How to avoid ridiculous player character builds

S

Sunseeker

Guest
Unless you are using an adventure someone else wrote, it is like wining at cards after stacking the deck.
Admittedly, I never do that. This is one of those reasons. Pre-printed adventures are designed for pre-printed adventurers. There is a basic assumption about what sort of foes should be facing the challenges therein. Outside of that fairly narrow assumption and you get problems very easily.

Dude, what is in *YOUR* opinion has exactly zero effect on whether other people have fun. Given two "IMO"s, and one vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless "Done right" this point is useless to anyone not inside your own head.
The attitude is unnecessary. Beyond that, EVERYTHING said in this thread is opinion, even if it's not prefaced. You think your opinion is magically more accurate or truthful than anyone else's on the subject?

In context, I was referring not to building for the campaign style, but for the specific tactical challenges presented to them.
Sure, outside of a few insanely optimized builds, you can't build for every challenge. But I suspect that, in a campaign set in some evil world filled with evil, the majority of challenges are going to revolve around dealing with evil things. Ergo, players who build a niche character aimed towards dealing with evil things will be more successful. But this is good reason to simply make campaigns diverse.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Here are some of the things that I've done to promote 'balance' in the games that I've been running recently...

Here are the things I do that, while not intended to create "balance", have eliminated any angst about overpowered builds:

1) You always start at 1st level, with every PC. New joiners or replacements of the fallen aren't "builds" where you get to pick the magic items, etc., they are take over an NPC, who are universally weaker than the party members, or bring in an actual PC, leveled up from 1st level, developed in a different campaign (not necessarily with me as DM, and not necessarily created in this edition). Every PC needs to "earn his stripes" and be built organically, in actual play.

2) Default rules are core 3.5 books. Any additional rules need to be specifically approved -- player or DM nominated and DM approved. Our total rules outside the core are probably < 20 pages, and mostly feats from NBOF.

3) Play with people who don't care overwhelmingly much about D&D rules (storytellers, not build monkeys), mostly don't own a lot of non-core rules, are friends in real life and thus more amenable to compromise, and don't play all that often. If you get to play 2-3 times a year, a Human Fighter isn't boring. Not being jaded by continuous play makes the game a whole lot more interesting, and it's all we have time for.

4) Run a setting that assume Core assumptions -- the races in the PHB are dominant for PC's and almost all the "civilized" population, the classes in PHB + DMG Prestige Classes are nearly all that exist, the spells in the PHB are nearly all the spells known in the universe. And run adventures that are store-bought, and mostly assume pretty normal spells, classes, and monsters as opponents. Do that either by using adventures published early in 3e, or by removing most of the non-Core Materials, or non-conforming with the feel I'm looking for (e.g., no half dragons, ever).

5) 1st Edition feel, as I and everyone I know experienced AD&D in the good ol' days. Limited ability to buy or sell magic items. A world that exists NOT as a challenge to the specific party, but because it exists and has coherent history and ecology. Relatively "low powered" world, so being a Fireball-capably mage doesn't mean your some dude who works at the inn, it means you are a hero and probably known to the locals for the several adventures it took to reach that level of power. There will be stuff you can just stomp as a relatively high level PC (say 7th level or higher). There will be stuff you can't easily defeat and should avoid. This will be clear to everyone. Oh, and parties aren't with all PC's of uniform power. With 3.5 (or AD&D) XP rules, a 1st level character joining 3rd level PC's will catch up by 5th-6th level, if he or she survives. And that, believe it or not, is a fun challenge to us.

Right now in this adventure, my PC's are fighting half-orcs, humans of various classes (but mostly Warriors and Clerics for plot reasons), goblins, gargoyles, wererats, hell hounds, owlbears, a boss monster who's a Mind Flayer with character levels, and some extraplanar guys, plus possibly some giants later on. The only "weird" monsters than faced with a Cthulu-esque summoned monstrosity, and some "Tauric Hobgoblins" (hobgoblins with wings that they've encountered twice before). Discovering a Mind Flayer is the boss monster was a surprise, because we've never encountered one in this edition before -- most of us fought them in 1st Edition, but that was 20-30 years ago, and different rules. :)

Probably the most unusual aspect of my campaign is I sometimes have set piece battles, with scores of combatants on each side and the PC's commanding. It's actually pretty interesting . . . not easy for PC's to nova and specialize if they might be a multi-company scale battle that ends up strung out over hours. Makes fighter-types much more "balanced" when paired with "nova and then I must rest" casters. Riding and archer turn out to be useful.
 
Last edited:


Orius

Legend
It may not do it outright, but it keeps the material the GM needs to review down to something manageable.

That's always helpful. I generally won't allow something from a book I don't have, since I don't have familiarity with it.

I think it's also helpful if the group doesn't ascribe to a zero-sum mentality where the whole game is DM vs. players. You don't need to go all out with optimization if you trust the DM to be fair, and the DM doesn't have to be a rat bastard if he doesn't think the players are constantly exploiting rules loopholes. Knights of the Dinner Table is fun to read, but it's not the sort of game I'd enjoy playing.
 



Weather Report

Banned
Banned
The attitude is unnecessary. Beyond that, EVERYTHING said in this thread is opinion, even if it's not prefaced. You think your opinion is magically more accurate or truthful than anyone else's on the subject?

You appear to be the one with an attitude (and agenda), no reason to be defensive because someone does not agree with you.

...and did you say "ergo"...?
 

N'raac

First Post
Here are the things I do that, while not intended to create "balance", have eliminated any angst about overpowered builds:

1) You always start at 1st level, with every PC. New joiners or replacements of the fallen aren't "builds" where you get to pick the magic items, etc., they are take over an NPC, who are universally weaker than the party members, or bring in an actual PC, leveled up from 1st level, developed in a different campaign (not necessarily with me as DM, and not necessarily created in this edition). Every PC needs to "earn his stripes" and be built organically, in actual play.

Assuming the PC is accepted in the group, presumably the other PC's will defend him, and a L1 character gains xp pretty quick dealing with (even sheltered from) L7 threats.

3) Play with people who don't care overwhelmingly much about D&D rules (storytellers, not build monkeys), mostly don't own a lot of non-core rules, are friends in real life and thus more amenable to compromise, and don't play all that often. If you get to play 2-3 times a year, a Human Fighter isn't boring. Not being jaded by continuous play makes the game a whole lot more interesting, and it's all we have time for.

Regardless of the spread of materials, ridiculous characters are built by ridiculous players.

Right now in this adventure, my PC's are fighting half-orcs, humans of various classes (but mostly Warriors and Clerics for plot reasons), goblins, gargoyles, wererats, hell hounds, owlbears, a boss monster who's a Mind Flayer with character levels, and some extraplanar guys, plus possibly some giants later on. The only "weird" monsters than faced with a Cthulu-esque summoned monstrosity, and some "Tauric Hobgoblins" (hobgoblins with wings that they've encountered twice before). Discovering a Mind Flayer is the boss monster was a surprise, because we've never encountered one in this edition before -- most of us fought them in 1st Edition, but that was 20-30 years ago, and different rules. :)

So, do you follow the same rule here as the party does - opponents and opponent groups are a mix of various levels?
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
You appear to be the one with an attitude (and agenda), no reason to be defensive because someone does not agree with you.

...and did you say "ergo"...?

It's not that he disagreed with me, it's the fact that he called me out specifically for expressing that it was my opinion, which EVERYTHING in this thread is.

And everyone has an agenda, but I think I'd be surprised to find out what you think mine is.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
You appear to be the one with an attitude (and agenda), no reason to be defensive because someone does not agree with you.

Um, thanks, WR, but I can defend my own points, thank you. And we don't need to get personal about it.



The attitude is unnecessary. Beyond that, EVERYTHING said in this thread is opinion, even if it's not prefaced.

Technically true. But what you forget is that not everyone believes that to be the case. We had the edition wars. We have seen bits of the same behavior now as 5e comes. This should be proof enough that many folks here speak as if they are speaking objective truths, rather than opinions. So, I am sorry, but the pool is muddied. We cannot assume a preface, because too many people don't believe they are speaking opinions.

You think your opinion is magically more accurate or truthful than anyone else's on the subject?

When my opinion, stated repeatedly, is "there is no one-size fits all"? Yeah, pretty much. :p

Sure, outside of a few insanely optimized builds, you can't build for every challenge. But I suspect that...

I think you have left the context of my original statement far enough behind that you're arguing against air.

I was originally speaking about the "challenge" of beating players in an individual encounter or tactical scenario, and how as GM I can and do take their individual abilities into account, and how they cannot do the reverse - they cannot build characters to defeat the specific monsters I'm going to throw at them. Building for the general campaign style does nothing to remove the absurd tactical advantage the GM possesses.
 

Remove ads

Top