Don't give me that 'It fits my character'! Crap

[power_word_wedgie]

1163014092[/unixtime]]Well, magic items are a rather tough situation to handle in 3rd edition, mainly because almost anyone can use any item. Fighter types often don't need combat power as much as they need versatility and utility abilities. It isn't just "I need a sword that does more damage", it's about finding ways out of a forcecage and stuff like that. And when you hand out a utility ring, you're really not sure which party member will end up getting it. If you as a DM directly hand it to the character in some fashion, then you're better off just outright buffing the character and letting the group know why, as opposed to a painfully obvious "stealth" buff.

Meh, it's easier to target a magic item to a specific character than you think, especially when wrap it into the plotline of the adventure. Especially when they don't want their class modified. Like I said earlier, if a character wants to take a DM's house class, that 's different. However, this is for an example of when a character just wants to be a straight fighter or sorcerer.

I've always beleived that when you make a change for game balance, you should let everyone know about it. If they agree with you, fine, if they don't, okay, you're the DM, hopefulyl they can learn to accept it and move on. But at the very least, they know you're not doing it because of favoritism but rather because you feel a certain way about game balance.

Fine, be my guest. However, the point is that the group should already be on board since they were going to be the ones freaking out due to dragging around the unoptimized class character, right?

Well, it's not necessarily someone throwing a temper tantrum. They may just not be having much fun and decide to quit the group because their character sucks.

We, in a sense, that's still not handling it like an adult. An adult looks over the situation, and if it was really affecting them that their character sucks, they would optimize it to the prestige combo du jour for their next character. Otherwise, if they're cool with the optimized character, they go with the flow of their unoptimized character. Like I said, if they're taking this option, they know that they're slightly sacrificing power for simplicity of class.

Let me elaborate: I'm an engineer and sometimes with the paperwork and number-crunching at work, if I have a gaming session after work, the last time I really want to do is keep track of a notebook full of spells and skills for optimum effectiveness. Just give me a few feats to keep track of and away I go while I relax my mind, or just give me a few spells that I can blast over and over. Yeah, I'm not the most powerful dude in the group, but that's the price I'm wlling to pay for my simplicity. Now, I'm sure that there are groups out there that would kick me out due to my "laziness" and I'm cool with that. If you live in an area where you have gamers calling you night and day to join your group, then boot me and find another "dedicated" player.

[RandomCasualty]

1163044640[/unixtime]]
We, in a sense, that's still not handling it like an adult. An adult looks over the situation, and if it was really affecting them that their character sucks, they would optimize it to the prestige combo du jour for their next character. Otherwise, if they're cool with the optimized character, they go with the flow of their unoptimized character. Like I said, if they're taking this option, they know that they're slightly sacrificing power for simplicity of class.

Just one thing. It's not exactly a "slight" sacrifice of power at the higher levels. Not having an optimized character is in fact a crippling weakness. This isn't about a +9 attack roll versus a +7. This can be a difference of night and day.

[User3]

Personally, I don'y seek how you can't determine who gets an item as a DM.

I mean, why do you think that some items have racial or class feature or alignment restrictions? Sure, UMD is useful for fudging past these things, but there are things that UMD won't do. For example, one published adventure requires a certain patron god to make the big item work. UMD is great, but thats one thingt it doesn't explicitly do. You can even just use the standard restrictions, but make the penalty of failing a UMD check so bad that even the dedicated UMD Rogue doesn't want to mess with it.

Making it a weapon only the mink can use without blowing a feat for Exotic Weapon Prof, or making it so that it can only benefit a certain class, even if you can activate it, it another way to go.

[PhoneLobster]

Personally, I don'y seek how you can't determine who gets an item as a DM.

Gaming culture is wierd and fragmented. You need not go three feet from your own gaming group before you stumble across a wierd alternate parrallel evolved gaming culture from some other group.

Some groups arbitrate loot division amongst PCs in VERY strange ways. One I've seen more than once is players who divide loot on the basis that anyone who WANTS an item gets to roll off for it.

And if the barbarian chaotic evil centaur wants the wizardly hat of wizarding that only works for two legged lawful good elfs and he rolls high he GETS the damn hat and the party lawful good wizard elf will have to pry it from his cold dead fingers.

Maybe he wants the hat because he wants to sell it. Maybe he wants it because he is a fricking bard player at heart and he wants to wear it and deliberately be sub optimal while using his basket weaving skill with its skill emphasis feat. Maybe he wants it because he feels the wizard elf screwed him over on a previous loot division in the same system with an item that BOTH of them could actually use.

It doesn't matter, he wants it, he rolls high he gets it.

There are groups out there who think thats how you play D&D, there are groups out there who think that loot distribution is written in the rule books like that.

And thats just ONE of the stupider ways some groups screw up loot distribution on the GM.

[RandomCasualty]

1163793947[/unixtime]]Personally, I don'y seek how you can't determine who gets an item as a DM.

I mean, why do you think that some items have racial or class feature or alignment restrictions? Sure, UMD is useful for fudging past these things, but there are things that UMD won't do. For example, one published adventure requires a certain patron god to make the big item work. UMD is great, but thats one thingt it doesn't explicitly do. You can even just use the standard restrictions, but make the penalty of failing a UMD check so bad that even the dedicated UMD Rogue doesn't want to mess with it.

Making it a weapon only the mink can use without blowing a feat for Exotic Weapon Prof, or making it so that it can only benefit a certain class, even if you can activate it, it another way to go.

In my opinion, this kind of stuff creates way more hard feelings among the group and is very reminiscent of the dreaded "DM's girlfriend gets all the cool shit that nobody else can use" syndrome. Doing anything in a surreptitious fashion is bad. If you think a class is weak, you're much better off just outright boosting it and telling the PCs it's for game balance, instead of trying secret ninja tricks to trick them, because PCs will know what you're doing.

If you outright say it's for game balance, at least you'll have an opportunity to explain the situation to them, and even if they don't agree with your game balance conclusions, they won't see it as an act of favoritism and will realize you're doing it for the good of the game in your opinion, even if they believe it to be misguided. Giving away magic items that can only be used by one PC looks like a situation of blatant favoritism.

[power_word_wedgie]

1163993534[/unixtime]]
In my opinion, this kind of stuff creates way more hard feelings among the group and is very reminiscent of the dreaded "DM's girlfriend gets all the cool shit that nobody else can use" syndrome. Doing anything in a surreptitious fashion is bad. If you think a class is weak, you're much better off just outright boosting it and telling the PCs it's for game balance, instead of trying secret ninja tricks to trick them, because PCs will know what you're doing.

If you outright say it's for game balance, at least you'll have an opportunity to explain the situation to them, and even if they don't agree with your game balance conclusions, they won't see it as an act of favoritism and will realize you're doing it for the good of the game in your opinion, even if they believe it to be misguided. Giving away magic items that can only be used by one PC looks like a situation of blatant favoritism.

The thing is that you're giving them the cool magic items because the rest of the party doesn't want to be "dragged" down by the underpowered character. Thus, they'll be at the forefront of giving the magic item in the first place. Otherwise, they're not upset about having the underpowered character in the first place, and thus there's no issue.

Furthermore, you can wrap it into the storyline. You can say that the "Guilded Order of the Knights" requests that you go on this quest and that as assistance they give a prized relic (+3 longsword) as a token of their appreciation to your champion (the fighter). Seriously, in that situation, does the wizard player in your group get up and say, "Man, I've been hosed!"? If so, then I'd say they're a little thin-skinned and frankly as a DM handing out anything to a group like that is going to be a chore. Really, if they'e freaking out about giving out magic items, then they're going to freak out even more about boosting a class that they're not taking. (ie. "Bob, I told you the DM doesn't like me - Sandy is going to play a fighter and he's already boosting the class ... heck, the only reason why he does it is because he knows I don't like to play fighter types ...")

[RandomCasualty]

1163995029[/unixtime]] Really, if they'e freaking out about giving out magic items, then they're going to freak out even more about boosting a class that they're not taking.

Well, not really, they can always make a new char that is of this new class. As long as the DM is saying that anyone who takes the class gets the benefits, most PCs are fine with it, because it's fair to everyone that way. Targetted magic items specify only a specific individual, whcih is showing favoritism. That is, if another PC made a fighter he's not guaranteed to get the same sword that one of the other PCs is getting.

[power_word_wedgie]

1163998078[/unixtime]]
Well, not really, they can always make a new char that is of this new class. As long as the DM is saying that anyone who takes the class gets the benefits, most PCs are fine with it, because it's fair to everyone that way. Targetted magic items specify only a specific individual, whcih is showing favoritism. That is, if another PC made a fighter he's not guaranteed to get the same sword that one of the other PCs is getting.

The thing is that if the player isn't the type that likes to play fighter-types, and is more of a wizard-type of player, it still comes across as favoritism. Hey, I know a guy who basically only likes to play dwarf charcters - it happens. That's why I made the quote:

(ie. "Bob, I told you the DM doesn't like me - Sandy is going to play a fighter and he's already boosting the class ... heck, the only reason why he does it is because he knows I don't like to play fighter types ...")

And as I said:

1) if the group is all "freaked" out about having an underpowered character in the group, then they're not going to freak out about the fighter directly getting a magic item,

2) if they don't think that the character is underpowered, then there is no problem,

3) if they're freaking out about one character getting a magic item that has been wrapped up in the storyline, they any type of wealth distribution is going to be a chore. (ie. Saying "It's no fair that this is the third magic wand we found" followed by a temper tantrum) There's just a certain amount of maturity that one should expect from a group. If you're not seeing it, then it's time to find a new group.

[RandomCasualty]

1164025688[/unixtime]]
The thing is that if the player isn't the type that likes to play fighter-types, and is more of a wizard-type of player, it still comes across as favoritism. Hey, I know a guy who basically only likes to play dwarf charcters - it happens. That's why I made the quote:

Well, sure, your DM can easily be a race or class fanboy who wants wizards or elves or druids to be awesome because that's how he envisions them. But this sort of favoritism is a lot less inflamatory than handing your best friend's character a buttload of awesome stuff because he's your best friend.

Remember, regardless of people's general preferences, they can always choose to play a different kind of character. So it's not exclusive to boost fighters, even if you don't like to play them.

2) if they don't think that the character is underpowered, then there is no problem,

What if the rest of the group doesn't seem to think the character is that underpowered (or just don't care), but the one PC and the DM feel that his character is weaker compared to the rest and the PC doesn't want to retire the character.

[TarlSS]

Meh. All this consternation can really be gotten rid of with a considerate DM. Sometimes you just have to realize someone sucks and you've gotta live with it. It's really the DM you should be talking to in this instance.

Just tell him that player X is just not that great at optimizing and this isn't the kind of campaign where it's neccessary to go in all out 'fly everywhere smacktarding shit with Forcecages and death fingers at 10th level' mode.

Worst to worst, calculate XP by cutting out said 'roleplayer' and then give it to everyone. Advancement is a scale based on time, not how many monsters you kill. I have a policy of giving out around 2k every session, more for games when lots of stuff gets done, less when it doesn't. Killing crap and negotiating treaties isn't all that contributes to the roleplaying experience, sometimes it's a good story or a laugh, or some in-depth character development.

I have groups where the power level differentiates wildly, and none of them have clerics or real spellcasters, and frankly, they're alot of fun.

[User3]

I suspect the real lesson here is just like any collbrative anything you can make whatever bollocksed up system work if everyone is on the same page and is taking things in the same direction?

[Count Arioch the 28th]

You know, I'm starting to see Lago's point here.

Why? Because my group just had their asses handed to them by a fighter because my character couldn't whip out a Hold Person at level 5 because I just had to try out a Mystic theurge for myself.

It's a bad feeling to know that your group got their asses kicked because you suck.

[power_word_wedgie]

So the rest of the group always connected with every swing that they made? The rest of the group had their spells work exactly as intended?

Look, I can counter this experience with an experience where my party (cleric, paladin, and rogue) got taken out by a fighter a level higher than us and another two fighters 4 levels lower than us. It wasn't because a character screwed up - it was because the rest of the party just rolled poorly and the fighters rolled excellently, including saving throws. That's why it is a RPG and just not story-telling, and in that vein rarely is it the "fault" of one player but the accumulation of bad luck from all of the players.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

1165841094[/unixtime]]So the rest of the group always connected with every swing that they made? The rest of the group had their spells work exactly as intended?

Actually, the paladin kept using power attack for all her BaB for some reason, and the rogue just rolled shitty that night.

However, I don't think poor tactics and bad luck make up for the fact that my character is probably the worst built in the group.

I did manage to keep the fighter incapacitated for about 4 rounds via Glitterdust and Color Spray.

Had I had hold Person though, there would have been no need for that. Just Hold Person, paladin or rogue CdG, hooray for team us.

[power_word_wedgie]

1165842838[/unixtime]]Actually, the paladin kept using power attack for all her BaB for some reason, and the rogue just rolled shitty that night.

That's my point #1.

However, I don't think poor tactics and bad luck make up for the fact that my character is probably the worst built in the group.

Oh, I'm not arguing whether it was the best or worst - just whether it was the sole cause for the demise of the group.

I did manage to keep the fighter incapacitated for about 4 rounds via Glitterdust and Color Spray.

That's my point #2.

Had I had hold Person though, there would have been no need for that. Just Hold Person, paladin or rogue CdG, hooray for team us.

Ah yes, this is a classic case of Gamer's Lament. (I refuse to call it some sort of fallacy - though I think Oberoni is cool, I think the whole "fallacy" term is getting driven into the the ground) Basically, all gamers second-guess themselves into the floor saying, "Gee, if I had this optimum condition, the combat would have been a piece of cake." Put in another way:

- If this was so clear, your paladin and rogue (with UMD) could have bought a scroll of Hold Person and cast it themselves.

- If you are talking about 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition D&D, then rescind this one argument since Hold Person was "da Bomb" in those days. However, in revision 3.5, you get a savings throw every round. For a 3rd (or 2nd) level spell, figuring that you can't "assume" that you're going to be fighting one humanoid combatant most of the time, then since you're not really guaranteed a CdG chance, Hold Person is not a spell that I would readily accept.

- There's nothing saying that the fighter was going to blow his savings throw. Heck, as a fighter, he may have had countermeasures to hold spells. Note I don't say it out of the voice of screwing the players; if I was playing a fighter, I would boost my willpower saves and basic control spells via magic items BIG time.

In short, you're short-changing you Mystic Theurge and if I was in your group I would have been lamenting more about (a) trying to power attack with my paladin or (b) rolling crummy with my rogue. As I said, this is RPG, not story-telling. Story-telling catches all of these scenarios with you always countering with the precisely correct counermeasure; welcome to the world of RPGs ....

[Zherog]

1165876689[/unixtime]]

I did manage to keep the fighter incapacitated for about 4 rounds via Glitterdust and Color Spray.

- There's nothing saying that the fighter was going to blow his savings throw. Heck, as a fighter, he may have had countermeasures to hold spells. Note I don't say it out of the voice of screwing the players; if I was playing a fighter, I would boost my willpower saves and basic control spells via magic items BIG time.

Note, though, that the fighter did fail his save. It was just against weaker spells - which was the best Arioch's MyTH could do.

[power_word_wedgie]

1165976710[/unixtime]]
Note, though, that the fighter did fail his save. It was just against weaker spells - which was the best Arioch's MyTH could do.

Ah, but the MyTH wasn't casting a hold spell at that time, was he? Different times and different events lead to different conclusions - events are not written in stone.

I'm not saying that fighters always make willpower saves - I'm just saying that it's not as much of a slam dunk. Planning for it may look obvious, but it really isn't - in fact, depending on the level, not having the NPC fighter have magic items to protect from it may be the exception rather than the norm. It goes into my statement on Monday morning adventure-rehashing - the adventure is extremely easy knowing what you know now versus what you knew at the beginning of the adventure.

[fbmf]

So...the die would have known what spell it was saving against.

I mean, seriously, if I cast SLEEP, but the player of the fighter for some reason thinks he's saving against HOLD PERSON, he rolls higher?

Game On,
fbmf

[power_word_wedgie]

Of couse the die doesn't know. The point is that there's no certainty that the MyTH would have known Hold Person in the first place since Hold Person is a slam dunk strategy. Like I noted in my previous response:

1) Revision 3.5 Hold Person has a lot of things going against it (saving throw every round),

2) Usually when NPC fighters are created, often they are done to compensate for their shortcoming, like many player characters do - and this includes countermeasures like willpower boosting items,

3) If this was such an obvious tactic, why didn't the paladin or the rogue have a scroll of Hold Person - interestly enough both had the ability to cast it and,

4) Yeah, if you had prior knowledge that you would fight a fighter who was alone knowing that they had no willpower boosting items, then Hold Person might be the spell for you - and even then they may make the saving throw (in this situation they didn't, but they still could have).

This is what I mean about Monday morning adventure second-guessing: right now it looks obvious. However, if I had known the winners in all eight of the horse races today when I woke up at dawn this morning and had bet my life savings on it, I would be a very wealthy man right now ...

[Zherog]

The point, Wedgemeister, is that the MyTH couldn't know hold person, because the slam on his caster level on each side prevents him from having it. If the character had been a straight wizard or cleric, though, he would've had hold person available, and would've cast it in that situation. Since the fighter failed his save against a lesser spell, a higher level spell in that same situation would've been successful as well.

Or putting it another way: The versatility of the MyTH (it's one supposed strength) didn't do jack shit for the player in this spot.

[erik]

A scroll of hold person is far far different from casting it proper. Acting as though casting a save or die spell from a scroll is a real option- that's a bit disingenuous.

I will grant that a straight wizard wouldn't likely have hold person online even as a level 5 wizard. That only happens usually if you are in a very humanoid-centric campaign or you've got an enchanter on your hands. Hold Person is just such a niche spell that it is far from ubiquitous.

A straight cleric could have hold person online, and possibly should, since they have a dearth of attack spells early on, but it sounds like that's neither here nor there.

That said, I'm with PWW except that this is worse than just Gamer's Lament.

A 3 person party has a lot of swing from good to bad... usually to bad. So this is already a poor example for pretty much anything.

It sounds like during a difficult encounter 2 characters were underperforming (paladin on power attack frenzy and rogue with bad dice), and the 3rd wasn't winning the encounter all on his own. That is not a problem with the 3rd guy's "weak character".

You can't call the one guy doing the most effective work (paraphrased) a crappy character who is holding everyone back.

[power_word_wedgie]

1166034782[/unixtime]]The point, Wedgemeister, is that the MyTH couldn't know hold person, because the slam on his caster level on each side prevents him from having it. If the character had been a straight wizard or cleric, though, he would've had hold person available, and would've cast it in that situation. Since the fighter failed his save against a lesser spell, a higher level spell in that same situation would've been successful as well.

Or putting it another way: The versatility of the MyTH (it's one supposed strength) didn't do jack shit for the player in this spot.

Yeah, it didn't do jack in this spot. However, it might have helped in areas when he needed a lower level wizard spell which the cleric would not have. However, carrying this scenario over to say, "and thus MyTH are just way too underpowered and hence my character killed the group due to his weekness", is about the same as jumping the Snake river on a motorcycle. That's a serious case of gamer's lament.

If you as the DM are really going to "protect" the group from underpowered character to thus avoid this type of gamer's lament, you might as well do the following:

DM: Welcome to my group!

Player: Glad to be here. I'm think I'm going to play a ...

DM: Cleric or druid.

Player: What!

DM: Well, I've found that really those are the only classes that have the power level to avoid gamer's lament due to a player playing an underpowered class. Beside, these classes have the flexibility to cover any situation pretty comfortably. After all, I'm doing it for the good of the group.

Player: Ok ... I guess I'll play a druid ... and I want my character's race to be a ...

DM: Dwarf. I used to only allow PHB classes. I don't allow the small races since they impede the group's overall movement rate and I don't allow the rest due to that they don't have darkvision. I thought about allowing an elf, but the constitution penalty and hence decrease in hit point/fortitude save is too unfair to the rest of the group. After all, I'm trying to avoid gamer's lament due to having an underpowered race. After all, I'm doing it for the good of the group. By the way, here are the half-a-dozen skills and feats I only allow ....

Ok, you can do the above, and there probably is less of a chance of getting gamer's lament (I'll guarantee you that they'll still get it and STILL will probably blame it due to their underpowered character), but it goes against each player wants to have: as many options as possible - even if it is underpowered.

Actually, I'd be interested if the rest of the players actually "blamed" the Count for his character selection. Do they really resent him for playing a MyTH?

clikml: Ok, I'll agree that scrolls are not the same as memorized spell - however, my point with that is if the DM is really telegraphing all of his punches that way (ie. "Gee, it seems the only thing that he's throwing at the group are fighter-types that are by themselves with no willpower boosting items...") at least as the rogue I would be buying some scolls that take advantage of that. It's agreed that the paladin is more of a stretch since he seems to be filling the role of "meat shield." The rest of your post I agree with you.

[Zherog]

Sometimes I wonder if we're speaking the same language, Wedginator...

[Neeek]

1166048309[/unixtime]]
Actually, I'd be interested if the rest of the players actually "blamed" the Count for his character selection. Do they really resent him for playing a MyTH?

I would have. I've had too many characters die from building their characters in a way that cannot deal with the challenges we were facing that I try very hard to convince them not to make the painfully weak characters they tend to.

[power_word_wedgie]

1166051540[/unixtime]]
I've had too many characters die from building their characters in a way that cannot deal with the challenges we were facing that I try very hard to convince them not to make the painfully weak characters they tend to.

Ok, I'll ask the follow-up questions:

1) Have you ever experinced a condition where the player listened to your argument and decided to still play the "painfully" weak character?

2) If so, did you quit the group? Did you keep telling him to change the character? What did you do?

3) If not, what would you do in that situation? Would you quit the group? Would you keep telling him to change the character?

As for the Count's situation, to quote what clikml said:

A 3 person party has a lot of swing from good to bad... usually to bad. So this is already a poor example for pretty much anything.

It sounds like during a difficult encounter 2 characters were underperforming (paladin on power attack frenzy and rogue with bad dice), and the 3rd wasn't winning the encounter all on his own. That is not a problem with the 3rd guy's "weak character".

You can't call the one guy doing the most effective work (paraphrased) a crappy character who is holding everyone back.

So, I agree with clikml in the sense that EVERYBODY in the group should have done a little soul-searching. For the rogue, I'd chalk it up to poor die rolls - it happens. For the paladin, after the first attack, may it's time to hold back on the power attacks and concentrate on just connecting. Thus, I'm a little curious to what Count's other player (and even his DM's) reactions were.