Tamer of Beasts

[Marius Delphus]

I don't think there's any reason to hate mages/wizards/arcane casters in all this, when it's the player trying to put one over on the DM. Apparently house rules are just fine when this player comes up with them...?

This sounds like one of those "trust" issues to me... the player doesn't trust the DM to provide a fun time, so out comes the obscure build, the feats no one can find*, and the tug-of-war for control of the game. Symptoms of a larger problem, IYAM.

* I don't know if lordphynix was paraphrasing, but I know that if I saw this:

Arcane Alignment: allows a character who has more than one Arcane class that is based off of the Same Attribute to stack those classes magic capabilities taking the better of the two progression. and the new spells of those for which class he takes.

... I'd laugh at the poor fellow and tell him to find a feat that's actually in a published source, and that then I'd think about maybe possibly allowing it. It's not just the ability it confers that's broken....

In the end, it sounds to me like a variation on a story I've heard before. My advice is the same: start talking. It's tempting to try and "fix" this by being sneaky/clever/whatever, but it won't work. Getting the deeper issues here out in the open is the only way to get them solved.

EDIT: As to the original question, according to WOTC the 3.5 Tamer of Beasts *is* the Beastmaster (Rules Reference: Feats, Prestige Classes, and Spells; at about the midpoint of the page).

 

[lordphynix]

Thanks for the source Marius, that answers my the question in the op perfectly. I've got a copy of CA but didn't consider looking in there.

As for the feat, the writeup that I provided is exactly how it was written out in description to the GM. The thing is the player in consideration, from what I understand, has been trying to pull wool since the game started. Little rules manipulations that I don't catch or are noticed since this person seems to know the rules inside and out while he tries to lawyer them.

Now I'm curious though, a couple of posters have said that the writeup makes it broken, could that be explained to me? Maybe I'm thinking too linearly with it.

 

[Marius Delphus]

Well, if it were written by WOTC, it would be many times clearer. But compare to Practiced Spellcaster (Complete Arcane Excerpt), which increases your effective casting level in one class to your total level, or by 4, whichever is lower. IIUC, Practiced Spellcaster is considered more or less a "must-have" for multiclass casters. In the economy of feats, that means it must logically occupy the top tier of what a feat can do for such a character.

Compare also to taking a level in a "dual-caster" prestige class -- taking a level is more "costly" than taking a feat (even if some levels are better than others), and the only stacking going on is previous levels with new levels... not previous levels with more previous levels.

This "homebrew" feat exceeds the benefits of either option. When taking a feat gives you more than taking a level, it's time to review the feat for brokenness. It's also worded so badly that it might mean any of a few different things, each of which is broken in this way.

 

[Runestar]

If it is not too much trouble, you can try scanning his character sheet and uploading here. We can try looking through it and help you spot anything amiss, or at least let you know more about the viability/power lv of said build.

 

[Jhaelen]

The thing is the player in consideration, from what I understand, has been trying to pull wool since the game started. Little rules manipulations that I don't catch or are noticed since this person seems to know the rules inside and out while he tries to lawyer them.

I bolded the relevant part: I know the type. The guy's entirely convincing, even if he's just making stuff up. He knows enough of the rules that you don't notice he's mixing in things he pulled from thin air.

So here's how to deal with the guy:
If he's citing a rule you don't know, ask him to show it to you in one of the source books or ignore it and rule it according to your own knowledge or however you feel makes sense. Don't ever allow it do devolve into a lengthy rules discussion, just tell him you'll discuss it after the session since you don't want the action to be interrupted. You're the DM, after all!

He'll either eventually adapt or leave.

 

[Runestar]

It's funny, I seem to get more classroom management tips out of dnd forums than teacher training colleges.

 

[shadyizok]

About the player not having up to date character sheets, you should really ask him to update each time or if he doesn't have the time tell him to play with his unleveled character. There's a guy I play with on a somewhat regular basis that does the same thing. I know him reasonably well so I had a chat with him about it and it turned out it was newver updated because he could never truly choose what to do with his build and spend all his time scouring the internet and his books for the best build ideas but not making a choice and updating his character in time. I told him that some of the other players were getting annoyed by the constant 'well I haven't picked all of my skills yet but this one should be at X' kind of comments that came during gameplay. He understood and together we updated his character and later on I asked him every now and then if he was still updating it and sometimes helped him make up his mind.

About him rules-laywering your game: if a rule problem apears during gameplay you can spend a couple of minutes trying to look it up in a book thats on hand, or when you can't find it quickly or don't want to interupt the game make up a rule. If a player (including your problem player) makes a suggestion (until you say yes it is just a suggestion no matter how convinced the player seems), and it sounds reasonable you can take that ruling. But always state when you houserule something during gameplay that it's just for the session and you (that's you AND the players) will look into it after the session for a more correct ruling.

Always talk with your players, they're usualy friends and there's no need to argue with them over trivial things like D&D.

 

[lordphynix]

We wanted to thank everyone who responded to this thread. The advice was invaluable. Alas the player in question decided to throw a large QQ fit about the character sheet requirement and other things.

The tragic end to this is that it seems that he will no longer be joining us for game.

So again thanks for the help and advice guys.