Blaming the System for Player/GM actions

[Arnwyn]

This is the exactly the false dichotomy by which some people argue that because a game system doesn't determine how you play, it doesn't influence it at all.

Fair to blame, obviously not. Fair to criticize as a factor, obviously so.

'Nuff said.

 

[3catcircus]

So why didn't you deal with the monk/psionisist?

I didn't say that I wasn't - I have to put forth additional effort in designing challenges that are appropriate for everyone in the party. That is my penance for not realizing that such a combo wasn't going to work to begin with.

What on Earth does it mean that they are inherently balanced? Toughness surely isn't balanced against Power Attack. You don't have to min/max the rules to produce a more powerful prestige class, since there's no balancing elements you have "work".

You are comparing apples to oranges.

Sure - toughness isn't balanced against power attack; when leveling up to a level granting a feat, for a Wizard (with d4 hit dice) which averages 2.75 hp (rounded to 3) taking toughness *does* balance against the fighter (d10 hit dice) which averages 5.5 (rounded to 6) hp.

*AND* - Power Attack *is* balanced against itself since it is a 1-for-1 trade on attack bonus vs. damage.

By the players. Effective in getting stuff done.

Again - *how* the players get stuff done may be more important than *how well* they get it done, depending upon the campaign and the DM.

A rouge with a higher Dex and more ranks in "Open Locks", all other things being equal, can do more things than a rouge without that. The first rogue has less chance he will be replaced by a knock spell and the fighter with a crow-bar.

But that's a non-sequitor. Just because you can rearrange things and produce an equally effective character doesn't mean that there aren't more and less effective characters.

You are attempting to break my statementinto two parts and address each of them individually - please address the statement as a whole, which is: "A rogue with a high Dex and tons of ranks in "Open Locks" is no more effective than one with an average Dex,or not as many ranks in "Open Locks" but who has a crowbar, or special acids in addition to the thieves' tools. Maybe he has spread his skills and has some ranks in disguise, bluff, etc. - this could be even more effective even if his raw skill ranks don't make him as "powerful."

Then why do you complain that some designer produced a more powerful prestige class? That's your problem, not the systems.

I'm making an observation that some designer s have used the rules to min/max in such a way as to cherry-pick feats, skills, or class abilities from existing base classes to build prestige classes that may have little or nothing in the way of balancing out the advantages that the prestige class brings. It shouldn't have to be up to the DM to be forced to disallow prestige classes, feats, or other bits of the game from "shiny new book X," but that is what the d20 rules have become.

Under your way of thinking, I don't see that LA is a good idea; it's the DM's job to look at a 8th level fighter hobgoblin and 7th level mage aasimar and say whether they're equal or not. Why bother rolling for attributes; why not just let the players pick attributes and let the DM do his job?

LA is a good *idea* - one that I don't think is implemented all that smoothly because of the inconsistencies between different abilities that lead to the same LA. What are the "point values" (for lack of a better term) of each racial ability that add up to making a race a specific LA?

In your example (and going strictly from the Monster Manual), a Hobgoblin has +2 Dex, -2 Con, 60 ft. darkvision, and a +4 bonus on move silent checks and is a LA +1. The Aasimar has +2 Wis, +2 Cha, Darkvision, and a +2 racial bonus to spot and +2 racial bonus to listen, as well as Daylight special attack and resistance (5) to acid, cold and electricity and is *also* only a LA +1. Of course they are not going to be equal since one of them is one level higher than the other.

As to letting players pick attributes - that already exists and it is called point-buy. The DM can set limits on that as well (25-pt buy, 28-pt buy, etc.)

 

[3catcircus]

I might be mis-reading what you've written, but I think the biggest problem is not in and of itself min/maxing but mis-matching. Mismatching can take place on either power level (min/max or not min/max in the same party) or at the functional level. There is a common misconception that you can create a character and throw him into a collection of other similiarly created characters and everything will be fine.

That's nonsense. If I went into your home town, picked four people at random and had them form a group I can guarentee that they will not last long. Yes, groups form, but that's only because a population is often in the hundreds. Four random character sheets ain't going to be the forumla to a long term campaign, and all these accessories only makes the posibility of a mismatched party all the more possible.

It's not the supplements that are the problem. It's the failure to coordinate. If eveyone min/maxes then there is no problem. (I firmly believe in the happy medium, everyone should be a little improved, but not to the point of constant obsession. Every player should have a character with an opportunity to shine. The DM then needs to give those opportunites out on a relatively equal basis. Remember an opportunity does not guarentee success.)

I'm currently in a play by email game. You know you are going to have problems when you have a fire obsessed mage, a water obsessed cleric, a necromancer, and a minotaur cohort. (So what do I do? I've got a gold dragon wrought kobold monk. Hey do what I write, not what I do!) I'm not blaming the plethora of books for this mess, I blame the group for the lack of coherent group design. That's going to happen if there are only a few or a plethora of supplement books. It's just more obvious with the latter.

You might be right. However, I would also argue that you can have an effective party if you properly coordinate, regardless of whether or not you min/max.

As to your example, I really don't see a reason why the party can't work - sure you've got 3 spellcasters, but they each specialize in something the other does not - I would think that 95% of the combat encounters will involve enemies that are affected by at least one of their spell types. The cohort and you are the protection for them.

Now, as to their races - you don't mention that - is it a bunch of races that would usually never work together (i.e. your kobold and a gnome, a drow and a surface elf, etc.) or a bunch of bizarro different races (a xeph, a raptoran and a half-dragon/half-fiend lycanthropic catfolk)? This part I *partially* blame on the plethora of books. If a player buys a new book he or she thinks that they are *entitled* to be able to use a race, class, etc. that doesn't at all fit the DMs campaign.

 

[prosfilaes]

You are comparing apples to oranges.

You missed my main question: what do you mean by inherantly balanced?

 

[Hussar]

You might be right. However, I would also argue that you can have an effective party if you properly coordinate, regardless of whether or not you min/max.

To some degree, that's true. A party does not have to include the "core four" in order to be effective. Granted, it is MOST effective when it does though. My current party lacks any arcane caster. Now that they are heading into double digit levels, this lack is seriously going to bite them. The first flying creature is going to hand them their behinds.

In the same way, the above group is going to die the first time the minotaur cohort gets charmed and rips off the head of the kobold monk.

Yes, you can work around not having an optimum party, but, there does come a point where you have to say that six level one wizards going into the Caves of Chaos is a bad idea.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Some systems are even designed to take non-optimal match-ups into account. The success or failure of a non-optimal party is not solely its non-optimal-ness, but also a matter of teamwork (or lack thereof).

 

[Mr Jack]

IMO it's rude to act like players ought to know what rules they're supposed to use and which ones they aren't (or which combinations).

Couldn't have said it better.

D&D actively encourages you to play min-maxed characters by rewarding you for it, both with rewards (xp, loot, just plain effectiveness) and penalties (level loss for raise dead, just plain inability to succeed) and gives you the tools to do it (feats, point buy with break points, prestige classes, spell selection, etc.) To then get upset because players use the tools to do what the system encourages and rewards is crazy.

In no other game would you be expected not to play as hard as you can (with the exception of when you are playing with children); RPGs should be no different.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Despite my partial agreement with the opinion earlier, I feel it is infinitely more rude to expect the GM to bow to the rules a player wants to use because he has the disposable income to spend on a splat book. Well, at least I can thank you for letting me know you are people whose posts I can safely ignore.

 

[LostSoul]

Couldn't have said it better.

D&D actively encourages you to play min-maxed characters by rewarding you for it, both with rewards (xp, loot, just plain effectiveness) and penalties (level loss for raise dead, just plain inability to succeed) and gives you the tools to do it (feats, point buy with break points, prestige classes, spell selection, etc.) To then get upset because players use the tools to do what the system encourages and rewards is crazy.

In no other game would you be expected not to play as hard as you can (with the exception of when you are playing with children); RPGs should be no different.

Well said.

 

[Mr Jack]

Despite my partial agreement with the opinion earlier, I feel it is infinitely more rude to expect the GM to bow to the rules a player wants to use because he has the disposable income to spend on a splat book.

I'd agree with that.