Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 1694468" data-attributes="member: 5171">True. That's an excellent distinction.  As a GM, I think it's important to make sure that no one character is the best in the party at too many things, and if somebody minmaxes their battle cleric to the point where they're hitting more often than the party fighter and doing more damage, and also outcasting the party sorcerer, then I'm going to have a word with them in private. Sorry, didn't catch your example, but one important factor a GM can use in that situation, for example, is a diversity of combat options.  It's harder on the GM, because he has to plan more, but having a combat in which the bad guys include something with an insane Fort save, a whole lot of minor things that the fighter can go to town on or the sorcerer can blow up (but which the monk wouldn't want to waste use/day powers on), an undead or construct or elemental that's immune to stunning, and something that uses a bunch of magic and forces the casters to get into a magical duel... all of that makes it harder for the monk to own the entire combat.  (And no, you wouldn't want every combat to look like that.  Good lord.  That would be a lot of planning.)So diversity will help somewhat.In fact, though, that character isn't just ruining the game for the other players.  He's holding himself hostage for the DM.  The DM is now stuck with either beating him the only realistic way he can (creatures immune to stunning) or knowing that he's going to own the combat, and a player who builds a stunmonkey like that is going to sigh loudly every time they run into "Yet another thing the DM won't let my stun-power work on."  So I acknowledge your point.  A player like that is annoying.  The system allows focus, and focus to a certain point turns a character into somebody who can break the system in one direction, leaving DMs with the ugly question of how often to let him do it.My group actually has a pretty good solution to this issue.  Most of our players help each other out when making characters, and everyone helps out a person new to the system.  "Okay, so, what's your concept?  A two-weapon person who fights smart and uses tricks?  No spellcasting?  Light armor or heavy armor?  Okay, got it.  Here are some feats for you to look at.  Why don't you flip through and write down everything that looks like something your character would want.  Then we'll figure out what classes.  You'd probably be best with fighter/rogue, Low-Wisdom ranger, or a monk who holds weapons for flavor text -- maybe the DM will let you do unarmed damage with any weapon you hold, but you always use the weapon's properties and never gain Ki strike or something...  Fighter/Rogue is easiest, though.  That's what I'd recommend..."Since my group includes a bunch of computer geeks who love playing within rules systems and figuring out how to get maximum returns, minmaxing is always going to be there.  They just make sure to make things fair by helping out the other guys with character creation (and with in-game tactics at the very beginning -- "coughPowerAttackcough").No argument there.  The same could be said for deep-immersion roleplayers who hog the spotlight and make every conversation a chance for them to bug the DM with forced solo in-character conversation while the other players wander off to play Grand Theft Auto in the other room.  Any player who does anything that makes the game all about him on a consistent basis is ruining the fun for everyone.</blockquote>

Verification