Powergamer Issues

[Pielorinho]

Actually, they were real things (a level 2 spell that grants feats temporarily but he abused the rulings on it, and the Dread Devourer template which in pathfinder is only LA +2 according to the rules).

Rulesmonkey:
Here's the template for folks that are interested. There are some thing about it I notice.

First, and less importantly, it's a fan creation. Although a DM is always allowed to ban anything he wants from his game, fan creations get extra-special attention when deciding what to ban.

Second, and more importantly, it's not a LA +2. It's a CR +3. That's totally, totally different. CR and LA have nothing to do with one another. As others have pointed out, there is no LA in pathfinder (that I can find). They don't come close to balancing out. A fifth-level fighter, for example, cannot hope to do the same damage as a troll PC, and a fourth-level wizard won't be in the same ballpark as a first level wizard with the dread devourer template.

My sympathies for being stuck with this guy.

 

[MichaelSomething]

The Dread Devourer is a monster template, not a PC race! That guy is a munchkin!

 

[prosfilaes]

Actually, they were real things (a level 2 spell that grants feats temporarily but he abused the rulings on it, and the Dread Devourer template which in pathfinder is only LA +2 according to the rules).

Wait; the Dread Devourer template starts "devourers are undead creatures that trap the souls of other beings and use them to power their terrible spells." It could be the weakest template in the game, and the answer for most campaigns should still be no.

I just had the pleasure of a fellow playing being removed from a campaign I was playing in for this. It was 3.5, and he "forgot" that his half-dragon template was a LA+3, didn't follow the rules that Spell Compendium was the final source for all spells (at one point, he tried to use a spell from a 3.0 book that wasn't even a wizard spell.) I had to wait a while, but it was nice to see him go.

 

[Felon]

I'm torn here. On the one hand, this forum rarely fails to apall me with the sheer intolerance and animus directed towards those vile players who want their characters to be powerful.

On the other hand, this particular player represents an extreme that makes what I would normally dismiss as petty labeling seem eminiently justified. He is not simply optimizing his character within the bounds of the rules, he is flat-out pulling some crap. Either his grasp of the rules does not match his powergaming aspirations, or he is a dishonest person.

In final analysis, I posit that even if he were totally unconcerned with optimization, if he is as needy and selfish as the OP suggests, that is sufficient to make his presence undesirable. Be direct about this with the DM. Do not suffer discomfort over the long term just to avoid the short term discomfort of confrontation.

 

[Chronologist]

Update

A number of things happened since I last posted. First, the problem player in question tried to play several builds, all of which were too powerful. Because of that, the DM asked him to play a character using only the core rules for pathfinder. He made a character, then decided to scrap it and is trying to play a tiny-sized Kobold Rogue with dragon feats. I presume it's the same build he tried in my previous campaign, using two crossbows and sneak attack while hiding with a +30 or greater Stealth modifier at level 6.

In addition, he is complaining about the number of other players that people are inviting, even though the DM has green-lighted all of them.

I have more than one friend who would like to play in the campaign, whom I have DMed and played with before, who arrives regularly and is an excellent player at the table.

At this point,with the complaints being made against this player and being the host and all, I am considering kicking him out of the group and inviting a player who will cause far less issues.

What are your thoughts?

 

[enrious]

It's not a game if it's not fun.

 

[Mad Hamish]

A number of things happened since I last posted. First, the problem player in question tried to play several builds, all of which were too powerful. Because of that, the DM asked him to play a character using only the core rules for pathfinder. He made a character, then decided to scrap it and is trying to play a tiny-sized Kobold Rogue with dragon feats. I presume it's the same build he tried in my previous campaign, using two crossbows and sneak attack while hiding with a +30 or greater Stealth modifier at level 6.

If the GM has asked him to make a character using a particular set of rules and he's refused to then I don't think that there is a place for him in the campaign.
However it's really up to the GM to make the decision (as it was your job when you were running the campaign) buthaving a quiet word with the GM telling him that it's making things not fun for you would be reasonable.

In addition, he is complaining about the number of other players that people are inviting, even though the DM has green-lighted all of them.

again, it's up to the GM how many players he's comfortable with (although as the host you probably should have a say in things as well)

I have more than one friend who would like to play in the campaign, whom I have DMed and played with before, who arrives regularly and is an excellent player at the table.

At this point,with the complaints being made against this player and being the host and all, I am considering kicking him out of the group and inviting a player who will cause far less issues.

What are your thoughts?

Discuss it with the GM rather than taking action yourself.

 

[Systole]

The guy you're talking about is not a powergamer. He's a munchkin. Tell him to GTFO.

Honestly, thanks for making this thread, because there's a guy in my game who's just a plain old powergamer. It used to bug me, but compared to a guy who's trying argue for a dual-wielding kobold with like eight templates ... let's just say it puts things in perspective.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

A number of things happened since I last posted. First, the problem player in question tried to play several builds, all of which were too powerful. Because of that, the DM asked him to play a character using only the core rules for pathfinder. He made a character, then decided to scrap it and is trying to play a tiny-sized Kobold Rogue with dragon feats. I presume it's the same build he tried in my previous campaign, using two crossbows and sneak attack while hiding with a +30 or greater Stealth modifier at level 6.

In addition, he is complaining about the number of other players that people are inviting, even though the DM has green-lighted all of them.

I have more than one friend who would like to play in the campaign, whom I have DMed and played with before, who arrives regularly and is an excellent player at the table.

At this point,with the complaints being made against this player and being the host and all, I am considering kicking him out of the group and inviting a player who will cause far less issues.

What are your thoughts?

At this point, as DM I would tell him that he only gets to play pregenerated characters, since he has proven that he cannot be trusted to create his own. He was told what was available, then did otherwise.

I'd give him a choice of several decent pregenerated characters - not sticking him with something that I would not be willing to play myself. Standard point buy. But he has lost all character generation privileges.

When he levels, I would check his character again, if he makes an attempt at cheese... I make the choices for him.

The Auld Grump, no really, I'd play a rogue with Int, Cha, and Dex as dump stats, really! (Joking, in case you wondered.)

 

[Kobold Boots]

From the perspective of a DM of 3.x that had everything under the sun in his 12 player group (Trumpet Archon as a template, Succubi as a template, Fairie, Werewolf, other bizarre crap) and had to make a way for it all to work together.

If everyone likes each other than in my opinion it doesn't matter what people play or how out of balance it is because I can always kill it or put the group in a perspective where that one powerful character is challenged and has to save people while those people need to use their skills to keep him or her upright and get the real objective handled.

If people don't like each other then the lack of balance is a problem, not because of the power differential, but because the group doesn't want to tolerate the munchkin to begin with and the game becomes negatively adversarial. Same with any situation where a host dislikes the player because then everything eventually gets blown out of proportion. (I'll leave this up to any reader's own interpretation).

I have two roads of advice, inclusive and exclusive:

Inclusive:

1. Let him play whatever he wants. Let whatever he wants have consequences that he has to role-play through and make sure he agrees to that in front of the group.

2. Make sure that you advise the group at the same time that the consequences will affect the greater group and for the benefit of having that powerful thing in the group that occasionally the group will have to work together well to get through things.

3. If either side disagrees, then the character is null and void. My point is that this doesn't have to be a DM vs. Player situation, it can be group pressure. Eventually if the guy really is a douche on top of munchkin, then he'll leave because the group makes his enjoyable play style impossible.

Exclusive:

1. Have a sit down with the player away from the table with the DM and yourself. Get dinner and chat through the issues. Whatever you do, don't have an exclusive conversation in front of the group. It creates too much angst.

2. If the player agrees to conform, problem solved. If not, you're in the right to ask him not to join your group in a controlled way. But be very certain that you and the DM are on the same page before the conversation.

3. Advise the rest of the group at the next game or whatever method of communication you're comfortable with as soon as politely possible. You want to get out in front of the excluded player's story before he tells it to people IF he's likely to be a douche and start problems. If he isn't, you're just being on top of things.

Thankfully, most groups have bodies of really good friends and much of this is probably unnecessary or over the top. I'm used to being the DM of a group of people where I'm really good friends with up to three players and the rest of the group is put together by some mix of friends of those three, so I'm constantly dealing with people who know me well and those that don't.

Generally I go with the inclusive approach because it builds friendships while ridding me of the problem. In the few cases where I've had to go exclusive I've always felt like a bigger douche than the other guy and ended up dealing with a lot of email and phone conversations I could have done without. The cost of the faster way to the solution.