Having some trouble with a PC & Deepwarden PrC - SOLVED (and in record time too!!)

[Iku Rex]

As written, an armor's maximum Dex to AC will not affect Con to AC.

As intended? If it's not intended to work as written it would be a pretty glaring oversight from the designer. It's not like "dwarven fighter with heavy armor" is an exotic and unusual concept, and any experienced player is familiar with the concept of max Dex-to-AC when wearing armor.

Does it make sense? Why on earth would a restrictive armor keep the deepwarden from defending himself through sheer toughness? (Or however you explain it?) He does loose the bonus if flat-footed, but that could be explained by assuming a voluntary component to the ability.

As for the OP, my first suggestion would be to let the ability stand as it is. A mid-level gestalt character with AC 26 is nothing special.

However, if you want to nerf the ability then restricting it by deepwarden level (option 1) would be consistent with similar PrC abilities.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Without having it in front of me, I cannot comment on RAW vs RAI. However, I know that if it ruins the game for the player then the overarching consequences might not be worth it to choose RAW vs. RAI.

The solutions to things like this that I prefer is to make an intentional attempt to go away from what I consider D&D's biggest game flaw: XP through combat. Rather than most games in which 80% - 90% of the XP comes through combat, what if only 25% - 30% of XP came through combat. The rest comes through good use of skills, good use of RPing, bonus XP by playing the character true to the character's design/alignment, etc.

If the XP gleaned from combat is reduced, the emphasis on combat is also reduced. If the emphasis on combat is reduced, suddenly that super huge AC problem is really only a problem for a smaller portion of the game. In fact, if the percentage of XP that comes through combat is reduced ... many of the powergaming problems go away. Who cares if your character is awesome at only 25% of the game?

I've honestly found this to be the best solution against powergamers - especially with a group made up of people like yours in which the majority are not combat powergamers. Let combat take a smaller role in the story. If you do, you'll feel that powergamer's character make a lot less of an impact. Who cares if he powergames at what he should be good at if it only involves 25% - 30% of the game? your other three players can shine in the remaining 70% - 75%. In a game of 4 players, shouldn't each person have their places to shine on average about 25% of the time anyway?

I'd allow the Deepwarden PrC as RAW. I'd also make it clear that I was changing my DMing style to do a better job at being well-rounded to include XP from combat at a smaller percentage to XP gained through other more story based awards.

 

[Blue]

Actually, I'd take a slightly different approach.

You run a gestalt game - that's something that has a lot of potential to be min/maxed. As you described your group, they have different amounts of fun in optimizing their characters. Don't randomly penalize a player who enjoys creating a strong character (because that's what "Powergamers" often enjoy) - you'd just be raining on his fun.

But you can't have him outstripping the others too badly, that rains on their fun.

I'd just talk to the player. Let them know your concerns, and see if they can have fun using the rules you set up at the start of the game, without being overpowering and overshadowing other characters.

Remember, everyone should get their moments in a spotlight - if you've got lots of RP encounters for your group that other characters star in, maybe let him be the master of combat.

I used to be rather elitist about the hevy-heavy-RP group I had been in for a long time. Then I moved from player to DM and a local convention and had to run - and MAKE FUN - adventures for all sorts of players. It really made me realize that players will have different styles, and that the DM has a lot to allow each to showcase the parts that make it fun for each player without overshadowing other players. BUt to really do this, it requires btoh understanding of your players, and their cooperation.

Good luck!

Cheers,
=Blue

 

[Sidekick]

[

As written, an armor's maximum Dex to AC will not affect Con to AC.

As intended? If it's not intended to work as written it would be a pretty glaring oversight from the designer. It's not like "dwarven fighter with heavy armor" is an exotic and unusual concept

Glaring oversights and editorial failings? In a D&D book?… I’d be surprised if they even ‘thought’ about the max dex bonus to AC to be perfectly frank.

No offence Iku Rex, but if I only took RAW in every situation then IMHO I’d be a cr@p DM. The rules aren’t perfect, never will be – just like the law. So as DM it’s up to me to interpret them and see what’s best for my group’s campaign.

Its not like I’m stopping him from being a heavily armoured Dwarven warrior – but the DeepWarden isn’t about being a full-plated dwarven tank – that’s the Dwarven defender. This is about being a tough as nails, b@llsy sonofuab1tch who goes out and takes the fight to the enemy away from the ancestral halls. For a Dwarf who won’t return to the Mror until he can reclaim his families birthright that makes a lot of sense.

And the character can very much do that with this minor restriction. We're talking about a net of +4 to AC at all times... that's pretty good if you ask me.

Ultimately I know that if I don’t cap the con bonus he WILL abuse it, not use it but abuse it. I’m not willing to have that happen full stop.

As for the OP, my first suggestion would be to let the ability stand as it is. A mid-level gestalt character with AC 26 is nothing special.

Perhaps an AC of 26 is nothing in one you’re your games, and indeed many games. However my players aren’t interested in powergaming, eeking the most out of AC/Damage or whatever EXCEPT this player.

If I let the ability in RAW then I’m going to be faced with either a) not ever challenging that character or b) killing other characters because their players aren’t powergamed up.

In the interest of party harmony/balance, while keeping him the most powerful melee combatant (which he should be) I’m going to institute the armour's Dex bonus to AC.

However, if you want to nerf the ability then restricting it by deepwarden level (option 1) would be consistent with similar PrC abilities.

If the player kicks up a fuss I’ll give them the option of taking this path instead. Considering we’re playing RHoD and the campaign will probably be finishing at 10th level I have a feeling I know which he’ll choose…

Iku - I honestly hope I haven’t offended you with any of my replies, if I have it wasn’t my intent.

Thank you for replying to the thread & I have taken your opinion / stance into account. But for my game I’ll be using the Max Dex bonus restriction for my armour.

It’s the best for my group and our continued enjoyment. Ultimately that’s my main concern, RAW, ‘balance’ etc all come in secondary to that…


Zeb – the player hasn’t taken the PrC yet – he’s looking at it for next level and has lent me Races of Stone to see if I’ll allow it (all the Races books ex RoEberron aren’t a part of the ‘allowed’ book list, thus require my say-so).

 

[Cheiromancer]

This is a decent short-term solution (having the cap on dex bonus apply to Con as well), but I'm not sure it will hold up more than a few levels. What happens when the character sells the mithral breast plate and invests in bracers of defense, rings of mage armor, cloaks of protection, or items that boost Con and/or natural armor? At 5th level he doesn't have the wealth to attempt those things, but if he wants to optimize AC the dex cap won't restrain him for long.

 

[Sidekick]

Blue & Non-Lethal force – I’ll answer your comments here.

All I can say is that I totally agree.

I DO give XP for RP situations, defusing potential combats and so forth.

I also try to make sure that in a 3-3.5 hour session new have one combat (1-2 hours in length), and the rest of the time is chatting (30mins) and then 1 hour of dedicated IC figuring out stuff & RP.

I don’t think less of the player because he’s a powergamer – don’t get me wrong. I love having him in the group and wouldn’t want him gone. BUT I do have to make sure that he doesn’t exploit the rules – which he has a perchance to try and to at times.

Like I said – my group has a RP/tactician, a heavy RPer, a causal gamer and a Power-gamer.

I try to make sure that they all get their fun/spotlight at least 1/every other session.

As for making the powergamer the combat powerhouse – done. The Tactican player is a monk/cleric. He shield of faith & bulls’ strengths the dwarf, blesses everyone and then the group as a whole go to work. The dwarf takes on the big stiff, dealing the major damage, the scout/fighter shoots stuff that tries to get around him, the warlock/rogue blasts vicariously and the monk/cleric invariably tumble through a grapples something into a KO.

They’re a good combat team with the dwarf as their centre piece and Trump card as you were.

I’m just trying to avoid it getting to silly…

 

[javcs]

Make sure to keep track of bonus stacking/overlapping - not everything will stack.

 

[Iku Rex]

Glaring oversights and editorial failings? In a D&D book?… I’d be surprised if they even ‘thought’ about the max dex bonus to AC to be perfectly frank.

Fair enough, but "they probably messed up" is not a good argument in favor of "it doesn't mean what it says", even in a WotC book.

No offence Iku Rex, but if I only took RAW in every situation then IMHO I’d be a cr@p DM. The rules aren’t perfect, never will be – just like the law. So as DM it’s up to me to interpret them and see what’s best for my group’s campaign.

I'm sorry I so rudely ordered you to play by the RAW then. Wait. I didn't.

One sign of a "crap DM" IMO is willingness to introduce house rules willy-nilly without first understanding what the actual rules are. (Note: I'm not saying that you are.) House rules disguised as creative "interpretations" is another pet peeve of mine. So, I wanted to makes sure the rules were clear.

If you wish to change the rules to make sure no one has a significantly more powerful "playing piece" than anyone else in melee encounters that's your right of course, and a good idea in many campaigns. Tactical wargamers don't like it when the game is "unfair".

Perhaps an AC of 26 is nothing in one you’re your games, [...]

It's not. The armor-clad non-gestalt 5th level (now 6th) dwarven fighter in my campaign easily has AC in that area. (Also with a helping hand from the [late] cleric.) I'm running RHoD too, mostly unmodified so far, and it's been no problem at all. On the contrary, the PCs keep dying on me and I've had two near TPKs in the first few sessions. The fodder can still hit the dwarf with a natural 20 and spells and area effects don't care about his armor. And if he's too hard to hit the bad guys will go for softer targets instead.

However my players aren’t interested in powergaming, eeking the most out of AC/Damage or whatever EXCEPT this player.

I don't understand your concern then. Why will the "true roleplayer" have less fun if his character's friend and ally gets too effective at protecting himself, helping the party and saving the world from Evil. You'd think that would be a good thing...

If I let the ability in RAW then I’m going to be faced with either a) not ever challenging that character or b) killing other characters because their players aren’t powergamed up.

You can challenge a high AC character with standard RHoD encounters. Trust me on this. But what if you can't? Isn't that his problem?