How to avoid ridiculous player character builds

[Nytmare]

As so frequently happens when 3.5 limitation discussions come up, I now humbly suggest E6.

 

[Jacob Marley]

But, to be frank, I don't see much difference between the wishlist approach (which is what I assume you mean by "DM providing")...

Wishlists are one way to handle it, certainly. I am stating something broader and more encompassing than strictly player-initiated wishlists. It might also include DM foreknowledge of an upcoming encounter and wishing to provide extra tools to the party. Or, DMs wishing to use treasure to mitigate magical/mundane imbalances. Etc.

... and the purchase approach - it is merely a question if your stuff on order is delivered during adventures or between them...

There's more to it, IMHO. I think timing matters. There is a big difference between an adventuring party collecting gold as they explore versus magic items; especially when they reach the point where those items would be useful.

There are also player-perception reasons and how player's value of items can changed based upon how they receive them. In my experience, a player who goes out and buys a magic sword from a magic mart thinks differently about the sword and his position on the Wealth by Level chart than one who receives the sword from a powerful patron. And he, in turn, thinks and acts differently than one who finds said sword deep within a dungeon.

 

[Tuft]

There are also player-perception reasons and how player's value of items can changed based upon how they receive them. In my experience, a player who goes out and buys a magic sword from a magic mart thinks differently about the sword and his position on the Wealth by Level chart than one who receives the sword from a powerful patron. And he, in turn, thinks and acts differently than one who finds said sword deep within a dungeon.

We ran wishlists at first in our 4E tryout campaign, as it was the recommended method. My experience then was that the players simply was waiting impatiently for the moment "their" item would show up in one of the adventure's treasure parcels.

After growing impatient with the logistic nightmare of keeping track of a multitude of constantly-changing wishlists, my DM in the end replaced it with a "trade-in program". He just plopped down random items of appropriate value, and we got to trade-in those for something of equivalent value we *really* wanted...

My apologies for anecdoting...

 

[steeldragons]

I'll preface this by saying I have never played 3-3.5e. But I have certainly read enough in these very forums to know how things worked and where the problems arose.

That said, I am all for restricting [in any edition!] your usable material. It is one of the simple joys of DMing. Granted, I am prone to consult my players and make sure that's ok with them.

That said, I am more than capable of saying "No" to any given desire. Somewhere along the line...and I don't know if 2e kit books or 3x multi-classing or even something in 4e is ultimately to blame (as most things it is undoubtedly somewhere in the middle), but somewhere along the line, being a DM that says "no" became a four letter word in D&D. I can not fathom how or why. But it happened.

We [D&D DMs and players] need to take that word back! It's not a bad thing!

No game of D&D ever died because someone didn't have access to X Prestige class. If the players know that from the beginning [from restricted books], then there's no problem there.

I will also agree with what [MENTION=232]Crothian[/MENTION] said way up front, the easiest solution is simply to not play with players who are looking to abuse the system. I certainly do not. But I understand not everyone has their proverbial "pick of the litter" for player types everywhere.

 

[kingius]

It always amazes me how many people on here are claiming that something won't work that is, in reality, working just fine.

It's possible that some DM's don't know that the CR system is just a guideline, many DM's find a challenge level that works for their group which may be above - or below - the recommended (and system assumed) CR level. By implementing these changes I can make low CR monsters competitive at higher levels as in a standard low magic campaign. You have to change your assumptions about the campaign world to really understand how this fits into a bigger picture.

 

[Jacob Marley]

My apologies for anecdoting...

Not a problem; one of my degrees is in Economics with a focus in Behavioral Economics. I find it fascinating how different people can react quite differently to otherwise similar incentive programs.

Our current "Heroes of the North" campaign is my first experience playing in a controlled magic item trade game. While we don't use "wishlists" a la the 4th Edition model, the DM is heavily tailoring items to fit our character concepts or, in some cases, to help an undefined concept become defined - as has been the case with my halfling bard.

 

[kingius]

I see people here talking about magic item wish lists.

I run a sandbox campaign where the players are told up front that there are areas that are dangerous and there are areas that aren't. The world pre-exists before the characters come along, so they have to be careful. This means that magic item wish lists are completely out. Instead the players must adventure to find them and follow up on rumours. Perhaps even pay for treasure maps. X marks the spot...

So to a large extent the players in my campaign affect the world through their actions and do not have very much tailored to them individually. I do adjust encounter difficulties (unless the area is known to be difficult.. i.e. if it's well known that the marsh to the west is the home of black dragons then it might be a good idea to avoid it at level 1!). Again, no magic item wish lists helps to balance things.

Casters are supposed to be powerful at high levels, remember. The problem is getting a spell caster to the high levels in the first place. Even in 3.5 this is not easy in a sandbox campaign unless in the hands of a skillful and careful player. This is how things balance out in the long run. I do allow casters to pick new spells on leveling up but have toyed with the idea of losing this. However, certain spells I consider to be too important for mages to not get so taking away the players chance to get them... to then arbitarily distribute them around dungeons on purpose to make up for it... seems to be somewhat self defeating. So I let the players pick and stick to the random tables for treasure. It's working for us.

 

[Elf Witch]

I don't think limiting things is bad especially for a novice DM. I can also see limiting things from a flavor point of view.

I think limiting multi classing stops the players from be able to play certain concepts and that is not a good thing. Instead if you are worried that it might be abused make a rule that players must talk to you a head of time and show through game play why it makes sense for the character to multi class.

I don't have magic shops in my games you might find a low item or some potions at a shop that sells gear. But if you want more than that you have to either commission the item from a guild or broker or find it adventuring.

The problem as others have said is if you severely limited magic items and don't make sure they are in treasure you hurt the mundane classes far more than the spell casters.

In my games I limit classes to the PHB and complete adventure books anything else has to be run by me. And while I allow third party books again I have to approve it.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

@kingius, I see from your OP that you are sharing what works for you and yours.

The concept of game balance is an ever present challenge for every set of GM and players, and a wide variety of solutions exist. However, I'm certain from the list you provided, I could still create a pretty ridiculous Druid.

What works is whatever all parties involved discuss and agree on. Communication and understanding is likely the common denominator, not a particular list of books.

Thank you for sharing what works for you guys. I'm not surprised such a post would lead to the discussion that spiraled from it, and neither should anyone else be.

 

[Greenfield]

My game group's standard technique is described as "A DM-only spell, no SR or Save, which can be used as often as needed. Components: V. Spell name: Dispel BS" (We usually expand on the BS part, but the rules here don't allow it.)

Many has been the time when I find a new player wanting to join the game, presenting a character created with the MAgic Pencil of Anything and the Decanter of Endless Nonsense. One casting of Dispel BS and the sheet is a blank piece of paper. Then I tell them to start over.

We recently had to do this. A prospective player wanted to bring in one of his "legacy characters", an Orc Paragon with something like seven classes and more odd abilities than could be explained in Character Sheet volumes I-VII.

After the Dispel BS was applied, and we asked him to start over, creating a character using only the books we were using, and staying within appropriate budget for equipment (which inherently says "no artifacts"), he said that he had an active aversion to creating new characters. He proposed a different "legacy character", equally insane, equally inappropriate for the campaign, and was turned down again.

The only time we've seen him since them was when he dropped by to explain why he wasn't dropping by. Drafted to run a campaign at the local game shop. (I asked at said local game shop and it was news to them.)

Dispel BS: Use it early and often!