My Suggestions, and actually even the problem Players build, are not broken in any way.
They are simply more than your table is used to.
Broken are other things, but nearly nothing melee.

This is simply false. Leaving aside the issue of the rest of the group having to adapt to the problem player who refuses to compromise, there's also the fact that premade monsters and encounters assume a certain powerlevel.
An min-maxed melee character is "broken" in the sense that he cuts effortlessly through encounters that should be level appropriate. You can't just use higher CR monsters because the damage scales out of proportion with the player's defensive stats and access to specific counters that the game expects a party to have at a certain CR (like Restoration, Death Ward and so on).

That means that, to provide an appropriate challenge to the party, the DM has to handcraft every. single. enemy. Because curbstomps are no fun, but neither is getting oneshotted by something you don't have any way to defend against.
Needless to say this is a ton of work on top of the ton of work that DMing already is, and almost impossible to get right for a new DM (which the OP said his DM is).

I'm not saying it's impossible for a DM to adapt to an optimized party, but not only does it require way more work than just the party toning it down, it also requires the DM to actually have the requisite knowledge of the system.
It's completely unreasonable to expect a newbie DM and a party that is used to and happy with low-op to go to that effort for a single player.

Deophaun

2018-01-26, 07:42 PM

"Barbarian Alignment Any nonlawful. " which shouldnt be to hard normally. But Dragon born would go against it as they are "epitomize devotion to righteousness" I.e a lawful good...
Yeah no.

Although all dragonborn serve Bahamut’s cause with sincere, heartfelt devotion, not all of them employ tactics that he himself would use to accomplish their noble goals. In the conflict with Tiamat, Bahamut turns a forgiving eye toward slightly immoral actions but doesn’t tolerate any form of evil. All the children of the Platinum Dragon share the commitment to fight against evil dragonkind.

Their methods vary greatly.
This is under the section "Law and Chaos, Good and Evil." The only requirement is that you do not commit evil, not that you be lawful or even good. A barbarian is an appropriate choice for a Dragonborn.

Tohsaka Rin

2018-01-26, 08:12 PM

While i did mention his character was too overpowered, it got into a discussion that ended in him saying "if you don't drop this, i quit the group".

The appropriate response to this is 'ok, bye'.

Seriously. Anyone a player makes a threat to ruin the game for other players in some form if they don't get their way, drop them. You're trying to discuss with one person how to make the game fun for everyone involved, not just them, and their response is to lay down an ultimatum?

If you want to be more diplomatic, by all means, be polite but firm about it. Because this player? They're putting their wants above the rest of the people around the table, that they're supposed to be playing a game with, co-operatively. Letting them run roughshod over the campaign isn't fair to everyone else sitting around the table.

Aimeryan

2018-01-26, 10:40 PM

I get the feeling the player has put time and effort into the build and is now reluctant to just let it go or reduce it.

Might be worth suggesting that he put the build to one side and use in the next campaign when everyone has to build to that powerlevel - challenge him for this campaign to come up with a character of comparable power to the rest of the players but perhaps with greater versatility and support, with further consideration to coming up with background racial history, character motivations, etc.

I speak this from having put a lot of effort into one of my first characters only to find out no one else had cared to and then everyone was trying to make me simpler and weaker to match them - it was very frustrating. I was able to get past this by being promised to keep the character for the next campaign. The replacement character I created allowed me to explore in completely different directions to the previous character, so it worked out for me.

RoboEmperor

2018-01-26, 10:48 PM

I generally side with the optimizers and chastise people who are against optimization. Unconventionally playstyles require high optimization to become even remotely viable in play and anyone who is against this is someone who doesn't understand entire point of d&d 3.5 and should switch to 5e instead of whining.

But that's not what happening here. The problem player here isn't trying to do something weird or fun. He isn't trying to make some kind of two-weapon fighting whirlwind build, he's not trying to emulate some kind of anime/video game character he likes, and he's not trying to make a character plagued with moral dilemmas that is conflicted between law and chaos as he claims. He is simply playing a generic run-of-the-mill swordsman that he optimized to one shot everything solely so he could one shot everything. Custom persistent true strike item is a massive red flag. It's a bigger red flag than a ubercharger.

If I were you, I'd say:
1. The first time DM is not capable of creating balanced encounters that's fun for everyone when one player is 3x stronger than the rest. Either that one character one shots everything and trivializes the encounter, or the other characters become too weak to contribute anything to the fight.
2. He didn't create the character for fun or uniqueness, he built it solely for mechanical purposes.
3. Everyone in the group hates your character and you're ruining everyone's fun. Stop being a spotlight hogging selfish player and build something that is in line with the other players or leave.

I think your mistake was saying "no powerbuilding". You should've said "in line with the other characters".

I regularly send out ultimatums to DMs and walk out. If I have a planar binding oriented character and my DM house rules that payment is mandatory for planar binding, I leave because that destroys my character entirely even though I never hogged the spotlight or did anything problematic. But that's not the case here, he's saying "I wanna murderer everything in one hit, and if you don't let me do that then **** you."

Jay R

2018-01-26, 10:49 PM

On one of the many issues here:

There are characters I would allow in one campaign but not in another. So there is no inconsistency in trying to play a character type that I disallowed in one of my previous campaigns.

MaxMAnAtArms

2018-01-26, 11:45 PM

This is attacking the symptom rather than the cause. As OP has noted, the root issue (the player's mentality) needs to be addressed.

While that is true he doesn't want to play by the "rules" he himself would enforce. Make him play by the rules of the game itself. And @ MichielHagen
If its a first time DM and everyone else is more experienced including "morapowa" player. I might suggest talking to everyone but the minmaxer and see if it would be best to find a new like minded individual for the group. One bad apple can end games and groups. :smallfrown:

Yeah no.

This is under the section "Law and Chaos, Good and Evil." The only requirement is that you do not commit evil, not that you be lawful or even good. A barbarian is an appropriate choice for a Dragonborn.

So unlawful something with in one step of a ditey for his cleric which the @OP says he has none. Which doesnt fly still. IM going by what the book with the dragonborn template came from. Nothing more a simple way of cracking this guys PC. But after reading he made a special weapon i think @OP just needs to either jump ship and give the others warning of this guys his own "king" and you play to his tune. or boot the Rotten player so the group has a better synch.

death390

2018-01-27, 12:11 AM

i will be the first to admit that this guy is a ****, try and convince him to build apporpriate to the rest of the team. (i know its hard i have that trouble myself). if he says no then show him the door, you will not be able to do anything appreciable in this game while dealing with the problems this guy brings to the table. if this is let stand, he will have taken a mile, next a country.

i personally have an issue building to my teams level (most of them are similar to to your group, melee/bow mundanes). i try and do things that don't work without power building to compensate but i have overdone it with my current build. i am an arcane swordsage with non-combat buffs, a couple maneuvers and kelgores firebolt as my only ranged attack. at the way my group works just being a initiator is too powerful, but we need someone who can see magic (using arcane sight as a maneuver), have plenty of skill points, trapfind (trait for it), identify items, and about 30 other things. trying to cover them all has me stretched but i am too powerful no matter how i try and tone it down.

Quertus

2018-01-27, 12:13 AM

Sorry for the long time no reply. There has been too many posts for me to actually reply to all of them, but it seems clear that the opinions are pretty divided.

Back to my situation:
Yesterday was our first session, our new DM did a great job at setting the atmosphere and all was fun. At some point an encounter began, 18 dogs (CR 1/3, Encounter CR 4.2).
The Fighter swings his Spiked Chain and hits, 8 damage, dog dies, yes! The Swordsage attacks a dog, hits! 7 damage, dog dies!
The Barbarian/Cloistered Cleric/Crusader rages, charges and pounces, hits a dog, 23 damage and he hits the another dog, 21 damage, both dogs die....two players frown at me like "WTF is this", and i shrug my shoulders, "oh, and i heal 2 damage" the player adds.
The battle continues, my druid uses his Winter's Blast to deal between 1 and 4 damage to two dogs and this repeats itself until all dogs have died.

(note: i am using the average rolls in the example)

After the encounter he begins to ask: "Do you think i could consider this Rock to be my enemy?" i look at him angrily and ask if he would allow it if he were the DM, silence....
note: he wanted free out-of-combat healing with his crusader abilities

The story continues, another combat resolves, and the session ends.

As i walk out the door with the DM and another player i tell the DM i really liked the way he was DM-ing.
DM: "Thanks, it went well, except the encounters i prepared turned out to be a bit underwhelming."
Me: "Yeah, you could set us up with monsters with like 20 hp, but then they would still be one-hitted by a certain player"
Player: "yes, what was that about? he did like 3 times the damage i was doing"
Me: "And he is doing that twice a turn...."
DM: "How am i going to handle this?"

I respond by saying the only solution is for the party to be balanced. And since only one player is not in balance with the others, he has got to change. But since i already asked him to, he won't listen to one person, even the DM (i saw the mail in which the DM forbid Dragonborn, yet he is still playing it....my suspicion is he kept pushing the DM to allow it until he did because he didn't want to be bothered anymore). So it has to be the complete party to tell him.

Currently the DM has sent a mail to all players with his concern.
Powerbuilder responds that he can only rage 3/day so the DM should give more than 3 encounters a day to challenge him
Beguiler responds by mentioning that the Dragonborn, as well as the Water Orc were not allowed by Powerbuilder when he was DM, because he thought they were too powerful, yet he is playing one now. He also thinks it's unbalanced to have someone deal 40+ damage compared to the rest of the party.
Powerbuilder responds that a simple Barbarian with STR 20+4 from rage can deal 3d10+30 damage when he crits with a Glaive, so that should not be an issue at all.......besides if the DM doesn't clearly state the boundaries, that's not my fault.
Me responds angrily at him for putting any of the blame at the first time DM, besides, everytime the DM gave us information he stated how important he felt balance was in the game. Besides, he tried to disallow some aspects of his build, but the Powerbuilder wouldn't let him (seriously, what kind of player would even consider this kind of thing?)
I ignore the other ridiculous comments he has mentioned to not further stray from the topic.
I state the only solution is for all players to fully accept that there will be no powerbuilding and all players should be at somewhat the same powerlevel, and this is not accomplished by simply removing certain books or races as the Powerbuilder had also suggested, you can powerbuild with just PHB just fine. I also mention that simply removing one of his powerbuilding feats/classes/races will not solve anything, that would just mean he goes from 400% stronger than the other players to 300% stronger than the other players.

Two of the other players have not responded yet, but at least one of them will also agree, i am 90% sure the final one will also agree.
And the worst part of it, i am 110% sure he will still put up all kinds of silly arguments why he should still play this build, even if all the other players and the DM have told him they don't like it.

This story is not over....

This is attacking the symptom rather than the cause. As OP has noted, the root issue (the player's mentality) needs to be addressed.

You tried to take the high road. Kudos! Unfortunately, you have learned the hard way that some players are too... something... for that.

You can no longer get away with pulling a me, and just building a character that's 10x better than him (and then, once you push him completely out of the spotlight, asking if he'd care to tone it down to the party's level) without coming across as a ****.

However, if you feel that this is the only way to preserve your friendship, all hope is not lost. To use this technique now, you will need to add at least two new players to the group (getting players to (pretend to?) drop out because of his behavior?) with totally over the top builds. They will need to have my skill at edging him out of the spotlight, and then asking if he'd care to tone it down.

However, you still have other alternatives if you lack the cast of players to pull that off. For example,

Just worth reiterating: it is ALSO a valid Solution to make the other Characters "better", eg help the Swoprdsage to a Telflammar Shadowlord or similar Shadowpunce class, make the Fighter a Warblade or give him better Race/Feat Setup for his spiked chain build (which is usually not damage but control/trip focussed anyway), and you ahve 3 Meleeists focussing on: Max Damage, Battlefield Control, Flexible melee".

Not ideal, as the situation seems to point towards the WorkDB Player being a real problem, but it might help solve the imminent dissolution of the group without further shouting/strife.

While this could be true, this would not work.

1. There are players in our group who are not capable of power building, because they do not have the time to actually find all the broken stuff. I have helped players before to get to a bit higher powerlevel than they would be without my help, but never the powerlevel that is being problematic at this point.
2. How would one determine the level of brokeness that is allowed? He created a custom magic item (which i missed while reviewing the sheet, or maybe it wasnt there), which should never have been allowed. But if we let this character go, then what's stopping anyone to take it one step further and create a continious true strike item for 2k or something similar ridiculous.

I guess the power level we are going for now is pretty low-optimization. A Dwareven Fighter level 3 with a greatsword, power attack and weapon focus would already be on-par with what the current melee-ers are doing.

I assumed that, hence the "Help them" suggestion. :)

I see 2 Options.

Set an ultimatum for the problem Player to change the build, or leave. See what happens.

Or tell him to remove the illegal item and (mayhap with the forums help) build the remaining martials to a good, useful standard, as suggested above.

This. I will add a third old-school option of giving custom, totally not RAW items and abilities to the other party members (and maybe even lesser ones to the ****, too) to put the party back in line with each other.

However, the potential problem with the power boost is, can the GM step up his encounters? If so, no problem; if not, it's fix (or replace) the character or GTFO, plain and simple.

Fizban

2018-01-27, 09:19 AM

I'm just skimming the thread at this point 'cause I am not getting dragged into another slugfest right now (says the guy who just added in a whole bunch of point rebuttals, hah), but-

I assumed that, hence the "Help them" suggestion. :)
Some people can't be helped, some people don't want that help, and some people don't consider that "help" at all. Which is why I find the constant assertion that every time a single person demands a higher power level the entire group must be helped to cater to them, rather annoying.

-And yeah, I've been the guy "helping," so don't try and give me some bunk about those people not existing.

My Suggestions, and actually even the problem Players build, are not broken in any way.
They are simply more than your table is used to.
Broken are other things, but nearly nothing melee.
To be blunt, no: it's quite easy to prove something is broken, and just because the DM can fix it doesn't mean it isn't. The only question is where each person in the argument thinks the line is supposed to be- except the only relevant question is where something lies in comparison to a specific game. It flat out does not matter if save-or-die is broken if no-one is using it, and since the main argument of casters being broken centers on the *existence* of certain spells regardless of them actually being used. . .

The OP has already supplied all the proof we need. In this party, three melee characters, two capable of dealing X per round, and one dealing 2x twice per round.

Now please dont get this wrong, but that is not a build/way to paly that allows the Melee Guy to be useful as anything more than an ornament.
You're claiming that in a party with three melee characters and a caster dedicated to healing and limited damage unless otherwise called upon, the mere fact that the caster exists somehow makes 3/4 of the party into hood ornaments? Preposterous. Actually the given logic doesn't acknowledge the rest of the party and would declare the un-optimized melee hood ornaments even if the entire party was un-optimized melee.

Edit: I swear, I should change my name to "1st post on new page" or something.

Edit2: moved 2nd response to its own post.

sleepyphoenixx

2018-01-27, 09:34 AM

I get the feeling the player has put time and effort into the build and is now reluctant to just let it go or reduce it.
It's a nice sentiment, but in this case?

I doubt it, seeing how it's pretty much copied 1 to 1 from countless "how to optimize your melee" threads. If there was anything original at all about it, maybe. But there isn't.
I'd be very surprised if he didn't just copy the build from somewhere or at most go through said threads and pick "all of the above" from the suggested options (ignoring the common warning that it's too much for most games because he wants to "win" at D&D).
Not to mention that said guy is apparently a DM himself - one who wouldn't allow a character like the one he's built. He knows very well that it's way above the usual power level of the group.
In short: He's a classic munchkin.

The only thing i'd believe he put any amount of time and effort into is somehow trying to justify said abomination in his backstory.:smalltongue:

Metahuman1

2018-01-27, 10:08 AM

While that is true he doesn't want to play by the "rules" he himself would enforce. Make him play by the rules of the game itself. And @ MichielHagen
If its a first time DM and everyone else is more experienced including "morapowa" player. I might suggest talking to everyone but the minmaxer and see if it would be best to find a new like minded individual for the group. One bad apple can end games and groups. :smallfrown:

So unlawful something with in one step of a ditey for his cleric which the @OP says he has none. Which doesnt fly still. IM going by what the book with the dragonborn template came from. Nothing more a simple way of cracking this guys PC. But after reading he made a special weapon i think @OP just needs to either jump ship and give the others warning of this guys his own "king" and you play to his tune. or boot the Rotten player so the group has a better synch.

You apparently are only reading the parts that you want in the Dragonborn Chapter. The chapter has a sentence in it about Dragonborn that specifically says they do NOT have to worship Bahamute. Repeat, DO NOT HAVE TO WORSHIP THE PLATANUM DRAGON!

They can, per that same sentence, keep getting clerical magic from the previous source they were getting it from before they were Dragonborn.

They are required to be none evil and not do evil things. That's all. That's it. Stop trying to strip melee of the short list of nice things it has.

You kind of remind me of someone. I spent an entire session that was suppose to be dedicated to helping 3 new comers join an ongoing campaign I was running. A character building session. Monster game. He dominated the entire session, and spent a BIG chunk of it changing what he wanted to run, from what he'd told me in advance so that I could research options for him. And then he got a stick up his butt about wanting to use a good aligned Paladin. I explained, and showed him, the rule about Paladins and having to either Smite or Fall if an evil character adventured with them. I showed him alternatives, plural, Crusader, Warrior focused Cleric, Binder with Paladin themed Vestige Picks. I explained about refluffing, he could still call himself a Paladin, he'd be better then a freaking normal Paladin! He was hung up he wanted the Paladin Class. In spite of the Evil Player Character that was already in the party. Finally he agreed to crusader. I had a week in chaos trying to get the other 2 people set up after they had adjusted there schedules to make sure they would be there for the game night.

1 of them had to play with a half finished sheet cause we just flat ran out of time.

Paladin guy decided he wanted to opt out of the game because my insistence on not using something that would destroy the party and happened to mechanically fit the concept objectively better was "Too Powergamey!".

Now look, there are a TONE of characters whom are amazing warriors who can usually blow through opponents in fiction. There all OVER the place if you care to take a look. (Hello Conan, specifically and deliberately more of an influence on the forming though process for D&D by it's creators then LotR ever was.).

So, onto the matter at hand.

What do this guys Reflex and Will saves look like? It would not be hard to throw some NPC adepts into encounters that drop annoying little spells to muck with him. Grease. Glitter Dust. Inhibit. I'm sure the forum would provide you a massive list of low level save or suck/loose spells that they can reasonably have 1-2 castings of for the entire encounter prepared that can be throw at him early on. Him and only him. Justify it as they recognize he's the biggest threat, so they want to hamper him as a priority, but they have rather limited magic to throw about. Hell, Ranks in UMD and a scroll or two would do the same thing.

Just target those defenses that have to be weaker to hurt his ability to act as he pleases for a chunk of combat. Or the entire combat depending.

The DM can also drop some extra stuff on The Fighter and The Swordsage. Maybe one of them get's caught in a ritual, and it goes "Wrong". The DM "Rolls" but has already decided the result. He looks at his dice and screen and goes "Hm, interesting." And then looks at the fighter or swordsage and says "You just gained The Weretiger Template, with LA and Racial HD waved due to the bizarre chaos magics doing weird random bizarre chaos magic things when you got caught in them going off half cocked."

Then let one of the cultists drop a Ring of Arming with a Wilding Clasp, and a version of there weapon with the Sizing Property on it at the end of the encounter. Maybe with a race or alignment restriction on it so it's useless to the Dragonborn Orc.

Maybe not exactly that but something comparable.

Or have the party split up and a decently powerful magic being get's helped/rescued by the 2 of them, and swears fealty to the swordsage and/or fighter. He/she/it goes around dropping all kinds of nice buffs on them, but only them, because they were the one/one's who bailed it out when it needed it.

Or borrow an idea form AD&D. Let them get up a few levels and tell them "Just bear with me, I've got a plan to even it out with something cool." And then when they get to a level, they find that over some time, they've become favored of a rather large and noteworthy royal family or formidable organization, so they get cool stuff. A stronghold to command, troops and a Cohort Ala Leadership, but they get to roll every level now for random but neat stuff that scales up with them. (Pegasus Calvary, a Giant Tribe, a Ghost that haunts and protects the Stronghold, a Dragon that allies with them, get creative.)

Or make them each a custom Legacy weapon, but with easier requirements to meet and a LOT more power then the normal one's. And only that PC can use it.

Pick a combo. It's not hard. 1 each per other Melee PC plus a bit of badguys fighting to the Orcs weaknesses and the problem get's solved smoothly. (You can even point out there motivated to win by any means necessary and above average for human cunning and intellect, so it makes sense they'd have a trick or two for an opponent were brute force of arms was a poor tactical choice as it was there area of specialization. He shouldn't be able to make a logical argument to that. As for the other stuff, just tell him weirdness of the world and luck of the dice. Crap happens. )

Or, worse case, go to the forum, ask for rebuilds that can compete with what problem player did, and suggest them to the PC's and the DM. "Here, the mechanical work is already done, you just show up, Role Play, and enjoy being excellent at your area of specialization.".

To the OP: Look, your frustrated. I get that. I VERY get that. Nerfing the guy won't help. Fighting with him won't help. Holding a grudge won't help. What I have suggested, simply remembering that his build is NOT all powerful nor unstoppable as long as you don't fight it exclusively too it's strong suits (Which enemy's should not generally be doing anyway. Seriously, smart enemy's should happen, and they should look at the biggest threat and were the gaps in it's capability's are to try and exploit them.) and that giving people a hand up is usually a MUCH better solution then shoving the one person who isn't in perfect sync down.

Dude spends a lot of real life not being ultra capable of anything and not being a badass. So he wants to be those things when he sits down to play a game. That's honestly not an unreasonable thing to want, and as mentioned, 2 years is a Looooooooooong time to change your mind about things. (I've had 2 year periods in my life were my own world view changed so radically I could barely be recognized as the same person if you couldn't see my face.)

GrayDeath

2018-01-27, 10:08 AM

I'm just skimming the thread at this point 'cause I am not getting dragged into another slugfest right now, but-

Some people can't be helped, some people don't want that help, and some people don't consider that "help" at all. Which is why I find the constant assertion that every time a single person demands a higher power level the entire group must be helped to cater to them, rather annoying.

-And yeah, I've been the guy "helping," so don't try and give me some bunk about those people not existing.

To be blunt, no: it's quite easy to prove something is broken, and just because the DM can fix it doesn't mean it isn't. The only question is where each person in the argument thinks the line is supposed to be- except the only relevant question is where something lies in comparison to the actual game. It flat out does not matter if save-or-die is broken no-one is using it, and since the main argument of casters being broken centers on the *existence* of certain spells regardless of them actually being used.

The OP has already supplied all the proof we need. In this party, three melee characters, two capable of dealing X per round, and one dealing 2x twice per round.

You're claiming that in a party with three melee characters and a caster dedicated to healing and limited damage unless otherwise called upon, the mere fact that they exist somehow makes 3/4 of the party into hood ornaments? Preposterous.

Edit: I swear, I should change my name to "1st post on new page" or something.

Yes, I see. You skim the thread...

You being derogatory, snarky and plain impolite is of course much more helpful than me stating an Alternative to kicking a Player (which given his actions so far is the likely result of making him tone his character down).

Also it is of course very normal for you to project your frustration with personal experiences regarding "Optimization-resistant" players onto my merely helpful posts (or to be more precise, parts of it, if you read my posts more carefully you`ll see that I dont follow the Optimization is the one and only path...).

Not to mention the fact that really broken means "breaks the Game in many to all Situations", not "Overshadows unoptimized CHaracters of the same niche when that niche is important".

No, Nothing wrong there. :smalltongue:

@ the OP: Again, there are various ways of dealing with this.
if you are uncomfortable with both giving the other plaers "Help" to still feel useful and the Problem Player leaving due to being unwilling to compromise, I dont see a clear solution.

How about trying to get the other players opinion on the "help them build Suggestion? Might help us focus our help better. :)

Quertus

2018-01-27, 10:09 AM

Some people can't be helped, some people don't want that help, and some people don't consider that "help" at all.

This is true. OP, you should ask your group if this is even an option that they would consider.

Fizban

2018-01-27, 10:29 AM

Oh, bloody- This is what I get for editing a second response.

@Sleven: I only responded when I noticed you were quoting me rather hilariously out of context, hence the short quote without a line-by line rebuttal. Most of the rest of your response is telling me to be aware of things I'm already aware of, but I do find this one worth pointing out.

perhaps most importantly by the fact that they're a melee that any competent DM can make useless for an entire fight with a swift action.
That would actually be an example of an incompetent DM.

Since you've made allusions to my being unaware of certain things-

I don't see how I'm being disingenuous here when you're the one selling your D&D experience short by focusing overmuch on combat while simultaneously downplaying the importance of roleplay at the table (at least, that's my assumption based on your wording). Worst of all, by limiting player decisions in an attempt to provide some semblance of "balance" to an incorrigible game that doesn't need it in the first place.

That's a mighty large pile of assumptions based on one word, especially when the whole point of that wording is to call attention to it as separate form of enjoyment. I went and checked the previous post since you seemed to think I'd missed a lot of it- and I suppose I did, since it looks like I found the answer.

To me, DMs who try and "balance the game" by taking things away from fighters, while simultaneously allowing classes with spells in their games show a complete lack of understanding of how the game actually works.
Making the assumption, as always, that just because someone says a class feature relating to melee is too good, they don't make any other changes,. In fact the more I look at it the worse this one gets. The OP has specifically planned not to use problematic spells. I specifically responded to point out that I will crack down on any problematic game element, because I can see melee problems in addition to spell problems. So who are you responding to that just ignores spells while nerfing melee? 'Cause when you quoted me from the other thread, it was as someone who understands spells are huge, but then you say I'm "backpedaling" like this actually a binary issue.

I get the feeling that what this statement actually means is that you've never seen a DM who understood how the game works- you refuse to believe in the core party roles (which are literally part of the game design) because you haven't seen a balanced party that uses them, only RAW abuse and compensation via roleplay. Because a DM that understands how the game works can in fact balance it, if they realize they're the DM instead of RAW.

But you're not getting out of your assertion that roleplaying can just override the mechanical part of the game. I don't have a study or anything to point to, but I'm pretty sure the majority of people who show up to play a game with mechanics want to enjoy the mechanical parts. If you have a group that's roleplay-focused enough, sure, but you said yourself that you make roleplay-focus a point in your games. With 3.5/PF being a heavily mechanics-focused dead/zombified game that a lot of people specifically follow because they like the mechanics (rather than playing other systems or even the more roleplay+balance focused+current 5e), that's not really an option. It's a thread about a player bringing a mechancially problematic build to a game where people are unhappy about this mechanical occurrence reducing their enjoyment of the mechanics.

Literally all the participants of the OPs game except one person have said it is a problem if that character is overpowered, and you're trying to say that it doesn't matter because roleplay opportunities? Shove off.

I think the operative line is this one:

Pleasing everyone at the table isn't always as simple as saying, "Okay. You heal. I tank. You damage. But don't forget to keep it within this variable range."
You're basically dressing me down for either not being mechanically aware enough despite having shown more awareness than either of your assumptions, or not being roleplay focused enough to please "everyone at the table." Surprisingly enough, I'm not going to recruit roleplay-heavy players to play in a game that I run because I like the mechanics and no one else is willing to put in the work. So yes, we have to agree to disagree: you like roleplay-heavy games, and I'm not a roleplay-heavy DM. Being fluent in mechanics does not somehow make me less capable of valuing roleplay, and in fact I'd like to think that the ability to make the mechanics do what I want would make it easier to roleplay in a game that I'm running (good/well-used mechanics will actually cause roleplay). I'm just not going to pretend that roleplaying alone is a substitute for getting the mechanics right first.

Not to mention the fact that really broken means "breaks the Game in many to all Situations", not "Overshadows unoptimized CHaracters of the same niche when that niche is important".
And this is the part where I ask you where that definition of "broken" is coming from and then laboriously confront you with the actual rules from the DMG that could be used to define what is overpowered (the extremes of which would then be called broken). Or, since I don't feel like doing that all over again, I could not. Bottom line is, don't argue about terms you can't actually back up- you're trying to nitpick a term without an actual definition.

You'll notice that I never said anything bad about your "helpful" advice, other than how some people don't find it helpful (with "air quotes" for easy reading), which isn't actually derogatory. . You might also be interested to know the player who had the worst reaction to an instance of helpful advice was the second best optimizer at the table rather than the "optimization-resistant" one (admittedly it may have been more due to other concerns). Not that it matters, since trying to downplay their existence by focusing on my personal frustration doesn't make them go away.

And actually I think I could call into question how helpful this suggestion is. The thread title is "rant," which doesn't actually require any help. I supplied my support for the OP's (seemingly well-justified) position on page 1. Then I posted on page 2 to make my position clear after being cross-quoted out of context, and then on page 3 to point out that helping isn't always helping (and then some more after I went back and read sleven's posts @me). Have I been helping? Uh, the OP doesn't seem to need any help. They clearly know that this guy is overpowered and know that they want him nerfed or kicked (*preferably nerfed but I would assume kicked is better than allowed to run over the whole game). A chorus of "alternatives" where the rest of the group changes in order to accommodate this one bad apple is not helpful, and in fact, if anything, it would be defined as harmful.

And the OP specifically said your advice would not work. The post where you say I'm being rude and derogatory is in response to the post where you ignored the OP and basically said "well actually none of this is broken and you just need to help harder." Yeah, that's not helping. It stood out enough that even just skimming I felt the need to point out that helping isn't always helping, and the only thing I missed was that you'd already "acknowledged" that by ignoring it. Are we done having meta-arguments now?

Aimeryan

2018-01-27, 11:06 AM

It's a nice sentiment, but in this case?

I doubt it, seeing how it's pretty much copied 1 to 1 from countless "how to optimize your melee" threads. If there was anything original at all about it, maybe. But there isn't.
I'd be very surprised if he didn't just copy the build from somewhere or at most go through said threads and pick "all of the above" from the suggested options (ignoring the common warning that it's too much for most games because he wants to "win" at D&D).
Not to mention that said guy is apparently a DM himself - one who wouldn't allow a character like the one he's built. He knows very well that it's way above the usual power level of the group.
In short: He's a classic munchkin.

The only thing i'd believe he put any amount of time and effort into is somehow trying to justify said abomination in his backstory.:smalltongue:

You're probably right, but the player in question may feel he has put the time and effort in.

Kind of taking the optimistic approach that the player is just being difficult because he is so engrossed with the build - the best solution I can think of here is to promise the player that they can play the build in the next campaign when its appropriate and to find another build for this campaign for him to latch on to.

If that doesn't work then its really just left to either letting him play the character in this campaign to the detriment of everyone else or don't let him play. The latter is less bad, but still kind of bad.

MaxMAnAtArms

2018-01-27, 03:47 PM

MichielHagen

2018-01-27, 04:20 PM

Thanks for all the replies again. I keep being amazed how many different opinions there are.

Anyway, the problem has been resolved.

The final two players also raised there concerns about the playability of the character, at that point the Powerbuilder responded "Ok, how do i fix it". He asked me to help work out the fix, despite the argument we had last week. We fixed the character while keeping the essence of his character, but lessen the damage output to about 40% of what it was. He is still a strong character, but not more than that, and not because he tried to keep it as strong as possible, but because at some point i felt like i was getting close to something i could have build myself. I also helped the Fighter with his build to make it a bit better. Sure there is still a difference in power, but it's at an acceptable level (as far as i can predict that is).

It could be that (and this is a dutch saying, not sure if it translates well) he made a switch in his head and can stop the excessive optimizing from now on. But maybe that's too optimistic ;)

It turned out way better than i would have predicted.

Sleven

2018-01-27, 06:06 PM

@Sleven: I only responded when I noticed you were quoting me rather hilariously out of context, hence the short quote without a line-by line rebuttal. Most of the rest of your response is telling me to be aware of things I'm already aware of, but I do find this one worth pointing out.

Listen, Fizban, you're not the center of this thread. My posts make general, larger points applicable to this thread, and the persons in it, using your posts as an example to make said larger points. Your posts merely brought up fallacies (and support) I found relevent to making my points to anyone who had cared to read my posts. The fact that they served me in making such points is all that matters, not what level of endorsement you apply to what I chose to use, because it doesn't change how I chose to use it.

My posts are an invitation for anyone to respond and engage in discourse regarding the points they make, not just you.

Now that we've got that out of the way, maybe you can try and view my response in that manner?

That would actually be an example of an incompetent DM.

No. A competent DM is aware of and capable of utilizing any and all mechanical aspects of the game necessary to facilitate the kind of experience they would like to at the table. Just because a DM can take a character out of an encounter doesn't mean they should. What they should have is the game knowledge to do so when and where they feel the need to, particularly if they plan to run a mechnically focused game.

That's a mighty large pile of assumptions based on one word

If I may personalize my post for just a moment, you don't actually give an example of where and how that assumption was incorrect. Perhaps more puzzling to me, you proceed by admitting that the mechanical elements of the game are a primary concern of yours at your gaming tables later on in your post.

I get the feeling that what this statement actually means is that you've never seen a DM who understood how the game works- you refuse to believe in the core party roles (which are literally part of the game design) because you haven't seen a balanced party that uses them, only RAW abuse and compensation via roleplay.

And here we have a series of assumptions by you supported by no evidence. Which is what makes me raise an eyebrow. Where in anything I've posted have I made it clear that I've, "never seen a DM who understood how the game works," or, "haven't seen a balanced party that uses them, only RAW abuse and compensation via roleplay."? These are entirely unfounded.

I will admit, I absolutely do not believe in the concept of party roles, which I've made quite clear. Since game design is so important to you, I can't see how you missed the laboriously repeated concept in D&D where DM and player choice as to what's best for the game > all. At my tables that usually means party roles go out the window. And as snide as you may take this or think it is: I am sincerely glad you can have fun limiting yourself to the concept of party roles.

Because a DM that understands how the game works can in fact balance it, if they realize they're the DM instead of RAW.

You seem to indicate that you're capable of doing this by allowing both spells and melee characters, while reducing the effectiveness of both. How, short of limiting spellcasters to the light spell, do you do this when taking away so many options from melee characters? The only balanced game I've ever seen is one where everyone played the same build, but balance =/= enjoyment.

But you're not getting out of your assertion that roleplaying can just override the mechanical part of the game. I don't have a study or anything to point to, but I'm pretty sure the majority of people who show up to play a game with mechanics want to enjoy the mechanical parts. If you have a group that's roleplay-focused enough, sure, but you said yourself that you make roleplay-focus a point in your games.

It would seem you just got me, "out of [my] assertion that roleplaying can just override the mechanical part of the game," with this concession, "if you have a group that's roleplay-focused enough, sure, but you said yourself that you make roleplay-focus a point in your games."

With 3.5/PF being a heavily mechanics-focused dead/zombified game that a lot of people specifically follow because they like the mechanics (rather than playing other systems or even the more roleplay+balance focused+current 5e), that's not really an option. It's a thread about a player bringing a mechancially problematic build to a game where people are unhappy about this mechanical occurrence reducing their enjoyment of the mechanics.

Funnily enough, one of the games I'm currently participating in consists almost entirely of 5e players that found the system to be stifling to their creativity and ability to roleplay without having to redesign the way it works from the ground up.

Anecdotal? Sure. But I think it's powerful enough a counterpoint for your entire paragraph attempting to dichotomize 3.5 and PF vs 5e as conversely mechanical and roleplay oriented.

Literally all the participants of the OPs game except one person have said it is a problem if that character is overpowered, and you're trying to say that it doesn't matter because roleplay opportunities? Shove off.

Clearly it does matter to this table, but I challenged them to look at the larger picture. They're trying to bring a melee down to the level of the other melees at their table when they themselves are playing a druid and beguiler. I find a certain level of either a) dishonesty, or b) ignorance, in the complaints leveraged by both the druid and beguiler at this table. They're leagues above everyone else at the table in terms of power yet making complaints about the level of power of a player they tower over. That doesn't mean I condone the water orc's behavior. Quite frankly, I don't condone any of the behavior at this table. No one seems to have the maturity to communicate how they feel about things at the table, or the willingness to admit that they're being unfair.

Anyway, the problem has been resolved.

The final two players also raised there concerns about the playability of the character, at that point the Powerbuilder responded "Ok, how do i fix it". He asked me to help work out the fix, despite the argument we had last week. We fixed the character while keeping the essence of his character, but lessen the damage output to about 40% of what it was.

"Fixing" the problem of the water orc player now by bringing him down a few notches won't stop the future complaints that arise from the druid and beguiler having answers for most any problem the party encounters. How will the other players feel then, when they need the druid to transport them everywhere, dispel the barrier blocking their path, heal and reincarnate them, use divination to find out more about their enemies, control the battlefield, etc.? Refusing to do those things for your party in an attempt to make things "feel" balanced usually doesn't work, because the other party members know you can, you're just choosing not to. Sometimes the other players don't care, but in my experience it does make them feel marginalized, even when the power's not being actively exercised. They want to have opportunities to take the spotlight in just as many situations, regardless of whether or not they chose to take them.

So I hope your party does understand that you and the beguiler are leagues above everyone else and is okay with it, because I would hate to see you having to change your class to another melee halfway through the campaign when the other players start to realize what you're capable of.

Metahuman1

2018-01-27, 11:23 PM

At the end of this all @OP it comes down to what your doing since im sure a majority of us are the world over and cant "ninja" join to show minimaxer what "broken" is.

@ Metahuman1
I was pointing that out for the cleric(part) not the dragonborn he needed a god to follow.. you need to read more of what my words were and not snipping the last tid bit and rant on it for over more then half your "post" about your story about some jackdaw (who i remind ya of) just warns me not to even read your posts. Read all my posts not one of em. As i was talking about how he needs a diety for his cleric. Not for dragonborn. Bout the jackdaw Also the moment he was wishy washy you should of given him a list said pick and helped the 2 who had a firm idea. #PoorPlanning ( sorry @OP for my mini rant)

Good Luck @OP Hope things get better
Cya Mate

... ... ...

have you actually bothered to read the players handbook? Or the Cleric section of the class chapter in that book? Or it's open game liscense SRD entry?

Clerics don't need deity's in this edition.

Cleirics can worship whatever they please. Maybe a deity like Pelor or Haxtor or Yondalla, or maybe they opt to worship something that they treat like a deity but isnt' recognized as one in the setting like Zeus or Loki or Amatarasu, or maybe they worship Banjo: Clown God Of Puppets, or Cthuluh, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the concept of Justice, or the concept of The Journey, or the concept of Mercy, or the concept of Scholorly Arts, or the concept of The Warrior, or the concept of Nature.

You were specifying Dragonborn Must worship The Plantinum Dragon, or loss being a Dragonborn. And now your claiming that to be a cleric you must worship a god.

Both are false.

If your going to call me out for being bad, great. Get the damn rules right when you do it.

(Funny thing about the jack jaw, he gave me a lecture over facebook about how wrong I was to give him that list of options and go over the ins and outs of them but not let him play the one that was both furthest from the party's power curve at the time by a large margin, and also the only one with a mechanical imperative to either get screwed over or to straight up murder another player AND police everyone's actions going forward.

Which is oddly similar to me to your little tirade about how things aren't RAW legal and therefor should be taken away, and then trying to shift gears to make the same claim about something else isn't RAW legal and should be take away, only to be factually wrong again, while also trying to sit there and tell me that I'm wrong about what you said the first time. )

Also, it wasn't a rant. It was information to draw a comparison to point out your not only making an entirely incorrect assertion, your, frankly, being a jerk about it.

The issue is resolved for now. If the problem starts up later, or the Druid and Beguiler start to over shadow the 3 melees as they are rather likely to do at some point, I suggest going back to my OP and looking at the buff up suggestions. They would remain mostly viable.

Deophaun

2018-01-27, 11:32 PM

I explained, and showed him, the rule about Paladins and having to either Smite or Fall if an evil character adventured with them.
Not actually a rule. This is a strange non-rule, because while it says that a Paladin will never knowingly associate with an evil character, it gives no consequence for actually doing so. As such, it's presented more like a law of physics than a game mechanic.

Metahuman1

2018-01-28, 01:05 AM

Not actually a rule. This is a strange non-rule, because while it says that a Paladin will never knowingly associate with an evil character, it gives no consequence for actually doing so. As such, it's presented more like a law of physics than a game mechanic.

Please start a thread on this one so this thread doesn't get completely high jacked. Particularly since the OP's problem is now resolved. I am confident the Playground will be able to break down why, sadly, that assessment does precisely zero good in any practical mechanical interactions.

Fizban

2018-01-28, 02:40 AM

Listen, Fizban, you're not the center of this thread.
When you directly quote someone and then imply they don't know what they're talking about, you make them the center of your post. There is extra . . . combativeness added by quoting someone out of context, which you have exacerbated further by arguing. Quoting someone and saying that quote supports your statement likewise creates an implication that the person you're quoting supports your viewpoint, which I have specifically said I do not. I find it rather offensive that you would quote me out of context, refuse to admit the quote was inappropriate, and then imply I don't know what I'm talking about. If you wish to avoid such direct confrontations, I suggest not doing these things.

No. A competent DM is aware of and capable of utilizing any and all mechanical aspects of the game necessary to facilitate the kind of experience they would like to at the table. Just because a DM can take a character out of an encounter doesn't mean they should. What they should have is the game knowledge to do so when and where they feel the need to, particularly if they plan to run a mechnically focused game.
So if the DM isn't shutting down this character, in what way does it matter that they could? By stating this possibility as if it proved a point, you implied that the action of doing so was important. A DM who allows an overpowered melee build and then shuts it down because otherwise it would be too powerful, is not a good DM. The funny thing is you're basically agreeing with me, that the DM needs to know what they're doing and use the mechanics, you're just not allowing for the player's expectation that they not be shut down. Which is ironic, considering your stance on restricting player liberties.

It's the old "rather than fix the mechanics, the DM should just optimize harder." Which only works if the DM wants to participate in an arms race.

Perhaps more puzzling to me, you proceed by admitting that the mechanical elements of the game are a primary concern of yours at your gaming tables later on in your post.
Did you miss the part where I specifically said that having a mechanical focus doesn't mean there can't be roleplay, and that both things are enjoyable? You've heavily implied that because I'm talking about mechanical balance, I somehow don't know about the importance of creativity or player choice or roleplay, none of which actually follows.

And here we have a series of assumptions by you supported by no evidence. Which is what makes me raise an eyebrow. Where in anything I've posted have I made it clear that I've, "never seen a DM who understood how the game works," or, "haven't seen a balanced party that uses them, only RAW abuse and compensation via roleplay."? These are entirely unfounded.
Literally the line that I quoted directly before that statement. You say, "To me, DMs who try and 'balance the game' by taking things away from fighters," which no one has actually suggested. You imply that classes with spells cannot be balanced because reasons. These assumptions come from you, and therefore I only assume that they are based on your personal experience.

Since game design is so important to you, I can't see how you missed the laboriously repeated concept in D&D where DM and player choice as to what's best for the game > all. At my tables that usually means party roles go out the window. And as snide as you may take this or think it is: I am sincerely glad you can have fun limiting yourself to the concept of party roles.
Once again, knowing how the game works does not mean I have to limit myself to what is written, that is the RAW fallcy. If you want to have a non-standard game, you need to know how it works and what is going to change in order to make it work in the first place. So what would I do with a group of players not interested in the standard party? Well I'd use my knowledge of the standard party to fix the game as best I could before it started (and as it continued) rather than throwing up my hands.

You seem to indicate that you're capable of doing this by allowing both spells and melee characters, while reducing the effectiveness of both. How, short of limiting spellcasters to the light spell, do you do this when taking away so many options from melee characters? The only balanced game I've ever seen is one where everyone played the same build, but balance =/= enjoyment.
Seriously, the level of narrow-mindedness here really makes it hard to respond. How do you think? Maybe by not doing all the things you're making up?

There are two or three particular melee builds that need to be nerfed. Shockingly enough, I've put in the effort to understand how to nerf them without removing them from the game completely (and it takes a lot more effort). There is one specific melee ability (well two, but the second one gets less press) that need to be banned because they never should have been written. Literally all of the rest can be worked with. Meanwhile, the ban and nerf list for spellcasting, with all its greater number of problems, is. . . longer! The DM is expected to know the character's capabilities and approve of them individually, which means ideally nothing should actually be a problem once it hits the table- the disgusting number of DMs which abdicate this responsibility is not my fault. (The OP's DM specifically had the OP help with this job, good work).

I could literally just run down my entire list of house rules, but that would be insufficient because maintaining game balance isn't just a set of rules, its a process that depends on each party and each game.

Funnily enough, one of the games I'm currently participating in consists almost entirely of 5e players that found the system to be stifling to their creativity and ability to roleplay without having to redesign the way it works from the ground up.

Anecdotal? Sure. But I think it's powerful enough a counterpoint for your entire paragraph attempting to dichotomize 3.5 and PF vs 5e as conversely mechanical and roleplay oriented.
It's not actually a counterpoint? Why would your players find 5e stifling? Well a game is a set of mechanics, they found 5e's mechanics too restrictive, I guess they value mechanics after all. You're just not seeing it as mechanics because you don't seem to recognize that the game mechanics underly the roleplaying in a roleplaying game. And the fact that your group may or may not care about something has no impact on the OPs group so. . . yeah.

Clearly it does matter to this table, but I challenged them to look at the larger picture. They're trying to bring a melee down to the level of the other melees at their table when they themselves are playing a druid and beguiler. I find a certain level of either a) dishonesty, or b) ignorance, in the complaints leveraged by both the druid and beguiler at this table. They're leagues above everyone else at the table in terms of power yet making complaints about the level of power of a player they tower over. That doesn't mean I condone the water orc's behavior. Quite frankly, I don't condone any of the behavior at this table. No one seems to have the maturity to communicate how they feel about things at the table, or the willingness to admit that they're being unfair.

"Fixing" the problem of the water orc player now by bringing him down a few notches won't stop the future complaints that arise from the druid and beguiler having answers for most any problem the party encounters. How will the other players feel then, when they need the druid to transport them everywhere, dispel the barrier blocking their path, heal and reincarnate them, use divination to find out more about their enemies, control the battlefield, etc.? Refusing to do those things for your party in an attempt to make things "feel" balanced usually doesn't work, because the other party members know you can, you're just choosing not to. Sometimes the other players don't care, but in my experience it does make them feel marginalized, even when the power's not being actively exercised. They want to have opportunities to take the spotlight in just as many situations, regardless of whether or not they chose to take them.

So I hope your party does understand that you and the beguiler are leagues above everyone else and is okay with it, because I would hate to see you having to change your class to another melee halfway through the campaign when the other players start to realize what you're capable of.
This entire section is nothing but you projecting your expectations. People played, and still play, with these classes all the time without a single problem with any of those things. It's particularly rude how you're flat out saying that the OP will fail at their goal of remaining discreet, because apparently you just have the ability to declare their gaming skill insufficient to a task that people have been doing for years.

Of course, there is a mind-numbingly simple mechanical fix you could propose, but I guess I'll do it. Converting the druid to spontaneous casting would limit them to a specific spells known list, which could then be filled with spells that don't cause problems, making it impossible for them to do wrong themselves. But you've already said that any spell other than Light makes non-casters invalid, so. . . yeah.
You have that peculiar combination of "RAW is god spellcaster supremacy everything is broken forever no matter what you do so people should just do whatever they want," and "nothing matters because roleplay," which is exactly what this sort of problem player thrives upon in order to survive. Which you apparently let them do? Well no, you say that you push up the power level of all the other characters to match, which is fine if it works- but it doesn't always work.

Thanks for all the replies again. I keep being amazed how many different opinions there are.

Anyway, the problem has been resolved.
Hooray! You mean to say "a switch flipped in his head?" Pretty sure that's a saying everywhere, yup.

MichielHagen

2018-01-28, 04:17 AM

"Fixing" the problem of the water orc player now by bringing him down a few notches won't stop the future complaints that arise from the druid and beguiler having answers for most any problem the party encounters. How will the other players feel then, when they need the druid to transport them everywhere, dispel the barrier blocking their path, heal and reincarnate them, use divination to find out more about their enemies, control the battlefield, etc.? Refusing to do those things for your party in an attempt to make things "feel" balanced usually doesn't work, because the other party members know you can, you're just choosing not to. Sometimes the other players don't care, but in my experience it does make them feel marginalized, even when the power's not being actively exercised. They want to have opportunities to take the spotlight in just as many situations, regardless of whether or not they chose to take them.

So I hope your party does understand that you and the beguiler are leagues above everyone else and is okay with it, because I would hate to see you having to change your class to another melee halfway through the campaign when the other players start to realize what you're capable of.

I wonder if you even read what i have posted.
Yes i am a druid, yes, they are quite easy to overpower other characters. But it's quite simple, i just don't.

I have toned my character down, Shapeshifting Druid and a very limited spell list. My current prepared spells are Goodberry, Lesser Vigor, Blockade (reflavored to Iceblock), Frost Breath, Obscuring Snow. I know Obscuring Snow can be used for powerful stuff, but i simply won't, i use it to empower Winter's Blast and will only use it when the party needs to escape something, not to get 50% mischance for the whole party in combat.
I can not transport anything, whatever spell you refer to, my druid does not know it (assuming it is not Cold or Healing related). I can't dispel, i can't do divination.

I also don't understand why you would say the party would know i can do that, we are all roleplayers, they understand that if i say i only cast cold- and healing related spells, that is what it is.

Zanos

2018-01-28, 04:31 AM

The fact that they served me in making such points is all that matters, not what level of endorsement you apply to what I chose to use, because it doesn't change how I chose to use it.
You realize this is a literal admission to straw-manning, right? You're saying that you don't care what he's actually saying, but you're going to interpret his points how you choose, and then use those to make counterpoints.

In general, I don't see why if 4 people are playing D&D and 1 person's playstyle doesn't mesh with the other 3, the other 3 should be forced to play how the 1 outlier does.

I understand you like this guy OP, but he doesn't sound like he's healthy to game with. If his response to anything about his character(that breaks the rules, that's not in the setting, that combination is too powerful) is to threaten to leave, I don't think you're going to have much fun with him present. By all means discuss with other people in your group, but the kinds of people who are unwilling to compromise and throw around ultimatums to quit tend not to be great people to game with.

EDIT: Just read it's fixed. Good job, and good luck.

Sleven

2018-01-30, 09:41 PM

You realize this is a literal admission to straw-manning, right? You're saying that you don't care what he's actually saying, but you're going to interpret his points how you choose, and then use those to make counterpoints.

No. Read the preceding sentences again. You're missing the big picture. I stuck to the points I was making before he directly engaged with them. Those are the topics of discussion as far as I'm concerned. If he isn't concerned with addressing them, and wants to continue to try and personalize the discussion and change the goalposts (which his last post seems to indicate) then there's nothing I can do to change that. My "opposition" in this case was the hypocrisies of mechanically focused D&D play, particularly when trying to derive a sense of balance solely from the mechanical elements. If that sentiment is "imaginary" among the original poster and some members the D&D community at large, then sure, I'm straw man'ing. But I don't think that's the case.

In fact, there's nothing in his most recent post to even address. It's almost entirely fabrication built off of false assumptions that happen over the course of the very same post (I mean, "combativeness"? Really? My guess is that I don't even need to check the spoiler to see if it gets worse.). It feels to me as though, in an attempt to make this a personal discussion, he's created his own straw man of who I am, what I'm discussing, and how I'm discussing it. I find it best not to engage with that level of dissonance, as it only has a tendency to manufacture more (e.g. your response). I believe my previous posts adequately explain my position.

I wonder if you even read what i have posted.
Yes i am a druid, yes, they are quite easy to overpower other characters. But it's quite simple, i just don't.

I have toned my character down, Shapeshifting Druid and a very limited spell list. My current prepared spells are Goodberry, Lesser Vigor, Blockade (reflavored to Iceblock), Frost Breath, Obscuring Snow. I know Obscuring Snow can be used for powerful stuff, but i simply won't, i use it to empower Winter's Blast and will only use it when the party needs to escape something, not to get 50% mischance for the whole party in combat.

I have read what you posted. Your spell list is still better than what the water orc could do before you "toned it down". What I've been saying is, that's not a bad thing, so long as the other players at your table are okay with that. However, it seems to me like your table is overly concerned with balancing the mechanical elements of the game, which is why I expressed my concern for your "toned down" druid's safety from further "toning". But, who am I kidding, you'll probably get away with it, because people (especially new players) tend to focus overmuch on damage numbers.

I can not transport anything, whatever spell you refer to, my druid does not know it (assuming it is not Cold or Healing related). I can't dispel, i can't do divination.

I do find this tid-bit kind of funny though, considering that druids automatically know all spells on their class list. But maybe your table has some kind of houserule for druids that I'm not aware of.

Anyways, enjoy your game.

Fizban

2018-01-31, 04:08 AM

No. Read the preceding sentences again. You're missing the big picture. I stuck to the points I was making before he directly engaged with them. Those are the topics of discussion as far as I'm concerned. If he isn't concerned with addressing them, and wants to continue to try and personalize the discussion and change the goalposts (which his last post seems to indicate) then there's nothing I can do to change that. My "opposition" in this case was the hypocrisies of mechanically focused D&D play, particularly when trying to derive a sense of balance solely from the mechanical elements.
Taking a page out of good arguing 101, let us confirm each other's points: the points you made so far as I can see, are that focusing on roleplay will make up for mechanical problems, and that mechanical problems cannot be fixed. If these are not your points, re-state them more clearly. I'd like to see a more proper explanation of this "hypocrisy," and will refrain from speculating lest I be accused of more fabrications.

My points are that mechanical problems can be fixed, and focusing on roleplay only makes up for them in a roleplay focused group. And that quoting people out of context and against their true views is rude*.

In fact, there's nothing in his most recent post to even address. It's almost entirely fabrication built off of false assumptions that happen over the course of the very same post (I mean, "combativeness"? Really? My guess is that I don't even need to check the spoiler to see if it gets worse.). It feels to me as though, in an attempt to make this a personal discussion, he's created his own straw man of who I am, what I'm discussing, and how I'm discussing it. I find it best not to engage with that level of dissonance, as it only has a tendency to manufacture more (e.g. your response).
Which is the most exquisite level of irony, because the whole reason I got mad was because of your fabricated assumptions**. My natural response is to use ever-more-laborious detail in refuting each inaccuracy, but you skipped the part of the post where I did that (also where I re-iterated from where I drew the evidence you're accusing me of fabricating- which was also your opening to clarify it), so you can't really complain about not understanding the conclusion.

*I think you're getting caught up by not realizing what you said:

Opinions like these reaffirm that people aren't blind to recognizing the true source of a party's power.
This is the line with which I take issue. I did not say anything is the true source of a party's power, and in fact I will straight up fight anyone who tries to claim that any one class is the 'true source of a party's power," because that line grossly misrepresents enough things to write a book on. And you keep trying to say that my quote actually supports your point, which is that people "recognize" your statement. I do not recognize your statement. I refute it explicitly.

**Let's see: assumed I agreed with your point, assumed I was backpedaling, assumed I don't value roleplay, that I don't know much of anything about char-op, that I'm not aware of the concept of combining roleplay and mechanics, and assumed I was looking at things wrong because I think I'm the center of the thread?, and assumed that no one at the OP's table is capable of communicating (when the OP has explicitly said they've been communicating since the start of the thread, so. . . yeah).

But most importantly, you continue to assume that your personal views on the mechanics are the only views that can be correct, which is false. I have maintained that a roleplay focused group can play in spite of bad rules, why won't you admit that a mechanically focused group can choose not to abuse or even fix the rules?

That refusal is why I say you are the combination of "RAW is god" and "roleplay fixes everything." Because your suggestion for fixing things was to focus on roleplay instead of mechanics, and your view on mechanics is that they can't be fixed.

MichielHagen

2018-01-31, 04:49 AM

I do find this tid-bit kind of funny though, considering that druids automatically know all spells on their class list. But maybe your table has some kind of houserule for druids that I'm not aware of.

Anyways, enjoy your game.

Although i do understand your point, technically the Druid has the whole spell-list. It's not a house-rule, it's a personal choice of mine, i only cast Cold and Healing spells, thus removing all other spells from my spell-list. I deliberately weaken my character to make him a thematic caster. From that point on, i simply cannot cast Entangle and stuff. Which gives me the added benefit of not being able to solve every encounter at a whim, which in your opinion, is not an added benefit at all.

Isn't that about the same as a player not using Polymorph even if the DM has not specifically banned it. The player decides he does not want to break the game, so he doesn't in order for the whole party to actually enjoy the game.

Have i weakened my character enough? i believe so, and i already told the DM weeks ago that if at any point he feels my character needs to be toned down more, i am open to suggestions.

Quertus

2018-01-31, 11:42 AM

I have toned my character down, Shapeshifting Druid and a very limited spell list. My current prepared spells are Goodberry, Lesser Vigor, Blockade (reflavored to Iceblock), Frost Breath, Obscuring Snow.

I also don't understand why you would say the party would know i can do that, we are all roleplayers, they understand that if i say i only cast cold- and healing related spells, that is what it is.

It's not a house-rule, it's a personal choice of mine, i only cast Cold and Healing spells, thus removing all other spells from my spell-list. I deliberately weaken my character to make him a thematic caster. From that point on, i simply cannot cast Entangle and stuff.

Isn't that about the same as a player not using Polymorph even if the DM has not specifically banned it. The player decides he does not want to break the game, so he doesn't in order for the whole party to actually enjoy the game.

Ok, lemme see if I've got this right - you aren't actually playing a Druid, you're playing a homebrew ice nerf Druid? So that you physically can't cast spells from "opposed schools"?

No, that's not quite the same as a player choosing for his Wizard not to take Polymorph. Because the Wizard could always take Polymorph at a later date; your Druid can't*.

Why did you choose to refluff Green Blockade to an ice spell?

Understanding what your character can and can't do had nothing to do with being roleplay heavy - this is a mechanics issue, in character or OOC.

* barring retaining into a "real" Druid, of course.

Fizban

2018-01-31, 11:54 AM

Why did you choose to refluff Green Blockade to an ice spell?
I believe they meant Blockade Blockade, the one from Complete Scoundrel, makes a 5' block of wood. Which incidentally, is some excellent swapping- though apparently I was mistaken on Frostburn's hardness for ice (could have sworn it was 5 but apparently its 8), but the lead in makes later spells like Column of Ice much less out of nowhere. I wouldn't think an ice-themed character would need any more reason to make all their stuff ice themed though.

Sleven

2018-02-01, 09:10 PM

Since you decided to break everything down from your perspective, I'll try and give this one last shot. A final courtesy, if you will. So here it goes, this post is just for you.

Taking a page out of good arguing 101

This is not an argument, it is a discussion. I find that distinction to be important as it is far more accurate in portraying my tone.

let us confirm each other's points: the points you made so far as I can see, are that focusing on roleplay will make up for mechanical problems, and that mechanical problems cannot be fixed. If these are not your points, re-state them more clearly. I'd like to see a more proper explanation of this "hypocrisy," and will refrain from speculating lest I be accused of more fabrications.

Good on point 1: focusing on roleplay can indeed make up for mechanical problems.

Not so good on point 2. Mechanical problems can be fixed in an attempt to achieve balance. However, I gave examples of what this means in reality, such as it involving people playing pretty much the same character. Having a group with spellcasters and non-spellcasters does not make a mechanically balanced party. It can still be a fun party, but speaking strictly from a perspective of balance? No. It will never be balanced short of a near complete removal of the one thing that gives spellcasters their identity in the first place: spellcasting. But, a lot of people find these environments too stifling, and will find it hard to have fun when the identity has been removed from the class and character they wanted to play. The solution? Most of the time the party will have to be imbalanced, which brings me back to point 1.

My points are that mechanical problems can be fixed, and focusing on roleplay only makes up for them in a roleplay focused group.

So we actually agree on your first point, just not on how that can be accomplished while making the table fun for everyone. Which brings us to your second point. I suspect there are a very rare few who truly care about balance. Using this thread as an example, we have a group that cares about balancing the mechanical aspects of the game, yet hasn't corrected for the two largest glaring outliers in their group: the druid and the beguiler. Why haven't they? I think they feel they will have more fun playing the spellcasting classes they want to play. What are the costs of said fun? Balance. Balance is the cost. The party is now imbalanced. Not a bad thing, but mechanics seem to be taking a backseat to fun. I find that roleplay can help some players with the remaining balance issue, while adding more fun, but not everyone may feel that way.

Which is the most exquisite level of irony, because the whole reason I got mad was because of your fabricated assumptions**. My natural response is to use ever-more-laborious detail in refuting each inaccuracy, but you skipped the part of the post where I did that (also where I re-iterated from where I drew the evidence you're accusing me of fabricating- which was also your opening to clarify it), so you can't really complain about not understanding the conclusion.

Here's the real issue: you're making assumptions about the quotes you're using as examples to make... more assumptions.
(Bolded, because I think if there's one thing you take away from my post, it should be this)

Let's go through your list of assumptions:

**Let's see: assumed I agreed with your point, assumed I was backpedaling, assumed I don't value roleplay, that I don't know much of anything about char-op, that I'm not aware of the concept of combining roleplay and mechanics, and assumed I was looking at things wrong because I think I'm the center of the thread?, and assumed that no one at the OP's table is capable of communicating (when the OP has explicitly said they've been communicating since the start of the thread, so. . . yeah).

assumed I agreed with your point

No. Since this is the first one, let's try a line edit rewording what I wrote to try and get the same point across. It means the same thing either way I write it, but maybe this will help clarify:

"Opinions like these [are representative of] people [who] aren't blind to recognizing the true source of a party's power."

So yes, an example of such an idea was sufficient. My assumption is (and was) that there are players out there that feel this way, even if you do not. You've made it abundantly clear that that is not your stance, but that is not what's important as I am trying to discuss larger groups (and their philosophies) that exist in the D&D community. I could have done the same thing without a quote, but I chose not to out of convenience. I try to not spend more than a few minutes on these posts. If that offended you, my condolences. It was nothing personal.

Now for the others:

assumed I was backpedaling
No. Not even sure how you got to this assumption. The sentence begins with, "Even if." The word "if" signifies that I am not sure if you are attempting to backpedal, the rest of the sentence clarifies why that is not relevent.

assumed I don't value roleplay
No. I don't make that assumption anywhere.

that I don't know much of anything about char-op
No. I specifically said I wasn't sure if you've played with many CharOp players.

that I'm not aware of the concept of combining roleplay and mechanics
No. I don't make that assumption anywhere.

assumed I was looking at things wrong because I think I'm the center of the thread?
Yes and no? Could use some clarification here. You certainly are interpreting my posts wrong. To do that, people are usually looking at them wrong.

assumed that no one at the OP's table is capable of communicating (when the OP has explicitly said they've been communicating since the start of the thread, so. . . yeah).
No. Nothing so absolute as, "no one at the table is communicating." In fact, I believe the exact quote was, "No one seems to have the maturity to communicate how they feel about things at the table." I believe the direct evidence supporting my assumption is that a larger discussion was never had with the group or between the player and the DM, or any of the other players who we are told had an issue until the character had actually seen play. Even when the discussion was finally had, it was between the OP and the "problem player", no one else came forward an addressed the player directly. A mature person (to me) would have no issue bringing up any issues they had with a player themselves. An even more mature person would have used this as an opportunity to have a group discussion about what they think the necessary limitations need to be on characters. That can help the parties involved decided whether or not the table is even for them in the first place.

But most importantly, you continue to assume that your personal views on the mechanics are the only views that can be correct, which is false. I have maintained that a roleplay focused group can play in spite of bad rules, why won't you admit that a mechanically focused group can choose not to abuse or even fix the rules?

That refusal is why I say you are the combination of "RAW is god" and "roleplay fixes everything." Because your suggestion for fixing things was to focus on roleplay instead of mechanics, and your view on mechanics is that they can't be fixed.

You may not have noticed, but most of the sentences in my posts have qualifiers. Qualifiers mean that something is circumstancial, or holds true in the context in which I am speaking. That's pretty important. I am not engaging in absolutes. I don't see this as a black and white issue, even if that's what you're trying to pin on me.

Everyone can play the game the way they want to. I'm merely encouraging people to look at the game in a different way by pointing out some of the pitfalls inherent in their philosophies. Yet, if they don't place any value on the things I consider to be pitfalls, then there are none, and their game can run smoothly. That's great. Would not change a thing if everyone at the table is having fun, contrary to what you might believe.

I think this thread has run it's course. However, if we ever engage in future discourse on these forums, I would appreciate it if you could try and keep some of these things in mind. If you cannot, I don't really see a reason to engage with you further. Have a wonderful day.

eggynack

2018-02-01, 09:56 PM

I have read what you posted. Your spell list is still better than what the water orc could do before you "toned it down". What I've been saying is, that's not a bad thing, so long as the other players at your table are okay with that. However, it seems to me like your table is overly concerned with balancing the mechanical elements of the game, which is why I expressed my concern for your "toned down" druid's safety from further "toning". But, who am I kidding, you'll probably get away with it, because people (especially new players) tend to focus overmuch on damage numbers.
Seriously? Which specific part of this setup is supposed to be better than an ubercharging barbarian? He has decent healing that does nothing in combat, blockade, which is literally just a 5-foot cube on demand, and a good concealment effect that he's using like an obscuring mist. So, getting rid of all the stuff that's really pretty mediocre, the argument is that obscuring snow, on its own, used suboptimally, is better than a character that can instantly kill any monster they can reach. He's not even making use of the duration here, so we're talking about one combat a day where they have some concealment.

I love me some druid, but that seems like a comparison that's super barbarian lopsided. There's lots we could do here to tilt the situation the druid's way. The spells could be made way more optimal while sticking to these cold+healing limits, the level could be raised (which is really just a different way of changing the spell loadout), the ACF could be ditched, and so on, but there's a level of druid stuff destruction at which we just have to say, nope, this isn't gonna win that fight.

Fizban

2018-02-01, 10:05 PM

Having a group with spellcasters and non-spellcasters does not make a mechanically balanced party. It can still be a fun party, but speaking strictly from a perspective of balance? No. It will never be balanced short of a near complete removal of the one thing that gives spellcasters their identity in the first place: spellcasting.
And this is where you are simply incorrect, because your definition of game balance does not match the game. You don't believe in roles, but the game is built based on cooperative roles, so you are at odds with the game itself.

You certainly are interpreting my posts wrong. To do that, people are usually looking at them wrong.
Your defense is that you didn't *literally* say those things, but anyone taking a natural reading can see you implying them left and right. A string of "even if this" and "maybe you haven't seen that" and "this seems something" all adds up. Note that I'm not accusing you of trying to weasel out of an insult- I'm just calling you out what reads as a clear series of assumptions.

A mature person (to me) would have no issue bringing up any issues they had with a player themselves. An even more mature person
This should probably be some sort of fallacy, the "well you're just not a perfect enough adult" fallacy. So they didn't immediately make the response you deem most mature, so what? Not everyone can just walk straight up and drop a problem out in the open like that, in fact I'm pretty sure most adults have trouble doing that with even a single person, let alone a whole group. Calling people immature (yes, describing an action they didn't take as more mature than what they did is a direct implication that they are the opposite, or immature) for not having maximum social interaction, hey I'd call that pretty immature myself.

You may not have noticed, but most of the sentences in my posts have qualifiers. Qualifiers mean that something is circumstancial, or holds true in the context in which I am speaking.
And as above, the more qualifiers you use, the less meaning they have, until the entire thing basically turns into one "well I'm not saying this but I'm saying this" statement.

Lets talk about absolutes:

That's pretty important. I am not engaging in absolutes. I don't see this as a black and white issue, even if that's what you're trying to pin on me.

No. It will never be balanced short of a near complete removal of the one thing that gives spellcasters their identity in the first place: spellcasting.
These two statements do not match. The qualifier here is a non-qualifier, saying "it only works if you invalidate the premise" is just snide way of saying that your position is irrefutable, absolute. Your directly stated absolute position is that spellcasters make game balance impossible, which is factually incorrect.

However, if we ever engage in future discourse on these forums, I would appreciate it if you could try and keep some of these things in mind. If you cannot, I don't really see a reason to engage with you further. Have a wonderful day.
I could say the same of you when it comes to quoting others and use of "qualifiers," though an argument about the nature of argument is a nice change of pace from the usual. And generally a discussion that becomes heated is called an argument- and you've had enough heat in some of your responses (short statements with phrases like "no." "listen" and "really?" convey this), I think that can apply on both sides.

The underlying argument is still rooted in the same old problem I've had in countless threads now: people have made up their own definition of game balance and then judge the game based on that, and then reject the game's own definitions of balance when confronted. Peel away the rest and that's what lies under the disagreement on the game. Almost every single disagreement on the game in fact.

Sleven

2018-02-01, 11:22 PM

le snip

Aaaand... there's nothing more to say here. You already made up your mind as to 1) what I'm saying 2) how I'm saying it, long, long ago. At this point, you're quite literally having a conversation with yourself and the sock puppet you've created, because clearly you're not having one with me.

Seriously?

Seriously.

Let's just look at blockade:
The cube floats. The druid can deal with watery terrain.
The cube weighs 2,000 pounds. This actually makes it his best damage spell, and allows him to out damage the water orc at their current level.
The cube can provide cover or total cover (as desired).
Then there's the whole slew of other things it can do depending on the circumstances and environment, including preventing the water orc from being able to charge the druid (or anyone else nearby) in the first place.

The water orc can... swim because it's a water orc, do less damage than dropping a blockade on someone, and (more than likely) for 1 encounter/day use travel devotion to get around a blockade counter before charging--circumstances pending.

I don't think I even need to get into how slot effective goodberry can be in terms of overall party healing with any amount of downtime, the fact that frostbreath dazes (in an area), and the only one you seem to give any credit: obscuring snow.

Just because these aren't your typical "must have" druid spells (apart from obscuring snow) doesn't mean you should ignore the significant advantage they give him over the water orc in terms of the number of situations he can provide solutions for over said water orc. Especially when you get a little creative.

there's a level of druid stuff destruction at which we just have to say, nope, this isn't gonna win that fight.

I would agree, but this is not such a level. As I mentioned earlier, I think you're focusing overmuch on combat encounters and damage numbers.

But then again, we probably just have different valuations. For me, combat encounters are such a small portion of the game that if that's all you can do, I hope you are really good at it. That's my perspective.

Fizban

2018-02-02, 12:50 AM

Aaaand... there's nothing more to say here. You already made up your mind as to 1) what I'm saying 2) how I'm saying it, long, long ago. At this point, you're quite literally having a conversation with yourself and the sock puppet you've created, because clearly you're not having one with me.
So, no actual counterarguments, no recognition of how you've blatantly contradicted yourself, just "wah wah you're not listening?" K. Nothing I haven't seen before. Okay, the sock puppet remark's pretty new and usually people don't get so aggressive in claiming that I'm not responding to them when I point by point respond to them, but it's the same result.

Oh hey, some counterarguments, lets tear them apart:

The cube floats. The druid can deal with watery terrain.
The cube weighs 2,000 pounds. This actually makes it his best damage spell, and allows him to out damage the water orc at their current level.
The cube weights 2,000 lbs (requiring the entire party or so to push at 5' per round) and lasts for 3 rounds, created at a range of 0'. The druid can cut 5' off the distance of a watery gap, hopefully long enough for 1-3 party members to succeed at climbing it and get to the other side. Or the party could roll jump checks and clear 1-20' for zero spells, maybe pack a rope in that starting gear to haul someone up if they sink.

By all means, tell us how you're ignoring the conjuration rules to deal damage with that in any situation other than "the DM put us on a ledge directly above a foe that's deaf dumb and blind enough to wait for us to shove it over the edge."

The cube can provide cover or total cover (as desired).
Then there's the whole slew of other things it can do depending on the circumstances and environment, including preventing the water orc from being able to charge the druid (or anyone else nearby) in the first place.
There you go, that's what the spell actually does. And shocker, it's a pretty strong spell, rather late in 3.5. Almost like it was specifically selected because it can be easily reflavored and spellcasters are expected to do more than just a few points of healing and damage. Of course since its one specific spell, the DM could just build encounters where it is both more and less useful, such that it's useful but not overshadowing anyone, structure adventuring days such that the Druid finds themselves with more Blockade situations than they have Blockades, etc.

The water orc can... swim because it's a water orc, do less damage than dropping a blockade on someone, and (more than likely) for 1 encounter/day use travel devotion to get around a blockade counter before charging--circumstances pending.
The [whirling frenzy pouncebarian devotion scrub] can deal [divide by zero error] percent more damage than zero, and ignore not only Blockade spells but any other terrain feature the DM might want to use to block a full attack from a certain direction without locking down a whole area short of an arrow slit.

I don't think I even need to get into how slot effective goodberry can be in terms of overall party healing with any amount of downtime, the fact that frostbreath dazes (in an area), and the only one you seem to give any credit: obscuring snow.
Bwhahaha, wow, that's the first time I've ever heard someone complain about Goodberry, or being able to heal the party. Frost Breath's also pretty wack with both damage and control at only 2nd, sure- and also weaker than most benchmark 2nd level BFC in its control with a 1 round duration, and have I mentioned the spellcaster's crowd-control role? Frost Breath actually a good candidate for this party, a hint of damage means the other characters aren't just patsying through the hp of disabled foes by themselves, while the 1 round limit means they have reason to be proud of finishing them off.

Hmm, nah I'll cut the rest.

MichielHagen

2018-02-02, 07:31 AM

Let's just look at blockade:
The cube floats. The druid can deal with watery terrain.
The cube weighs 2,000 pounds. This actually makes it his best damage spell, and allows him to out damage the water orc at their current level.
The cube can provide cover or total cover (as desired).
Then there's the whole slew of other things it can do depending on the circumstances and environment, including preventing the water orc from being able to charge the druid (or anyone else nearby) in the first place.

I think this is the problem when discussing with you. You think spells can do anything, when in fact they are limited.
The cube exists for 3 rounds, and how "broken" is it to be able to cross a 15ft river or something?
The cube must placed on solid ground, you cannot conjure it above an enemy.

And the other things are what the spell is about, the spell has to have some kind of usefullness, right?
It can be used for cover and blocking a straight path, maybe even block a door. But how powerful do you really think that is compared to doing 43 damage per round? I am not defeating any enemy just by putting a block of ice in the battlefield for 3 rounds.

I don't think I even need to get into how slot effective goodberry can be in terms of overall party healing with any amount of downtime

Now i am starting to think you are trolling.....

But to be honest, it doesn't matter what you think is broken. If none of the current party feels they are being overshadowed by me (which i am confident they won't) there is no problem. And since the balance-discussion was already on the table in our current game, at anytime someone feels the party has become unbalanced, we decide to rebalance it. So any problem will eventually fix itself, if the consensus is i have to get rid of broken spells such as goodberry, i will.

MeimuHakurei

2018-02-02, 08:15 AM

I think this is the problem when discussing with you. You think spells can do anything, when in fact they are limited.
The cube exists for 3 rounds, and how "broken" is it to be able to cross a 15ft river or something?
The cube must placed on solid ground, you cannot conjure it above an enemy.

And the other things are what the spell is about, the spell has to have some kind of usefullness, right?
It can be used for cover and blocking a straight path, maybe even block a door. But how powerful do you really think that is compared to doing 43 damage per round? I am not defeating any enemy just by putting a block of ice in the battlefield for 3 rounds.

Now i am starting to think you are trolling.....

But to be honest, it doesn't matter what you think is broken. If none of the current party feels they are being overshadowed by me (which i am confident they won't) there is no problem. And since the balance-discussion was already on the table in our current game, at anytime someone feels the party has become unbalanced, we decide to rebalance it. So any problem will eventually fix itself, if the consensus is i have to get rid of broken spells such as goodberry, i will.

43 damage per round is hardly an accomplishment unless you're like Level 2-3 - a CL 10 fireball does, on average, 35 damage to everything in a 20ft radius with no adjustments to the build or anything - just having Fireball in your spell list is all you need. And the block of ice can accomplish a lot if it keeps half the enemies from interfering while you're slaughtering the other half. The druid has other utility such as Air Walk, which lets you pounce into flying enemies or over difficult terrain.

I would say a druid can put out way more, but that would take quite a lot of optimization on the druid's part. Either way, noncasters really have it rough, so I'm pretty sure the water orc will be alright.

MichielHagen

2018-02-02, 08:32 AM

43 damage per round is hardly an accomplishment unless you're like Level 2-3 - a CL 10 fireball does, on average, 35 damage to everything in a 20ft radius with no adjustments to the build or anything - just having Fireball in your spell list is all you need. And the block of ice can accomplish a lot if it keeps half the enemies from interfering while you're slaughtering the other half. The druid has other utility such as Air Walk, which lets you pounce into flying enemies or over difficult terrain.

I would say a druid can put out way more, but that would take quite a lot of optimization on the druid's part. Either way, noncasters really have it rough, so I'm pretty sure the water orc will be alright.

You have read just the very last post in this 3 page long thread and decided to make a comment?

We are level 3 indeed, and none of the rest of the party was optimized. 43 damage was 4 times as much as the other melee-ers were doing, and no, this was not alright.
There is no discussion that the Druid is a potential powerhouse, but this specific druid we are discussing is a very unoptimized version, whom is not able to cast Air Walk for example.

Can i close this thread?

eggynack

2018-02-02, 08:46 AM

The cube floats. The druid can deal with watery terrain.
You need to put the cube on solid land at first, it's tiny, it lasts three rounds, and it has no independent means of locomotion. I can imagine few watery terrain situations that this can deal with.

The cube weighs 2,000 pounds. This actually makes it his best damage spell, and allows him to out damage the water orc at their current level.
You have to create it on solid ground. Above an enemy is not on solid ground.

The cube can provide cover or total cover (as desired).
Yes, this is the thing that blockade does. Of course, enemies can just kinda go around the cover that only occupies a single square, but it has utility.

Then there's the whole slew of other things it can do depending on the circumstances and environment, including preventing the water orc from being able to charge the druid (or anyone else nearby) in the first place.
Sure, five foot cubes are kinda useful. Not as useful as a single target no save just die that can be used at-will, but kinda useful.

The water orc can... swim because it's a water orc, do less damage than dropping a blockade on someone, and (more than likely) for 1 encounter/day use travel devotion to get around a blockade counter before charging--circumstances pending.
Most monsters aren't going to have blockade. Most casters aren't going to have blockade. Even if someone does have blockade, it's only likely protecting one monster, and not all that well either.

I don't think I even need to get into how slot effective goodberry can be in terms of overall party healing with any amount of downtime,
It's a solid pick, but it's not exactly game changing. I'd pick the insta-death over the berries any day.

the fact that frostbreath dazes (in an area)
Yeah, but the damage is really low, so the save or daze for a round is almost the primary effect,

Just because these aren't your typical "must have" druid spells (apart from obscuring snow) doesn't mean you should ignore the significant advantage they give him over the water orc in terms of the number of situations he can provide solutions for over said water orc. Especially when you get a little creative.
But, thing of it is, they provide few solutions over the water orc. You can heal a bit, offer some concealment/cover, or use frost breath. This isn't all that much in the way of extra situations where you can do stuff.

I would agree, but this is not such a level. As I mentioned earlier, I think you're focusing overmuch on combat encounters and damage numbers.
Almost all of these effects are combat effects, and they're ones that are, even as a group, worse than what an ubercharger provides.

But then again, we probably just have different valuations. For me, combat encounters are such a small portion of the game that if that's all you can do, I hope you are really good at it. That's my perspective.
If there aren't any combat encounters, then this pile of druid spells is pretty close to useless. Even the healing is rather weak if no one is dealing damage.