How to avoid ridiculous player character builds

[Li Shenron]

I am happy that I never really had ridiculous builds in the games I've run...

But just for fun, here are some possible ways to deal with the problem, but be warned that only the first one is politically correct

1) Connect supplementary sourcebooks with regions of your fantasy world. For example, "Complete Arcane" is available only to characters from Thay, while "Complete Scoundrel" only to characters from Waterdeep, and so on. This might prevent a little bit some unbalanced combos of prestige classes or similar things, but will have an in-game explanation (which is perhaps less arguable against by the players). "Region" could also be replaced with "race" or "faction", as long as every PC can have one and only one of these. The Rokugan setting used this idea so that each PC belonged to a "clan" which had its own feats, prestige classes, and secret lore. (Rokugan also allowed access to another clan's stuff if you managed to get the trust of one of their masters, but this supposedly required a lot of RP effort - something the ridiculous-build players rarely want/can do)

2) Use the old dopplegänger story trick: the PCs trigger their own doubles (from the plane of shadow, plane of mirror or whatever works in your setting) to hunt them down, which means the ridiculous PC will have to fight its own ridiculous double.

3) Optimize your monsters against the ridiculous-build PC. After all, that's what the player claim he's doing: optimizing. So you as the DM get to do the same.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

One thing that some in our group have done is this: PHB Only races (and sometimes, base classes), with feats, spells and so forth drawn from the PHB and the Completes. The catch is that each PC can only use 1 or 2 sources beyond the PHB.

As Dandu would probably point out, that doesn't stop abusive PCs from PHB Tier 1 classes being built, but it DOES streamline PC creation a bit, leading to more focus and fewer magpie PCs. That means players are far less likely to unintentionally gimp their characters, and individual players have fewer books to keep track of.

Me? I let players use the kitchen sink for nearly everything but races- if I say they don't exist in my campaign world, they simply don't- I just want final approval over your choices to make sure I understand what the PC does and how. If something looks like a game breaker or inappropriate to the campaign, we talk.

 

[sheadunne]

Me? I let players use the kitchen sink for nearly everything but races- if I say they don't exist in my campaign world, they simply don't- I just want final approval over your choices to make sure I understand what the PC does and how. If something looks like a game breaker or inappropriate to the campaign, we talk.

I do the same, although I have banned certain classes (ie oriental or gun slinger type) if the theme wasn't appropriate. I do make sure we agree on how any particular spell, feat, skill, etc work before we start so there's no misunderstandings as the game progresses.

 

[ImperatorK]

When it comes to this threads title, I prefer to just say "No".
As for balance, I simply help optimize the weaker PCs and try to make it fun for everyone regardless of power (unless the stronger PCs are cheesed out, in which case look above). So basically I suggest trying to be a better DM.

 

[N'raac]

I'm surprised no one has suggested simply avoiding ridiculous players.

Of course, this is all subjective. The between "ridiculous", "optimized", "reasonably powerful" and "too weak for the game" varies a lot between players and playing groups.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

I'm surprised no one has suggested simply avoiding ridiculous players.

Of course, this is all subjective. The between "ridiculous", "optimized", "reasonably powerful" and "too weak for the game" varies a lot between players and playing groups.

I did on the second page, though not exactly in the same words.

Some of the better ways to nip crazy stuff in the bud though:

1: Don't play with abusive players. If you know someone is going to try to break the game and make things difficult for everyone, don't invite them to play. Or if they do end up playing, see the rest of this list for ways on how to deal with them...

 

[Mallus]

Here's my fool-proof (so far!) way of avoiding ridiculous PC buillds...

#1 - Game in a high-trust environment, ie game with people you like & trust who are all invested in keeping the campaign running smoothly and can talk out disagreements (perhaps easier said than done, but I've been lucky...).

#2 - Let the players build what they want. For example, I'm currently running Pathfinder, and I allowed all 1-st party materials currently online (here). The only reason I even have this limitation is I don't own any of the physical books, so I need to be able to reference the rule

Frankly, I don't see why you'd use a complex system like 3e/Pathfinder in the first place if you intend to seriously restrict build options. Those build options are the system's biggest selling point. It's like cooking the hell out of sushi-grade tuna, ie counter-productive.

#3 - If and when a problem PC develops, deal with it. Talk it over w/the player, adjust the build, maybe even ask the group for help designing opponents to challenge it (without squashing the other PCs).

I'm a huge fan of solving problems as the occur in a campaign. This saves me the time and effort required to read the 1000s of pages of rules found in contemporary rules-heavy systems. Plus, not every build or option is broken for every player or DM. A problem for one group is perfectly fine for another.

I'd rather not waste my time with idle speculation and designing solutions to problems which might never crop up. It's much better to have the right social systems in place so you can solve the real problems when you really encounter them.

 

[Grogg of the North]

Here's my fool-proof (so far!) way of avoiding ridiculous PC buillds...

#1 - Game in a high-trust environment, ie game with people you like & trust who are all invested in keeping the campaign running smoothly and can talk out disagreements (perhaps easier said than done, but I've been lucky...).

#2 - Let the players build what they want. For example, I'm currently running Pathfinder, and I allowed all 1-st party materials currently online (here). The only reason I even have this limitation is I don't own any of the physical books, so I need to be able to reference the rule

Frankly, I don't see why you'd use a complex system like 3e/Pathfinder in the first place if you intend to seriously restrict build options. Those build options are the system's biggest selling point. It's like cooking the hell out of sushi-grade tuna, ie counter-productive.

#3 - If and when a problem PC develops, deal with it. Talk it over w/the player, adjust the build, maybe even ask the group for help designing opponents to challenge it (without squashing the other PCs).

I'm a huge fan of solving problems as the occur in a campaign. This saves me the time and effort required to read the 1000s of pages of rules found in contemporary rules-heavy systems. Plus, not every build or option is broken for every player or DM. A problem for one group is perfectly fine for another.

I'd rather not waste my time with idle speculation and designing solutions to problems which might never crop up. It's much better to have the right social systems in place so you can solve the real problems when you really encounter them.

Part of the problem is when you are playing with an individual and you can't reach an agreement on that there is a problem with someone's character.

DM: So ... there is a problem with your character. It's detracting from the fun everyone else is having at the table.
PC: Well, I'm not playing a cleric or wizard so it's okay for me to do this.
DM: . . . .

 

[Mallus]

PC: Well, I'm not playing a cleric or wizard so it's okay for me to do this.

DM Mallus: No, it isn't. We have a problem. Let's solve it!
PC: I don't think we do.
DM Mallus: You are incorrect, sir or madame! <explains nature of problem>
PC: No...
DM Mallus: Are you calling me a liar?
PC: No, but...
DM Mallus: Then are you even listening to me? You should listen.
PC: I...
DM Mallus: Are you interested in fixing the problem, yes or no?
PC: But there is no problem...
DM Mallus: I'll take that as a 'no'. Looks like our group isn't a good fit for you. Been nice gaming with you. Goodbye!

(FYI... this is completely hypothetical -- I've never had to do it. But I would. In a heartbeat.

 

[Sunseeker]

After reading several interesting posts, I have a query to posit. As material progressed, especially in op build happy editions like 3.x, there was a bit of an arms race between monsters and players. More poerful monsters demanded more powerful players, more powerful players demanded more powerful monsters(which is partly why CR became useless over time).

When you limit players to "basic" or "core" materials, do you likewise limit yourself and the monsters and npcs you run to those same(or whatever is comparable) materials?

Speaking to the "their fun is less important" argument, it would seem awfully duplicitous to limit player power, but not your own.