Why do you (they) break characters?

[Torm]

I think most of the characters in the games I run are a bit "broken", which is to say, balanced heavy. But since that tends to be true of the adversaries and situations I throw at them, too, it all seems to more or less work out.

 

[Justin Bacon]

Not a terribly useful suggestion, Justin. In fact, it just compounds the problem - why not just say, in your best 3 year old style, 'Bang, you're dead, HAHA!'?

Lemme see if I've got this straight:

1. I say that you should challenge the characters in your campaign.

2. You say that this is the same as saying, "Bang, you're dead, HAHA!"

...

Wow. If the word "challenging" means nothing but arbitrary and capricious death to you, then remind me to stay well clear of any games you decide to run.

Meanwhile, back over here in reality, these are the simple facts: D&D is a game in which power levels run from wimpier-than-real-life to god-like power. Unless your PCs have truly overshot the latter, then the only problem you've got is that you're trying to run a 1st level adventure for a character that has 6th level ability.

And that may not be because their characters are literally 6th level characters. Maybe that's because they've tweaked their character above-and-beyond the average. Maybe that's because they're very effective tactical planners. Maybe that's because you've allowed them to load up on more magical equipment than they should have.

But none of those things are actually problems, unless you choose to limit your imagination and let them be problems.

A couple years back I had a group that was tactically proficient: The fighters knew how to handle a melee. The spellcasters knew just what spells to use. The rogue could always find his way to the perfect positions for sneak attacks and support. This was a slick, well-run group that -- as a result -- performed consistently about two levels above their actual levels. Rather than moaning about how "broken" these characters were, I simply planned my adventures with encounters 1-3 ELs higher than I normally would've used for a party of their level.

In another campaign, I intentionally gave the PCs artifact-level magic items at very low levels. These players weren't tactically proficient, but these artifacts obviously increased their potency. And, again, the challenges they faced were a little bit tougher than the challenges they'd be able to overcome if they lacked their artifacts.

So, no, when it comes to D&D I don't buy the argument that the PCs have gotten "too powerful to be hit". That's quite impossible. And if that's all the information you're going to give about your so-called "problem", then I'm going to assume the real problem is that you're not designing adventures which match the actual capabilities of your playing group.

Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[hero4hire]

It's kinda funny...Our group's DMs (we switch up every so often) usually scales the adventures to the PCs capabilities. Or puts us in situations when said uber-character cant make full use of his/her twinked out combo.

I always enjoyed playing a character who shows up the uber-powerful character by doing something clever and saving the day.

 

[fiddlerjones]

I seriously doubt that this character is truly "broken." Broken characters usually come from strange house rules or the use of third-party sources. The charactes you describe are powerful and efficient, and this isn't necessarily bad. If the character's AC is too high to hit with most challenges, send a beholder (or gauth) or maybe a swarm. Deny him his dex bonus, sunder his armor. There are ways around any focus. Good luck, and have fun.

 

[wingsandsword]

I see it as a stress test for the system, the easier it is to break a character, the more obvious the mechanical faults in the character progression/creation aspects of the game.

Broken characters aren't very fun to play (powerful is fun, broken isn't), but they can be fun to create, as a mental exercise.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

simple questions to everyone...
Why do you (or your players) break your (their) characters?

I do not understand why, besides wanting to always win....does it not remove some (most) of the fun from the game if you know no one will be able to hit you (them)?

I'm not responding to your question directly, because I don't play with people whose only motivation is the mechanical side of the game, and I'm not one of them myself.

Personally, though, the extent to which I try and "optimise" my characters depends upon the extent to which they're supposed to be really good at what they do.

It's rare that I choose to play the Greatest Archer In The World; in certain circumstances, though, I will deliberately choose to have my character develop a mechanically-powerful schtick (in combat or otherwise), which will usually come at the cost of deficiencies elsewhere.

For instance, I joined a d20 Wheel of Time campaign a few years ago. The party lacked a strong offensive fighter, since the only such character they had was multiclassing into a channelling class (and keeping it from the characters, if not necessarily the players). I created a mercenary ex-soldier whose main forte was mounted combat - he'd served in the cavalry - but who was also pretty good on foot.

I coupled this effectiveness with a tactical idiocy on his part, due to overconfidence - he'd spent so long (prior to joining the party) just charging in and destroying the opposition that he saw no reason to doubt it would work the next time, and it continued to work for quite a while in the actual game. It didn't help that I also played him completely ignorant and quite skeptical of the various supernatural weirdness in the world: not the channellers of the Aes Sedai, no, even he realised they were genuine, but he didn't believe in the monsters he soon encountered . . . and it really didn't help that the first few times they encountered the most supposedly dangerous, he survived and even triumphed. First he defeated one trolloc, then three . . . and then they managed to beat back a myrdraal.

He also owned a poor set of social skills - which got him into trouble often, and the whole party once. Again, though, sticking closely to his personality just made things worse - dumb luck on an untrained Bluff check saved half the party's bacon once when he convinced some soldiers he was drunk and needed an escort back to town, away from the ditch where the others were crouching. After that, he was unstoppable, though I tried not to be a jerk and ruin the game for others.

My point is - sensible players combine mechanical efficiency, when it's appropriate, with a realistic personality. Maybe you'd be less annoyed by this guy if he tried to flesh out his character's history and nature more?

 

[Odhanan]

Rather than moaning about how "broken" these characters were, I simply planned my adventures with encounters 1-3 ELs higher than I normally would've used for a party of their level.

Exactly how I handle powerful/very efficient characters. No problem with that. I have a question though: Do you modify the XP gains by the same amount of levels as well?

 

[DonTadow]

Really? Nothing can hit him? Zeus himself cannot come down in his chariot from heaven and smite him with a thundebolt? He's totally and completely unhittable by anything and anyone in your game world?

I doubt it.

So why don't you try to craft some scenarios and some opponents that can challenge this character?

Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net

I have a character like this in my campaign. Not that anything can't hit him, but I don't want to put the party in unneccessary danger to "challenge" the one player. IHe's not broken (I woldn't use that terminology) as I've personally checked every little bit of his character.

Every player has a weakness. And with this character ( a 11th level fighter whom gets 4 hits a tern and takes average damage of 20 to 40, crits 25% of the time which raises the damage from 50 to 100) its his will. He knows it too. I always make sure the BBEG has some nice compel and domination spells on hand.

It's up to the DM to know your players and their weaknesses. And especially watch what they pick when their leveling and dont be afraid to veto things the writers didn't intend (which often happens when you blend setting books). This is my best advice. Keep a little index card of each character's strengths and weaknesses. When my party fought aLIch last session, I knew that the fighter was going to have the hardest time, because his physical attacks were going to be null (as each physcal attack to the lich damaged the weaker party members) and the Lich was smart enough to figure that the 8 foot forged is the best physical member of the party.

You can design an encounter, keep the party's ECL and still challenge everyone. If push comes to shove forget targeting him, start targeting what makes him tick. Ability drains are always nice, so are rustmonsters and other creatuers that steal magical items. All of these have low ecls, but a party caught off guard it can be very effective.

 

[Whimsical]

simple questions to everyone...
Why do you (or your players) break your (their) characters?

I do not understand why, besides wanting to always win....does it not remove some (most) of the fun from the game if you know no one will be able to hit you (them)?

The answer is no; it does not remove some of the fun of the game for him.

I bet you that if you ran him through ten scenarios in a row where he takes no damage, he would be thanking you for the best game of his life. Some people want to play the bad ass. Always on top of things. Never fazed by anything. Hyperconfident. Hyperskilled. Legendary. Ubercool.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

One comment: it's a strange curiousity that DMs seem to be far more annoyed by relatively fragile characters with very high AC who dish out moderate amounts of damage than by very tough, high hit point characters who dish out good (or even obscene) damage but get hit fairly regularly.

Why do DMs think they have to hit in order to have fun?

[Half-tongue in cheek, half real question--I know for my part, the frustration is often that said "unhittable" character can't do anything else so I pound the useful members of the party while he's sitting there being "unhittable" but otherwise useless. Someone else's character is going to die because he's being played like a sissy. Well defended glass canon type characters are less frustrating because at least they're not putting other peoples' characters at risk by not contributing]