PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
news:sfqdndMR0OOWm9ffRVn-vg@comcast.com:

> "David Serhienko" <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
> news:114jjc3lnoa02b8@corp.supernews.com...
>> Anytime the combat looks 'interesting', which is to say anytime the
>> opponents don't appear to be 'mooks' or 'redshirts'. Early on, I
>> mistakenly introduced a magic item called 'rage berries', which
>> allows the eater to rage the round after eating them.
>
> First things first, "those berries mysteriously rotted, I dunno, it's
> crazy, end of story, no discussion." As DM, I do everything I can to
> make sure that ALL characters are as useful as they can realistically
> be, in comparison to others, while maintaining balance between the lot
> of them. By introducing these rage berries, you've just pumped up one
> of the characters to almost uber-god-level as compared to the others.
>
> Of course, the cruelest thing to do would be to have them spoil while
> the barbarian isn't looking for them. Next major combat, he goes
> reaching for his rage berries, THAT is when you inform his that the
> berries are rotten. He'll bitch and moan and stuff, of course, but in
> the end, this is one thing that you CAN control within the confines of
> the game without it being "outside the rules".
>
> I'm sure that many people would disagree with me, mainly because for
> whatever reason, nobody seems to like my ideas.

Actually I like the idea, I would work it up slowly, havign a wisdom check
made to notice the frist signs of almost sweet smelling smell of fruit
rotting. Though have the berries still look normal though taste
differently and have the reverse affects of rage now that they have rotted.
Lets say -4 Str and Con -4 will saves and -4 AC, lasting number of minutes
or hours equal to your unmodified Con.

Or have the berries addictive and over time they become less useful with
just a single berry eaten. Continued use would eventually require
barbarians who have become addicted, to consume these berries just to enter
their normal allotment of daily rages(once addicted these berries will
never again, gain the barbarian additional rages beyond the daily
allotment). And the rage now lasts a round per berry consumed with a max
duration not to exceed your half your newly modified Con bonus.

Just two thoughts on the matter of these berries.

 

[Guest]

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

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.

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:59:50 -0600, David Serhienko
<david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> 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.

Well, the fighter _should_ have a significantly higher AC, so high BAB
creatures will hit the barbarian much more often, or for more damage
(via Power Attack). Also, the fighter's higher AC should give him more
staying power, so rig things so there are several encounters in a day
without a chance to reat up between them - the barbarian will have to
fight one or more without rage, and his poor AC will add up over time.

However, when all's said and done, barbarians are better meleeists
than fighters, and there's not much you can do about it. The fighter
needs to start taking bow feats and become a multi-role ranged
combatant/meleeist. This flexibility is the fighter's strength - none
else is as good at multiple roles.


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

 

[Guest]

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

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.

> 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? If that's the
> case, just put them up against lots of "mildly tough" stuff. "Mildly Tough"
> monsters can hit with fairly reliable frequency on relatively unarmored
> opponents, but have a fairly difficult time hitting armored opponents.

The way 3.x is set up, not being able to wear heavy armour isn't a big
deal. In fact, aside from the full-plate wearing 'tanks' (as often
clerics as fighters or paladins) just about everyone will be wearing
chain shirts (or mithral breastplates when they can afford them). This
is one of the things I dislike about D&D in it's current incarnation,
though it's not nearly so bad if PCs are limited to 25- or 28-point
buy (so their stats are in the range the game assumes).

> ALso, a "mildly tough" monster can hit with some force. That means that for
> every hit the fighter takes at X avg hp, the barbarian might take 3 hits at
> the same average. Hit points are no longer the deciding factor, armor is.
> Of course, this all hinges on the amount of armor a barbarian can wear, so
> it might be a moot point.

It's actually about the only advantage a fighter has. Also, the
fighter needs to consider moving from a longsword to a bastard sword
or a dwarven waraxe.

The problem is that the high-AC advantage of the figther isn't enough
past about 9th level, when the barbarian has enough rages to last
through any likely day's encounter's, and has a bit of DR, so he takes
a bit less damage per hit. It gets even worse at 11th plus level, when
the barbarian's Greater Rage kicks in (even more Str and Con when
raging).

Essentially the barbarian is incredibly powerful in melee, if he just
closes and smashes. That and some wilderness stuff is about all
they're good for, but unless you find breaking things and hurting
people in an honest face-to-face way boring, that's all they need to
be good at. Of all the classes in D&D3.x, barbarian is the class I'd
give a newbie to play - it's powerful and simple to design and play,
with only one real resource concern (should I rage now, or save it for
later?)


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

 

[Guest]

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

"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.

If the player has EVER played a fighter that WASN'T optimal, but instead
chose his character "traits" to emphasize character and story, you might
have a point, but I'd be hard pressed to envision a person who has one
totally optimized character who doesn't have a whole cadre of them stacked
on the bookshelf. Is it a stereotype, sure, fine, whatever, but if the shoe
fits...

Maybe the original poster will come back and tell us that this is NOT the
case, that the player in question always strives to create unique
characters. However, I would have a hard time believing that, mainly
because if it's a unique character, why does it sound like every other
min/max optimized power gaming character I've ever heard of? That's hardly
unique, now is it? Of course, it could just be a pure coincidence, but
let's just say I won't be holding my breath on that one.

> The way 3.x is set up, not being able to wear heavy armour isn't a big
> deal. In fact, aside from the full-plate wearing 'tanks' (as often
> clerics as fighters or paladins) just about everyone will be wearing
> chain shirts (or mithral breastplates when they can afford them). This
> is one of the things I dislike about D&D in it's current incarnation,
> though it's not nearly so bad if PCs are limited to 25- or 28-point
> buy (so their stats are in the range the game assumes).

Again, not familiar with 3E barbarians per se, but that sounds *AWFULLY*
unbalanced. I can see why a power gamer would play a barbarian, though.
Almost no AC penalty and all those powerful attack options? Sounds great.

> It's actually about the only advantage a fighter has. Also, the
> fighter needs to consider moving from a longsword to a bastard sword
> or a dwarven waraxe.

So instead of reigning in the power gaming of ONE player, you want to create
a powergaming monster in ANOTHER player? Kinda self-defeating, isn't it?
He doesn't want TWO tanks, he wants ZERO tanks, from the sounds of it.

> The problem is that the high-AC advantage of the figther isn't enough
> past about 9th level, when the barbarian has enough rages to last
> through any likely day's encounter's, and has a bit of DR, so he takes
> a bit less damage per hit. It gets even worse at 11th plus level, when
> the barbarian's Greater Rage kicks in (even more Str and Con when
> raging).

I get the picture... really, I do...

> Essentially the barbarian is incredibly powerful in melee, if he just
> closes and smashes. That and some wilderness stuff is about all
> they're good for, but unless you find breaking things and hurting
> people in an honest face-to-face way boring, that's all they need to
> be good at. Of all the classes in D&D3.x, barbarian is the class I'd
> give a newbie to play - it's powerful and simple to design and play,
> with only one real resource concern (should I rage now, or save it for
> later?)

Would the reverse also be true? That new players tend to select barbarians
for that reason(easy to play, easy to build, easy to utilize as intended)?
If that's the case, I have to wonder if there is a "progression" of
chracters that players go through, from Barbarian(?) to <insert whatever you
consider hardest class to play here>.

--
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:
> "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.
>
> If the player has EVER played a fighter that WASN'T optimal, but instead
> chose his character "traits" to emphasize character and story, you might
> have a point, but I'd be hard pressed to envision a person who has one
> totally optimized character who doesn't have a whole cadre of them stacked
> on the bookshelf. Is it a stereotype, sure, fine, whatever, but if the shoe
> fits...

This is a first time player of table top RPGs. He's done the Diablo
thing, and played Baldur's Gate, I believe. Take that for what you will.

> Maybe the original poster will come back and tell us that this is NOT the
> case, that the player in question always strives to create unique
> characters. However, I would have a hard time believing that, mainly
> because if it's a unique character, why does it sound like every other
> min/max optimized power gaming character I've ever heard of? That's hardly
> unique, now is it? Of course, it could just be a pure coincidence, but
> let's just say I won't be holding my breath on that one.

When he asked which class to choose, we told him to play either a
fighter or a barbarian, based on the 'simplicity' of the classes. He
sussed out the half-orc choice himself.

He also wanted to play a wizard, but we convinced him that would be a
bad idea as a starting character... too many choices, too many
'specialty' cases to worry about while trying to pick up the standard
rules. He still wanted a spellcaster, so we suggested Sorceror as the
best choice, for a new player. That character is a female halfling
sorceror. A pretty weak build, IMO. The wizard character makes her
look like an apprentice, even though they have the same XP.

>>The way 3.x is set up, not being able to wear heavy armour isn't a big
>>deal. In fact, aside from the full-plate wearing 'tanks' (as often
>>clerics as fighters or paladins) just about everyone will be wearing
>>chain shirts (or mithral breastplates when they can afford them). This
>>is one of the things I dislike about D&D in it's current incarnation,
>>though it's not nearly so bad if PCs are limited to 25- or 28-point
>>buy (so their stats are in the range the game assumes).
>
> Again, not familiar with 3E barbarians per se, but that sounds *AWFULLY*
> unbalanced. I can see why a power gamer would play a barbarian, though.
> Almost no AC penalty and all those powerful attack options? Sounds great.

Its a textbook case of Video Gaming influenced game buidl choices. But
there is nothing non-Core going on here. One serious problem is that
the REST of us didn't go for min/max type PCs.

>>It's actually about the only advantage a fighter has. Also, the
>>fighter needs to consider moving from a longsword to a bastard sword
>>or a dwarven waraxe.
>
> So instead of reigning in the power gaming of ONE player, you want to create
> a powergaming monster in ANOTHER player? Kinda self-defeating, isn't it?
> He doesn't want TWO tanks, he wants ZERO tanks, from the sounds of it.

I don't mind a combat monster, but I never expected the unreal
difference in raw combat ability between a 16 str fighter at 4th level
and a raging half-orc barbarian of the ame level. It's ridiculous.

What I really want is to find a way to let the barbarian be a raw damage
dealing machine WITHOUT making everyone else (especially the fighter)
feel like window dressing. Preferably without having to pump anyone
else, or nerf the barbarian... so tactics advice for my monsters, I
suppose, is waht I need...

My problem is that, so far, everything I can think of that slows down
the bar poses an unreasonably increased risk to the rest of the party.

>>The problem is that the high-AC advantage of the figther isn't enough
>>past about 9th level, when the barbarian has enough rages to last
>>through any likely day's encounter's, and has a bit of DR, so he takes
>>a bit less damage per hit. It gets even worse at 11th plus level, when
>>the barbarian's Greater Rage kicks in (even more Str and Con when
>>raging).
>
>
> I get the picture... really, I do...
>
>
>>Essentially the barbarian is incredibly powerful in melee, if he just
>>closes and smashes. That and some wilderness stuff is about all
>>they're good for, but unless you find breaking things and hurting
>>people in an honest face-to-face way boring, that's all they need to
>>be good at. Of all the classes in D&D3.x, barbarian is the class I'd
>>give a newbie to play - it's powerful and simple to design and play,
>>with only one real resource concern (should I rage now, or save it for
>>later?)
>
> Would the reverse also be true? That new players tend to select barbarians
> for that reason(easy to play, easy to build, easy to utilize as intended)?
> If that's the case, I have to wonder if there is a "progression" of
> chracters that players go through, from Barbarian(?) to <insert whatever you
> consider hardest class to play here>.

NO idea. Historically, I always play pure Human Fighters, based purely
on the fact that the lack of special abilities etc in 1e and 2e meant I
could focus on the Personality of my character without other players
trying to impose their personal ideas of what my characters Race and
Class are supposed to be like... this is mostly due to being involved
in groups including many new players over the years.

DWS

 

[Guest]

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

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


>> It's actually about the only advantage a fighter has. Also, the
>> fighter needs to consider moving from a longsword to a bastard sword
>> or a dwarven waraxe.
>
>So instead of reigning in the power gaming of ONE player, you want to create
>a powergaming monster in ANOTHER player? Kinda self-defeating, isn't it?
>He doesn't want TWO tanks, he wants ZERO tanks, from the sounds of it.

All he asked for is a way to keep the other guy from feeling like an
expendable supporting character. A greater degree of parity would
help in that regard. I mean, I wouldn't use a Barbarian class in the
first place, but having let one in, it's hard to scale back.

 

[Guest]

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

"David Serhienko" <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
news:114kcenov6j8n11@corp.supernews.com...
> > I suppose it's just a co-ink-ee-dink that he's a maxed out fighter type,
> > huh? Sure.
> >
> > If the player has EVER played a fighter that WASN'T optimal, but instead
> > chose his character "traits" to emphasize character and story, you might
> > have a point, but I'd be hard pressed to envision a person who has one
> > totally optimized character who doesn't have a whole cadre of them
stacked
> > on the bookshelf. Is it a stereotype, sure, fine, whatever, but if the
shoe
> > fits...
>
> This is a first time player of table top RPGs. He's done the Diablo
> thing, and played Baldur's Gate, I believe. Take that for what you will.

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. We've all done it, if only
for a short time at the beginning of our role playing careers.

However, there's a strange thing that happens. If the player is actively
rewarded for this behavior, it will only be reinforced, and he'll never
progress as a role player. You need to let everyone know that you'll only
reinforce what YOU want to reinforce. Stop giving out individual combat
experience, make it a group award, and reward players individually for role
playing and ingenuity.

> When he asked which class to choose, we told him to play either a
> fighter or a barbarian, based on the 'simplicity' of the classes. He
> sussed out the half-orc choice himself.

Ah, a monster of your own making, huh? 😉

> He also wanted to play a wizard, but we convinced him that would be a
> bad idea as a starting character...

Well, I'd agree there, but that's about the only stock character I wouldn't
advise a newbie to take. Even a cleric is pretty straightforward if you
just want to be the healing machine...

> best choice, for a new player. That character is a female halfling
> sorceror. A pretty weak build, IMO. The wizard character makes her
> look like an apprentice, even though they have the same XP.

It sounds to me like you might also be a power gamer, so the problem might
be that the apple isn't falling far from the tree. Something to consider.

> Its a textbook case of Video Gaming influenced game buidl choices. But
> there is nothing non-Core going on here. One serious problem is that
> the REST of us didn't go for min/max type PCs.

Well, you're only rewarding his choices. How is he supposed to learn it's
not something that will work for your group if he gets gobs of experience
for his choices?

> > So instead of reigning in the power gaming of ONE player, you want to
create
> > a powergaming monster in ANOTHER player? Kinda self-defeating, isn't
it?
> > He doesn't want TWO tanks, he wants ZERO tanks, from the sounds of it.
>
> I don't mind a combat monster, but I never expected the unreal
> difference in raw combat ability between a 16 str fighter at 4th level
> and a raging half-orc barbarian of the ame level. It's ridiculous.

16? Well, call it a bit of power gaming on MY part if you like, but I
always change the highest rolled stat in a group to an 18 so a character can
place that on his prime requisite. It works for us, providing heroic but
not unbalanced characters. The 18 is rule zero'd into prime req, btw.

> What I really want is to find a way to let the barbarian be a raw damage
> dealing machine WITHOUT making everyone else (especially the fighter)
> feel like window dressing. Preferably without having to pump anyone
> else, or nerf the barbarian... so tactics advice for my monsters, I
> suppose, is waht I need...

Well, personally, I don't think that's going to happen. You can change up
tactics only so much before it becomes "unrealistic". I'd either "nerf" the
barbarian or beef up the fighter.

> My problem is that, so far, everything I can think of that slows down
> the bar poses an unreasonably increased risk to the rest of the party.

Of *COURSE* it does, that's the whole point!! Make them actually THINK
about fights they get into!

--
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?)

In article <XoadnYEOJadq3dffRVn-2w@comcast.com>,
"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

> "John Phillips" <jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:i8p2e.22833$cg1.4563@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > > 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. 😉

You are an adherent of the "creativity equals random design choices"
school of roleplaying, I see.

> 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.

Do these characters have sound, in-character reasons to want to die
screaming in the mud with their entrails in a steaming pile beside them?
If not, then playing a character who seeks out a combat career armed
with a suboptimal weapon is *rotten* roleplaying.

In real life, throughout history, people whose business is fighting have
been very keenly interested in which weapons and techniques maximised
their chances of living. There were differences of opinion about which
was best, to be sure, but no one ever knowingly brought a knife to a gun
fight of their own free will.

> A paladin we had chose warhammer as his primary weapon, definitely NOT an
> optimal choice from a mechanics perspective, but it make him a paladin with
> CHARACTER.

No. It made him a paper doll with an unusual weapon pasted onto one
hand, and made him ridiculously implausible as a character. If that's
what you call CHARACTER you could almost write computer program that
will generate a million PC's with CHARACTER in a minute.

I say almost, because you'd have to find a way to filter out the choices
that actually work well together. Because people whose characters use
the best weapons and tactics available, because they prefer to live
rather than die, are just being boring munchkins.

Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, David Serhienko wrote:

> Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>> David Serhienko wrote:
>>
>>> 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, it's not.
>
> I know it isn't, I guess I was asking why not?

Basically, so that a character doesn't do more STR-based damage wielding
two small weapons than they do wielding a big two-handed weapon.

One-handed weapon: x1 STR bonus.
Two-handed weapon: x1.5 STR bonus.
Two weapons: x1 STR bonus in primary hand, x0.5 STR bonus in off hand.

Hoe this helps,

Gary Johnson
--
Home Page: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg
X-Men Campaign Resources: http://members.optusnet.com.au/xmen_campaign
Fantasy Campaign Setting: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg/selentia.htm

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:48:30 -0600, David Serhienko
<david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Great swords and Great Axes do assloads of damage, and aren't in any way
> a special weapon, so I'd be surprised anyone wouldn't take one. In
> fact, with the exception of the fact that published adventures tend to
> feature magic longswords far out of proportion to any other type, I
> can't see why anyone would prefer a shield and a d8 damage to 2d6 damage
> and no shield.

Magic shields provide another type of AC boost.

> They can wear up to medium armor without extra feats or penalties to
> skill checks (think Chainmail or less). If they wear heavier armor,
> they lose their Fast Movement (+10 ft/round), and that's it.

Medium armour costs everyone 10'/round of movement. One of the
barbarian's useful features is that extra 10' of move, so losing it
for +1 AC (less if your Dex is good) is dumb. As for heavy armour -
that would require a feat, and cost lots of move. It's not a good
choice for a barbarian.


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

 

[Guest]

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

David Serhienko wrote:
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
>
>> "David Serhienko" <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
>> news:114jjc3lnoa02b8@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>> Anytime the combat looks 'interesting', which is to say anytime the
>>> opponents don't appear to be 'mooks' or 'redshirts'. Early on, I
>>> mistakenly introduced a magic item called 'rage berries', which allows
>>> the eater to rage the round after eating them.
>>
>>
>>
>> First things first, "those berries mysteriously rotted, I dunno, it's
>> crazy,
>> end of story, no discussion." As DM, I do everything I can to make sure
>> that ALL characters are as useful as they can realistically be, in
>> comparison to others, while maintaining balance between the lot of
>> them. By
>> introducing these rage berries, you've just pumped up one of the
>> characters
>> to almost uber-god-level as compared to the others.
>
>
> I realize that now. I thought, hey: 12 berries, a couple for each PC
> isn't too powerful, since their effectively Rage potions. Speaking of
> which, I neeed to be more careful tracking the Rage duration in the
> future. I've been letting the Barb's player do it, but I noticed last
> session that he wasn't tracking consumable items like oil flasks, so
> maybe I should be a bit less trusting here, until the message sinks in.

Just wait till they learn the trick of shuffling them around the party
from time to time. Those 12 rage berries will mystically reproduce!

- Ron ^*^

 

[Jordan]

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

On 30 Mar 2005 04:00:15 GMT, drow <drow@bin.sh> wrote:

>> 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...

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. Like the OP said at some point, he and
the other DM came up with almost exactly the same cleric character,
completely separately. Of course, clerics *do* have a fair bit of
customisabliity, but it's not immediately obvious.

Perhaps part of the problem is that (almost) all clerics:
-> Heal
-> Wear heavy armour, carry a heavy shield, and wield a mace
-> Aren't *very* good at anything until they've had a chance to cast
their spells.

Any suggestions for fixing these problems? I'm thinking that a
Monk/Cleric cross could be pretty cool; a wizened sage type who also
happens to kick ass in combat, not to mention having the favour of his
deity...

Jordan

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:52:03 -0600, David Serhienko
<david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> carved upon a tablet of 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, it's not.
>
> I know it isn't, I guess I was asking why not?

Because if you did this strong people might find it advantaegous to
use a '1-handed' weapon in both hands, rather than a 2-handed weapon.
This would particularly apply to longswords vs bastard swords. Also,
weapon damage is what's intrinsic to the weapon. The x1.5 multiplier
for 2-handed use represents the extra leverage you get.


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

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:41:27 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> If the player has EVER played a fighter that WASN'T optimal, but instead
> chose his character "traits" to emphasize character and story, you might
> have a point, but I'd be hard pressed to envision a person who has one
> totally optimized character who doesn't have a whole cadre of them stacked
> on the bookshelf. Is it a stereotype, sure, fine, whatever, but if the shoe
> fits...

Jeff, making a half-orc barbarian with a two-handed sword hardly shows
this.

> Again, not familiar with 3E barbarians per se, but that sounds *AWFULLY*
> unbalanced. I can see why a power gamer would play a barbarian, though.
> Almost no AC penalty and all those powerful attack options? Sounds great.

Actually, you take a - to AC when raging, and you get only the base
feats everyone gets. Barbarians have lots of HP, and when raging even
more (but when the rage wears off they go away, which can out you
negative or kill you), and extra strength when raging. However, they
aren't very flexible - light, fast melee fighters that do lots of
damage, and get smacked around a lot is about all they are in combat.

Fighters are more flexible, but it's very hard to make a fighter that
can pump out the damage in melee that a barbarian can.

> Would the reverse also be true? That new players tend to select barbarians
> for that reason(easy to play, easy to build, easy to utilize as intended)?
> If that's the case, I have to wonder if there is a "progression" of
> chracters that players go through, from Barbarian(?) to <insert whatever you
> consider hardest class to play here>.

Not that I've seen, though people who develop an interest in the
tactical options D&D's combat system offers often move to fighters,
because the extra feats let you explore them more effectively - you
can build a fighter that specialises in disarming and tripping people
much more easily than a barbarian that does that.


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

 

[Guest]

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

> David Serhienko carved upon a tablet of 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, it's not.
> >
> > I know it isn't, I guess I was asking why not?

Sorry for piggybacking, but there's a very, very simple answer to
this:

Because a two-handed weapon is not a two-handed weapon
to everyone. A character one size larger can use it as
a one-handed weapon (at -2 to hit), and a character two
sizes larger can use it as a light weapon (at -4 to hit).

This means that the damage increase from being wielded two-handed
should stay right where it is: on the character wielding the weapon.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.

 

[Guest]

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

David Serhienko 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.

There's another solution that doesn't require you to metagame-punish
the players. I already deleted your post where you mentioned it, or
I'd respond there, sorry.

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.

They will probably use the rage berries in the wrong situations, and
if not, they'll probably hoard them until they can better determine
which fights it's best to use them in, in which case the spoilage has
a more reasonable in-game rationale than just "when it's convenient".

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.

 

[Guest]

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

Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> David Serhienko 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.
>
>
> There's another solution that doesn't require you to metagame-punish
> the players. I already deleted your post where you mentioned it, or
> I'd respond there, sorry.
>
> You mentioned that they use the rage berries on fights with people who
> look like "nonmooks".

Yes. And this, rarely, since, as was brought to my attention earlier,
the Barbarian doesn't tend to NEED more than his allotted two rages a
day very often.

> 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.

Hmm. I'll mine your comment for useful advice, but respectfully
disagree with some of it.

Playing up the mook encounters as if they were non-mook is good advice,
but I can't go along with the other... That's a sort of bait and switch.

Better would be to play up EVERY encounter as if they were non-mook, and
not let the players know that an encounter has been inserted just to
spice up their time on the road, or what have you.

> They will probably use the rage berries in the wrong situations, and
> if not, they'll probably hoard them until they can better determine
> which fights it's best to use them in, in which case the spoilage has
> a more reasonable in-game rationale than just "when it's convenient".

I would have little problem with the Rage Berries if they were fewer in
number, actually, so, I thank you for the idea.

If I can play up all enocunteres to entice Raging, either natural or by
Berry, the berry supply remaining should be 'chewed into' nicely soon.

If they end up hoarding the last three or so, well, no big deal. They
have no idea where to get more, and I'm not going to tell them unless
they expand time and effort commensurate with their gain.

Once they are down to one or two berries, the barbarian will have to be
far less cavalier with using Rage. Thus, the decision remains his, and
he isn't nerfed.

This is, of course, a far better solution than stealing his berries.

DWS

 

[Guest]

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

In article <me-571EBC.00260831032005@news01.comindico.com.au>,
Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:
>In article <XoadnYEOJadq3dffRVn-2w@comcast.com>,
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>> A paladin we had chose warhammer as his primary weapon, definitely NOT an
>> optimal choice from a mechanics perspective, but it make him a paladin with
>> CHARACTER.
>
>No. It made him a paper doll with an unusual weapon pasted onto one
>hand, and made him ridiculously implausible as a character. If that's
>what you call CHARACTER you could almost write computer program that
>will generate a million PC's with CHARACTER in a minute.

It seems to me it would make sense for a follower of Moradin to use the god's
favourite weapon. Even if it is numerically suboptimal.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

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

Lots of people wanted to know what Feats the Fighter, Ranger and
Barbarian in this little sotry have taken.

Ranger - Track, Point Blank Shot, Quick Draw, Rapid Shot, Weapon
Focus (Composite Longbow), Endurance.

Fighter- Combat Reflexes, Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Focus and
Specialization (Longsword), Toughness.

Some of those listed are Ranger abilities, rather than feat choices.

I Know that the Barbarian has Cleave, which means he also has Power
Attack, so that should be all of them.

DWS

 

[Guest]

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

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.
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?

--
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro


>
> The goal, though, isn't so much to make the Fighter and Barbarian be
> equal, as to make them FEEL equal, so any story that puts the Fighter
in
> the Center Role for a while will work.
>
> If I add a Holy/Celestial angle to the Family Affair that is open to
any
> PCs that are interested in the Holiness, I get to feature the
Fighter,
> without making him a Mary Sue.
>
> DWS

 

[Guest]

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

madafro@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> David Serhienko wrote:
>
>
>
>>Some pre-game back story stuff that might spark some ideas: One
>> thing that I did NOT mention, because I didn't think of it then,
>> is that the Ranger and Fighter met while in training
>> to become Paladins as teenagers. The Fighter 'washed out'
>> and the Ranger decided that he didn't want to
>> live within the Code of Conduct. Thus, the Fighter is
>> still Lawful Good, but not a Paladin, and the Ranger is Chaotic
>
> Good...
>
> 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.

The goal, though, isn't so much to make the Fighter and Barbarian be
equal, as to make them FEEL equal, so any story that puts the Fighter in
the Center Role for a while will work.

If I add a Holy/Celestial angle to the Family Affair that is open to any
PCs that are interested in the Holiness, I get to feature the Fighter,
without making him a Mary Sue.

DWS

 

[Guest]

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

Clawhound wrote:
> David Serhienko wrote:

<snip my original post>

> 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.
> - There's a final battle in the shrine of the Goddess of Serenity.
> Barbarian can't rage.

Fun one time solution.

> - Get the fighter a flaming sword. Then trolls.

Let's label this an 'arms race' solution =)

> - Have all NPC's look to the fighter as the respectable one, and listen
> to him. He becomes your face man.

I can try that. Or, rather, since the party makeup makes this somewhat
unreasonable (high charisma wizard, bard and sorceress), I can have the
NPCs express more obvious distress and reluctance to deal with a half-orc.

> - Multiple waves of opponents.

Definately.

> - Hammer and anvil. Attacks from one direction, followed by attacks from
> another. With the party broken apart, each must stand.

Together with above, this will be fun.

> - An illusionist opponent. Constant illusion based fights. The barbarian
> doesn't know when to rage, or rages too often.

No reason I can't include an illusionist as a part of the remnants of
the Criminal Cabal they shattered. I know the CC is going to seek
revenge, but I haven't decided how.

> - Have them travel. Have a once-per-day encounter that leads into a
> longish series of easy fights. You want to draw out the barbarian until
> he has only one rage left, but he's not to the final fight yet.

Useful tip. I'll just have to not do it too often.

> The difference between the two will get worse. The fighter has a hard
> time NOT being second class to the barbarian. Let the figher meet a
> weapons master who can change his feats around a bit, to things like
> combat expertise and tripping.

I don't mind the barbarian being better. My problem is, of course, how
MUCH better he is. Maybe I need to adjust my understanding of what a
Fighter is, but I always imagined it as being the single most useful and
versatile in combat. Versatility it has... usefulness in combats that
can be forced toe to toe is an iffy proposition.

DWS

 

[Guest]

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

"Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
news:me-571EBC.00260831032005@news01.comindico.com.au...
> > > What, you think a big strong barbarian should wield a dagger?
> >
> > At least he'd have character. 😉
>
> You are an adherent of the "creativity equals random design choices"
> school of roleplaying, I see.

No, I'm just not interested in being a slave to the mechanics. If everyone
in REALITY chose to wield the same weapon, we wouldn't need several options,
now would we? People choose their weapons for a variety of reasons. Yes,
they want something effective, but it doesn't have to be OPTIMALLY effective
in every instance. Why would someone opt for a battle axe over a great
sword? Maybe they were a lumberjack, who knows.

In the world you imply that you live in, nobody would select a weapon to use
that was generically good, but would opt for the specifically good.
Everyone would choose the two handed sword over the eminently more versatile
long sword.

> Do these characters have sound, in-character reasons to want to die
> screaming in the mud with their entrails in a steaming pile beside them?

The biggest gun is always the best gun, is that the ticket?

> If not, then playing a character who seeks out a combat career armed
> with a suboptimal weapon is *rotten* roleplaying.

Of course you'd have reasons for it! I'm not suggesting for example
randomly assigning a TRIDENT to a nomadic tribesman of the northern desert
or some such thing! Club for the seal hunting family, Spear for the family
of proud spear carriers(or something), Axe for the guy who was a
disillusioned lumberjack, etc etc.

> I say almost, because you'd have to find a way to filter out the choices
> that actually work well together. Because people whose characters use
> the best weapons and tactics available, because they prefer to live
> rather than die, are just being boring munchkins.

Well, if I'm wrong, so be it, but it sure sounds to me like the original
poster's problem stemmed NOT from a character, but from the min/maxing of
the mechanics. I'm not saying that EVERYONE who picks an optimal weapon is
a munchkin, what I am saying is that if the mechanics drive the majority of
character design decisions, then yes, such a player is a power gamer,
without much doubt.

--
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?)

Donald Tsang wrote:
> David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
>
>>>Do things ever
>>>play "I'm more than twice as fast as you are, so I'm going to use
>>>Spring Attack to ding you for a few points every raound, then get out
>>>of range"?
>>
>>Not so far. Why? I am obviously missing something?
>
>
> Because the Barbarian probably doesn't even carry a missile weapon?

That's true.

> I suppose it's a little hard to get something with a Move of 80, though.
>
> How about opponents who fly?

OOOO! A Wyvern would be fun! Gotta wait til Mr Wizard is outta his
Direct Damage artillery, though for this to work out =)

>>At which point everyone just follows the half-orc, since there aren't
>>really many CR5 or CR6 challenges he can't mow through in a round or
>>two. Anything with higher CR teeters on the edge of a Total Party Kill
>>if played effectively. If played INeffectively, then the barbarian is
>>just that much more effective, since the players never pull their punches.
>
> How about things with DR X/bludgeoning? Does the barbarian carry a backup
> weapon (like a morningstar)?

He does, actually.

> I still like the idea of playing to the Barbarian's weaknesses. Does he
> have a Charisma of 6, by chance? A lot of people don't like half-orcs,
> even when they don't have really low Charismas...

I really should play this up more. I do mention it from time to time,
but it got old.

Note to self: Discipline, Grasshopper, Discipline. People just now
enjoying peace after ten years of war with Orcs on the other side will
*not* be thrilled to see Half-Orcs.

DWS