The problem is choice

[MerricB]

Really? Wow.

Not really that surprising. You've got a power-gamer going up against an anti-power-gaming DM. There are some fundamental incompatibilities there!

Cheers!

 

[billd91]

I think you have a few options.

1) 3e is a highly configurable game. So configure it. Don't allow anything you are uncomfortable with. Don't allow anything from a source you don't own and can appropriately study.

2) 3e PCs are highly configurable, more so than previous editions. Not quite as much as with point systems like Champions, but when you consider PCs making their own magic items or buying them carte blanche, pretty close. So take a page from Champions and exert more influence on PC builds and relative power. Tell him to dial it back a notch.

3) Adjust the difficulty scale behind the scenes. Not all opponents have to have average hit points. Set the hit points of enemies after PCs square off against them. Non-min-maxed PCs face opponents with under average hp, the min-maxed PC faces ones with above average hp.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

In my opinion, his build doesn't matter but here goes. They are level 6. He is a 2/4 Swashbuckler/rogue doing (including base weapon damage) 4d6 +15. It's all legal, I've checked although I think some of the feats he is using (Daring outlaw and Kraven) are overpowered. What I am interested in is a way to keep power levels in check without minimal banning of material. I have seriously considered going PHB only but then he would refuse to play. Then the other players would insist that I loosen my rules so he will play.

Craven gets him an extra 6 damage on SA, but it does have a cost in the form of lower saves vs fear, so you might be able to use that against him here and there.

Daring Outlaw is one of the ways to make swashbuckler actually be a worthwhile class past 3 levels. Going past that it really is utter crap (the "capstone" ability is 2 Con damage on a crit, but the Wounding weapon ability has been doing 1 per hit much more reliably from about level 8 or so, so it's 11 levels too late. Swashbucklers were not designed well at all).


Don't you have a rule in place that says everything needs to be run by you first? If you're getting hung up on damage (and 4d6 + 15, average 29, is on the mid to low end of things at level 6 when it comes to optimization, really), then you absolutely need to tell people plain and simply "I reserve the right to ban or tweak everything because there will be points where I'm not comfortable enough with the optimization to give you a proper campaign." If you aren't comfortable with something, let them know.

The above goes double for low magic games, and double again for "all sources are okay" kinds of games. You really need to reign in what's available if you want things to play out how you want them to. In your case, be thankful he's not using a warblade from Tome of Battle, because he'd be doing more than 29 average damage every round thanks to maneuvers and such, almost all of which are extraordinary abilities so "low magic" doesn't really apply.

Alternately, you might want to think about just how often he's actually going to get SA on stuff. He has to be flanking (which tends to be a hazard if you're playing monsters with enough sense to ignore a hard to hit target like a typical shield-carrying fighter and instead go for the PC that's actually doing damage), or he needs to catch the target with its Dex down which usually means flat-footed, but there are several other times such as balancing where characters are denied Dex to AC. If he ends up not getting SA off that often then let him have the damage, though perhaps lowered by getting rid of Craven. He built a character to do something useful for the party (that isn't as nuts as he could go, mind), so let him have some fun once in a while.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

I disagree. Clerics are powerful. Clerics with nightstick cheese are even more powerful. Wizards are powerful. Wizards with broken PrC are even more powerful.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't work. Barbarians are weak. Barbarians without Whirling Frenzy and Frenzied Berserker or Runescarred Berserker? Very weak. Fighters are very weak, but fighters without Imperious Command, Zhentarim variant, and so on are incredibly weak. Paladins are weak, but paladins without SotAO, Battle Blessing, or Mystic Fire Knight? Almost unusuably so.

The core rules have serious balance problems, but letting in everything just makes it worse.

Core gave us Monk. Mink, which manages to be worse than the Knight class, and almost certainly gets my vote for weakest class in the game, as well as CoDZilla and the Wizard. It is the single most unbalanced book in the game.

In my opinion, his build doesn't matter but here goes. They are level 6. He is a 2/4 Swashbuckler/rogue doing (including base weapon damage) 4d6 +15. It's all legal, I've checked although I think some of the feats he is using (Daring outlaw and Kraven) are overpowered. What I am interested in is a way to keep power levels in check without minimal banning of material.

Honestly? An orc with a greatsword will be doing similar damage effortlessly. Honestly, and please don't take this the wrong way, I don't think the problem is with his build. I think the problem is with your expectations. Let me put it this way: A core only half-orc barbarian with 18 strength at level 6 will be doing 2d6+18 on full power attack. That's built on elite array. Were it an orc built on point buy with a NPC WBL, it would be, at the very bare minimum, 2d6+26. This is, once again, core only, with only a +1 weapon and strength gloves. Do you see where I'm going with this? The problem isn't the player, the problem is a failure in communication, or just your expectations for the system at this level.

I have seriously considered going PHB only but then he would refuse to play. Then the other players would insist that I loosen my rules so he will play.

And, in my opinion, they'd be right. Banning all other books would weaken everyone's options, detract from 3.5's main draw, and, most importantly, not solve the problem.

That's actually the most damning thing about core only games; Wizards still win. They still have gate, shapechange, wish, and so on. Hell, even a full-blown Tippyverse is possible using purely core rules. On the other hand, melee has... the Horizon Tripper. That's it.

You have a major problem: you believe you can run a low-powered campaign when you allow all material by default. You can't do it that way.

Yes you can. All you need to do is say "Hey, guys, why don't we do a low power campaign?"

Quite frankly, at this point I'd ban "Craven" (its sourcebook is hardly a core one),

Why? CoR is quite a good book.

and then require the all feat/power choices to go through you before they're added to the character. Your campaign doesn't allow much else - doing low-powered with 3.5E requires a lot of manipulation of the material. There's no way around that.

I'd suggest against this. I can't speak for anyone else, but as a player, I'd be put off by this. I view trust as an important part of the group, so why go straight to the banhammer rather than just talking it out as a group.

 

[MerricB]

That's actually the most damning thing about core only games; Wizards still win. They still have gate, shapechange, wish, and so on. Hell, even a full-blown Tippyverse is possible using purely core rules. On the other hand, melee has... the Horizon Tripper. That's it.

Check the levels at which you play. Core only tends to work up until 10th level, after that it really develops the big balance problems. (It has other ones before that, but it's hard to say levels 1-5 have the wizards as more powerful than the fighters). Personally, if I were running this campaign past level 10, I'd allow the Player's Handbook II and its extra fighter abilities.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

Check the levels at which you play. Core only tends to work up until 10th level,

Except it really doesn't even then. That's the problem.

after that it really develops the big balance problems.

Balance problems like riding dogs being stronger than fighters? Problems like the the cleric being the best melee combatant from level 1? Melee has been shafted from the start.

(It has other ones before that, but it's hard to say levels 1-5 have the wizards as more powerful than the fighters).

Grease, Sleep, Color Spray, and Stinking Cloud are all calling me up asking for you. It's kind of awkward.

Personally, if I were running this campaign past level 10, I'd allow the Player's Handbook II and its extra fighter abilities.

Except none of the PHB2 fighter ACFs do much of anything. The only really worthwhile ones are Zhentarim, the online Dead Levels one, and maybe Dungeoncrasher, and the first two are entirely free.

 

[Dwimmerlied]

All you need to do is say "Hey, guys, why don't we do a low power campaign?"

I agree with this and reckon this is the crux of the problem. Although people will tell you in absolute terms this game can't do this or that, those opinions aren't necessarily that valid. Some people may have difficulty having the game work in a certain way for them, but others have found the system flexible enough to make many genres work.

Your troubles are in the realm beyond RAW (other than rule 0), and beyond debates of edition. You need to have open communication about expectations, preferably before the campaign starts so that everyone knows whats expected, including yourself. At that stage, you can pitch your idea (because you need to have ALL your players on board, or you will either end up having no game, or a game people don't want to play because it won't be fun for them). Banning is a fine option; nothing wrong with it, and in fact, this was a major assumption when any new book was published, that people would pick and choose the material that was suited to their campaign (people forget this). If you want to create a genre, be it low magic, low power, whatever, banning is a very good way to do it. I'd suggest you do it on a case by case basis, and again, keeping the communication open. There may need to be compromise.

It becomes harder mid-game, but still doable. Like some others have said, your best course now is maybe to talk to the guy and negotiate with him. Because its after the fact (the campaign's already started), it might be challenging, so keep in mind he has his goals and you have yours, and you may both need to compromise.

 

[delericho]

A little background: I am running a 3.5 game set in the Forgotten realms. Most of the players are great but I have a true Min-maxer.

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

I'm truly considering a reboot of his, if not everyone's characters.

Don't do this. You'll very likely end up not having any players as a result.

I know that sneak attack is situational but most of the creatures I can use that are immune are also immune to critical hits and that's bad for the rest of the group.

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.

But my big advice is two-fold:

Any ideas on how to keep the power level down without just flat out going ban-happy?

1. Don't try to run a low-power 3e game, and certainly not above 5th level. By that point, even the 'mundane' characters are quite clearly superhuman. It can be done, but you'll be fighting the system every step of the way, and with each level the PCs gain the fight will just get harder. And since it's also apparently not what your players really want, you'll be fighting them too.

2. Don't worry about it. Really, just don't. Pick your opponents to challenge your PCs, and don't worry about the power level of those PCs (provided they're not so out-of-whack they're destroying the game for each other), and certainly don't worry about things like Challenge Ratings, Encounter Levels, or similar things.

Honestly, concentrate more on just having fun, and a whole lot less on reining in the PCs.

 

[Herobizkit]

If you're concerned with the damage output of the PCs, put the PCs in situations where fighting isn't practical or smart - like in role-playing encounters, or traps/puzzles, or in countries/towns where carrying weapons is punishable...

Also, here's a trade secret - from the PC's perspective, they're doing all kinds of damage. From the DM's perspective, Hit Points (of Monsters) Don't Matter. You could give every monster 1-3 "hits" worth of life, and have the Swashthiefer take down the enemy one or two hits 'faster' than his pals.

 

[Chase A.]

Really? Wow. I think your problems are more complex than presented!

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

The problem isn't the player, the problem is a failure in communication, or just your expectations for the system at this level.
And, in my opinion, they'd be right. Banning all other books would weaken everyone's options, detract from 3.5's main draw, and, most importantly, not solve the problem.

That's actually the most damning thing about core only games; Wizards still win. They still have gate, shapechange, wish, and so on. Hell, even a full-blown Tippyverse is possible using purely core rules. On the other hand, melee has... the Horizon Tripper. That's it.
Yes you can. All you need to do is say "Hey, guys, why don't we do a low power campaign?"
Why? CoR is quite a good book.
I'd suggest against this. I can't speak for anyone else, but as a player, I'd be put off by this. I view trust as an important part of the group, so why go straight to the banhammer rather than just talking it out as a group.

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

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

Don't do this. You'll very likely end up not having any players as a result.

2. Don't worry about it. Really, just don't. Pick your opponents to challenge your PCs, and don't worry about the power level of those PCs (provided they're not so out-of-whack they're destroying the game for each other), and certainly don't worry about things like Challenge Ratings, Encounter Levels, or similar things.

Honestly, concentrate more on just having fun, and a whole lot less on reining in the PCs.

I've said no to some other things already. I seriously doubt that anyone but him would not play a core only game. My other players would be fine with it.
I've given up on CR already by this point.