PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

John Phillips wrote:
> "David Serhienko" wrote
>
>>I've tried to deisgn scenarios to highlight the Ranger's outdoor skills,
>>and that helps, but for the life of me, I can't imagine how to make the
>>Human Fighter feel useful, when standing anywhere near the Barbarian.
>>
>>They are both designed to get in there and 'mix it up', but the
>>Barbarian has Rage, Higher hit points, etc.
>>
>>Any ideas on how I can design a scenario or two to move the spotlight
>>off the barb onto the fighter?
>
>
> Its hard to say anything exact not know what feats the fighter has, but play
> to his strengths. One thing the fighter can do is wear heavy armor, so let
> him. Maybe throw in a nice suit of magic plate and a shield and let him
> become an AC machine.

For that matter, just throw in a Master Work matched set of plate and
shield. It'd be better than the chain shirt he uses now, and wouldn't
really be out of line as loot for 5th level PCs, plus, it doesn't
contribute to a magical arms race.

DWS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112212183.832312.102090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Had some orcs that built crenelated defenses along a ledge
> that was a little above the ledge on the other side of
> a 10ft chasm. A higher ledge that kind of looked along
> the length of the chasm was also crenelated. A narrow

"Crenelated"? I looked it up, but don't know what exactly it looks like.
Got a visual for me?

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
news:1112213504.331695.177840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > ...I suspect the Barbarian may fail his spot check... I'm not sure
> why
> > > I get that feeling.
> >
> > That's the kind of DMing I can get behind. 😉
>
> Dear god. I hope you guys' players are aware that you've Rule Zeroed
> the Spot skill to only work when it's convenient for you.

Not all the time, just when it's remarkably convenient, and will result in
saving the campaign from imminent meta-game destruction as players leave
because they are nowhere near useful enough to be taking part. What's wrong
with fudging a few rolls from time to time, for the sake of the game?

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

drow wrote:
> Alien mind control rays made David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> write:

>>Heh. Originally, there were two NPC clerics, one travelling with the A
>>Team, and one with the B Team.
>
> i still can't understand why nobody in a party would want to play a
> cleric. they're the most damn fun...

Four Players total, two of which trade off DMing duties. The two
non-DMs are new to tabletop RPGs, and so chose 'easy' to run classes
(i.e. avoided the spellcasting classes). One wanted to cast spells, so
we suggested sorceror as the easiest of the spell casters to get used to
(fewest spells to learn about, etc).

Both DM2 and I wanted to try something new. DM2 plays a Cleric in
another Campaign, so he chose to try out a Bard. I've played tons of
Clerics and Fighters over the years, but never, for some reason, and
straight up wizard.

Thus, no one wanted to be a cleric... this time out =) It isn't any
reflection on the class.

>>I'm going over to chat with DM2 about this an hour before session start
>>next time, because I see a problem in the making... The "All Orc
>>Theater" show is about to start if we don't do something.
>
> everyone knows orcs is no good and evil, its time fer a lynchin!

GOOD IDEA. The Orc Barbarian is currently unsupervised, hanging out in
the Player's rented townhouse. I bet he gets himself into some trouble
in town and gets arrested. He is, after all, not, in any sense of the
word, civilized... he's been out of the forests for all of a week.

DWS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Nikolas Landauer" <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote in message
news:i7fm41ddfuggj5dth7uuugl3sn9qfjka5p@4ax.com...
> You mentioned that they use the rage berries on fights with people who
> look like "nonmooks".
>
> Solution: Put some effort into making the mooks seem like nonmooks.
> To some degree, this is similar to a kobold-bravado scenario Goslin
> suggested elsewhere. Put real detail into their descriptions, have
> separate character sheets for them (that the players can see exist,
> but can't read)... Despite them being War1s, etc. Then write a
> nonmook up with no more than a short statblock to remind you of his
> abilities (this works best if you're very familiar with the nonmook),
> among other stat blocks of mooks and nonmooks, and describe the
> nonmook in a seemingly bored fashion.

Oooh, I like that. Especially with my players, they use metagame
information almost at will. They'd actually start planning something if
they saw me pulling out character sheets and the like...

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" wrote
> "John Phillips" wrote
> > > > I am tempted to consider this a munchkin problem, but then again,
the
> > > > only thing the player has done is go for the Great Sword, and,
really,
> > > > wouldn't any self-respecting barbarian? Maybe a Great Axe.
> > >
> > > It sure sounds like pure & distilled power gaming to me.
> >
> > What, you think a big strong barbarian should wield a dagger?
>
> At least he'd have character. 😉

and he wouldn't if he had a great big sword?

> There are, of course, logical things to do, but it doesn't always mean
"pick
> the weapon with the most damage potential". As long as you have *A*
weapon
> that can realistically be used in combat, it doesn't much matter what it
is.

Right, that's why people in real life never used Great Big Swords.

> A paladin we had chose warhammer as his primary weapon, definitely NOT an
> optimal choice from a mechanics perspective,

Unless he is fighting skeletons.

>but it make him a paladin with CHARACTER.

Ah, so "CHARACTER" is defined by what weapon a Character wields?
Got it.


John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

madafro@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> David Serhienko wrote:
>
>>madafro@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>
>>>Do you have/use the Book of Exalted Deeds? Perhaps the Forces of
> Good
>>>have something in mind for this fighter above and beyond a
> Paladin's
>
>>>role. It'll take some careful handling on your end, but you might
>>>consider giving the fighter access to some of the Exalted feats and
>>>PrCs if the situation warrants it.

>>I've thought about that a bit. I'd already been seriously
> considering
>>having the Fighter be the center of the next adventure cycle I run.
> I'd
>>been thinking that I could have it be a Family Affair (since the
> Player
>>has done a LOT of work to flesh out the Fighter's family background).
>
>
>>Tying in a Holy/Celestial angle at the same time could be fun, but
> doing
>>both at once would likely marginalize everyone else.
>
>
> Hard to suggest anything without knowing the fighter's family history,
> but it's encouraging that the player has gone into that kind of detail.

He (the player) his cahrted out the age, gender and number of offspring
of every single ancestor of his great grandfather. He hasn't specified
where they all are, as he knows I would want to use that as a game hook,
as possible.

There are literally hundreds of NPCs in the direct branches of his
family tree worked out. He is a business partner in a weapon smithery
with a second cousin, for example.

> Perhaps the fighter has a sister or female cousin that has been
> consigned to a nunnery since she was small, and has recently developed
> a baffling case of stigmata on her fifteenth birthday. The markings
> portend some kind of Big Thing that the girl must accomplish, and the
> fighter's task (along with his companions if they so choose) is to
> protect her while she does it. The girl could be destined for
> martyrdom in the name of a good but unpopular and dangerous cause, or
> will bear a Child of Significance.
>
> Perhaps the prophecy associated with this girl involves her as a
> martyr, and a second, nameless force that must deal the deathstroke for
> her to finally accomplish her purpose. The fighter may be destined to
> fill that role, much as it may pain him to do so.
>
> Anyway, I'm painting with a broad brush. Any key hooks in this
> fighter's family history that you might grab onto?

The story is pretty sketchy. His Great Grandfather was a weaponsmith of
much fame. GGF's son's were all weapon smiths as well, one of which
went traveling to learn new methods (perhaps mystical methods), and
dissappeared.

His father is a small town smith, who makes weapons, also, but primarily
does decoative iron work.

The family tree includes a special code for 'is involved in smithing'
for each person on the tree.

That is incredibly important to the family, you see.

You seem to have a powerful talent for spinning out storylines, Jay.

Anything here strike some creative sparks?

DWS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

freakybaby wrote:
> freakybaby <Here-I-Am@No-Where.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9629893D3604AHereIAmNoWherecom@216.196.97.142:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>Gang up on him/her using reach weapons to gain flanking, stay out of
>>his reach and the reach of the fighter as well, make them think
>>through the combats
>
>
> Sorry I forgot about improved uncanny dodge, there is no flanking bonus,
> though multiple opponents with reach weapons surrounding the barbarian is
> still a good idea. If you want to up the stakes, toss in a rogue four
> levels higher to do sneak attacks on the barbarian.

You sir, are evil =-) This is in response to BOTH your posts. I've
jotted those things down in my growing list of 'DeCentralizing the
Barbarian in Combat' tips.

Thanks. Got more?

DWS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
> news:1112213504.331695.177840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > ...I suspect the Barbarian may fail his spot check... I'm not
sure
> > why
> > > > I get that feeling.
> > >
> > > That's the kind of DMing I can get behind. 😉
> >
> > Dear god. I hope you guys' players are aware that you've Rule
Zeroed
> > the Spot skill to only work when it's convenient for you.
>
> Not all the time, just when it's remarkably convenient, and will
result in
> saving the campaign from imminent meta-game destruction as players
leave
> because they are nowhere near useful enough to be taking part.
What's wrong
> with fudging a few rolls from time to time, for the sake of the game?

It's bad for the same reason rubber-band AI is wrong in a racing game.
It rewards stupidity by the players.

Let's examine the scenario that was posted, shall we? If the players
had (stupidly) handed the berries around, some for the spellcasters,
some for the rogue, some for the barbarian... there would be no
problem, and they'd still have the berries. But because they were smart
and optimized their resources, they now get them (unfairly) taken away.

Similarly, if you fudge die rolls in a fight just because it's going
badly for the players, how are they supposed to figure out what's wrong
with their tactics? Evidently nothing, since they defeated the nasties,
right?

Laszlo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
>
> In the last week or so, though, it has all stopped. Syndicate One has
> dissappeared from sight, according to Syndicate Two, and the body of
> its main leader has been stolen from the Traitor's Gallows from which
> it hung.

Here comes the /raise dead/ (or /resurrect/, if needed). Or some
/animate dead/-type action (higher level; nobody cares about zombies).

This is one reason traitors and the like are typically dismembered,
cremated, and the ashes scattered. If it take a 9th-level spell to
bring someone back, it's *way* less likely.

You do lose the 'reminder' of the corpse swinging gently in the wind,
but a public execution like taht tends to get the same point across.
And provide entertainment for the children.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:
> David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
>
>>In the last week or so, though, it has all stopped. Syndicate One has
>>dissappeared from sight, according to Syndicate Two, and the body of
>>its main leader has been stolen from the Traitor's Gallows from which
>>it hung.
>
>
> Here comes the /raise dead/ (or /resurrect/, if needed). Or some
> /animate dead/-type action (higher level; nobody cares about zombies).

Yep. That's our guess (I ran the session where the party faced off with
the Leader, the otehr DM is running now, and he was the one who
'dissappeared the body').

> This is one reason traitors and the like are typically dismembered,
> cremated, and the ashes scattered. If it take a 9th-level spell to
> bring someone back, it's *way* less likely.

Yep. It wasn't up to us, of course. When the Prince heard we'd killed
the guy, he decided to display the body (as you mention below) as a
message to all until the Next Full Moon. *cough* didn't quite stay put
that long.

> You do lose the 'reminder' of the corpse swinging gently in the wind,
> but a public execution like taht tends to get the same point across.
> And provide entertainment for the children.

Indeed.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

madafro@sbcglobal.net <madafro@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> There's only so much you can do about this as the DM, as it comes down
> to what players choose for their characters, and how well they use
> what they chose. If the player isn't happy with playing a plain
> fighter, then he needs to look at other classes or options he could
> take on. Maybe he could go fighter/rogue and become a sneak attack
> specialist, for example, and take advantage of the barbarian for
> flanking. Adding a spellcasting class could also augment his fighting
> ability with the right spells. What kind of feat choices did he make,
> and are they doing anything for him?

For that matter, he's getting into prestige class territory.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:
> madafro@sbcglobal.net <madafro@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>There's only so much you can do about this as the DM, as it comes down
>>to what players choose for their characters, and how well they use
>>what they chose. If the player isn't happy with playing a plain
>>fighter, then he needs to look at other classes or options he could
>>take on. Maybe he could go fighter/rogue and become a sneak attack
>>specialist, for example, and take advantage of the barbarian for
>>flanking. Adding a spellcasting class could also augment his fighting
>>ability with the right spells. What kind of feat choices did he make,
>>and are they doing anything for him?
>
>
> For that matter, he's getting into prestige class territory.

I had an interesting idea just now. He's already stated he's not
interested in PrCs, but...

One out of adventuring situation is that the Fighter has a weapon smith
business that he co-owns with a cousin. His cousin runs the business,
and the Fighter provided the capital to get started (a location, tools,
materials). He'll only be making a hundred gold or so a year this way.

Maybe I'll have a seemingly destitute old veteran type approach the
Fighter for a MW sword. He'll beg and plead for the Fighter to make the
sword and beg him to make it for a pittance. The man will tell a sob
story of injury, and illness, and being poor, and say that his son is
trying to convince a minor lordling to take him on as a man-at-arms.
That way, maybe his son will have a better chance than his odl man ever did.

If the Fighter agrees to do it, the old man will be so thankful he'll
agree to teach the Fighter every fighting trick he knows (I'll give the
Fighter access to the Combat Maneuvers from Malhavoc Press's Book of
Iron Might over the course of a few months).

DWS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Clawhound <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
> David Serhienko wrote:
>
> Ah, the figher problem compounded by an optimization problem. This is a
> good puzzle. The figher is already outlcassed in two niches.
>
> Let me brainstorm. This stuff is iffy.
> - Get the fighter a flaming sword. Then trolls.

Hell, just trolls. Getting close to them buggers is *bad*. Instead of
a flaming sword, a flaming weapon with *reach* (trolls also get reach,
so this doesn't keep you completely safe, but it does prevent the AoO as
you close).


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
> "David Serhienko" <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
> news:114jg3trvk9s68b@corp.supernews.com...
>> Now, in my estimation, part of this problem is that none of the other
>> characters are so 'laser targeted' in the scope of their abilities, but,
>> even so, shouldn't it have taken more levels than 5 for the barbarian to
>> outstrip everyone else in pure combat monsteryness?
>>
>> I am tempted to consider this a munchkin problem, but then again, the
>> only thing the player has done is go for the Great Sword, and, really,
>> wouldn't any self-respecting barbarian? Maybe a Great Axe.
>
> It sure sounds like pure & distilled power gaming to me.
>
>> I've tried to deisgn scenarios to highlight the Ranger's outdoor skills,
>> and that helps, but for the life of me, I can't imagine how to make the
>> Human Fighter feel useful, when standing anywhere near the Barbarian.
>>
>> They are both designed to get in there and 'mix it up', but the
>> Barbarian has Rage, Higher hit points, etc.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, not terribly familiar with the barbarian(I
> play 2E), but aren't they NOT allowed to wear any serious armor?

They're allowed to. They don't start with proficiency in it, and it
interferes with some of their abilities, but a barbarian can wear full
plate and rage.

However, it seems likely that a player like this would be resistant to
doing so. It means either wearing unproficient armor or spending a feat
on armor proficiency, and it means he can't get around as well. It
seems a lot of players designed around light (and sometimes medium)
armor *really* don't like doing that.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:41:38 -0600, David Serhienko
<david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> scribed into the ether:




>Also, while I'm asking, I know you add 1.5x strength bonus when using a
>two handed weapon, but shouldn't that bonus already have been figured
>into the damage dice for the weapon when it REQUIRES two-handed use?

No, because with an Enlarge spell (for example), a 2-handed weapon can be
single-hand wielded. It would also make the bastard sword (martial 2H,
exotic 1H) a headache to list the stats for.

Also, the strength bonus applies to any weapon, not just express 2-handers.
You can use a longsword with two hands and get the same bonus.

And last but not least...how can they assign a strength bonus to an unknown
strength? A 10 strength fighter is getting 1.5x0=0 bonus, where a 26
strength raging barbarian is getting +12.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
> Mongoose _Classic Play: Book of Dragons_ has a system for tracking this
> sort of thing (it's used for 'sneaking up on a dragon's lair', but it
> pretty adaptable). Basically, the lair/complex has an alertness rating,
> based in part on the number and quality of minions, attitude of the
> dragon, etc. As certain events happen ('patrol goes missing far away:
> minor bump', 'patrol gets attacked close to lair, but at least one
> survivor returns: BIG bump') security tightens up -- more patrols,
> greater alertness, and so on.

That sounds a lot like the alertness system in one of Sword & Sorcery's
early D20 modules. I don't remember the name, but it had a "reverse
dungeon" gimmick. The players get to play both a band of heroes and a
band of ogres.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:41:27 -0500, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:nq2k415t7ccj2h0k369l57fn3e5e53us37@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:53:20 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
>> <autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>>
>> > > I am tempted to consider this a munchkin problem, but then again, the
>> > > only thing the player has done is go for the Great Sword, and, really,
>> > > wouldn't any self-respecting barbarian? Maybe a Great Axe.
>> >
>> > It sure sounds like pure & distilled power gaming to me.
>>
>> What? Because he's playing a barbarian that took a good weapon? You're
>> sounding like Cope.
>
>I suppose it's just a co-ink-ee-dink that he's a maxed out fighter type,
>huh? Sure.

Not knowing his feats, you can't begin to make that assumption. A high
strength barbarian with a greatsword is powergaming as the same way a high
intelligence wizard with a big spellbook is.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:eigm411g4ca7m4vcr7kb3vouq0q1s9nqp8@4ax.com...
> >> > > I am tempted to consider this a munchkin problem, but then again,
the
> >> > > only thing the player has done is go for the Great Sword, and,
really,
> >> > > wouldn't any self-respecting barbarian? Maybe a Great Axe.
> >> >
> >> > It sure sounds like pure & distilled power gaming to me.
> >>
> >> What? Because he's playing a barbarian that took a good weapon? You're
> >> sounding like Cope.
> >
> >I suppose it's just a co-ink-ee-dink that he's a maxed out fighter type,
> >huh? Sure.
>
> Not knowing his feats, you can't begin to make that assumption. A high

It's not an assumption. The problem, as described by the original poster,
stems directly from an extremely powerful character in comparison to the
others. The only way to accomplish this is either through munchkinism or
min/maxing, and the original poster admitted to as much.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
> There is a significant difference in Overruling the results of a Spot
> check to salvage an entire game and over-ruling the spot skill to work
> only when it is convenient for me.

Grrr.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
>
>>There is a significant difference in Overruling the results of a Spot
>>check to salvage an entire game and over-ruling the spot skill to work
>>only when it is convenient for me.
>
> Grrr.

You clearly disagree. Let it out, Bradd!

DWS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jordan <jda980@msn.com> wrote:
> I know. (When I get to play, rather than just DMing), the other
> players all insist that they "don't want to be the cleric", whereas I
> think:
> -> Two good saves
> -> Decent BAB and Hit Points
> -> Enough spells to let me be better than the fighter, given about 30
> seconds of warm-up.
> -> Everybody is my "friend", nobody will attack me of their own
> accord, and if I want to make them know they need me, just withold
> healing for a few encounters.
> -> Really good at killing off undead
>
> I think part of the problem players have is a percieved lack of
> uniqueness to any given build ....

No, it's because clerics are second-best at everything. Some folks, like
you, see that as an advantage, while others think it's a drag.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
> It's not *REALLY* a judgement on the player, since everyone goes through
> that power gaming min/maxing stage at some point in their role playing
> gaming lifespan. He's new, and the thing to do when you're new to role
> playing is try to use the rules to your advantage as best as possible to
> compensate for a lack of "real" role playing ....

In my experience, new players mostly just go by the advice of other
players and blunder around confused until they get the hang of things.

Playing an axe-wielding barbarian is not evidence of munchkinism, not by
a long shot. Now if he were playing an elf cleric archer, I might wonder
where he learned to weasel up a cleric, but an axe-wielding barbarian is
just your basic fantasy escapism.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in
news:eigm411g4ca7m4vcr7kb3vouq0q1s9nqp8@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:41:27 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
> <autockr@comcast.net> scribed into the ether:
>
>>"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>>news:nq2k415t7ccj2h0k369l57fn3e5e53us37@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:53:20 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
>>> <autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>>>
>>> > > I am tempted to consider this a munchkin problem, but then
>>> > > again, the only thing the player has done is go for the Great
>>> > > Sword, and, really, wouldn't any self-respecting barbarian?
>>> > > Maybe a Great Axe.
>>> >
>>> > It sure sounds like pure & distilled power gaming to me.
>>>
>>> What? Because he's playing a barbarian that took a good weapon?
>>> You're sounding like Cope.
>>
>>I suppose it's just a co-ink-ee-dink that he's a maxed out fighter
>>type, huh? Sure.
>
> Not knowing his feats, you can't begin to make that assumption. A high
> strength barbarian with a greatsword is powergaming as the same way a
> high intelligence wizard with a big spellbook is.
>
Indeed. It's not powergaming for a character to make a choice that's in his
own self-interest, and obviously so. It can be good roleplaying to not do
so, depending on the character, but it's usually just bad GMing.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:30:21 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> You want to have a bit more fun? Tone down the magic. It seems to me that
> your biggest problem is one of your own making: your 5th level characters
> are munchkinized to within an inch of their lives, it sounds. You know what
> kind of magic our characters have? Each one has ONE magical weapon(+1),
> there is one wand, a few potions, a few scrolls, a few misc magic items, and
> their most treasured possession, a periapt of wound closure(to keep the
> unarmored mystic alive that much longer). That's pretty much it. And our
> guys are 6th/7th level. "Wands", plural, at 5th level? Not in my game.

Well, you're running your game rather magic light compared to D&D's
assumptions (yes, I know you're running AD&D2, but it was just as
magic-heavy as 3.x is - it just pretended otherwise).

Now, as to your suggestion - cutting back on magic will actually make
the barbarian relatively more powerful because more of his abilities
are innate, and he's therefore less dependant on equipment than the
fighter is.

One thing I would do is strongly encourage the party, if it isn't
already doing so, to slpit loot up by value, and not by "who can use
it best". This ensures the barbarian won't end up with some uber-cool
sword without having to pay for it.

> Necessity is the mother of invention. You want your players to actually
> start THINKING, have them play a game or two without a token wizard to back
> them up. Have them play without the ubiquitous NPC cleric to bind their
> wounds. Geez, I would have thought that would be step one. One character
> per player, no NPC's to fill the holes. NOW you player characters can try
> to get around in the world...

I'd have the cleric start complaining about all the holes in the
barbarian they keep having to fix.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."