The problem is choice

[Celebrim]

Actually, one suggestion you make on another thread - ditch Concentration so spellcasters cannot blithely cast in melee - seems like it would add to the low power, low magic structure.

I've nerfed spell-casters pretty hard with some minor tweaks like that, and surprisingly few minor nerfs like that bring spell-casters in line with non-spellcasters at least up to about 13th level where the problem starts to become linearity of feats and skills relative to spells. That can't be fixed by changes in spell-casters alone; you also have to lift the non-spellcasters up a bit.

a) No defensive spell-casting.
b) Spell level doesn't add to save DC. No more easily dominating the action economy by inflating DC's faster than save bonuses.
c) A 5' step does draw an AoO unless the square you step into threatens the target (largely mitigated with a staff, but still that's why wizards use staffs right?)
d) Nerf a small number of problematic spells by replacing their absolute un-quantified effect with relative ones. In general, the simple version of how to do this is 'take the weakest version of the spell from 3.0 or 3.5 and use that one'. A lot of spells got broken by the 3.5 rules. Generally otherwise limit spells to core. Most of the brokenness outside of 9th level is not in the 3.0 SRD (aside from say Haste and Harm). It's in the 3.5 SRD revisions and splat books.
e) No automatic selection of two spells per level by a wizards; spells have to be learned IC.
f) Slightly fewer spells for a cleric, and limited spell lists of spells known for cleric.
g) Ban the druid; replace with Green Ronin shaman.

That's about it.

As for my 500 page version of the house rules, it's basically the amended SRD. There is enough small changes from the SRD that its just worth it to have my own copy.

 

[Chase A.]

Hmm,Chase your post (#79: I did not want to quote the whole thing), is interesting to say the least.
- You have been playing D&D for ~25 years and you can't handle such a minor issue (I do not mean to berate to belittle. This might have been your first encounter with such a problem, I just find this extremely interesting (cause I have seen all kinds of play styles and problems over the past ~9 years of playing tabletop RPGs)).
- I agree with the tier system comment, tho you cannot ignore the fact that per RAW the casters are at a significant advantage most of the time (I don't like the idea of it its just how it is).
-----------
"I have seriously considered going PHB only but then he would refuse to play. Then the other players would insist that I loosen my rules so he will play." - you, post #8.

"I seriously doubt that anyone but him would not play a core only game. My other players would be fine with it."- you, post #20
"If he decided not to play because of it, its no big loss as far as I'm concerned given his style of "play"- you said in post #79.

And now you chose to play E6, whether the problematic player accepts or not. Could have done this at the start, no compromising, but you did anyway, cause your a nice guy. Just kick the player at this point, cause as I see he is really frustrating you.
You went from, "Oh fine let him have his way" to "F*** this, we are playing my way", just reflect on it.

------------

​

​

PS: if you haven't read my previous post, (#50) then please do, its so damn long it would be a shame to not read it (I put some effort into it).

I did read your post Ragmon and I agreed with some of your points. I did not come on this message board looking for a simple solution, rather I came seeking a creative solution that I perhaps had not thought of. I did not want to simply start banning more things until the power level was where I wanted it, hence my last statement in my initial post "Any ideas on how to keep the power level down without just flat out going ban-happy?" I have rarely had to deal with one character being too powerful I must admit. I think this is for two reasons" 1) I have spent the vast majority of my DM'ing in 2nd edition. I have always thought 2E was the best. It was much easier to keep down the power level but I found that I did not usually have to as 2E was very balanced with a few exceptions. This is only my 3rd or 4th time running a 3.5 game although I have played in many. 2) Usually the groups are "mine". By that I mean I recruited all the players and I am the primary DM. Everyone gets a trial period and I simply ask the ones I don't like not to return. This has been one of the rare occasions where I joined someone else's recruitment ad. I really like this group and I don't want to leave it. As far as not caring about my problem player: I gave it some thought and realized that I have told him several times I thought his character was un-balanced for the group and it needed to be toned down. His refusal to do so leads me to believe that he does not care about me, my feelings or my game so why should I care about him, his feelings or his character. I have been nothing but nice up to this point and it has gotten me nowhere.

 

[Ragmon]

Aha, these details are useful (would have been useful from the start, nag nag).

Now I see the meaning behind the title of the thread, "choice", while 2E did have choice when it came to classes and races, there was not much of a choice problem, you played what you rolled (meaning the stat requirements for races and classes).
While 3.x provides tons of character options, its a very big edition, and if you new yo it it can be scary, especially if your a DM.

So how I see it, you want to stay with the group and DM, but there is a power gamer who's power level you want to curb stump to the level of the group.
This is going to be repeating my self but:
- There are 2 ways to balance 3.x:
A - Total re-haul to fit your specifications (your new to 3.x so forget this).
B - Go E6, keeps the casters in check, provides some balance (I don't like this option cause it removes everything that makes 3.x so rewarding for me, the leveling, gaining new abilities, getting to customize you character further up to godhood. Thats why i don't prefer 2E, lack of coice and character options, as far as I experienced).
C- Trick answer - be a good DM, be a smart DM, someone is (ab)using and ability you don't like place them in situations where its not so powerful, adjust to your liking. In addition if the character is hogging the combat spotlight let it be, he speeds it up so you guys can...well play, role-play and have fun while he sits in the corner and looks at his numbers. If the players don't like that he is hogging the combat spotlight they will handle the player for you.
D - Trick answer #2 - try out 2E with the group, since your used to that format.

Simple advice that I just remembered: NEVER ALLOW A (SPLAT)BOOK YOU ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH.

These solutions are not creative really, just simple off the top of my head ideas for your situation.

 

[MichaelSomething]

You could just use more undead and constructs. Rouges tend to be weak against those. Also, I imagine his Will save is low. Hold Person anyone?

 

[Ragmon]

You could just use more undead and constructs. Rouges tend to be weak against those. Also, I imagine his Will save is low. Hold Person anyone?

In a nutshell, this.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I feel D&D is only meant to be played one way.

And here we have the problem in a nutshell. D&D is not intended to only be played one way - even going back to the mid 1980s, you do not play the Dragonlance Saga the way you play Tomb of Horrors, and Barrier Peaks and Isle of Dread are different yet again. Yet they are both emphatically D&D. Moving into the 90s, if you try playing Birthright, Dark Sun, and Planescape the same way you are going to get very very weird results. The purpose of the plethora of settings brought out in the 90s is so that there are many different ways of playing D&D and all of them are valid.

And for the record, if there is one way D&D was intended to be played we need to go back to 1974 for it. 1974 when Gygax and Arneson were playing D&D with wargamers. Wargamers who were going flat out to win the game while treating it as only a game because that is what wargamers do. The sort of environment where player skill matters and Tomb of Horrors was given out as a challenge - and the first ever team to go into Tomb of Horrors (Rob Kunz and Ernie Gygax) cleaned out all the treasure and didn't lose a single person. And the sort of game where you use whatever abilities you can glean to the best effect available and don't worry about your party role in the slightest - you just worried about solving the challenges.

Now your power gamer isn't much of a power gamer and you might have what you believe a thief should be able to do influenced by the ineptitude of the AD&D thief (there were official supplements in AD&D that outright said that you shouldn't bother being a thief because a wizard could do it all better - I think the necromancer's handbook was one of them) but for thirteen years now, high damage when you can get into the right position and aren't facing someone immune to sneak attack has been one of the hallmarks of the rogue, but to do this they either need to be hiding regularly, or need to be flanking. And from flanking they fall over in a high wind; they have few more hit points than a wizard and are right up there in the thick of melee. The barbarian gains 3 hit points/level over the rogue before they start raging - if the rogue's doing that much damage, the rogue/swashbuckler can draw the aggro. At which point in a low magic campaign they fold like a cheap tent.

 

[Ryujin]

In fact I seem to recall that in every edition that I've owned, the notes at the front talked about interpretation, thinking on your feet, and having fun. That is direct evidence against the "only one way" idea.

 

[Chase A.]

By only one way I meant 75% role playing 25% mechanics. Third edition seems to be the other way around.

 

[MerricB]

By only one way I meant 75% role playing 25% mechanics. Third edition seems to be the other way around.

2nd edition got there, bit by bit. 3rd edition design was very much informed by the huge amount of mechanics that ended up being in AD&D 2E, and putting them into a form that (in theory) made them more consistent and also made it easier to add more stuff without breaking the game.

Yeah, it wasn't always successful.

Seeing the context of your original statement - for you, there's a preferred way to play D&D - I quite understand. Min/maxing is so much more a thing in 3E than 2E. It isn't absent from 2E, but not to the scale of 3E. (Although the later books, like Skills & Powers, make it more of a thing). The trouble you're finding comes from something identified quite early on in D&D's history: your way of playing D&D isn't everyone's preferred way. Your particular trouble is exacerbated by the edition, of course.

Going forward, you may be able to drop this player from your games (and when someone's style is so different from yours, it's recommended), but there's still the trouble of finding replacement players.

Best of luck.

 

[pemerton]

I feel D&D is only meant to be played one way. I think that powergaming, min-maxing, munchkining, whatever you want to call them are all wrong. I have been playing D&D in one edition or another for 25 years. In that time I have been lucky enough (in my opinion) to have rarely played with those type of people. I feel that there is a big difference between playing a "concept" and a "build". I also believe (although I know the RAW does not always support this) in character roles.

I have spent the vast majority of my DM'ing in 2nd edition.

I had guessed that your expectations were formed in the 2nd ed AD&D period before you posted this.

My impression of your tastes is reinforced by this:

By only one way I meant 75% role playing 25% mechanics. Third edition seems to be the other way around.

You may not realise, but a lot of RPGers like games where the mechanics and the roleplaying are not alternatives but tightly integrated - games like (say) Burning Wheel, Marvel Heroic RP and (dare I say it) 4e. These games play very differently from 2nd ed AD&D (and in many ways were designed in reaction to that game and also White Wolf's games). They also play quite differently from 3E.

You have had a lot of sympathetic responses in this thread, with people trying to give you advice that fits within your own perspectives, and I think it's a little harsh to then make generalised statements attacking other approaches to RPGing without really trying to consider what those other RPGers might be aiming at via their play.