The problem is choice

[Morrus]

I would necessarily characterize sitting out a game as taking my ball and going home because I didn't get my way. My friends like to play Vampire but I don't. I'm OK with sitting out that game and giving them a chance to play it rather than play something that I won't enjoy very much. Our friendship isn't threatened by that. If anything, that strikes me as a reasonably adult reaction - letting other people have their fun even if it means I'm not participating in it.

Oh, sure. With that I agree. That's not what I was talking about though. I was talking about not being allowed to use a couple of feats.

 

[TwoSix]

I would necessarily characterize sitting out a game as taking my ball and going home because I didn't get my way. My friends like to play Vampire but I don't. I'm OK with sitting out that game and giving them a chance to play it rather than play something that I won't enjoy very much. Our friendship isn't threatened by that. If anything, that strikes me as a reasonably adult reaction - letting other people have their fun even if it means I'm not participating in it.

Agreed. Isn't it one of those Geek Social Fallacies that everyone has to be involved in everything?

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

If he'#s playing a Swashbuckler/Rogue, he's not a true min-maxer. Trust me.

This is very true.

Firstly, you should be using a wide range of opponents, at least some of whom will be immune to crits. That's one of the invisibile balances in 3e - in some encounters, the Cleric gets to shine while the Rogue doesn't (because it's undead), in others the Wizard and Rogue have real problems (because Golems are immune to most magic), and so on.

Bad examples, but this is right in concept at least.

Probably, in my opinion he plays the game with the mentality that he can "win".

That's... awfully uncharitable. And highly unlikely, given his rather awful choices. But if that's really the case, your problems extend much farther than just killing his character and making him have a weaker one will solve.

Well, I stated at the beginning of the game that I wanted to run a low power campaign. I banned a few books that I think are just broken completely and I keep a tight reign on which magic items come in to the game.

Dare I ask which books? And more importantly, the game was "balanced," although I use that term very loosely, on people having magic items. Melee characters really do need them.

I also agree with you that trust is an important part of the group but I don't trust this player.

Why not? Has he done some action in the past? This is hardly a breech in trust, though. Were I told to make a weak character, I very well might make something like what he did.

I've said no to some other things already.

Such as what?

I seriously doubt that anyone but him would not play a core only game. My other players would be fine with it.

Really? Do remember what I said, though, it wouldn't solve the problem. In fact, it would make it worse on the grounds that people are more likely to pick full casters and instawin everything.

I've given up on CR already by this point.

Yeah, it's badly done. Just eyeball numbers and you should be fine.

 

[N'raac]

Does it sing, tho? most say it doesn't and the supplement bloat seems to be a big culprit. There is a lot of choice, and one of the biggest ones is deciding what you will include in your game and what you wont. Thing is, you don't have to cut everything, just look at stuff on a case-by-case basis

Exactly. You don't, as a GM, need to know every option available. You need to know those options the players are using, or want to use.

 

[Grogg of the North]

I was recently in a scenario like this. One player optimizing head and shoulders over the others to the point that it detracted from the game for everybody. Really, the only way to deal with this is to talk to the player out of game. Talk to the rest of the group and see if anyone else feels the same as you do. See if you can get somewhere in the middle of what each of you wants. Be sure to use lots of "I think" and "I feel" when talking with the player so no one is on the defensive. However, from what I've read it seems like this may be pretty hard to accomplish.

Yea, there are a lot of ways you could probably get around this in game but most of them are pretty heavy handed. You may even wind up in the situation where to challenge Player A you completely obliterate Player B, C and D. And getting into an arms race at the table isn't fun for anyone.

Speaking of fun, remember that D&D is a game and the point of a game is to have fun. If people aren't having fun, INCLUDING THE GM, and there's no way to rectify that, you may be just better off scrubbing the whole thing and starting over. And you will have to accept that this may include not playing with your min-maxing friend.

 

[Chase A.]

This is very true.
Bad examples, but this is right in concept at least.
That's... awfully uncharitable. And highly unlikely, given his rather awful choices. But if that's really the case, your problems extend much farther than just killing his character and making him have a weaker one will solve.
Dare I ask which books? And more importantly, the game was "balanced," although I use that term very loosely, on people having magic items. Melee characters really do need them.
Why not? Has he done some action in the past? This is hardly a breech in trust, though. Were I told to make a weak character, I very well might make something like what he did.
Such as what?
Really? Do remember what I said, though, it wouldn't solve the problem. In fact, it would make it worse on the grounds that people are more likely to pick full casters and instawin everything.
Yeah, it's badly done. Just eyeball numbers and you should be fine.

No, I really do think he thinks he can "win" at D&D. This is the fourth D&D character I have seen him play. Same race every time, a lesser Teifling. I said he couldn't play it because I thought it was overpowered compared to most other Non level-adjusted races. he pouted for two weeks before he finally decided on a fire elf. Again, just for the bonuses. He has never role played his race either. We have no melee characters actually. Two Spell casters, a Cleric, a swashbuckler/thief and a Ninja. So far I have banned Bo9S, UA and psionics in general. I'm not going to kill of anyone's characters, that's not my style. I have figured out a solution and I think it will work. I have a few weeks to figure anything else out because we're starting a Shadowrun game this week but I will probably bow out of it. Ive told them I'm not interested in non-D&D games several times.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

No, I really do think he thinks he can "win" at D&D.

Again, I find this unlikely due to his apparently repeated selection of suboptimal choices. REALLY suboptimal.

This is the fourth D&D character I have seen him play. Same race every time, a lesser Teifling. I said he couldn't play it because I thought it was overpowered compared to most other Non level-adjusted races.

Why would you say Lesser Tieflings are overpowered? They're mediocre at best. They manage to be dramatically inferior to humans, elves, halflings, and even half-orcs.

he pouted for two weeks before he finally decided on a fire elf. Again, just for the bonuses.

Again, I doubt he did it for the bonuses, simply because Fire Elves have terribly bonuses. Also, how is he playing a fire elf if you've banned UA?

He has never role played his race either.

...This I don't get. How can you "role play [your] race?" They're sapient creatures, why should all elves or orcs or planetouched(Especially planetouched, given their backgrounds) all behave the same?

We have no melee characters actually. Two Spell casters, a Cleric, a swashbuckler/thief and a Ninja.

Wait, what? I count 3 melee characters in there.

So far I have banned Bo9S, UA and psionics in general.

...I thought you said you were banning overpowered books?

I'm not going to kill of anyone's characters, that's not my style. I have figured out a solution and I think it will work.

Really? What is it?

I have a few weeks to figure anything else out because we're starting a Shadowrun game this week but I will probably bow out of it. Ive told them I'm not interested in non-D&D games several times.

Good idea. Initiative passes are a terrible idea, and both hacking and astral combat are poorly designed. But, then again, that game gave us the Pornomancer and trolls that use bows as anti-tank weapons, so it's not all bad.

 

[silverblade56]

Your problem isn't a player "min/maxing" or "powergaming". If he was trying to do that and knew what he was doing he would be playing a half-orc barbarian going into frenzied berserker or a wizard, or a cleric, or a druid. Your problem is twofold: 1) trying to run a "low powered" game using a sytem (and even a setting) not designed for it and 2)not fully grasping what well built/well played characters can do at this level in 3.5 ,even just using core only. As the characters gain levels, his character won't be the one looking unbalanced unless the others are choosing suboptimal choices and using suboptimal tactics. I would suggest switching the campaign to an E6 campaign using only core plus FRCS. If you don't know what E6 is, google it.

 

[Chase A.]

Silverblade, I really like the E6 setting. I'm going to read the entire thread and pitch it to my players.

 

[silverblade56]

I like E6 too, and have used it before. It's not really a setting per se, but a modification of 3.5 that helps to keep a campaign low powered and low magic by capping character advancement at a point where the classes are the most balanced and before things get crazy with 4th level spells and a lot of magic items and tons of attacks. There also is no reason you cannot use it with Pathfinder or 3.0.