Ways to stop a powergamer

[Falstaff]

Just run a HackMaster campaign and you won't have ANY problems with powergamers.

The sad fact is that D&D 3.5 (is it still 3.5?) was created by powergamers and as such is a game for just such types.

 

[Falstaff]

Just run a HackMaster campaign and you won't have ANY problems with powergamers.

The sad fact is that D&D 3.5 (is it still 3.5?) was created by powergamers and as such is a game for just such types.

 

[Henry]

Just run a HackMaster campaign and you won't have ANY problems with powergamers.

Why would this be true? Is it due to the DM's, something unique about the system mechanics itself, or some intangible?

The sad fact is that D&D 3.5 (is it still 3.5?) was created by powergamers and as such is a game for just such types.

Can you provide some specific examples?

 

[NeoSamurai]

Dealing with problem powergamers...

The worse thing to do is make a big bad that can also take out the entire party to trump the powergamer PC . Never, ever, make ultimate bad guy o' doom, because you then get frustrated players when only one character can possibly beat him.

Resort to sheer numbers and tactics. Sure, you may have a PC with ungodly amounts of attacks but if s/he is using those attacks, then it's gonna be tough to dodge crossbow bolts and arrows (the appropriate feats, if I recall, require that one could not be on full out attacks). One of the nastiest things I've ever ran included orcs, cross-bows, trees and tactics.

You look at the LotR example. The main 3 non-hobbits (Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas) were probably 15+ lvl and had other things going for them but had to flee a number of times due to overwelming numbers or ended up fearing for their lives because their number was going to come up with all the action that was going on.

Another suggestion...

The type of rep that problem powergamer PC's should be getting for deeds that were used in earlier examples (not that the player in the examples is a "problem" powergamer) should be spreading pretty wide. People looking to make a name for themselves will be targeting the character, his family, his friends, etc. to either become famous, get the PC to do something, or both.

Eventually, the problems associated with that rep will become very unavoidable and troublesome. And they don't have to be big bad characters. They could just be annoyances that the PCs can swat easily. They just get annoying when they come up everytime they're trying to gather information, or working, etc. The PCs may be forced to come up with a permanent solution for the powergamer's character (i.e. start to threaten NPCs, live in the swamps, etc.) . Additionally, such rep could earn them jobs for near impossible feats/adventures (stealing the North Wind or something like that).

Another idea to try includes the role of the Problem PG PC in the campaign. If he's known for being a bully to the rest of the world or despotic or what not, have some villagers begin to lead revolts and what not against him and his band.

Just some suggestions.

 

[WizarDru]

Why would this be true? Is it due to the DM's, something unique about the system mechanics itself, or some intangible?

My general impression is that this is based off of the 'old school' feel of Hackmaster, where the DM is possessed of the capacity (and it is implied, the desire) to utterly destroy the PCs on a whim....hence, powergaming is theoretically eliminated, since no amount of it will gain you any sizable benefit over your fellow players...your adversary, the DM, will destroy you if chooses to, regardless of any real or perceived power differences.

At least, that's how I percieve the idea.

 

[Jolly Giant]

Like a lot of the other posters here, I really don't see a problem here... Epic melee experts SHOULD be able to do 200 damage on a good round, IMHO.

However, you obviously know a lot more about what's going on in your own campaign than we do. If this one character outshines the others, then my advise would be to help the rest of the party catch up with Oscar. Allow them to just HAPPEN to find some items that boost the abilities of the rest of the party. If magic items are rare (as you say they are), then finding just the right item can make a big difference for a character.

 

[NilesB]

"In the extreme case, just go hang around the Character Optimization board at the WotC site"

Could you post a link to these boards ?
I've looked around and not found them.

Thanks !!

Here

 

[Halivar]

Treat feats like PrCls. I know I just said it above, but it bears repeating: just because its in print doesn't mean its good for your campaign. If your powergamer favors warrior types, truncate the melee feat trees- eliminate great cleave, whirlwind attack, spring attack, and any 2 weapon fighting skill above improved.

You've got to be kidding. On the face of it, this strikes me as a vindictive response to the player, and patently unfair.

The reason why "warrior" is an NPC class only is because fighters without feats suck. That is to say, they are utterly, completely useless to everyone. Fighters are one-trick ponies (did I steal that from someone?). If they are not the primary damage dealers in combat, then just take the fighter class out all together, because they have no other use. Of course, that won't be the end. Eventually you'll have to ban any other melee class he'd cheese, like the paladin or ranger. In the end, bards will be the closest thing to a melee class you've got.

Rest is not to Dannyalcatraz, but to DM's in the audience:

That said, any DM who chases a powergamer around, banning every core class, core feat, or core skill he may want to take (because he will eventually find something else that's powerful, such is the way of the powergamer) ought to spare himself the grief, and the player the frustration, by simply not DM'ing for that player. Let the player join a different campaign where the DM can handle (and prepare for) that player's style of play without ruining the fun for him.

So, in summation: if you ban a core class, feat, or skill because of anything other than campaign setting relevance (i.e. no monks in Middle-Earth), then you need to seriously consider whether or not you are merely trying to overcome an inability to match the players in terms of playing ability. I'm not syaing that's what it is; you just need to consider it, that's all.

So, in summation of my summation: chopping down core rules = not fun = bad. Don't do it.

 

[wujenta]

I´ve been reading all the posts, and reached this conclusion: Oscar (well his pc) is not an ubber character, but only a very good one played very effectively. The problem comes when he plays his character along the others. He created the character at level 20, something I thing is better than playing 20 levels, in some aspects. I gave him about 500.000 gp in magic objects (I know standard is 760k more or less), but all the objects were optimal for his character, while the other pc´s have a lot of items that they dont use (Klaga for example still carries his +2 shocking two handed sword she used for the first levels) or that they have never used, as in our group we dont buy/sell magic items with the exception of potions and scrolls (but not potions of divine might, girallons blessing, scrolls of shapechange, etc) mainly potions of healing, and spells like teleport, fireball, etc.

 

[robberbaron]

All those who said the character is fine - I agree completely.

I don't consider myself a powergamer (sometimes I take feats for flavour rather than effectiveness) but as long as powergamers create their characters using the same rules I do there is no problem. That comes if you allow one PC access to feats/items not available to the rest of the group.

The powercharacter may have "optimised" items but the other PCs have some nice kit too. Their trouble with the dragon came from having cast many of their spells in previous encounters.

That's just part of gaming.

Maybe you could give the other characters a treat in the shape of a superpowerful NPC who will create magic items to order in exchange for their current items. Give them the items they really want.
If they are still, in your eyes, less effective than the Paladin then perhaps the problem lies with the way they play their characters. A badly-played Wizard is next to useless whereas a well-played one is titanic.