The problem is choice

[amerigoV]

On the player not willing to play PHB only game:

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

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!

I do not find it that surprising. 3.5 has been out for a long time with a lot of options. Consider the player options available:

• PHB
• PHB2
• Spell Compendium
• Magic Item Compendium
• Complete Warrior, Divine, Arcane, Adventurer, Mage, Champion, Scoundrel, Psionic
• Frostburn, Sandstorm, Stormwrack
• Book of Exalted Deeds
• Races of Stone, Destiny, The Wild, The Dragon
  

Plus others I am sure.

"Ok, you can use this one book...." Even if you are not a power gamer, for some players you have cut out 80% of the options (granted that 80% is more specialized or deeper options of the core PHB). For a number of players making interesting builds is why they play D&D vs. less crunchy systems. This is especially so with 3.5, you can make exactly what you want if you purchased enough books .

IMO, D&D is part genre part rules. When you say "lets play D&D", that means more than just using a set of rules. While their experience varies (esp by edition), 3.5 was all about player options. That was its true mantra. To then say "lets play D&D, but only this book is allowed" will get you the same reaction from some as players as saying "lets play Star Wars without Jedi" - I mean, who would be silly enough to say that (sorry EotE, I could not resist)?


Plus, we do not know what the gaming options are for the player in question. Maybe they have a choice of groups - if so, why play in the group that you are not going to have fun in?

 

[Morrus]

Plus, we do not know what the gaming options are for the player in question. Maybe they have a choice of groups - if so, why play in the group that you are not going to have fun in?

I have fun by playing games with my friends. My choice of feats does not affect my fun. The game is far, far, far down the list below the people.

 

[amerigoV]

I have fun by playing games with my friends. My choice of feats does not affect my fun. The game is far, far, far down the list below the people.

But you may be presuming these are the player's only (gaming) friends. If a GM is going to put limits on the game then it up to them to sell the game to the players. The player always has a choice to play and they may decide that spending that time in other ways with other friends or family is more valuable to them.

(personally, I am not one to restrict games - I never have problems chopping up PCs regardless of the options - muhahaha)

 

[N'raac]

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.

There's a lot of distance between "PHB only" and "anything goes". I see no reason every of the cuff Dragon article, etc. should be automatic. The problem with vast supplement libraries, in general, is the need to test how every new item potentially combines with every prior item, and that gets worse with every new publication. That's why games gradually collapse under their own weight.

To this specific issue, I think it's also relevant to compare his damage to the other melee combatants. He should face opponents his sneak attack does not affect, including situations where flanking is difficult or impossible due to the layout. He should also face situations where his other abilities become important (skills, for example), and where his sneak attack lets him shine. I agree with [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] that a good variety of challenges helps let everyone shine.

However, I question the source of the problem. His Sneak Attack would be the same if he went pure rogue. The Swashbuckler will add in his INT bonus, and Craven adds his level to his damage although +15 still seems like a lot - that means 9 from STR, INT and magic? Seems like a pure rogue with 2 weapon fighting (avoiding Swashbuckler and Daring Outlaw entirely) would be an effective damage character.

Fear causing Undead will be an unpleasant encounter, and the player chose to be a coward when he selected the Craven feat.

Single biggest issue for me? Are the other players unhappy, or are you the voice in the wilderness?

 

[billd91]

But you may be presuming these are the player's only (gaming) friends. If a GM is going to put limits on the game then it up to them to sell the game to the players. The player always has a choice to play and they may decide that spending that time in other ways with other friends or family is more valuable to them.

(personally, I am not one to restrict games - I never have problems chopping up PCs regardless of the options - muhahaha)

Different arrangements work for different groups. My bottom line is that I don't feel a GM should be put in the position of running something they aren't comfortable running whether it's a mastery of the rules issue or a power option issue. That's a recipe for a bad gaming experience far beyond a player having to make himself comfortable without his preferred option.

We are currently playing a laid back, episodic 3.5 game as a backup to our main Mass Effect campaign. If the main GM can't run that for some reason (scheduling, work commitments left him no time to prep, etc), we take turns running short adventures for the 3.5 game. Because we've got multiple GMs, we decided to keep it simple and limit to core, which we all have access to, plus PH2 which adds some nice advanced feats for fighters and the knight, which I had been itching to try for a while.

 

[TwoSix]

I have fun by playing games with my friends. My choice of feats does not affect my fun. The game is far, far, far down the list below the people.

While true for many of us, doesn't the presence of a Gamers looking for Gamers section on this website indicate that being able to play the game is sometimes more important than hanging out with your friends? I mean, people will play with strangers for the sake of playing. I prefer my game groups with my friends, but I've certainly played with strangers in the past. Some have become friends, and some are game acquaintances only.

 

[TwoSix]

"Ok, you can use this one book...." Even if you are not a power gamer, for some players you have cut out 80% of the options (granted that 80% is more specialized or deeper options of the core PHB). For a number of players making interesting builds is why they play D&D vs. less crunchy systems. This is especially so with 3.5, you can make exactly what you want if you purchased enough books .

Exactly. There are a lot of RPGs I'll play core only, even several editions of D&D. (Rules Cyclopedia and 4e) But the factor that makes 3.5e/PF sing is the encyclopedic list of options you're allowed to use. The most fun of the game is in the character building.

 

[Dwimmerlied]

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

 

[Morrus]

But you may be presuming these are the player's only (gaming) friends. If a GM is going to put limits on the game then it up to them to sell the game to the players. The player always has a choice to play and they may decide that spending that time in other ways with other friends or family is more valuable to them.

I don't really think of my friends like that, and I certainly wouldn't consider someone who considers a feat more valuable than me a friend. Or someone who takes his ball and goes home because he doesn't get his way an adult.

 

[billd91]

I don't really think of my friends like that, and I certainly wouldn't consider someone who considers a feat more valuable than me a friend. Or someone who takes his ball and goes home because he doesn't get his way an adult.

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.