I'm sorry, your character is too good

[Blackbrrd]

If you as a DM mention it before the game starts that:
a) you don't want highly optimized characters
b) you might ask a player to change his character due to being too good
c) you might retract/change magical items due to balance

I have no problems with it. Arbitrary changes during the game is not good though, but can be acceptable if the DM sits down and explains why he wants changes done.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Heh, I got recently told this. Well, it wasn't just power-level, character was also very complicated. And dm didn't know all rules used that well.

This is no problem at all, once in a blue moon I get inspared to create something, well, what is way too much for that game. I like research for interesting abilities and combos, to be honest, personalilty for character comes for me though this process and if not it's just another boring lowbie.

I think arbitary changing sucks. I would quit such a game quite fast. Things should be settled before game starts. Sometimes, through discussion with all the group members if we get into agreement we might nerf or boost something at mid-game. Usually after the session though.

If something doesn't work in actual game but did seem to work on paper or otherwise around changing that rule/ability is something that should be changed.

I like consistancy in games I play.

Magical items are easy enough to loose/use. Gm using same unfair tactics for NPC:s, absolutely.

However I do understand that adjusting some ready-made adventure for too much variation in ability group, or too low-power/high-power group is extra work, and might make game unfun for some players and generally extra chalenging for dm to run.

Simplifying things, so that only core-system and some specific extra material gets used and not everything ever made helps a lot. Also it helps if dm bothers to read character sheets and relevant rules before the game.

Each group has slighty different dynamics. Our problem most of time is one person who really sucks at making relevant simple effective choices, and we often tell him re-make his character because its too weak. He also has this problem with various computer games like starcraft (uses too complex tactics that take to much time to execute), and almost all roleplaying games. And then he is whiny and jealous and blames the game/system. He is our special case to ignore if he claims something is too powerful/weak. His thing is that he believes flavour text more than actual rules.

I used to game with one irritating munchin, who purposely/accidently miss-read rules, often only part that that tell what ability enables, but kinda ignored the rest of it, like what it does not and when it can't be combined. This was really bad gaming when this person was dm or playing under mr flavour-text.

 

[Li Shenron]

Let's say that a player comes in, drops a character sheet in front of you, the DM. You look it over, and the sheet is min/maxed to the hilt. We're talking the guy has 8s in all his other ability scores. He's contorted and twisted the system to 1) be above and beyond the other PCs in capability, or 2) potentially breaking anything you can legitimately throw at him. But it's all legal by RAW.

Is it OK for you to say to him, "No" or "Dial back the optimization"?

A player has been playing a character, and it becomes clear that his character is overpowered. Due to whatever combination of choices he's made while leveling up, or whatever, it's just far too lopsided in one direction.

Is it OK for you to say to him, "Change your character" or "Dial back your rules choices"?

No one comes in and drops a character sheet in front of me, everyone rolls abilities and HP at the gaming table in front of everyone. And 18 in all ability scores does not happen.

However, I don't think an all-18s character (if obtained legitimately) breaks the game. In fact, the rules allow such character to exist. A single ability in the mid-20s can be more gamebreaking than all 18s.

That said, back to the point... If a PC is really spoiling the fun for everybody else (but it has to happen, not be just a "potential") then I tell the player to realize it, and do something about it. Maybe retire the PC and write up a new one, or try to make different choices when levelling up instead of keep maxing it. I don't like un-doing the PC and certainly I wouldn't force it. Also I would hate to punish the PC with in-game tricks like having a big trap sprung on him, or a curse or uber-monster target him.

Rather than that, if the player insists on spoiling everybody else's fun, we'll probably forget to inform him about the next gaming session's date.

You have handed a player out a magical item. After a session of play, it's clear that it's over-powered, you didn't forsee the significant consequences, or it's being abused.

Is it OK for you to say, "I made a mistake handing that item out, I'm going to have to take it back."

This is much easier to fix. A magic item is not player's property (I think their PC is, instead). It's magic, it may simply end functioning or start showing some compensating drawback.

 

[Psikus]

Is it OK for you to say to him, "No" or "Dial back the optimization"?
(...)
Is it OK for you to say to him, "Change your character" or "Dial back your rules choices"?
(...)
Is it OK for you to say, "I made a mistake handing that item out, I'm going to have to take it back."

Basically, what rights does a DM have in addressing the level of optimization at his table?

Personally, whenever I am in such situations, I talk to the player, explain the problem and suggest a house-ruled nerf for the offending element. The player can take the nerf, or retrain the feat (or change the item) for something else. Then again, I play with a group of close friends who know I like to do this, and have agreed to it beforehand. This would probably be much harder if I had to play with strangers, or with players who dislike house rules.

On the other hand, I also do the opposite - change the rules on the fly for options that turn out to be too underpowered for PCs. That makes it easier to show that I don't change things to be arbitrarily unfair.

 

[bouncyhead]

We don't get too many problems of this nature in our group:

1. We play pretty much core only (although more recently, in PF game, we have been allowing APG options).

2. No magic crafting (not a conscious choice, just a play-style thing we have held over from our old 1 and 2E games).

3. The 'sauce for the goose' principle. This also tends to curb attempts to exploit loopholes etc..

4. Smart, recurring, opponents that, given more than one bite at the party, will target the toughest PCs.

5. Point-buy means that for every max there is a min.

6. Magic items can be managed in game ("Bob, you're finding that the more you use the wand, the lower your voice is getting. And what are those two bumps developing on your forehead?").

7. Lethality. Our games (we take turns seasonally as DM) range from story-heavy (ish) AP campaigns to extremely challenging dungeon crawls. At either end of that spectrum there is a fair to high expectation of casualties. Add in the smart opponents and your special snowflake uber-PC is often as not going to end up being sponged off the walls sometime soon (to the disguised delight of all those present).

8. Most important of all: Attitude. Any game that doesn't have mechanical balance baked in is going to require participants to approach it in a certain way.

That said, back in our more, ahem, 'magic heavy' days, a DM was always within his rights to say "You can bring down Spooky Dave, but he has to leave the Diadem of Godliness at home.".

 

[jasper]

Before I quit, I tried to handled out of game. And generally stuck with core rules only so I didn't have the splatbook/calvin ball headaches.
On a too powerfull magic item, I handled in and out of game depending on the person. With Chuck I could tell him the +5 holy avenger at 3rd level was too powerful it now a +2. With Bill I would have to come up with in game reason and he would still whine.
Of course, I would tell people they were not welcome to game with me while I was the DM.

 

[kitsune9]

I allow my players to create "one-trick ponies" and min/max if they want to.

I even created a few one-trick ponies myself. In 3.0, I had an evoker who would cast haste and had levels in the prestige class incantatrix (from Forgotten Realms). I could get off three spells a round once per day. He also had a high Dexterity, Improved Init, and often casted Skittish Nerves before combat so his Init +15. I would go first 99% of the time, hit our enemies with three fireballs and combat is over by the end of the round.

I had another mage who was just downright tough (he had toughness, improved toughness, mind over matter, and a maxed out Con). He had closed to 20 hp at 1st level. By 10th level, he had over 100 hp. All his other feats was put into crafting so he managed to crank tons of stuff (wands, scrolls, wondrous items).

I had a RPGA fighter who was maxed out for AC. By the time he reached 2nd level, his normal AC was in the high 20's. By 4th level or 5th level, his normal AC was low 30's and I think it was 34 when activated with mobility. Double 20's would kill my character which is what one judge managed to do. However, I couldn't hit worth crap and I was more effectively absorbing AoO's for the others and setting up easy flanks for the rogue and other combatants so they wouldn't have to do it. I had a lot of fun rp'ing him mocking his opponents and then when the judge smashed me with a double 20, we all got a big kick out of the big mouth getting killed.

 

[GSHamster]

No one comes in and drops a character sheet in front of me, everyone rolls abilities and HP at the gaming table in front of everyone. And 18 in all ability scores does not happen.

However, I don't think an all-18s character (if obtained legitimately) breaks the game. In fact, the rules allow such character to exist. A single ability in the mid-20s can be more gamebreaking than all 18s.

Just to clarify, because I think you misread the OP. The character has 8, not 18, in multiple abilities. I.e. it was a point buy system and the player took 8 in four abilities, in order to maximize the two remaining abilities.

As I read it, the player is not cheating at all, merely optimizing to a greater degree than the other players.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

I'm pretty lucky with my group. Only 1 player is what I would consider to be a min/maxer. He definitely creates the strongest PC's from a mechanical sense.

Thankfully each PC he plays is very different. Last campaign he made an Evoker, the campaign before was a heavily armoured Fighter archer. Next campaign he is going to play a Barbarian.

He definitely trys to push the boundaries of what I will allow in the game. For example, he has asked if he can play a Feral Dwarf (Dwarf sub-race with +2 LA from memory) and be able to use the Unearthed Arcana variant rule to buy-back the LA over time. I said no to both the Feral Dwarf and the LA buy-back. He did not complain, he just looked at other options instead.

Conversely, I had another player than wasn't as much of a min/maxer, but would constantly try and get me to house rule things to his preferences. When I would refuse he would constantly bring it up and try and get me to change my mind. This player is no longer in my game and I wasn't sad when he decided to quit.

I allow quite a bit in my campaign, but I also let my players know up front that I have the right to veto anything outside the core rulebooks, even after it has been introduced into the game. Thankfully I haven't had to remove anything from the game due to it being too powerful, but I would if I thought it was breaking the game.

The other thing I haven't had to do, but wouldn't hesitate to do so if needed, is to ask the powergamer to dial it back a notch. Explain to him that, by min/maxing to such an extreme it has created a gulf between his PC and the rest of the party. The current challenges are no threat to his character and, to try and challenge his PC I would risk killing the other PC's.

I'm confident that if I needed to do this my resident powergamer would dial it back without argument, even retro-changing some aspects of his PC. I could imagine other players not being so accomodating though.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Tallifer]

I like having a player interested enough in the system to actually read the rules. And if he is also willing to help the other noobs optimize their characters, even better.

As dungeon master I can always throw more powerful challenges at a party. And I can always focus my fire if someone is much more powerful than the other player characters (after all that is what they call "aggro" or aggravation in other games). Besides which, every character has a weakness, be it politics and law enforcement, stealth or the wilderness.