Lightly-armored, greatsword-wielding human fighter

[The Shaman]

I think your missing the point...The argument here is that some campaigns are One trick ponies.

I think you're using 'campaign' in a way with which I'm not familiar.

If I were to tell a group of prospective players, "Okay, roll up characters for this Friday," and then on Friday night announce, "Okay, the game is going to be played entirely underground...oh, you bought warhorses? I guess you'll just have to leave 'em behind...no, you can't change out your mounted warfare feats, I already approved your character sheet," then I would say you've got a legitimate beef.

But complaining that a series of adventures involves doing something for which your character isn't optimized...

However, a high seas campaign is not the place for him. Why would he go? why would he be in that situation.

...is disruptive as a player, IMHO.

What I still have a problem with is this:

Many poeple can design adpative characters, but a lot of us do put a focus somewhere, you have the choice of being Jack of all trades, master of none, or having a viable use in a party. Would it be fair to make magic half as useful, and not tell potential wizards and sorcerors before hand, and still make them need the same xp to level?

First, I'm not sure entirely what you mean here: it sounds like you're talking about two different things (not being allowed to minmax to your heart's content, and house rules nerfing magic).

Obviously house rules that affect how magic works in a game should be made clear from the outset - I think most gamers can be in agreement on that. (Then again, changes in how magic works that result from the events of the game are reasonable, provided there is a chance to adapt to the new conditions or restore the status quo.)

However, there is no inherent protection of the 'right' to minmaxed characters - if you're expecting some sort of 'story immunity' from underwater adventures for your fire-wielding evoker, prepare to be deeply disappointed in the games I run. (You'll find sympathy between and syphilis in the dictionary, by the way.)

 

[ThoughtBubble]

I think you're using 'campaign' in a way with which I'm not familiar.

If I were to tell a group of prospective players, "Okay, roll up characters for this Friday," and then on Friday night announce, "Okay, the game is going to be played entirely underground...oh, you bought warhorses? I guess you'll just have to leave 'em behind...no, you can't change out your mounted warfare feats, I already approved your character sheet," then I would say you've got a legitimate beef.

Which is often how the situation works out. See my previous example. Or, in the game where I played a wizard, scrolls never dropped as teasure, Scrolls were 10x as expensive as in the book, and we rarely got to rest. Or how about the game where I played a rogue and there was never any cover to hide behind "He can see you, you're standing right there in the room." No check even. That was also the game where the next 10 sessions were against constructs and undead with the occasional super-high ac human tank. Oh, or the game where I was told there was going to be a healthy amount of social interaction, so I made a bard and the entire game was in one huge dungeon.

So yes, in fact, it does happen that the entirety of the campaign itself can be set up to really mess up certain character types. And it can be as simple as a DM who tries to run things in a 'realistic' way, while forgetting to put stuff in rooms to hide behind.

 

[The Shaman]

Which is often how the situation works out.

Often?

Are there really that many clueless GMs out there?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Often?

Are there really that many clueless GMs out there?

Certainly enough. Enough who make things up as they go along. Enough who try for theme without considering their players. Enough who think that a hydrophobe in a seagoing campaign is more of a character challenge than a crippling handicap.

There are as many clueless GMs out there, IMXP, as there are disruptive players.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Hear, hear, for the suicidal shortguy!

 

[Nac_Mac_Feegle]

Once again, I am accused of powergaming by people who fail to see what im tlkaing about.

Why is my playing a half orc afraid of water being dsiruptive, if I dont kne before hand its a high seas adventure? If I knew I owuld choose something a little more playable, but again, you seem to see it as MY fault I didnt know somethign that was unknowable.

I as a PC, expect to run into water during characters career, therefore what is disruptive about Hydrophobia? its just a roleplaying angle, completely innapropriate to a high seas adventure granted, which is why a hydrophobe would not be in one. I fail to see how thats me being desruptive.

And as for min maxing, what are you expecting in D&D?

A warrior hits things, he doesnt get a lot of skills, but he can use every martial weapon and every armour, so you play to your strengths, is that min maxing? I dont expect to be the belle of the ball wiht my social skills, I dont have any, or they are severly limited, but I oculd take feats to improve that, then get accused of being a power gamer because I want to do everything

Why do poeple equate Playing to a class strength as min/maxing?

A rogue/assassin is a natural progresion of a class, is that min/maxing? playing to my characters strengths? How about the gambler i rolled up, used a lot of social skills, bluff etc, again, using the rogues large skill list to follow a style of character, min/maxing again I guess

I dont want to come across as a powergamer, but the game has classes, and most poeple play to those classes strengths, and this idea thats to utelise a class strength is min/maxing is ludicrous in the extreme.

You can pretend to be rincewind, and play a mage wiht absolutely no magic abilites, but that would be daft, however, pay him as a rogue who just thinks hes a failed wizard would allow you to build in his escape artist, bluff, sense motive and all those other skills he displays. Would that be powergaming? Or is that shaping a character to fit a concept?

I just dont get why you assume me to be powergaming because I would like some idea of the type of game the GM intends to play, its a 2 way street, I cant play something he clearly doesnt want in his campaign, and we shouldnt have to play characters clearly unsuited to the campaign he has in mind

I am glad I dont play in your games shaman, your coming across in the vein "its my game, if you dont like it, your a powergamer, so get lost" I see no compromise in you. And thats what D&D is about, compromise, were all playing a game, its not PC vs DM.

Feegle Out

 

[Cintra]

Nac, I believe I understand the point you're trying to make. And I think a couple of the responses you've gotten have been because a couple of people are reading your comments with an assumption already made that you're "min-maxing" - so they're reading into your examples something that I don't think is there.

Shaman - Nac's use of "campaign" isn't referring to a single adventure, even one that lasts several sessions. It refers to the entire career of this character. If the GM creates Waterworld, and never intends to have the PCs be anywhere other than on ships and floating raft-towns, then having a character who is afraid of water would be actively crippling for the entire campaign. If the DM plans to have 90% of the encounters and activities the PCs face involve undead, then a rogue is pretty much useless. And it isn't min-maxing or power-gaming to want to have a character that can contribute to the team and accomplish something. I think you should re-read Mac's post with this slant in mind, that it's about the lousiness of being completely useless, NOT the desire to be omnipotent.

 

[Imret]

It seems to me like Cintra's nailed it there; it seems to me like Nac isn't saying "The DM won't let me be the most powerful member of the party by leaps and bounds", but something more akin to "With a lack of DM/player communication, it's entirely possible to make a character whose concept, as supported by his skills and feats, is entirely useless in the campaign".

Similarly, Shaman, I think you're among the few DMs who tackle the "status quo/persistant world/forest of dangled plot hooks" style of DMing. I'm in favor of it, more power to you, etc. Most DMs either make it up as they go along or decide on their campaign theme without the players, then spring it on them as a "roleplaying challenge". The legitimate beef you describe is all to common, IMXP.

As far as the magic issue Nac mentioned that you weren't clear on, let me see if I can capture the essence of it.

You're invited to play in a new campaign, and you lovingly craft an interesting wizard, whose character is somewhat wrapped up in his ability to use magic. This is fair, he's a wizard. You've got your typical spells worked out, some flavor changes to the appearance of a couple spells you want to check with the DM, and all in all a PC you really want to play, to contribute to the team. Then, the DM reads a setting intro that starts with "For two hundred years the Great Dragons of Oogada have locked magic away from the world..."

You've got every right to be choked, and I've seen it happen. I've had a much more minor concern with my ranger/rogue. The only traps that weren't illusion-based were DC 25+ at 2nd level, the only foes who didn't attack from ambush in big open fields were undead and constructs (in a "low-magic, no undead" world), and we accumulated pretty much no treasure that wasn't a lost relic we had to return to someone with a noble title. Did I get to use my ranger skills? Certainly. Did I enjoy myself? Yes, quite a bit. Would I have been better served, effectiveness-wise, with just ranger levels? Hells yes.

However, with all that said, telling a player "Well, I know you're gonna be absolutely no help in this series of adventures because it's the antithesis of the situation you shine in, but stuff it and get on board with my plan or you can just sit there for the rest of the session/we'll call you when they get back" is a little...unfun. Some of this does fall to the players...if they say "To hell with you, we're going to the undersea city" and leave the embermage on land, they deserve to be torn to shreds by whatever's down there. If they pool their cash and buy him a wand of 3rd-level magic missile so he can contribute, well, that's a party I'd like to join.

 

[Evilhalfling]

as a DM I dislike vanillia fighters - Characters get more limelight the deeper thier backgrounds are. Hooks, storyline and motivations are more important than what weapon is being used.

People complain about the undead and construct dungeons
but where else do you find a trap in every room? IMG traps are are, and rogues should focus more on stealth and social skills. There will inevitably be some adventure focusing on the rogues relationship with either the law or a powerful guild, probably one that will spill over and effect the other players as well.

 

[Remathilis]

Well of course the LA-GSW-HF is gonna be generic, it DEFINES generic. Heck, I've seen DMs ban plate-armor before.

However, I think your anecdotal evidence is abit over the top. Least some of them...

Wizards (those not building magical toys) need ONE DAY and gold to scribe scolls to spellbook. Tell me you have AT LEAST one day in the tavern or the back of a wagon?

There are godless clerics.

Bards might depend on the DM for social skills, but not for performances, bardic music effects, spellcasting...

Sorcerers and rangers are useful in a variety of areas.

Monks can't go toe-to-toe, but are good skirmishers and survivors.

and if your DM is screwing with all those races and classes, time for a new DM...