Sorry this is long-winded, but...
While any of those feats, in the hands of a player who appreciates the non-powergamed combat style of playing, would not be a problem, in the hands of a player who milks them for all they're worth, they can be trouble.
Cobbling a bunch of limits together for the purpose of reining in one errant player is, again, catering too much to a single player at the expense of the others who use such options more wisely. As I've said before, it's the outlier who should adjust to the rest of the game (or find a better fitting game) and not the game that should adjust to the outlier.
A player's style has nothing to do with damage dealt. 2 PCs with the same stats, equivalent weapons and the same feats would still be dealing similar combat damage, regardless of the player's style or "wisdom"-its how the math of those feats affects the game. The player wasn't errant- the DM didn't tell him what the campaign's limits were, as you can see below.
In 27 years of gaming, I've constructed all kinds of PCs: min/maxed, suboptimal, high-concept, campaign wreckers, etc. And yes, you're absolutely correct to state that the outlier should adjust to the campaign in general. But if the player isn't aware of the boundaries, he's almost certainly going to violate them.
If the campaign is not supposed to be combat intensive, the
DM must set rules that make this obvious. For example, in a campaign in which the PCs were all part of the nobility of an "Eastern" culture, all PCs were required to be skilled in things like poetry or music- even the most warlike character had raised his weaponsmithing skills into an art form. At first, several players chafed- but the PCs in that campaign were well rounded and enjoyable. Many other campaigns in which I have participated (as a player) didn't permit Paladins, and most didn't permit Psionic PCs because of the issues they raise in a campaign. Many have had a rule of no evil PCs for similar reasons. But the rules were always specific and clear.
Dragonlancer's FIRST statement was:
He uses the rules to create the best and most powerful character he can. He has and does, overshadow the others in combat situations. Unfortnately, this isn't how myself or the other 4 players at the time (all of whom I have known longer) like to play. We enjoy the playing and the storytelling, not the uber-gaming of using the rules to make the best character possible.
And he subsequently posted:
He’s only using feats from the 3.5 PHB and one or two from the XPH. In that instance I’m not going to stop him using feats that I have said are fine, and isn’t the problem. He can play a combat character but don’t go ridiculous with it.
(That's like complaining that Jaya Ballard, Embermage, throws too many fire spells, or Fineous Fingers is stealing too many things from the NPCs. Combat characters tend to be optimized for combat!)
In the current campaign everyone is 8th level, and he is playing a Minotaur Fighter/Psion/DragonSlayer.
(In a
Dragonlance campaign! What do YOU think a Dragonslayer is going to do in Krynn?)
As I keep saying, playing characters that can pull that off isn't what we want to play, and we don't want to play scenarios based around playing like that.
All emphasis mine.
(If the DM doesn't want to have PCs that can do what this particular PC can do, how did it get in the campaign? DM inaction.)
As BardStephenFox pointed out:
I think part of the situation that is cropping up here with Dragonlancer's group is that they have these implied limits.
We can't look inside the player's mind. Perhaps Likudice saw no combat specialists and thought "They need some serious muscle!" not realizing that the lack of tankage was intentional.
However, I can tell by that Dragonlancer has lost control of his campaign. He may have envisioned a high-fantasy campaign rich in texture and flavor, yet he let a
Minotaur Fighter/Psion/DragonSlayer be created in his
Dragonlance campaign and is now complaining that it does too much damage in combat!
Unless implied campaign limits are made explicit, there is no reason whatsoever (beyond a particular player's character concept) to design a suboptimal character. Likuidice cannot be expected to limit his PC's potential if there is no explicit rule to make him do so. Why shouldn't Likuidice select a particular feat that would make his Dragonslayer a better slayer of dragons? Why, if his PC has taken Power Attack and Cleave, wouldn't he take Great Cleave?
By the rules, any multiclassing must be approved by the DM, and just because a feat is in print doesn't mean it fits the campaign. It is amazing what "You can't do that." can do for a campaign. If Dragonlancer had simply said- "I think that this (prestige class/feat) would be too unbalancing in this campaign-maybe next time." the problem might never have arisen. Personally, Dragonslayer is one PrCl I'd NEVER allow in Krynn, and psionic PCs in a campaign where psionic NPCs/monsters are rare/nonexistent can be VERY unbalancing.
That said, I offer this suggestion if they don't want to kick this guy out of the group due to the friction that has thus far been generated:
Let the PC die in a blaze of glory against his chosen enemy- a dragon of some kind- leaving behind only some bit of his equipment (that has become enchanted through his use for great deeds). Have someone inspired by him and his actions acquire that equipment, and decide to "take up his mantle," but make sure that the PC thus introduced has a more "political" (or however you define it, Dragonlancer) feel. Make it ABSOLUTELY clear what kind of PC fits the campaign. Proceed to game from there.
