Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ranes" data-source="post: 5787415" data-attributes="member: 4826">I'm no stranger to this. There are sources I don't allow in my games. Players don't always pay attention to them before bringing a character to the table. More common, however, is something I don't disallow but is so obviously min-maxed beyond randomness it's painful. I allow these character builds but I then re-engineer NPCs along the same principles. I then introduce the player to the other side of whatever it was he thought was a winning optimisation build.The player might have been pushing what I allowed to the hilt, introducing me to a game mechanic combo I allowed without having been able to see all possible ramifications. No problem: if this happens one week, I learn to modify the appropriate NPC or creature the next. The result is either a group that doesn't think it's clever to look for exploits or a group that's happy to have raised my game and is prepared for the potential consequences.If a player sees a rule combo and thinks, "If I add this to that, I win," he's an idiot who doesn't realise that the thing he's introduced to you is the thing that you can now have your monsters and NPCs exploit. You must not be afraid to employ the same tactics your cleverest players use.If a player comes to me and asks if I will I allow prestige class x or optional rule y, while I am not inclined to try to think through every possible abuse, if I could see a problem with the idea from the outset, I would either give a ruling that allowed it (having attempted to engage as many intelligent and/or experienced players as possible in that process) or I'd rule it out (and leave open an appeal channel).</blockquote>

Verification