DM vs. overpowered charaters

[Kultrum]

It seems that most people here assume that D&D is broken as a whole. and need extensive houseuling to even play a game. This misconception is the result of 2 people,
One the Power Gamer and two the laxed DM.
While a lot of it is the power gamer they are only encouraged by a laxed DM.
This type of DM doesn't understand my golden rule of DMing:
"Anything you can do, I can do" Meaning If the party wizard is abusing time stop, force cage, cloudkill etc., so can NPC's.
Also if a player is breaking the game to the point of it not being fun, for the love of god tell them (privately) that they are and ask them to back off, any reasonable player will and if the don't then use rule 2:
"Anything you can do i can do, Better" and get rid of the offender because lets face it if they won't cool it and let the others have fun then they might as well not be there.
And before you say it yes there are some vague rules. Its part of the Dms job to interpret and set limits on such rules

[Kaelik]

It seems that most people here assume that D&D is broken as a whole. and need extensive houseuling to even play a game. This misconception is the result of 2 people,
One the Power Gamer and two the laxed DM.
While a lot of it is the power gamer they are only encouraged by a laxed DM.
This type of DM doesn't understand my golden rule of DMing:
"Anything you can do, I can do" Meaning If the party wizard is abusing time stop, force cage, cloudkill etc., so can NPC's.
Also if a player is breaking the game to the point of it not being fun, for the love of god tell them (privately) that they are and ask them to back off, any reasonable player will and if the don't then use rule 2:
"Anything you can do i can do, Better" and get rid of the offender because lets face it if they won't cool it and let the others have fun then they might as well not be there.
And before you say it yes there are some vague rules. Its part of the Dms job to interpret and set limits on such rules

First of all, in every game I've ever been in it was an understood that when something smelled like cheese it was time to get rid of it. Secondly, the DM and player cooperate. Why does no one ever understand that? Players don't do those things because it makes it harder for the DM to give challenging but fun encounters. DMs know that they can beat anything the players do with something worse, they don't because that's not their job.

Bottom line, D&D is broken to all hell and back in the rules, but in practice it isn't because it wouldn't be fun to just Candle of Invocation yourself infinite wishes.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I completely agree with you, Kultrum. Except for the fact that you've got a faulty premise: I don't think there are many active D&D players who believe the game is so broken it needs extensive houseruling. Trust me, the game would not be this popular were that the case. I'm fairly certain most competent DMs already do what you're saying.

The misapprehension you have is that the...passionate...discussions about game balance here are how we actually think when we play games. In my case, at least, it is not. The boards are where we discuss theory and mock the hell out of the publisher. Actual gameplay is much less stilted and reliant on only doing exactly what the rulebooks say. At least, that's my experience.

[Kultrum]

First of all, in every game I've ever been in it was an understood that when something smelled like cheese it was time to get rid of it. Secondly, the DM and player cooperate. Why does no one ever understand that? Players don't do those things because it makes it harder for the DM to give challenging but fun encounters. DMs know that they can beat anything the players do with something worse, they don't because that's not their job.

Bottom line, D&D is broken to all hell and back in the rules, but in practice it isn't because it wouldn't be fun to just Candle of Invocation yourself infinite wishes.

sorry if it came out wrong but you said what i hoped would come across.

[goat]

The problem with countering a power-maxed cheesey-combinations party with ANOTHER cheesy maxed power combinations party, is that after a certain point, pretty much the ONLY way to make a fight involving them challenging is to kill some of them, in the first round, before they know you're there.

[Telonius]

Give any system to an army of 90,000 nerds. Any system at all. No matter how foolproof you make the system, within 20 minutes the Nerd Army will blow a hole in it wide enough to drive a truck through.

[Kultrum]

I completely agree with you, Kultrum. Except for the fact that you've got a faulty premise: I don't think there are many active D&D players who believe the game is so broken it needs extensive houseruling. Trust me, the game would not be this popular were that the case. I'm fairly certain most competent DMs already do what you're saying.

The misapprehension you have is that the...passionate...discussions about game balance here are how we actually think when we play games. In my case, at least, it is not. The boards are where we discuss theory and mock the hell out of the publisher. Actual gameplay is much less stilted and reliant on only doing exactly what the rulebooks say. At least, that's my experience.

I know that most players don't want to break the game and that most DMs do what im saying but I'd say 1/10 dont and Im directing this at them (also the ... passionate... ones tend to talk more and give a bad rep for the game

[Dausuul]

Except that it takes an experienced DM and players to know what's broken and what isn't. Sure, the candle of invocation/infinite wish trick is broken on the face of it. But most of D&D's balance issues are subtler.

Take druids. I've heard any number of stories about players who made druids in good faith, not powergaming, taking Natural Spell because they assumed it was one of those things you had to have just to be effective... and then discovering that their character was so powerful in melee that the party fighter might as well retire. In fact, I've been one of those players, except I didn't even take Natural Spell; I just dipped Beastmaster because I wanted a good animal companion to ride into battle. Then I discovered that my animal companion could outdo both of the party's melee warriors put together. I did not see this problem coming, and neither did my DM.

Now, a reasonable player and a reasonable DM can address these issues when they come up. You can house-rule the over-powered abilities out of existence, or agree not to use those abilities (which is effectively the same thing), or scrap the character entirely (which is also effectively the same thing, except using a meat cleaver in place of a scalpel).

But you've still had to house-rule a fix for a problem with the system, which indicates that the system is, in fact, broken in that area.

[Matthew]

As far as I can tell, the disconnect between practice and theory has always been part of playing D&D, as have people seeking to exploit the rules to maximum advantage. Whilst the 3e DMG largely frowns on DMs changing the rules of the game, it also unequivocally rejects the notion that breaking the game is desirable and suggests that the DM remove undesirable elements that are unbalancing the play experience.

[tainsouvra]

It seems that most people here assume that D&D is broken as a whole. and need extensive houseuling to even play a game. This misconception is the result of 2 people,

Nerd-o-rama is right. The misconception is the result of you misinterpreting online discussions. There are balance problems, no doubt, but the extensive houseruling thing is an impression you're getting from reading the condensed complaints and suggestions of the more verbose posters on an online forum. Nothing more.

One the Power Gamer and two the laxed DM.

The game is imbalanced even if you're not a powergamer--it's just that powergamers are more in tune with the game's balance, so you hear about it from them more often. A Cleric who plays just like the PhB describes and a Monk who plays just like the PhB describes, no fancy powergaming just going right by the book, will be on dramatically different levels of effectiveness in the upper levels.

"Anything you can do, I can do" Meaning If the party wizard is abusing time stop, force cage, cloudkill etc., so can NPC's.

This is a terrible, terrible solution to class imbalance. You go from having one PC who is eclipsing the party to having one PC and the NPC's eclipsing the party. You don't stop bleeding by stabbing someone several more times, you bandage the initial wound. Same here. Fix the problem, don't make it worse.

Also if a player is breaking the game to the point of it not being fun, for the love of god tell them (privately) that they are and ask them to back off, any reasonable player will

I agree, and this is why D&D isn't so broken after all. Good players cooperate with each other and the DM to avoid breaking it.

And before you say it yes there are some vague rules. Its part of the Dms job to interpret and set limits on such rules

It is also the job of a game designer to make his intent clear, that's kind of the whole reason they write books about their games

[Kiyona]

This type of DM doesn't understand my golden rule of DMing:
"Anything you can do, I can do"

I love that rule. ^^ My DM lives by it, and it works really well. Now, no one in our little group knows enough about the system to create the ultimate cheese. But when he lets us build characters with a higher than usual point buy, or allows me to get the ultimate weapon of cheese... we all tremble in fear of what he might throw at us. =)

I think it works pretty well if you have an experienced DM who knows how to balance the game. We really enjoy it, thats for sure. ^^

[Draz74]

The problem is that when we discuss D&D online, we "have to" make zero assumptions about what DMs can do to limit the available cheese, so that we're all "on common ground." Therefore cheese gets discussed a lot, and in a lot of hypothetical situations that most DMs would very sensibly keep from being a problem in the individual games that actually matter.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

Give any system to an army of 90,000 nerds. Any system at all. No matter how foolproof you make the system, within 20 minutes the Nerd Army will blow a hole in it wide enough to drive a truck through.

Not true. I am fairly sure I can write rules that cannot be abused. The problem is, they would not be very fun.

[OneWinged4ngel]

It seems that most people here assume that D&D is broken as a whole. and need extensive houseuling to even play a game. This misconception is the result of 2 people,
One the Power Gamer and two the laxed DM.
While a lot of it is the power gamer they are only encouraged by a laxed DM.
This type of DM doesn't understand my golden rule of DMing:
"Anything you can do, I can do" Meaning If the party wizard is abusing time stop, force cage, cloudkill etc., so can NPC's.
Also if a player is breaking the game to the point of it not being fun, for the love of god tell them (privately) that they are and ask them to back off, any reasonable player will and if the don't then use rule 2:
"Anything you can do i can do, Better" and get rid of the offender because lets face it if they won't cool it and let the others have fun then they might as well not be there.
And before you say it yes there are some vague rules. Its part of the Dms job to interpret and set limits on such rules

A few problems with this argument:

One the Power Gamer and two the laxed DM.

"laxed" isn't a word, so who even knows what that means... ("I'll assume you mean "opposite of a strict DM")
You certainly don't provide a definition in your argument.

This type of DM doesn't understand my golden rule of DMing:
"Anything you can do, I can do" Meaning If the party wizard is abusing time stop, force cage, cloudkill etc., so can NPC's.

First off, that's definitely not the golden rule of DMing. Moreover, though, this does NOTHING to solve balance issues, because the other PCs can't do what the party wizard can do, and thus they get cut out of the fun while you're playing godfight together. Further, the ability for two people to be overpowered instead of just one doesn't do anything to debunk the point that they're overpowered... since whether or not something is overpowered is relevant to the rest of the system *by definition.*

By committing logical fallacies, that argument fails.

Also if a player is breaking the game to the point of it not being fun, for the love of god tell them (privately) that they are and ask them to back off, any reasonable player will and if the don't then use rule 2:

This (disallowing a part of the system) qualifies as houseruling, and thus contradicts your own argument that you don't need to utilize houseruling to create balance. You violate the law of non-contradiction, making your argument wrong. Also, saying that the system as written is balanced because you can alter it commits the Oberoni Fallacy, which also would make the argument wrong.

"Anything you can do i can do, Better" and get rid of the offender because lets face it if they won't cool it and let the others have fun then they might as well not be there.

Again, the ability to be MORE overpowered than someone is in no way relevant to whether or not the system is not balanced. Your logic implies that "The Planar Shepherd is balanced because the DM can use Pun Pun."

And before you say it yes there are some vague rules. Its part of the Dms job to interpret and set limits on such rules

And of course, this is houseruling to make the game playable (the thing you said wasn't necessary).

You pretty much make the argument against yourself that you actually do need houserules to effectively enforce balance, and that there indeed are balance problems with the system as a whole.

You have in no way demonstrated that the idea that houserules are needed to enforce balance OR the idea that D&D has an unbalanced system is a misconception.

[Starbuck_II]

Players don't do those things because it makes it harder for the DM to give challenging but fun encounters. DMs know that they can beat anything the players do with something worse, they don't because that's not their job.

Players do this things because they think they have to to survive. Players don't hink: How can I break his game.
Well, they could, but most don't.
They usually think: How can I make myself able to beat whatever challenge comes my way best.
And the loopholes like Druid + Natural Spell=too strong; are already there waiting to be used to better protect you.
Or level 5 caster + Alter Self=+6 NA as troglydyte.

[valadil]

Ignoring the lax and overpowered bits reveals what's, in my opinion, really responsible for breaking games. It's the DM versus players mentality. Once you let go of that adversarial attitude it becomes easier to focus on playing characters in a story.

[Hopeless]

Let me get this straight how do you rate a dm who in his own game under 3.0 rules uses 2e rules for a flame strike scroll so it extends 230' and about 50' or so wide narrowly missing my character who he previously aged 60 years with the ghost an ancient black dragon such that my character was 250' away at the base of hill because he was ruling any spellcasting BEFORE movement meant he could only move 5' and most of the time i didn't bother moving my character since I was having summon monster cast to help protect the rest of the group at the top of the hill.

This same dm when playing a paladin persuaded the dm to let him generate his starting money under 1st edition unearthed arcane rules so he could start with a suit of full plate and a masterwork greatsword because his paladin was of noble birth albeit also a fanatic who willingly used torture and cold bloodedly murdered a prisoner over the objections of the rest of the group and only got away because the dm of that game let him do so.

Is that what you were referring to by bad dming and a powergamer who got away with something because of a dm mistake?

Sorry if that offended anyone but that actually happened in a game and I had to congratulate him because he had just villified the entire paladin class as far as I was concerned.

[shadowdemon_lord]

Wow Hopeless, that's pretty intense. At any rate, theirs a way D&D is supposed to be played, and then their's the endless rules abuse that crop up because the people publishing D&D need to stay in buisness, and the best way they can find to do that is to keep publishing more rules. D&D is supposed to be played with balanced parties, and a DM who knows how to correctly challenge his party. Their are combinations (either by being to weak or to strong) that make this very difficuilt. If say, you get a party with no healers in it, you'll have a problem. The problem happens when people start assuming that the point of is to "win" by making their character invinsible. A good player will accept a (none cheesy) death and move on and put together a new character, or get raised. A good DM will let that player put together a new character that's about the same level as the rest of the party. A good DM will also be able to put together challenges for the party that are realistic based on the power level of the party, not just based on their CR. He'll also put together a world, and let the PC's romp around in it, letting them get in way over their heads if they decide they want to go to the undead infested town. the DM would of course warn the PC's that hey, this is a bad idea, but if they insist, the DM will let them play it out, and hopefully give them an out, albeit a dangerous one they have to work for.

[Human Paragon 3]

Give any system to an army of 90,000 nerds. Any system at all. No matter how foolproof you make the system, within 20 minutes the Nerd Army will blow a hole in it wide enough to drive a truck through.

Rock, Paper, Scissors.

[Blanks]

Rock, Paper, Scissors.

Just because i like the quote you are refuting i will try to out-geek you :)

How to Win at Rock-Paper-Scissors

Contrary to what you might think RPS is not simply a game of luck or chance. While it is true that from a mathematical perspective the ‘optimum’ strategy is to play randomly, it still is not a winning strategy for two reasons.

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/2032

[boomwolf]

Best solution to a powergamer is to get some NPC enemies with builds that, while fair, are highly destructive against his own, or maybe even immune to his form of game breaking.
Alternative is, if he is a magic breaker, you can use anti-magic fields and spell immune opponents. (or even partial anti-magic fields such as "only nacromancery and evocation works")

[vegetalss4]

Give any system to an army of 90,000 nerds. Any system at all. No matter how foolproof you make the system, within 20 minutes the Nerd Army will blow a hole in it wide enough to drive a truck through.

i can beat this challenge.
the players roll one dice earch and the one who roll higest win. if both players roll the same the roll agein.
this system is unbreakable unless you cheat

[Kurald Galain]

i can beat this challenge.
the players roll one dice earch and the one who roll higest win. if both players roll the same the roll agein.
this system is unbreakable unless you cheat

No it isn't, you didn't specify what kind of dice. So the kind of nerd who can produce a 10,000-sided die is probably going to win this one.

[NullAshton]

Why wouldn't the "Whatever the players can do, the DM can do better" thing work? If the wizard is using some cheesy tactics, then the DM uses the same cheesy tactics back at the wizard, not at the other players. And if it keeps up, player wizard dies and he has to make a new character.

[Kurald Galain]

Why wouldn't the "Whatever the players can do, the DM can do better" thing work?

One, because you're treating the symptom rather than the cause. And two, because you're now getting into an arms race with the player in question.

[Counterspin]

The loopholes are problems with the system, which can be corrected with good GMing and houserules. If a sink is busted, it can be fixed, but that doesn't mean it wasn't broken in the first place.

[boomwolf]

actually there is no arms race from a simple reason.
you can give an NPC something that the player can't have. something that is not in any book. you auto-defeat him by the fact you two are using different rule sets, and yours allow things his does not.

[kjones]

Best solution to a powergamer is to get some NPC enemies with builds that, while fair, are highly destructive against his own, or maybe even immune to his form of game breaking.
Alternative is, if he is a magic breaker, you can use anti-magic fields and spell immune opponents. (or even partial anti-magic fields such as "only nacromancery and evocation works")

The problem with countering overpowered wizards with AMF is that it goes too far. The wizard just became absolutely useless, and might as well sit and twiddle his thumbs for the duration of the encounter. It would be like having a "no weapons and armor" field for a fighter.

The other problem is that AMF hurts other classes as much as the wizard, if not more so. A fighter at a level high enough to be worrying about AMF is pretty dependent on a whole host of magical gear.

[boomwolf]

Again. PARTIAL AMF, you can make it so some magic works.
Its a bad solution, but better then nothing.
You can also make things that are immune to his gamebreaking combo as well.
There are endless options. wizards are the most easy class to nerf. jest stick some magic resistance/counterspell/AMF and you are done.
Naturally it is better to do it with style.

[PirateMonk]

actually there is no arms race from a simple reason.
you can give an NPC something that the player can't have. something that is not in any book. you auto-defeat him by the fact you two are using different rule sets, and yours allow things his does not.

In others words, by making up rules- houseruling- you can balance the game. Yes, we already knew that.