• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Can we stop the Angel Summoner BMX Bandit comparisons

Elf Witch

First Post
I've had different experiences in different campaigns - I remember one 3.5e PBEM where my 5th level Fighter in non-magical studded leather, power-attacking with a mundane greatsword, was the most powerful PC in the group. But I've also played a 5th level Fighter in a Midnight 3e/d20 game where the Channeler (spellcaster) PC totally, totally dominated all the non-casters, and just laughed at me.

The only time I ever felt over shadowed was in a game that the DM was trying to run as low magic. So none of us had any magic items to speak of. It started breaking down at higher levels because the druid and paladin were able to use spells that buffed them and gave them magic weapons where the mundane characters did not. The DM didn't adjust the CR to reflect that no one mundane had an AC over 18.

This showed to me if you want a low magic game you have to limit the magic users in some way.

I have played a high level monk who ate enemy magic users for breakfast. I have played a 15 level fighter who critted on a 15 had a +4 to confirm the crit and just plowed through the bad guys. It was great. I never felt that the wizard was better than me or outshone me. Yeah the wizard could wield fearsome powers if he was prepared. But he didn't have the AC or the hit points to get up in the face of the BBEG.

I also knew that I was one of the reason the wizard and the other squishy PCs were alive. Part of playing the fighter it to play the meat shield and body guard of the weaker characters. If that bugs you don't play a fighter.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

A lot of what you described sounds like issues with a) the DM not doing his "job" of controlling what comes in play at the table and fixing inequities that arise
so that is my fault in 2 of those exampler (azrathel show and bomdiggity swordsman were both me DMING)

what do you suggest I do?

In the first instance, he would not have been allowed the ToB feat in my game (well, I don't allow the book anyway) and, if the feat allowing the eldritch blast to be channeled was causing problems, it would have been disallowed as well.
ok, well we liked and used the book, but I should have disallowed one character from useing it, wow that would go over so well. Oh and then take away a level 1 spell from a class... becuse that is the DMs job, to go over every build, every feat, every spell 1 on 1, and not only judge them on there own, but then to judge X PC can take it but Y PC can not :eek:

please, Pretty please tell me I am miss reading your intent, becuse to me it sound like you think the DM should pretty much write there own rules, and rewrite them every time something comes up...

And what would you do, tell paul to trade out his most used power, and his 2 most used feats... then what?


and b)the player not thinking about others at the table. Just because something can be thought of or allowed does not mean it is a good idea to allow it in practice.
Yes, but every concept and every viarable could change it... inless the game is balanced to start.

Good friend or not, Paul's characters would not have flied in my campaigns. Unlike a video game, as a DM, I can say, "No!".
Yes, but how may players are going to play in a game that you disallow something for one player but not another...


Optional things like divine metamagic, night sticks, and several other things would have been off limits. Ruining other people's concepts, that is not going to fly either.
so the base of your argument is if you ignore the rules that are broken then there are no broken rules?

"If you dont count my 3 car accadents then I have a perfect driveing record"

"If you don't count the time I got fired for stealing fromt he register, then I have never been fired"
 

Elf Witch

First Post
so that is my fault in 2 of those exampler (azrathel show and bomdiggity swordsman were both me DMING)

what do you suggest I do?

ok, well we liked and used the book, but I should have disallowed one character from useing it, wow that would go over so well. Oh and then take away a level 1 spell from a class... becuse that is the DMs job, to go over every build, every feat, every spell 1 on 1, and not only judge them on there own, but then to judge X PC can take it but Y PC can not :eek:

please, Pretty please tell me I am miss reading your intent, becuse to me it sound like you think the DM should pretty much write there own rules, and rewrite them every time something comes up...

And what would you do, tell paul to trade out his most used power, and his 2 most used feats... then what?



Yes, but every concept and every viarable could change it... inless the game is balanced to start.

Yes, but how may players are going to play in a game that you disallow something for one player but not another...



so the base of your argument is if you ignore the rules that are broken then there are no broken rules?

"If you dont count my 3 car accadents then I have a perfect driveing record"

"If you don't count the time I got fired for stealing fromt he register, then I have never been fired"

Well as DM if one or two players are overshadowing the others and you can't balance the encounters to give everyone a chance to shine then you need to talk to the players on how to fix the issue.

One way is for the players over shining everyone else is to scale back or change their characters or bring the other characters up to the level of the one that are strong.

It is everybody job to make sure the game is fun for everyone.

I don't believe they will ever make a perfectly balanced game there will always be players who will know how too max the living daylights out of a concept.

I don't understand some of the issues you have for example the warlock using one of his invocations to channel his blast through his weapon. It is a cool thing but it does not break the game he still has to hit and now it is a full melee attack not a touch attack. And since his BAB and HP are not as good as the fighter the fighter should be hitting more and being able to stay in the front in melee longer.

I have noticed that sometimes issues arise because DMs don't understand the rules. A DM I played with made a mistake that allowed the warlock to take a feat that let him fire two separate blasts a round. The feat was designed for arrows not magic and yes it was broken. I finally convinced the DM that the feat was not meant to be used for magic.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
so that is my fault in 2 of those exampler (azrathel show and bomdiggity swordsman were both me DMING)

Not entirely- a good portion of the problem can be laid at the feet of the game designers who didn't realize that certain combinations of spells, classes, feats, etc. were MUCH more powerful than others...ESPECIALLY spells.

And as the game progressed, they did nothing to correct this. Instead, it is arguable that they simply made it worse.
 

Well as DM if one or two players are overshadowing the others and you can't balance the encounters to give everyone a chance to shine then you need to talk to the players on how to fix the issue.
yea and it almost always ends the same way... and not a great answer. the 100% better answer is for it not to come up as often.

It is everybody job to make sure the game is fun for everyone.
completly agree.

I don't believe they will ever make a perfectly balanced game there will always be players who will know how too max the living daylights out of a concept.
100% agree, however there is no reason to not try... atleast if you try you can fix obviusly problems.

I don't understand some of the issues you have for example the warlock using one of his invocations to channel his blast through his weapon.
the problem was that he was within 2 or 3 pt to hit, and more then tripple the damage, and that was ontop of 5 or 6 other tricks he could pull. the other character (the one that was supposed to be the better swordsman did not have other things

It is a cool thing but it does not break the game he still has to hit and now it is a full melee attack not a touch attack. And since his BAB and HP are not as good as the fighter the fighter should be hitting more and being able to stay in the front in melee longer.

D8's compair to D10's with the same Con score, the hp were close enough. I belive they were at level 7 or 8 the warlock had more hp, and in the early teens the warlock was within 6 or 7 hp of the fighter.

the to hit was fighter and rouge, so even at level 20 it is only 5pts, not much.

I have noticed that sometimes issues arise because DMs don't understand the rules. A DM I played with made a mistake that allowed the warlock to take a feat that let him fire two separate blasts a round. The feat was designed for arrows not magic and yes it was broken. I finally convinced the DM that the feat was not meant to be used for magic.

I have made my fair share of mistakes, empowering magic missles, and letting items stack that should not... heck I could fill pages with mistakes, I choose very carfully the three, being one player NOT being a jerk, no hombrew rules, and no real rules mistakes...
 

prosfilaes

Adventurer
IMO it's only an issue in 3e (and derivatives of 3e). Fighter types stood up well vs M-Us in my 1e-2e AD&D games, at any level. Admittedly no one played single-class Thieves.

Whereas the reports I have from someone who ran through the original Isle of the Ape in 2e indicated that the MU completely dominated the fighter at that level.
 

Elf Witch

First Post
yea and it almost always ends the same way... and not a great answer. the 100% better answer is for it not to come up as often.


completly agree.

100% agree, however there is no reason to not try... atleast if you try you can fix obviusly problems.

the problem was that he was within 2 or 3 pt to hit, and more then tripple the damage, and that was ontop of 5 or 6 other tricks he could pull. the other character (the one that was supposed to be the better swordsman did not have other things



D8's compair to D10's with the same Con score, the hp were close enough. I belive they were at level 7 or 8 the warlock had more hp, and in the early teens the warlock was within 6 or 7 hp of the fighter.

the to hit was fighter and rouge, so even at level 20 it is only 5pts, not much.



I have made my fair share of mistakes, empowering magic missles, and letting items stack that should not... heck I could fill pages with mistakes, I choose very carfully the three, being one player NOT being a jerk, no hombrew rules, and no real rules mistakes...

I wish for a balanced game that does it in a way not to make all the classes boring and homogenized and lets hope 5E can do this.

I will agree that of all the classes fighters got the short end of the stick and they need to be fixed. When it comes to swinging a sword on one should do it as well as a fighter.

Though if you are faced with an unbalanced game you can only try and fix it. I would have maybe tried to change things by house ruling that fighters get a D12 for hit points and trying to figure out to make him better at what he does.

It is not an easy situation to be in but sometimes all you can do is try and fix if a player gets pissy over the idea of giving up something to make the game more balanced they need to get over it. This is not supposed to be a game of shining stars and henchmen.

When I DM I talk to my players to get an idea of what they see their characters doing so that I can nip in the bud anything that steps on another players feet. If I had a player who wanted to be the greatest swordsmen alive and chose fighter as the route to do it. I would house rule that someone playing a warlock couldn't use the invocation of channeling their blast through their weapon. That is just an example.

DMs sometimes have to play bad guy and say no to things to keep the game fun for everyone.

All DMs make mistakes and lets things in the game that prove to be really game breaking the only way I have found to fix that is to be upfront with the players and tell them so and work to fix it.
 

S'mon

Legend
Whereas the reports I have from someone who ran through the original Isle of the Ape in 2e indicated that the MU completely dominated the fighter at that level.

I find that surprising, but I was running 1e, not 2e. 1e especially with Unearthed Arcana is pretty Fighter-friendly - weapon spec, Cavalier sub class, Rangers et al. And Isle of the Ape is written for 1e with UA, not for 2e. 2e had some overpowered Wizard spells, notably Stoneskin, and de-powered Fighters.
 

I find that surprising, but I was running 1e, not 2e. 1e especially with Unearthed Arcana is pretty Fighter-friendly - weapon spec, Cavalier sub class, Rangers et al. And Isle of the Ape is written for 1e with UA, not for 2e. 2e had some overpowered Wizard spells, notably Stoneskin, and de-powered Fighters.

to this day I have a player who wont let the phrase "Pink, thats one off my stone skin" die...

The worst I ever saw was a 2e game where the invisable ranger/theif with an artafact ment to kill dragons and magic users who had chosen enemy dragon, a x5 backstab, oil of impact, and some sorta ring that added d6's to melee damage by useing charges back stab the dragon for over 400pt of damage, and the DM said "How many attacks was that?" "Two, why?" "Well then pink thats too off my stone skin"
 

Vyvyan Basterd

Adventurer
A lot of what you described sounds like issues with a) the DM not doing his "job" of controlling what comes in play at the table and fixing inequities that arise

Some of us do not like that "job." Policing the infinite combinations of an open multiclassing system with feats, spells, and magic items is not something I consider fun.

and b)the player not thinking about others at the table.

Sometimes it's not the player feeling overshadowed that is the problem. I have many players happy to play their 'BMX Bandits' just like Dannyalcatraz. The problem was on my end. The gap between the characters was too large to properly challenge everyone. Challenging for some was a cakewalk for the rest, while a challenge for those was a death sentence to the others. Could I have had split opposition to challenge each? Sure, but that wouldn't be a satisfying solution to me. It would feel forced. And if I put any kind of controls on which enemies the players should fight, I'm oversteppig my bounds. And some players would then feel like I'm telling them they're limited to the kiddie rides while the big boys tackle the real challenge.

Just because something can be thought of or allowed does not mean it is a good idea to allow it in practice. Good friend or not, Paul's characters would not have flied in my campaigns. Unlike a video game, as a DM, I can say, "No!". Optional things like divine metamagic, night sticks, and several other things would have been off limits. Ruining other people's concepts, that is not going to fly either. In the first instance, he would not have been allowed the ToB feat in my game (well, I don't allow the book anyway) and, if the feat allowing the eldritch blast to be channeled was causing problems, it would have been disallowed as well.

I'm glad that works for you. My group likes options. We have always sought out new ones.

Those presented in BECMI? No system mastery gap.
1E? No problem.
2E? Some kits were traps, but self-contained enough to police.
3E? Open multi-classing and feats seemed like a great idea, but got out of hand too quick.
4E? The chaotic range of infinite variability was reigned in and is manageable. Those same players still make more powerful characters, but the gap has shrunk. But we've lost other aspects of the game that we enjoyed.
5E? I hope for a wide range of flavor and options while keeping balance in check so that a DM is not relegated to the duties of 'game balance editor.'

Well as DM if one or two players are overshadowing the others and you can't balance the encounters to give everyone a chance to shine then you need to talk to the players on how to fix the issue.

One way is for the players over shining everyone else is to scale back or change their characters or bring the other characters up to the level of the one that are strong.

It is everybody job to make sure the game is fun for everyone.

This is a great goal, but in my experience doesn't work. You ask the system masters to tone down their PCs? They're no longer having fun. You ask the other players to allow the system masters to help make their character 'better?' They're no longer having fun.

I don't care if one character is stronger than another. I just want a system that puts some limits on the gap bewteen any two.
 

Remove ads

Top