Too powerful? What am I missing... (please help)

[Rystil Arden]

I must now create a Bo9S maneuver called "evasive stance of equivocation".

Evasive Stance of Equivocation--While in the Evasive Stance of Equivocation, you can make a Bluff check as an immediate action to oppose to an opponent's attack roll. IF the bluff check is higher, you avoid the opponent's attack. However, you cannot make a direct truthful statement while in this stance.

 

[irdeggman]

I never suggested to not ever do these, especially the first one. The rules are the rules and should not be bent for Psionics.

But, that does not mean that the DM should go out of his way to make the game hard for the psionic PC either. The DM should either not allow psionic PCs, or he should live with them without staying up late at night thinking of ways to screw over the psionic PC with various types of ambushes and such.

I never said go out of his way nor did I say to stay up late to find ways around it. I said to take advantage of the limitations of the character. This applies in all cases. If they game invovles few encounter then those who can cast on the fly will shine (sorcerers and psions will rule). If the game involves long range (as in outdoors) encounters then character who rely on melee range will suffer. It is just an obvious observation that a DM must make adjustments to period.

But should a DM who has predominately close range encounters not be expected to adjust his style when players take advatange of that fact by using character concepts and builds that render the encounters too weak?

IMO the basic rules of D&D are based on x number of encounters of EL X per level.

The EL of an encounter changes based on situations. For example a situation where a dragon can only use some of its abilities is lower than one where the dragon can take advantage of all of them. This is a basic premise of running an effective (and enjoyable game) - things shouldn't be too easy nor should they be too hard.

 

[KarinsDad]

I never said go out of his way nor did I say to stay up late to find ways around it.

No, I did.

But, you might as well have said it. You are proposing that the DM change his style to find ways around the issue.

I said to take advantage of the limitations of the character. This applies in all cases. If they game invovles few encounter then those who can cast on the fly will shine (sorcerers and psions will rule). If the game involves long range (as in outdoors) encounters then character who rely on melee range will suffer. It is just an obvious observation that a DM must make adjustments to period.

Must? Why?

But should a DM who has predominately close range encounters not be expected to adjust his style when players take advatange of that fact by using character concepts and builds that render the encounters too weak?

Not in my opinion.

IMO the basic rules of D&D are based on x number of encounters of EL X per level.

The EL of an encounter changes based on situations. For example a situation where a dragon can only use some of its abilities is lower than one where the dragon can take advantage of all of them. This is a basic premise of running an effective (and enjoyable game) - things shouldn't be too easy nor should they be too hard.

Hence the reason I think that the DM should not be forced to adjust his style, rather he should sit down with his players if a class is too powerful and say:

"Look how easy you smoked those last 3 encounters. You did the lion's share of the work in short order and the other PCs hardly contributed. I could try to change my game to make things harder for your PC, but at the same time, that will probably make things harder for the other PCs as well. So, I would like you to retire this PC and come in with something a little less overwhelming. You are not required to do so, but it would enable the other PCs to be more in sync if you did.".

An acquaintance’s son got bored with his soccer team because they were so good and won all of their games each year and wanted to switch to a weaker team. Not everyone is like that, but unless you have a problem powergamer, most players should understand the need for balance and how the game is more enjoyable with balance as opposed to less enjoyable.

So, a voluntary retirement is also a solution to resolving the issue. Some game elements are just out of balance.

 

[irdeggman]

No, I did.

But, you might as well have said it. You are proposing that the DM change his style to find ways around the issue.

Why is alright to make an inference for someone else's statements but to be defensive when someone else does it to yours?

Must? Why?

I would say for adaptability - which is another core quality for any DM. To adapt to player's methods and utilization of abilities.

Not in my opinion.

For which you are entitled.

Hence the reason I think that the DM should not be forced to adjust his style, rather he should sit down with his players if a class is too powerful and say:

This comes down to a defintion (and opinion) of what is "too powerful". I see things more in terms of "situational". In certain situations certain PC types and build excel.

"Look how easy you smoked those last 3 encounters. You did the lion's share of the work in short order and the other PCs hardly contributed. I could try to change my game to make things harder for your PC, but at the same time, that will probably make things harder for the other PCs as well. So, I would like you to retire this PC and come in with something a little less overwhelming. You are not required to do so, but it would enable the other PCs to be more in sync if you did.".

Again - situational.


A Player and DM should work together to come up with a viable (and fun to play) character based on the game style being run.

Players will create PCs that take advatange of a DM's style of playing.

If the DM does not adjust to changes then he will cease to be effective in his role. The game will become demanding, the players will become impatient and lose interest or become frustrated and either way the game will no longer be fun.

Change is the way of all things.

"A relationship is like a shark. It needs to keep moving or it dies. What we have here isa a dead shark"

Woody Allen from the movie "Annie Hall"

 

[wildstarsreach]

Psionics is not broken, the player is broken. Like an old saying, "Guns don't kill people, People kill People!"
Yes there are combos in almost every class that become broken. The thing is for the DM and player to work outifthere is a problem. The original starting post with the wilder shows basically a strong one trick pony.

Now it is coming down about the argument the shapers or those who use Astral Construct. The argument that you get one good creature vs 1-3 slightly weaker creatures is not a problem that many make it out to be. I would rather have more creatures because it takes more attacks to stop them. Wizard/Sorcerers have as much utility as a an astral contructer. Their access to any creature on the lists that have as much utility with all the different abilities as on the astral contructs ability list.

Below is my psiforged shaper currently in play. He is not a god. He is good but any one that can get in close will win. His tactics are to get enough shields between him and the enemy and then blast then to death. That is what a Summonners strategy is as well.

Now my group has awarded me with Steve Jacksons Munchkin's guide to power gaming because I am an efficient player. It is the player who makes the appearance of brokenness not the rules. If a DM has a problem, he should talk with the player of changes to make it more balanced.

Broker
Warforged Psion (Shaper) 12
Neutral Medium construct (living construct)
Init +0 Senses Spot +4, Listen +4
Languages Common, Draconic
----------------------------------------
AC 12, touch 10, flat-footed 12
HP 65(-1) = 64 (12 HD)
Fort +7, Ref +4, Will +10
----------------------------------------
Speed 30 Ft.
Melee MW Staff (+7/+2 1d6/1d6) or MW Dagger (+7 1d4)
Natural Slam +2 (1d4)
Ranged MW Lt Crossbow (+7 1d8)
Combat Options Greater Concealing Amorpha 50% miss chance
Base Attack +6/+1, Grapple +6
----------------------------------------
Psionics (ML 12th, ranged touch +6, PP 162/7/7)
1st (1) – Astral Construct, Vigor +60 HP, Mind Thrust DC 21 12d10, Grease, Force Screen
2nd (3) – Ego Whip, Repair Damage, Concussion Blast, Swarm of Crystals 12d4, Share pain, Levitate, Energy Missile 12d6 DC 21 (5 Targets)
3rd (5) – Ectoplasmic Cocoon, Time Hop, Energy Bolt
4th (7) – Fabricate, Energy Adaptation, Telekinetic Maneuver, Freedom of Movement, Dimension Door
5th (9) – Hail of Crystals (12d4/spec DC 21), Plane Shift
6th (11) – Crystallize DC 21, Temporal Acceleration, Psionic Contingency
----------------------------------------
Abilities Str 10, Dex 10, Con 14 (16), Int 18 (22), Wis 13 (15), Cha 7
----------------------------------------
SQ Immune to Poison, Sleep effects, Disease, Paralysis, Nausea, Fatigue, Exhaustion, effects that cause the sickened condition, Cannot Heal lethal damage naturally, ½ effect from cures spells, Does not need to eat, sleep or breath, Composite Plating, Natural Slam 1d4
----------------------------------------
Feats Psiforged Body, Combat Meditation, Psicrystal Affinity, Boost Construct, Expanded Knowledge (Energy Missile), Empower, Psicrystal Containment
Skills Conc 15/+18, Psicraft 15/+24, Know (Psionics) 15/+22, Bluff 13/+11, Craft Sculpt 15/+23, Search 0/+5, Profession Sailing 3/+4
----------------------------------------
Psicrystal
Alertness, Improved Evasion, Self Propulsion, Share Powers, Sighted, Telepathic Link, Deliver touch powers, Telepathic Speech, Flight, PR 16, Personality Artiste Sculpting (+3 to craft) Str 1, Dex 15, Con -, Int 8, Wis 10, Chr 10, HP 32, AC 21, Touch 21, FF 19, Init +2, Climb +14, Listen +6, Move Silently +6, Spot +6
----------------------------------------
Action Points 11/2d
----------------------------------------
Possessions
Elixer of Fire Breath, Dorje of Repair Damage 3d8+3 (50), Psionatrix of Metacreativity, Psionatrix of Greater Concealing Amorpha, Magic Headband of Intellect +4, Amulet of Health +2, Multi-faceted Persona (+2 to any stat), Cognizant Crystal (7)

 

[KarinsDad]

A Player and DM should work together to come up with a viable (and fun to play) character based on the game style being run.

I think the OP's situation is more one of "Opps. The DM had no clue that this PC was going to be this powerful." To me, it is WotC's responsibility to maintain a certain level of balance and the DM's responsibility to check to make sure this has happened for his game. It is one of the reasons some people come here to the boards to read and write on such topics.

It is not the DM's responsibility to change his DMing style. He can do so if he desires, but he should not be required to.

It is his responsibility to allow the rules in the game which he considers reasonable and to disallow or modify rules that he does not (which of course could mean that he considers all written rules to be reasonable).

Players will create PCs that take advatange of a DM's style of playing.

If the DM does not adjust to changes then he will cease to be effective in his role. The game will become demanding, the players will become impatient and lose interest or become frustrated and either way the game will no longer be fun.

Change is the way of all things.

And that is why we have house rules.

So that the rules can adapt to the DM as opposed to the DM adapting to the rules.

The game is about fun and that includes the DM. If the DM is being forced to do strange encounter backflips so that the Wilder is not too powerful, the DM might not be having as much fun as if the game rules just flow in the way he is comfortable.


You are suggesting the DM change his style to handle overpowered crap, I am suggesting that the player either voluntarily drop the overpowered crap or the DM do it for him.

Just different approaches, but I think yours infringes on the entitlement of the DM whereas mine infringes on misguided perceived rules entitlement of the player. To me, both are entitled to a certain social contract, but the DM's entitlement is stronger with regard to rules because he is the DM. IMO. If he oversteps this, then the players can vote in a new DM or whatever.

But in no way should a DM be forced to adapt to the rule set.

 

[phoenixgod2000]

I have never found Psionics to be broken in any way. My Philosophy is that whatever a player can do a DM can do better. If Wilders are so good, why haven't they run into any on the opposing side? Turn a few wizards and sorcerers into equivelent psions and wilders. It isn't about altering the campagin style, its about expanding it. The orginal poster makes it sound like the only psion in the world is the PC and that is a surefire way to make things off balance.

I run almost exclusively pregenerated adventures so I do a lot of work in tailoring them and expanding them to include things beyond the basics. I promise that once you turn a few wizards or sorcerers into psions that they won't seem so big, bad, or scary. they'll just be another power in the bag of tricks

Besides, you don't know the meaning of pain till you allow a Gestalt Elan Beguiler/Psion

Good, god almighty!

 

[Jhaelen]

My Philosophy is that whatever a player can do a DM can do better.

qft. In my gaming group I am typically the one introducing new material exactly for this reason. If players develop a 'killer' tactic it's only a question of time until they encounter someone using their tactic against them.
That's also why it never pays to insist on being allowed to utilize 'broken' material. Isn't there a saying 'What goes around comes around?'

 

[moritheil]

But, you might as well have said it. You are proposing that the DM change his style to find ways around the issue.

Not necessarily, if the DM takes the party's abilities into account to begin with. (I'm not advocating that, just noting that logically if that were true he isn't suggesting a change. I normally don't change my encounters based on the party either.)

So, a voluntary retirement is also a solution to resolving the issue. Some game elements are just out of balance.

Not everyone is comfortable with asking their players to retire characters that are simply too good.

I think the OP's situation is more one of "Opps. The DM had no clue that this PC was going to be this powerful."

Fully agree.

To me, it is WotC's responsibility to maintain a certain level of balance

I thought their only acknowledged responsibilities were to their shareholders, as evinced by their product decisions.

. . . and the DM's responsibility to check to make sure this has happened for his game. It is one of the reasons some people come here to the boards to read and write on such topics.

Yes. For psionics it seems to boil down to "offer more targets, throw enemy psionic characters/monsters at the party, or both."

My Philosophy is that whatever a player can do a DM can do better.

Sounds like mine. Only it's "Never feed the DM trash; he can come back with better trash." Wars of escalation are rarely if ever won by PCs.

 

[NilesB]

Ok, let's have it shall we?

How about we run an Astral Construct III versus any of the options and/or the typical PC of the same level? A psioncist summons one verus an arcane using one.

Okay... Celestial Bison I chose you!
AC3 hits CB 75% of the time dealing 1d6+7 minus 5 for damage resistance add an additional 5% damage for crits and AC3 deals an average of 4.33125 damage. The average number of rounds it takes for AC3 to Chew through CBs 37 Hp is 8.45256...

Lets see if it can last that long. CB hits 45% of the time for 1d8+9 damage no chance of a critical averaging 6.075 damage a round. with 36 ht points to deal it will take the Bison an average of 5.925925... rounds to reduce AC3 to a sticky smear.

Winner Celestial Bison. Unless they both run out of duration before anyone dies.