How to avoid ridiculous player character builds

[Umbran]

When you limit players to "basic" or "core" materials, do you likewise limit yourself and the monsters and npcs you run to those same(or whatever is comparable) materials?

No, but then, the two are not analogous. The players are not creating characters as a challenge for me to try to beat. Nor am I rewarded if I beat the PCs. Overpowering the PCs is trivial and uninteresting.

As a GM, I always consider the PC's abilities when creating my adventures. The players cannot do the reverse.

 

[Grogg of the North]

As a GM, I always consider the PC's abilities when creating my adventures. The players cannot do the reverse.

QFT

I wish there was more I could add to that but it's so simple and elegant that anything else I say will simply detract from it.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

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

1. I use a simplified skill system. Non-thief characters choose 6+Int mod skills. Those skills are at max ranks. Thief-type characters choose 12+Int mod skills. Those skills are at max ranks. Included in this is one mandatory Craft and one mandatory Knowledge skill.

2. I use slightly simplified saves, where each character has two good save, regardless of their class combination.

3. Players assign their ability scores as desired, from 3 - 18, before racial modifiers.

4. I use a home-brewed magic item creation system that uses Craft and Knowledge skills to create magic items, rather than feats and spellcasting. Characters can make their own magic items, or commission others to make them.

5. I use commoner levels to offset LA for more powerful races.

6. I allow players to use whatever class/rave/feat combinations they want, so long as they get me a copy of those rules and explain any likely issues that they forsee. I also mix material from D&D 3.x, Pathfinder, d20 Modern, and a few other d20 based systems.

One of those campaigns recently ended, due to geographical difficulties. Another has just reached 22nd level. I am about to start another, at 1st level, with about three guys that are fairly new to D&D. We'll see how well they adjust to these 'rules.'

 

[Sunseeker]

No, but then, the two are not analogous. The players are not creating characters as a challenge for me to try to beat. Nor am I rewarded if I beat the PCs. Overpowering the PCs is trivial and uninteresting.

I think that depends entirely on how you go about your game. Overpowering the PCs is easy when you select a significantly over-powered monster, or enough numbers. "Beating" the PCs with a skillful, tactically played opposing force can be very satisfying for both sides. If the challenge is done right, everyone has fun even if the PCs die, because IMO, D&D isn't about "winning", it's about having fun, and having fun doesn't necessitate winning. (and IMO, winning has no meaning without challenge).

As a GM, I always consider the PC's abilities when creating my adventures. The players cannot do the reverse.

Sure they can! From telling them the setting to the theme to the style, to them simply being familiar with your playstyle, the players most certainly CAN build with your specific campaign in consideration.

 

[Orius]

Such a blanket ban seems a bit severe, and as others pointed out, it won't necessarily prevent the abuses that can occur with just core.

Myself, I'd probably start by banning non-core base classes. I feel they tend to contribute in part to the whole "Tier" problem that plagues 3.5, though some of those classes (not which ones specifically, though it really doesn't matter to me) I know are considered decidedly subpar. I think it doesn't help when there are classes that can, say fight as well as a fighter but bring other abilties to the table, because they make the fighter even weaker. Still, simply banning base classes won't fix this problem; core still has paladins and rangers (not to mention melee focused clerics or druids) which can outshine the fighter, and rogues can be outclassed by a decent bard build or the right wizard spells. And monk has no real focus to its abilities. Then again, I'm not really fond of the 3.5 base classes anyway; I don't like the flavor, and I'd prefer to see character customization achieved through feat choices and multiclassing rather than whole new classes. And even getting rid of non-core base classes doesn't knock a single class out of Tier 1, which is where a lot of the worst abuse can occur, and without even leaving core.

Multiclassing has problems when people cherry pick abilties from the first few levels of a class for the benefits. It's not just a power problem, it just makes the character seem artificial rather than organic. I wouldn't want to dump multiclassing entirely, because as I stated above, this is how I like to see characters customized. I just prefer to see it done in a non-abuse fashion. I'm not opposed to prestige class use, but it should be kept firmly under the DM's control.

Spells are another thing the DM needs to keep control over. Wizard spells are the easiest to control, since they're restricted to what's in the wizard's spellbook. The main thing to restrict here are which spells the wizard starts with and which spells are learned each level. I typically restrict these to PHB spells only. Anything else the wizard needs to find a copy of the spell in a book or scroll, and I control which spells become available that way. The bigger issue is with clerics and druids since they don't have a limiting factor like a spellbook. I would at least put some feature in place where they actually have to earn the ability to cast a spell that's not in the PHB, if I want to allow it.

 

[Weather Report]

I think the best is every race, class, feat, spell, etc, be approved on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Umbran]

"Beating" the PCs with a skillful, tactically played opposing force can be very satisfying for both sides.

Unless you are using an adventure someone else wrote, it is like wining at cards after stacking the deck.

If the challenge is done right, everyone has fun even if the PCs die because IMO, D&D isn't about "winning", it's about having fun, and having fun doesn't necessitate winning. (and IMO, winning has no meaning without challenge).

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.

Sure they can! From telling them the setting to the theme to the style, to them simply being familiar with your playstyle, the players most certainly CAN build with your specific campaign in consideration.

In context, I was referring not to building for the campaign style, but for the specific tactical challenges presented to them.

 

[Umbran]

Such a blanket ban seems a bit severe, and as others pointed out, it won't necessarily prevent the abuses that can occur with just core.

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

 

[jasper]

I'm surprised no one has suggested simply avoiding ridiculous players.

Of course, this is all subjective. The between "ridiculous", "optimized", "reasonably powerful" and "too weak for the game" varies a lot between players and playing groups.

Some people are so addicted to gaming; they are willing play with ridiculous players just to get their next fix.

amen to Umbrans above post.

 

[amethal]

Some good points on this thread. Personally, I am happy to play within whatever parameters the DM sets - so long as I can trust the DM to be fair.

In a campaign where lots of material is banned, I am relying on the DM to balance encounters since I can't give myself a boost if I find I need one.

For instance, if I am playing a (3.5) rogue, and the campaign suddenly starts to revolve around creatures that are not subject to sneak attack, there are usually things I can do to compensate - find a magic item or spell that allows "illegal" creatures to be sneak attacked, or in a worst case scenario, multi-class into something else.

If all these have been banned, then I don't want the DM to say "Sorry, you are not going to be able to sneak attack anything for the next twelve fights. Your character is going to be a liability in combat, and you aren't going to be having any fun."