Breaking the game.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

The vast majority of powergaming is done when a player has a full freedom in choosing treasure, preparations and world conditions and knowledge. However, such choice in a normal game does not reside with the player. It resides with the DM or, if you want to stick to RAW, treasure at least is rolled by random tables. During the course of a normal campaign, the following conditions would apply;

1) Encounters are made by the DM. As a result, a player character cannot be familiar with a creature or kind of creature the DM does not want him to be. Given that divinations require familiarity, even if a character goes looking for a creature using OOC knowledge of his existence, such effects would not work ("I wanna go hunt Chronotyryn so I can be familiar enough to shapechange into one" is not feasible). Specifically unbalancing creatures *coughsarukhcough* may not even be in the campaign at all. In short;
The Monster books are a DM resource. In-Character a player cannot use them without the DM's permission so any powergaming including specific monster abilities might not be available on that basis. A wizard who never became familiar with an elder air elemental cannot shapechange into one.

2) While the normal amount of treasure is given in encounter tables, the type of treasure is decided upon by the DM... or rolled randomly. From the random rolls, much of the treasure is not combat-useful outright. In addition, no magic item in the random tables costs more than 40.000 gp. In the end, the PCs don't get the items they want. To get exactly the items you want (a powergaming requirement, or so I am told) you need to sell items and spend time to find someone who has what you want available. That means a 50% loss of value in the exchange. So;
Due to the randomness or DM-dependability of treasure, PCs cannot have whatever items they want. So powergaming requiring specific items requires the PCs to sell loot for 50% of the price then find a vendor that has the item in question. It turns out the local church only had one nightstick to sell. To find the remaining 665 you need to go over a few thousand more churches all over the country.

3) Time is a limited resource in a campaign with an overall goal in mind. A wizard could blow off four 9th level spells, a contingency and a dozen other spell slots into a single encounter and then go to rest. Unfortunately, the invading enemy army is under a strict timetable; they're going to pull off four assaults (encounters) that day, five the following day and a similar amount in the days to follow. The villain's plan of ascencion is going to be completed by midnight of tat day and anyone wishing to stop him must overcome his three-layer (encounter) defence and fight him too before he succeeds. So a wizard can't blow off more than a single rest period per day. Why do you think he'll have the time to cast Genesis that requires an entire week of casting time?


The game is much less breakable under the above circumstances.

[newbDM]

Many thanks for making this thread.

This is some great advice all DMs should know.

However, perhaps "Unbreaking the game" would a better title for this thread?

[Typewriter]

I've always considered most 'powegaming' to be fun to think about, and fun to figure out the best possible uses of.

But that's all it is.

Too many people think that because a wizard can do anything any wizard can do anything. These just aren't the ways things work.

I agree with you completely, but it's still fun to theorize.

[mikej]

I've always considered most 'powegaming' to be fun to think about, and fun to figure out the best possible uses of.

But that's all it is.

Too many people think that because a wizard can do anything any wizard can do anything. These just aren't the ways things work.

I agree with you completely, but it's still fun to theorize.

Agreed

Though you should make it perfertly clear between theoritical optimization and character optimization. I've seen a few paranoid DM's overeact over small things, there's a difference between the player trying to make the best "Scout" possible, while another is purposely seeking to ruin a game. I tend to leave the theory for the web, while in game just make the most mechanically sound character to have fun with.

[arguskos]

1. THANK YOU GOOD GOD!!! Really, COME ONE GUYS, this **** is basic and useful. We all should know about it and consider it.

2. I actually wanted to point out that putting some basic equipping restrictions in place when players enter the game is a good idea as well. I tend to limit my players to basic gear (general protective devices/armor, stat boosters, weapons w/ no more than one special ability, and whatever potions/scrolls/wands they can afford) when a character enters the game. I tend to think that gear should come in game, at the table, and besides, players are resourceful types, they can make nearly anything work and work well (here I point to my party, which once managed to use a giant immobile crystal statue to defeat the BBEG).

[Katrascythe]

I agree with arguskos on restricting what players can have coming in. For a game I'm beginning, I placed the restriction that a player can't have anything more than a +1 item. So, a basic cloak of protection, +1 weapon, etc.

A couple of my players have a small problem of not knowing what BASIC means and I have to define +1 "X" more than once. I'm actually going to use some custom crafting rules from a friend in a low magic setting to heavily restrict the magic gear they comes across. I think the only things they have that are more powerful than basic are Belts of Healing and a Handy Haversack. There might be one or two more things but all of the weapons they are going to have to find or make in game.

This is also an experiment to see if the players are going to be smarter with their wealth if the world doesn't have tons of magic items. It also gives me a lot of power over what the players get at any given time.

I also like seeing what players can come up with when they don't have the weapons of epicness. PC's are surprisingly creative with their environments when they need to be...

[Thrud]

*Lots of commonsense stuff*

Thank you for putting into words far better than I have been able to exactly why no one game system is overpowered. The Game system is never at fault, just the DM, because all he has to do is say 'No! Bad player, no biscuit!' Followed by a swift whap on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

Edit - This of course doesn't mean that some systems are not more prone to being broken than others. But it should always be the DM's responsibility to reign in the players. Some games require more experience to DM than others.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

For low-magic games, the issue quickly becomes which challenges the PCs can and can't handle. Things like stat-boosters and Cloaks of Resistance are factored into monsters(suposedly). It's hard to balance encounters without those, and PCs will definitely be unable to face many level-appropriate challenges. Spellcasters are generally the least affected(check out EricGrau's thread on trying to find needed equipment for casters for his low-magic item fix), with non-caster meleers being hit worst, IMHO.

[Baalthazaq]

I often get criticized by some... paranoid DMs.

I always try first and foremost to make a character I find interesting. A lot of the time there will also be an element of trying to make "cool" character, and powerful is a shortcut to cool.

(A guy who can make his enemies burst into flame at a thought is cool. Steve the plumber less so. That's not to say you cannot make weak characters that are cool).

What this means is I am always asking my DM "would it be alright if", and they panic. "NO! Whatever it is no!"

An example that hasn't happened:
"Could I play a Cleric of Levistus who was lawful good?"
"You cannot be 2 steps away from your Deity's alignment! Stop trying to break the game!"
...
...
"I can take the exact same feats, skills, abilities, domains, etc by raw, I just want to be a follower of this dude cos I like the concept"
"Whatever you're doing to break my game stoppit!"
...
...

I then say screw it, trash my character concept, and make a human fighter 13892637812638 times more powerful than the cool cleric I wanted. He's boring as hell, but hey it's a game. Screw interesting characters.

"Can I make an adamantine warforge into a druid? I have to break a rule to do it."
"Stop trying to break the game"
"I don't want to break the game, I've got a specific character in mind and I'd like to play it"
"No"
"Ok, can I make a human druid?"
"Yes"

Great, bonus feat,and I'm not wasting a feat on my armor, I can just buy it. So I have a more powerful character, that I'm less interested in playing.

(It is possible to get Adamantine armour with the human "druid". I was only using druid to qualify for some stuff. Then multiclassed into something more interesting. The reason you need permission to do it with the Warforge is (I think) you need Ironwood body to become a druid, then can't change to adamantine later. Humans can just buy it at a later date. Character concept was basically a warforge who tried to become a druid but they never allowed him due to them being effectively racist. Calling him "unnatural".)

So basically, you don't necessarily want to alienate your players by being your own rules lawyer either. You want to keep the game under control, but do it with monitoring how powerful they're becoming, not by sticking to the rules come hell or high water. I can always make a more broken character, I just like the ideas behind the ones I try to make.

[Zincorium]

A. These are good rules for a newish DM to follow. And experienced DMs to only break if they really know what the consequences will be.

B. These are irrelevant for most people who are really trying hard to break the game, they'll find thousands of options to do so even if you follow all of these completely. You need additional house-rulings and a bit of spine to keep your *friends* from short-circuiting your enjoyment.

A + B = C in the algebra of D&D.

C. There is no substitute for competent DMing.

[Narmoth]

Reasons for powergaming:
1. because you can
2. because the dm sent a monster 3 cr higher than your ecl on you and the rest of the party didn't help (it was a duel)
3. because you never get any good items you take overpowering feat combinations to compensate
4. because how hard you can hit something is more important than problem solving and interaction in this campaign

[monty]

4. because how hard you can hit something is more important than problem solving and interaction in this campaign

Because if you can't solve the problem with brute force, you aren't using enough.

[Eldariel]

5. Because sometimes playing games with strong characters is fun.

That said, much depends on the definition of "powergaming" here. All my characters are "optimized" in the sense that they're competent in what I want them to be competent at. None of them break any games though.

But I'm not going to intentionally gimp myself unless presented a really good reason - if I want to play a monastic martial artist, I'm going to play an Unarmed Swordsage, not a Monk simply because I don't see what I gain by sucking. If I want to play a master of the arcane arts, he's not going to be an evoker and most likely bans the school.


But this is in no way contrary to the OP of course (more of a response to the possible sentiment that "you shouldn't care about how strong your character is"). With regards to OP, just one thing to remember - crafting effectively gives PCs access to just about any item that exists in the campaign world.

[VirOath]

For low-magic games, the issue quickly becomes which challenges the PCs can and can't handle. Things like stat-boosters and Cloaks of Resistance are factored into monsters(suposedly). It's hard to balance encounters without those, and PCs will definitely be unable to face many level-appropriate challenges. Spellcasters are generally the least affected(check out EricGrau's thread on trying to find needed equipment for casters for his low-magic item fix), with non-caster meleers being hit worst, IMHO.

But it is cases like this where the Soulknife and Monk shine. Less dependent on items makes them more powerful in a setting where they rest of the party would fly ahead miles in terms of power without gaining a level. IE, from high wealth campaigns.

And the CR system is screwy anyways. Anyone that has used it for any real length of time can tell you that. Some thing are overvalued and others under, and this has a huge impact since the PL vs CR is what gives the experience. In a low wealth campaign you need to count the party as lower CRs because of it, just as a high wealth needs to count the party as levels higher for any chance at remotely working.

And what has been said is exactly right. It's the DM's world. Anything and everything can change on a whim, like removing the rogue's sneak attack if he so wanted to.

[Radar]

(...) With regards to OP, just one thing to remember - crafting effectively gives PCs access to just about any item that exists in the campaign world.

IF they have time to craft items, that is. Still it would be really hard to stop for example the Affinity Field trick.

[Baalthazaq]

But it is cases like this where the Soulknife and Monk shine. Less dependent on items makes them more powerful in a setting where they rest of the party would fly ahead miles in terms of power without gaining a level. IE, from high wealth campaigns.

And the CR system is screwy anyways. Anyone that has used it for any real length of time can tell you that. Some thing are overvalued and others under, and this has a huge impact since the PL vs CR is what gives the experience. In a low wealth campaign you need to count the party as lower CRs because of it, just as a high wealth needs to count the party as levels higher for any chance at remotely working.

And what has been said is exactly right. It's the DM's world. Anything and everything can change on a whim, like removing the rogue's sneak attack if he so wanted to.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the DM changing the rules, but when it comes to character creation I'd like to know beforehand. I'd be pissed if I made a rogue only to then find that it doesn't have sneak attack. "Oh ok, I'll multiclass out I guess.... " "No multiclassing".

I hate feeling like the DM is making my characters, and he needs to be making changes for a reason, whether it be world consistency, story consistency, anything.

He doesn't need to explain why he's doing things, but there should be a reason. This is more limited when it comes to what the characters are doing.

"I attack" "No you don't" "... oh he stops me?" "No you just don't attack" "Mind control spell?"

Again, there is a lot of common sense limitation in the game and you need to strike a balance.

[sonofzeal]

But it is cases like this where the Soulknife and Monk shine. Less dependent on items makes them more powerful in a setting where they rest of the party would fly ahead miles in terms of power without gaining a level. IE, from high wealth campaigns.

I've heard it argued that Monks are actually more item-dependent than Fighters in most campaigns. They need all sorts of stat-boosting items to do anything in combat, and magical AC boosters to avoid dying horribly since they don't wear armor. Unless you're in a place where even non-magical gear is difficult to acquire, a Fighter/Barbarian/whatever with nonmagical armor+shield and a masterwork weapon can generally out-fight your average Monk.

Consider that at lvl20 (twenty, mind you; it's worse at lower levels), your Monk has AC of 10+Dex+Wis+4, and without stat boosters you're lucky if that even hits 20. Meanwhile your Fighter in Mithral Plate (and, by this level, it's got to be a pretty crazy campaign if that's out of reach) and large shield has an AC of 23 without much difficulty at all, with less statpoint investment, and can be doing that at any level while the Monk is slogging his way up from a rather pitiable AC 16.

In a non-magical world, the Soulknife can do decently, the Arcane Archer can at least justify its existence if not excel, and the Soulbow and Kensai are looking pretty. But the Monk still suffers from the exact same problems that make it weak in a magical world. The only time the Monk's ahead is when stripped naked and locked in a dungeon, and that can happen in any campaign regardless of magic level, but is hardly commonplace.

[JeminiZero]

But it is cases like this where the Soulknife and Monk shine. Less dependent on items makes them more powerful in a setting where they rest of the party would fly ahead miles in terms of power without gaining a level. IE, from high wealth campaigns.

Except of course, that even without items, the Soulknife is still inferior to the PsyWar, and the Monk still has his posterior handed to him by the Unarmed Swordsage.

In fact primary casters become even more stronger comparatively, since they have their buffs, while the Monk/Soulknife/Fighter lose the items that simulate said buffs.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

crafting effectively gives PCs access to just about any item that exists in the campaign world.

They have to take crafting feats. 50% loss of resources always applies because crafting materials never come as treasure. They have to have the required spells and cast them. They have to have the required skills, if any. They need to spend lots of time. They need to pay XP. So, unless they are artificers, no crafting is cost-effective.

In fact primary casters become even more stronger comparatively, since they have their buffs, while the Monk/Soulknife/Fighter lose the items that simulate said buffs.

Angels. Demons. Fey. Devils. Aberrations. Dragons. Most of them have access to dispel magic.

[Killer Angel]

Thank you for putting into words far better than I have been able to exactly why no one game system is overpowered. The Game system is never at fault, just the DM, because all he has to do is say 'No! Bad player, no biscuit!' Followed by a swift whap on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

Oh, c'mon. D&D is broken, but a DM MUST have the game under control and sometimes he must say no, otherwise you'll have a broken game with any system. I've seen a broken character even in GURPS.

That said, problems in 3.5 exist, and are a lot. The OP is simply remembering that you don't have to be a great DM to limit the brokeness, and (most af all) you don't have to stomp the players; you just have to apply a little commonsense.

The concept is simple, but I've the impression that this is the path that leads to flames...

PS: Tecnically, I think magic shops with everything at hand, didn't exist. For every town, you have an amount of gp (according to the DM tables) and the magical object should be generated casually until you reach the sum of gp at disposal in that town; even in a metropolis, you're no sure to find the magical object you need.
Well, casters have the feats to make objects by themselves, but at least they must spend feats and time.
An interesting option is that, if the player wants some specific equipment and in town there isn't, you (as a DM) can invent a side-quest to find such item...

[JeminiZero]

Angels. Demons. Fey. Devils. Aberrations. Dragons. Most of them have access to dispel magic.

Which also works on items.

If a soulknife and a wizard are chasing after a Solar over a lava pool, relying on flight from items, the Solar can suppress the items and send them falling. The wizard at least can either try and cast fire resistance or flight, while the soulknife has no chance at all.

Similiarly if the cleric and monk are fighting an incorporeal strength draining undead with nothing but mundane gear. The monk finds his fist do not count as magic for striking incorporeal, while the cleric casts magic weapon and sheltered vitality.

[Seffbasilisk]

As a DM I simply limit what comes into game, requiring each item to be pre-approved.

Even then, I warn the players once. If they aim to break my game, I send in DMPCs, well within CR range, that will absolutely slaughter them. If they take the Hunted flaw? I'm hunting them. Etc.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

If a soulknife and a wizard are chasing after a Solar over a lava pool, relying on flight from items, the Solar can suppress the items and send them falling.

Tactics; the solar cannot see the ring of solar wings you're wearing under your lead-lined nonmagical gauntlets. The same gauntlets which prevent your sword from being disarmed, too.
Anyone can hide and protect his items like that. No-one can hide his spells well enough to ensure they won't be detected.

Similiarly if the cleric and monk are fighting an incorporeal strength draining undead with nothing but mundane gear.

They're both toast; the undead can attack from within the ground. It can wait in it until the spells end and come up again, too. They can't attack into it. And if the undead is a ghost, the cleric loses his holy symbol to telekineses.

[Narmoth]

Because if you can't solve the problem with brute force, you aren't using enough.

I don't get more happy if the monster died in 2 rounds because I did 50 or 500 dmg to it.
Really.
Thus, if the problem is the same (kill that thing) and the solution is the same (kill that thing) things will get boring, no matter how powerful you are.
For the record: I'm ECL 15. I do more than 400 hp dmg in 2 rounds. With my greatsword coupled with feats and spells.
Yeah, it's broken. And no, it's not really that fun.
We never see any treasure because we spend it so intelligently (when we got loot we made a flying ship), I only have +1-items (with a ecl 15 group!) and will take vow of poverty because it will actually fit my repenting character.
But: I'll get better ac with it than I get with my armour! Even my fluff-inspired ideas are powergaming because we are so lootstarved.

Next game we'll come back to a village that holds slaves. I will free those slaves one way or another. If we had loot, I'd simply buy them out. Now I will try to intimidate the villagers (I can boost my intimidate past 30 before rolling, and yes, I'll take 20 on it in addition). If that fails, I'll free them by force (great cleave, a lot of dmg on hit). Guess which alternative ruins the game world most?
Broken? Indeed. But fun.
And by the rules as well

[JeminiZero]

Tactics; the solar cannot see the ring of solar wings you're wearing under your lead-lined nonmagical gauntlets. The same gauntlets which prevent your sword from being disarmed, too.
Anyone can hide and protect his items like that. No-one can hide his spells well enough to ensure they won't be detected.

At this point I would like to point out the irony of relying on (somewhat cheesy) lead lined gloves, in a thread where you speak against players getting any item they want.

They're both toast; the undead can attack from within the ground. It can wait in it until the spells end and come up again, too. They can't attack into it.

Unless they're in the elemental plane of air, where there is no ground. Or the cleric could hope one of his domains grants him a spell that lets him turn incorporeal as well and give chase, or to teleport somewhere safe.

The point I'm trying to make is that regardless of degree of magical item availability, the bottom tier classes are generally no less sucky compared to the top tier classes.

Sure, low magic makes crazy munchkinism harder to achieve, but the monk and soul knife are still going to look bad compared to the swordsage and psywar.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

Lead is easily available. So are nonmagical gauntlets. So are smiths. In any case simple gloves block line of sight/effect well enough.

As for class tiers, you are right. Weak classes will remain weak and that's the game designers' fault in most cases. It's already strong classes not becoming stronger that my suggestions aim at. Allowing them to do so is the DM's fault in most cases.

[ZeroNumerous]

Tactics; the solar cannot see the ring of solar wings you're wearing under your lead-lined nonmagical gauntlets.

A solar has an intelligence score of 23 and a wisdom score of 25. If it seems a human flying, does not see wings and knows that humans cannot normally fly without wings.. It's going to use Dispel Magic. Handing a creature the idiot ball does not make it more balanced when facing useless classes.

EDIT: At the above: AoE Dispel affects everything in it's radius. It just has to aim the AoE to catch the Monk and Wizard to dispel their things.

[BlueWizard]

Belial, I agree.

[Crazy Scot]

I see a repetitive concept here. Basically, if a person wants to break a game, they probably can even within RAW and with limited magic item availability. The DM can step in and knock some sense into them to get them back in line, or just eliminate the character if it gets out of hand, but this is not the real problem I think. I personnally, occasionally, find combinations within RAW which have the potential to unleash game-breakage, but my gaming friends are comforted by one fact, that while I know the rules, I never use them to break a game. When I game, I prefer Roleplaying as opposed to Rollplaying. If you set out to break a game, in an actual campaign, what you are probably really doing is either frustrating the DM or the other players, and often times both. It may be great to be able to drop a creature in one round, but if you leave nothing for the others to do, or leave the DM wondering what the heck he can throw at you, you are really only hurting the game. I have said this before in other threads, the basic premise behind gaming (any game: RPG, board, computer, etc) is HAVING FUN. If you are destroying the fun of others be careful you don't find yourself playing by yourself in the near future.

[Thrud]

I see a repetitive concept here. Basically, if a person wants to break a game, they probably can even within RAW and with limited magic item availability. The DM can step in and knock some sense into them to get them back in line, or just eliminate the character if it gets out of hand, but this is not the real problem I think. I personnally, occasionally, find combinations within RAW which have the potential to unleash game-breakage, but my gaming friends are comforted by one fact, that while I know the rules, I never use them to break a game. When I game, I prefer Roleplaying as opposed to Rollplaying. If you set out to break a game, in an actual campaign, what you are probably really doing is either frustrating the DM or the other players, and often times both. It may be great to be able to drop a creature in one round, but if you leave nothing for the others to do, or leave the DM wondering what the heck he can throw at you, you are really only hurting the game. I have said this before in other threads, the basic premise behind gaming (any game: RPG, board, computer, etc) is HAVING FUN. If you are destroying the fun of others be careful you don't find yourself playing by yourself in the near future.

Yeah, I have always asserted that roleplaying is the key and provides the solution to powergaming, and at heart if everyone keeps in mind exactly the way their character should actually think and react then there will be no problem. And if the player is incapable of that, then the DM can simply say no and hopefully eventually the lesson will be learned.

Hmm, I had an interesting disccusion going in a thread about that once, last summer, before RL stepped in and kicked me hard in the head. I should dig that up.

edit- Err, not literally. No thread necromancy from me, no siree bob.