Some Personal Musings

[Darth Ultron]

Of course, you'll tell me that I have it all wrong. After all, I don't know you. What grounds have I for such accusations as these? Answer: no lesser grounds than I have for taking your self-aggrandizement at face value. So why don't we put the stick-waving behind us and talk about the subject at hand?

Well, sure you are wrong.

[upho]

@ Darth Ultron: First, I think a large part of the problem here is caused by you expressing your experiences and opinions as indisputable facts, and often with liberal amounts of hyperbole, piling often unrelated concepts together (optimization, roLLplaying, jerks, poor houserules etc) and/or insisting on definitions of terms which nobody else agrees with:

I think the big point is: it is never an accident.

And even IF it was possible to ''accidentally'' do so: A good player could choose NOT to do so. Even if the character can 'zap' the whole army in one round..the good player knows they don't have to do that and they can take another action(or even change the character).

Good and Bad are very simple.

A Good Player does not be an Over Shadowing Jerk. Very simple. They either simply choose NOT to do it or even just change the character so they can't do it.

Well, to be fair, I'm sure most have seen:

1.The player that is pretending to be a ''new player''. Like gosh, D&D, oh I will randomly be a Doo-Da, that likes nature Dire Wolf...you know all randomly as I am a new player.

Enter: The Optimizing Roll Player. One of the main goals of this player IS to make powerful character. And when you do that, you are going to over shadow others....and it will be no accident. When ever you do anything to the maximum extreme, or otherwise go above and beyond the norm, you will over shadow others.

And so you get the dual problem of the The Optimizing Roll Player: they both HAVE to have a powerful character and they HAVE to use that character to it's fullest no matter what.

This is the real telling bit of such a person. A normal person, one that did accidentally make a powerful character for real, would be more then open to doing something to not disrupt the game by over shadowing others. The normal person has the ability to do things like: not use their characters over powering abilities or even simply change those abilities.

So when the character encounters a group of foes, instead of blowing them all away with the powerful ability, the player can choose to do something else. The Optimizing Roll Player can't.

And sometimes, you even claim other posters have said things which they simply never did, in effect telling readers you may even be incapable of reading what other posters write if it doesn't confirm your beliefs, or at least that you often base your conclusions on whatever tone you perceive rather than the what a post actually says:

The Optimizers came in to say they must and have to always be overshadowing and disruptive, no matter what.

If you wanted people to actually listen to you and take you seriously, not to mention learn something of value yourself, it doesn't exactly help to throw out what largely reads like the forum equivalent of an emotionally over-charged tantrum while dismissing other posters' arguments and experiences. And I believe you actually know this. Which begs the question: why did you write all these posts?


Second, when it comes to your claims, I have a few questions:

I pointed out the level of disruption is equal to the players game and rule skill mastery. And only a player of great skill in both can be disruptive. A new or casual or clueless player can not ''accidentally'' do anything disruptive.

So, you're saying it requires more "game and rule skill mastery" to say build and play a disruptive version of the previously mentioned "flock of wolves" druid than to build and play a well balanced one, regardless of whether the party's other members are three full casters played by very experienced D&D nerds or a rogue, fighter and monk played by inexperienced noobs?

I would note that you can optimize anything. You can optimize a monk, or anything else. To say otherwise is just a more personal thought.

Well, there is no such thing as ''a little optimization'', as if you do that, your not optimizing. So all optimizing is ''super high'', otherwise it would not count.

So you're saying a ''super high''-optimized monk will be just as disruptively OP as a ''super high''-optimized wizard or cleric, again regardless of the mechanical qualities of the party's other members and the amount of experience and skill of those playing them?

First, we all agree..right..that no average player can ''accidentally'' make a problem character. Any player that knows the rules, knows what they are doing.

So, you're saying it's impossible for a player to build say a disruptive druid without also knowing how powerful the party's other PCs are going to be?

It is simple to not have such problems in a game, as I said:

1.Don't make the game to gentile
2.Scale the game up
3.Use Consequences
4.Make a dynamic complicated game play
5.Be wary of houserules

I don't think I've never participated in or run a 3.5 or PF game where any of these factors would be lacking/inappropriate, much less a cause of serious party balance issues. And at least points 1 - 4 tend to benefit the most powerful PCs far more than the weaker ones. Why am I wrong here?

The group save: this greatly over favors spellcasters. Ten monsters charge a spellcaster, and they cast one spell....the DM makes one save for all ten monsters. So a failed save effects all ten.

No tactics: Monsters just line up out in the open as perfect spell targets.

Yeah, these seem pretty horrible, especially when combined. And you're saying it's actually common for DMs/groups to do this?

Regardless, while I can definitely see these increase the risks of casters ending up OP, I'd assume they typically also lessen that risk when it comes to any optimized non-casters. So this is pretty much a zero-sum game as far as you're concerned, right?

No Equipment: Monsters never have much except ''treasure''

Do you mean enemies never have gear which make them more difficult to fight, or that the loot is always generic enough to be traded for the perfect items during the party's next visit to the "Magic Mart"? Both?

Seems to me the former would often require quite a bit of extra DM work, since the combat stats listed for virtually all published monsters and NPCs able to use gear include suitable items. And at least with more experienced players, the latter usually benefits the weaker PCs more than the stronger ones IME, since the power of the weaker PCs tend to be far more dependent on magic items. Do you believe I'm wrong here, and if that's the case, why?

Maybe you just need to meet more gamers?

Maybe. Though while a large majority of the hours I've spent on the hobby have been with friends in home games, I must have run games for more than a hundred different players, and probably played at least one session with nearly as many. And just to be clear, I have met players who actually were major jerks, they just didn't get the chance to display that side in the game. Or more likely they were smart enough to decide not to do so, since you have to be both a jerk and pretty darn stupid in order to intentionally optimize a PC to break a game. What do you think?

Or maybe the players in Europe are of a different mold then the ones in America. It could very well be a culture type thing.

This seems more likely to me, even though I think I've seen a very wide variety of game and play styles during my years in the hobby. Hmmm... If there actually is some general truth in this, I wonder how it came to be. Ideas?

[Darth Ultron]

@ Darth Ultron: First, I think a large part of the problem here is caused by you expressing your experiences and opinions as indisputable facts

Well, a lot of things are facts...even many of the ones you quoted.

Like it is a fact, that a Good Player can choose not to overshadow another.

:And sometimes, you even claim other posters have said things which they simply never did,

Odd that I don't do that. You won't see where I said X said this, unless it is important enough for me to quote it...then you can see X did say that.

I do say ''some players'' or ''Optimizers'' or ''bad players'' do or say X, but that is not talking about any specific person.

And a lot of posters will say things like ''in my storytelling game there is no character death ever'', and I will comment ''so your game uses Plot Armor for characters?" that the poster will get all upset or something.

Second, when it comes to your claims, I have a few questions:So, you're saying it requires more "game and rule skill mastery" to say build and play a disruptive version of the previously mentioned "flock of wolves" druid than to build and play a well balanced one, regardless of whether the party's other members are three full casters played by very experienced D&D nerds or a rogue, fighter and monk played by inexperienced noobs?

Well, any jerk can be disruptive....but yes it takes "game and rule skill mastery" to make a powerful, over shadowing character. D&D is a complex game, and you do need to know what your doing when building a character and playing a character.

So you're saying a ''super high''-optimized monk will be just as disruptively OP as a ''super high''-optimized wizard or cleric, again regardless of the mechanical qualities of the party's other members and the amount of experience and skill of those playing them?

Real life skill and experience always matter. And any player with any character can be disruptive.

So, you're saying it's impossible for a player to build say a disruptive druid without also knowing how powerful the party's other PCs are going to be?

I'm not saying that. Only Optimizers obsess over the ''party'', the other players just make what they want to have fun.

I don't think I've never participated in or run a 3.5 or PF game where any of these factors would be lacking/inappropriate, much less a cause of serious party balance issues. And at least points 1 - 4 tend to benefit the most powerful PCs far more than the weaker ones. Why am I wrong here?

They are common enough, as even a simple search would show.

I'm not really sure how you see 1-4 benefiting the powerful characters?

Do you mean enemies never have gear which make them more difficult to fight, or that the loot is always generic enough to be traded for the perfect items during the party's next visit to the "Magic Mart"? Both?

Mostly foes not having gear.

Seems to me the former would often require quite a bit of extra DM work, since the combat stats listed for virtually all published monsters and NPCs able to use gear include suitable items. And at least with more experienced players, the latter usually benefits the weaker PCs more than the stronger ones IME, since the power of the weaker PCs tend to be far more dependent on magic items. Do you believe I'm wrong here, and if that's the case, why?

The optimizers need magic items much more then other players...lots of tricks and exploits need items.

Or more likely they were smart enough to decide not to do so, since you have to be both a jerk and pretty darn stupid in order to intentionally optimize a PC to break a game. What do you think?[/QUOTE]

The world is full of stupid jerks.

This seems more likely to me, even though I think I've seen a very wide variety of game and play styles during my years in the hobby. Hmmm... If there actually is some general truth in this, I wonder how it came to be. Ideas?

Well, each type of person brings with them who they are to the game.

[upho]

Well, any jerk can be disruptive....but yes it takes "game and rule skill mastery" to make a powerful, over shadowing character. D&D is a complex game, and you do need to know what your doing when building a character and playing a character.

Real life skill and experience always matter. And any player with any character can be disruptive.

I'm responding to this first since it appears some clarification is needed: whenever I mention "disruptive" when discussing "optimization", "optimizers" and similar in this thread with you, unless I explicitly say otherwise, I'm referring specifically to being disruptive by building and playing a PC who is clearly mechanically superior to another PC in the party ("overshadow another" in your words). Nothing else.

Well, a lot of things are facts...even many of the ones you quoted.

Then why have you not supplied us with the arguments and/or evidence which makes it abundantly clear to everyone that for example:
Optimizer = the only kind of player to "obsess over the ''party''"
Optimizer = roLL player
Optimizer = intentionally disruptive
Optimizer = "HAVE to have a powerful character and they HAVE to use that character to it's fullest no matter what"
Optimizer = unable to do anything but "blowing them all away with the powerful ability" when encountering a group of foes

Like it is a fact, that a Good Player can choose not to overshadow another.

Most definitely not. See more below.

So, you're saying it requires more "game and rule skill mastery" to say build and play a disruptive version of the previously mentioned "flock of wolves" druid than to build and play a well balanced one, regardless of whether the party's other members are three full casters played by very experienced D&D nerds or a rogue, fighter and monk played by inexperienced noobs?

Well, any jerk can be disruptive....but yes it takes "game and rule skill mastery" to make a powerful, over shadowing character. D&D is a complex game, and you do need to know what your doing when building a character and playing a character.

The relevant question here is whether you believe it takes more "game and rule skill mastery" to make a disruptive version of said druid than it takes to:

1. Realize a certain option or combination of options will eventually result in a disruptive version
2. Realize which option or combination of options to change, should the version played turn out to be disruptive
3. Make a version which will be balanced to the party, game and group in question, even though that may require drastically different builds depending on those factors

So far, you have insisted a player doesn't need nearly the same levels of "game and rule skill mastery" to do any of these as the player needs to build a disruptive PC. Do you see how this is logically impossible, per definition paradoxical?

So you're saying a ''super high''-optimized monk will be just as disruptively OP as a ''super high''-optimized wizard or cleric, again regardless of the mechanical qualities of the party's other members and the amount of experience and skill of those playing them?

Real life skill and experience always matter.

So, you're saying it's impossible for a player to build say a disruptive druid without also knowing how powerful the party's other PCs are going to be?

I'm not saying that. Only Optimizers obsess over the ''party'', the other players just make what they want to have fun.

But if you're not aware of the other players' skill and experience or the power of their PCs, just how in the Bony Buttocks of Baalzebul is a player supposed to be "a Good Player" and "choose not to overshadow another"? By trusting their gut feeling? Asking their magic 8-ball? Saying "above 10 means my build is fine" and roll a d20?

And speaking of, do you think it's possible for a player to have more skill and experience building a certain class/type of PC than another? And do you think certain classes/types of PC builds require less skill and experience to make disruptive than others in general?

Odd that I don't do that. You won't see where I said X said this, unless it is important enough for me to quote it...then you can see X did say that.

I do say ''some players'' or ''Optimizers'' or ''bad players'' do or say X, but that is not talking about any specific person.

Well, obviously none of the many "optimizers" who have been posting in this thread, despite your original claim being that this is something optimizers otherwise do seemingly per default in your world. But fair enough, you didn't directly quote someone else.

I'm not really sure how you see 1-4 benefiting the powerful characters?

Quick rundown in red:
1.Don't make the game to gentile The tougher the game, the more powerful a PC needs to be in order to succeed and survive.
2.Scale the game up The more varied the challenges, the less often the weaker PCs' specializations will tend to come into play (as they're typically some limited form of combat), and the more the powerful PCs' greater versatility will matter.
3.Use Consequences The more powerful the PC, the more capable of avoiding and dealing with consequences, and vice versa.
4.Make a dynamic complicated game play The more powerful the PC, the greater probability of having effective tools for complicated situations and the greater the adaptability to shifting demands, and vice versa.

Mostly foes not having gear.

Odd. Not that I don't believe you, but it just seems like a stupid thing to do even if your goal is to be a lazy DM.

The optimizers need magic items much more then other players...lots of tricks and exploits need items.

The more limited access to magic items, the stronger casters - especially full casters - become, as their power doesn't depend nearly as much on items as even the minimum viability level of power of non-casters do. But again, this typically isn't as pronounced in games with inexperienced players, and especially not during earlier levels.

Oh wait... I forgot you don't believe there's a power disparity between monks and druids, both classes being equally likely to end up disruptive regardless of the particulars of the game, other PCs and players. Sorry!

The world is full of stupid jerks.

You mean it's full of stupid jerks who wish to intentionally ruin your games, right?

Well, each type of person brings with them who they are to the game.

That's pretty much the reason I'm wondering if culture could have much impact. I mean, there aren't that significant general differences between say most Swedes and most Americans when it comes to other similar activities AFAIK.

[Mordaedil]

Darth Ultron is an oddity even in the American side of things, I can say, albeit his rarity stretches back to a toxic DM background established many years ago, which they've tried very hard to get rid of since.

[Cosi]

No tactics: Monsters just line up out in the open as perfect spell targets.

No Equipment: Monsters never have much except ''treasure''

Making encounters harder doesn't favor weaker characters.

1) Absolutely nothing in this thread was concerned with house rules, or "gentle tables" until you brought them up at random.

Darth Ultron said gentile, not gentle. Presumably he's concerned that being allowed to eat bacon or work on the sabbath makes casters too powerful.

*Spontaneous metamagic does not take any longer than regular metamagic.
*Free Eschew Materials and Rapid Metamagic for spontaneous casters.

Making the gap between Sorcerers and Wizards smaller doesn't make the gap between Wizards and Fighters larger. It may well make the gap between characters smaller if people who would otherwise make martials instead make Sorcerers.

*The Extra Spell feat lets you pick from any class list.

I'm not even sure this counts a houserule. This is just doing what the text in the book says. Certainly you're supposed to check the FAQ/Errata/wherever this is, but many people won't. Also, if you don't like that, you're sure not going to like the Artificer or the Chameleon, entire classes which exist purely to encourage people to plunder obscure spell lists for great power.

[Andor13]

Darth Ultron said gentile, not gentle. Presumably he's concerned that being allowed to eat bacon or work on the sabbath makes casters too powerful.

Well obviously being allowed to cast on the Sabbath would be more powerful than being an Orthodox Spellcaster, but it's won't make much difference to Reform Wizards who don't consider magic to be work.

[upho]

Well obviously being allowed to cast on the Sabbath would be more powerful than being an Orthodox Spellcaster, but it's won't make much difference to Reform Wizards who don't consider magic to be work.

Wizards? Cheating infidels the lot of them, regardless of denomination. Now just imagine playing a Druid who accidentally eats a bit of cow, or a Cleric who simply forgot to shut down a teeny tiny little DMM persisted protection from evil before Saturday turned into Sunday? Then you're properly screwed in a "not too gentile"-game which "uses consequences", the DM declaring you've lost virtually all your class features as a consequence of your blatant lack of piety!

(BTW, does anyone know where to find detect bacon and detect cow spells?)

[Quertus]

(BTW, does anyone know where to find detect bacon and detect cow spells?)

Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, has got you covered! He has created a custom detect spell which, given a piece of flesh from a creature (or, heck, a whole creature - the spell isn't picky) to use as a focus, will detect the presence of creatures (or pieces thereof) of the same type.

Handy for finding pieces of regenerating creatures, or answering the inevitable "are there more?".

[Darth Ultron]

Then why have you not supplied us with the arguments and/or evidence which makes it abundantly clear to everyone

I do so often in many of my posts.

The relevant question here is whether you believe it takes more "game and rule skill mastery" to make a disruptive version of said druid than it takes to:

1. Realize a certain option or combination of options will eventually result in a disruptive version
2. Realize which option or combination of options to change, should the version played turn out to be disruptive
3. Make a version which will be balanced to the party, game and group in question, even though that may require drastically different builds depending on those factors

So far, you have insisted a player doesn't need nearly the same levels of "game and rule skill mastery" to do any of these as the player needs to build a disruptive PC. Do you see how this is logically impossible, per definition paradoxical?

1.It does take game and rule skill mastery to ''Realize a certain option or combination of options will eventually result in a disruptive version".
2.It does not take game and rule skill mastery to change things.
3.You need game and rule skill mastery and be an optimizer to do this, yes.

To put it simply: You must know the rules of the game and how to play the game to do anything of great effect in the game.

Any five year old can roll a d20 and make a simple attack, but you must have a lot of game and rule skill mastery to make a powerful character with tons of abilities.

But if you're not aware of the other players' skill and experience or the power of their PCs, just how in the Bony Buttocks of Baalzebul is a player supposed to be "a Good Player" and "choose not to overshadow another"? By trusting their gut feeling? Asking their magic 8-ball? Saying "above 10 means my build is fine" and roll a d20?

Well, you should be able to get a good sense of things as you play the game. Also, you can pick things that are not super powerful even at a glance.

And speaking of, do you think it's possible for a player to have more skill and experience building a certain class/type of PC than another? And do you think certain classes/types of PC builds require less skill and experience to make disruptive than others in general?

A player might have a bit more focus on one area then another, but a lot of rule and system mastery is general. For example, they need to understand the actions and how to use them in the game.

Well, obviously none of the many "optimizers" who have been posting in this thread, despite your original claim being that this is something optimizers otherwise do seemingly per default in your world. But fair enough, you didn't directly quote someone else.

It's common that the people I'm talking about don't post anything.

Quick rundown in red:
1.Don't make the game to gentile The tougher the game, the more powerful a PC needs to be in order to succeed and survive.
2.Scale the game up The more varied the challenges, the less often the weaker PCs' specializations will tend to come into play (as they're typically some limited form of combat), and the more the powerful PCs' greater versatility will matter.
3.Use Consequences The more powerful the PC, the more capable of avoiding and dealing with consequences, and vice versa.
4.Make a dynamic complicated game play The more powerful the PC, the greater probability of having effective tools for complicated situations and the greater the adaptability to shifting demands, and vice versa.

1.Less gentile is not just pure 'toughness', it applies to everything equally.
2.Scale covers a lot in the game. The more variations are more beneficial to the focused characters.
3.The point here is to simply not make that possible, as that is exactly what I'm talking about.
4.Not true, as 'power' is relative. Just as they have 'power' does not mean they can do anything.

The more limited access to magic items, the stronger casters - especially full casters - become, as their power doesn't depend nearly as much on items as even the minimum viability level of power of non-casters do. But again, this typically isn't as pronounced in games with inexperienced players, and especially not during earlier levels.

Optimized characters need magic items, far more then normal characters. For example, the optimizing jerk that has a character with an eternal wand of knock that they use to over shadow and bully any other player that has a character with the open lock skill...suddenly can't do it if they don't have the wand.

That's pretty much the reason I'm wondering if culture could have much impact. I mean, there aren't that significant general differences between say most Swedes and most Americans when it comes to other similar activities AFAIK.

I'd say we have huge differences.

[BassoonHero]

To put it simply: You must know the rules of the game and how to play the game to do anything of great effect in the game.

Any five year old can roll a d20 and make a simple attack, but you must have a lot of game and rule skill mastery to make a powerful character with tons of abilities.

Honestly, I'm not sure that there's anything to talk about at this point. You steadfastly maintain that something is impossible even while other posters tell you that they've seen with their own eyes.

You try to explain away these experiences by:

- Claiming that the player of the disruptive character must have been an expert lying about his level of knowledge, and that the rest of us are just too naive to see it.
- Claiming that a bevy of bizarre house rules are to blame, even though none of us uses any of them.
- Equivocating, using the same words to mean substantially different things within the same post and in subsequent posts.
- Asserting, inexplicably, that your experience is more typical than everyone else's.

[Darth Ultron]

Honestly, I'm not sure that there's anything to talk about at this point. You steadfastly maintain that something is impossible even while other posters tell you that they've seen with their own eyes.

Maybe a recap?

1.So the claim was mad that 'a lot of people' have seen the ''accidental surprise overshadow'' thing. Where they, or another player, is 'just' playing the game...and somehow 'suddenly' they overshadow one or more of the other characters. And this is a 'shock and surprise' to the one doing the overshadowing as they did not intend to do it...it 'just happened'.

2.I said that it is never an accident: people who do this are intending to do so. That A) It is just about impossible to random pick things like feats and spells that will ''suddenly overshadow others without the player knowing this will happen", a player needs a lot of game rule and system mastery to do this. The combo of feat+spell only works if you have both the right feat and spell, and you must know the right ones and pick them. B)Even if you did random pick a good ability, it again, still takes a lot of game rule and skill mastery to use it. This is very true of spellcasters. A player random picks a good spell, that is possible...but they need to know when and how to use it to have any real effect and overshadow others. They can't just cast the spell on round one of the game and disrupt things. C) Even IF the overshadwing was to come up: the player, if they are a good player, has the option of not doing anything. The character might have a bag of holding with 100 wands of knock, but the player can still have the character do nothing...and let Bob's skillmonkey character open the locked door.

3.People claim that everything I say is wrong. Even oddly the one above of ''you do not have to be an overshadwing jerk player'', and you'd think any good person would agree with that.

4.I mentioned a lot of players mislead. Again, you have to know what your doing to take a mix of abilities, feats and spells to ''suddenly by surprise'' do something. So when you take X, that lets you do an effect like say double damage, you do know what your doing(you did read X, right?)

5.It's five points I made that lead to overshadwing in games, houserules are just one of them. I listed some examples of such house rules, and said there are many more. Though everyone only focused on the ''house rules they have never heard of". And this is a good example of the misleading idea, as lots of games do the ''Free Eschew Materials and Rapid Metamagic for spontaneous casters".

- Asserting, inexplicably, that your experience is more typical than everyone else's.

Well, more diverse, yes.

[Arbane]

Well, more diverse, yes.

And de longer you play, diverse it gets?

[Darth Ultron]

And de longer you play, diverse it gets?

No, not at all.

Like all real diversity is has to be forced into being. It does not 'just happen'.

[Andor13]

No, not at all.

Like all real diversity is has to be forced into being. It does not 'just happen'.

Well, we know who took the dodge feat.

[Sun Elemental]

it is never an accident: people who do this are intending to do so.
It is just about impossible to random pick things like feats and spells that will ''suddenly overshadow others without the player knowing this will happen", a player needs a lot of game rule and system mastery to do this.
A player random picks a good spell, that is possible...but they need to know when and how to use it to have any real effect and overshadow others. They can't just cast the spell on round one of the game and disrupt things.

It's a game that can be played by young teenagers, not quantum physics. You can be playing your first session, and overshadow people.

1. Until lvl7, every Druid has companion that's their level or higher, just helping in combat. They overshadow other inexperienced people playing fighters or rogues just by choosing a particular class.
2. Just picking a monk, compared to someone lucky enough to not pick monk. Especially with low ability scores.
3. A fighter who doesn't really understand how bad dual-wielding is when your offhand isn't a light weapon, vs a fighter who 2-hands a greatsword. The greatsword guy can pick literally any feats at all, he'll do better in a every combat.
4. Someone makes a Wizard, they give themselves an 18 Int because the rulebook points out that Int is important. They have DC15 Color Sprays, and when they cast it on round one, the encounter is over.
5. Same game, the party is lvl3 now and the Wizard is throwing out DC16 Glitterdusts on round one. Same result.

I feel like your definition of "not system mastery" is people picking classes, spells and feats at random, or accidentally making weak characters.
Then people with who make accidentally good characters, people making a pretty good character like a Whirling Frenzy Barbarian, and a Tippyverse Wizard with a pet dragon Simulacrum all have "system mastery". You're putting very different people into one category that's separate from a badly-defined other category, then insulting them.

Even IF the overshadwing was to come up: the player, if they are a good player, has the option of not doing anything. The character might have a bag of holding with 100 wands of knock, but the player can still have the character do nothing...and let Bob's skillmonkey character open the locked door.

Only Optimizers obsess over the ''party'', the other players just make what they want to have fun.

Ah yes... it's great when a powerful character's best path of action is "do nothing". But if you communicate with your fellow players and make characters that don't do each other's jobs... it's dirty bad optimizing?

[EldritchWeaver]

Maybe a recap?

1.So the claim was mad that 'a lot of people' have seen the ''accidental surprise overshadow'' thing. Where they, or another player, is 'just' playing the game...and somehow 'suddenly' they overshadow one or more of the other characters. And this is a 'shock and surprise' to the one doing the overshadowing as they did not intend to do it...it 'just happened'.

2.I said that it is never an accident: people who do this are intending to do so. That A) It is just about impossible to random pick things like feats and spells that will ''suddenly overshadow others without the player knowing this will happen", a player needs a lot of game rule and system mastery to do this. The combo of feat+spell only works if you have both the right feat and spell, and you must know the right ones and pick them. B)Even if you did random pick a good ability, it again, still takes a lot of game rule and skill mastery to use it. This is very true of spellcasters. A player random picks a good spell, that is possible...but they need to know when and how to use it to have any real effect and overshadow others. They can't just cast the spell on round one of the game and disrupt things. C) Even IF the overshadwing was to come up: the player, if they are a good player, has the option of not doing anything. The character might have a bag of holding with 100 wands of knock, but the player can still have the character do nothing...and let Bob's skillmonkey character open the locked door.

...

4.I mentioned a lot of players mislead. Again, you have to know what your doing to take a mix of abilities, feats and spells to ''suddenly by surprise'' do something. So when you take X, that lets you do an effect like say double damage, you do know what your doing(you did read X, right?)

Let me provide my own experience. So for a game I then intended to join I got permission to make a SoP-based character. I collaborated with the GM in regards of my character - a shapeshifting unicorn pretending to be horse, so in battle enemies attack someone else, while still blasting everyone else. (Now I know that you will say that the unicorn makes a powerful character. In theory true, but in practice due to various circumstances the realized difference to a normal character was quite small. The biggest payoff was during the relevant timeframe that I could pull two trolls myself instead renting a horse.) The decision to be a blaster I made after looking at the list of various niches my GM gave me. The idea with unicorn came to me, because I realized that this would be the closest to an MLP game I'd get. The shapeshifting and bluffing I thought of after the GM's remark that unicorns might be valuable in the dead state, so I avoided this problem by not appearing as a unicorn and a caster. In the end, I had an optimized character which was capable covering several niches (because I like being able to do something) at the expense that I wouldn't be the best at anything compared to a specializing optimized character (except bluffing - I need that for Cunning Caster (for concealing the spellcasting) to work).

The problem I didn't realize was that the other players hadn't optimized characters. I hadn't talked with them about their characters in depth beforehand either. So I really was surprised that my character was able to compete with most of the party in their niches and be better than the supposed specialists. In fact, my unicorn was built better than I surmised initially. When the rogue decided not to scout a cave because of the high chance of being discovered, I was able to take over the job, because I could both fly and shrink down to Diminutive size. I thought of this only after the rogue declined.

So in regards to 1., 2. and 4. - yes, it is possible to overshadow people without intending to and not to realize the actual abilities of the build until you actually play.

(Also, I did tone down my playing after the others complained, in case you wonder.)

[Quertus]

Oooh, I've got a story to add!

So, this one time (not at band camp), the GM gave everyone in the (D&D) party cool new bodies, with cool new abilities.

I tested out the limits of what my abilities were, and used them accordingly.

I totally ROFLStomped everything that session.

After the fact, I looked back, and, metagaming, saw how the GM intended the session to go. 7 PCs, 7 bodies, 7 challenges. 6 were successfully designed for 6 challenges; the 7th - mine - was, in my hands (and especially in my character's hands), a bloody nightmare powerhouse of winning at everything.

The GM completely unintentionally gave me a tool that overshadowed everyone else, and, not metagaming until after the session, I completely overshadowed everyone else without realizing it until after the fact.

I try to be a little more aware during the session these days.

[Darth Ultron]

1. Until lvl7, every Druid has companion that's their level or higher, just helping in combat. They overshadow other inexperienced people playing fighters or rogues just by choosing a particular class.

This is exactly my point though. You, and optimizer just see the druids companion as a pure awesome combat ability. And I'm sure in game play you are flanking, aiding another, fighting combo of death, doom and destruction. Try and grasp that a player might, for example, never have their animal companion attack.

4. Someone makes a Wizard, they give themselves an 18 Int because the rulebook points out that Int is important. They have DC15 Color Sprays, and when they cast it on round one, the encounter is over.

My point here is still the player needs to know what they are doing. The foe on round one is a skeleton. So, color spray is wasted. Or foe is 25 feet away. Or foe is sightless.

I feel like your definition of "not system mastery" is people picking classes, spells and feats at random, or accidentally making weak characters.

If you don't have ''mastery'', the best you will make is an ''average'' character and you will only get ''average'' use out of it. D&D has a ton of rules...a player needs to understand them all to have and run an effective optimized powerful character.

Let me provide my own experience.

Well, your example is ''the DM being too gentile'' and....HOUSERULES!

And sure, when the DM is too nice, and changes the rules, then sure you might build a super powerful character.

[EldritchWeaver]

Well, your example is ''the DM being too gentile'' and....HOUSERULES!

And sure, when the DM is too nice, and changes the rules, then sure you might build a super powerful character.

I don't dispute that having houserules enabled the actual build. Still, not knowing the relative capabilities of the other group members and not noticing a powerful combo does not require any houserules. The former happens simply via not communicating enough, the latter lurks in D&D, too (e.g. cast Solid Fog and Stinking Cloud on the same area).

[BassoonHero]

Try and grasp that a player might, for example, never have their animal companion attack.

This is the fatal flaw in your position: it does not account for the large number of players with a basic understanding of the rules and a pulse.

Your examples are absolutely ridiculous.

- What if it doesn't occur to the druid that a pet wolf could be helpful in combat?
- What if the player doesn't read the range entry on their spell and casts it at nothing?
- What if the player doesn't read the spell text and casts it in a situation where it could not possibly have any effect?

The problem with your argument isn't that such players don't exist. We've all seen players utterly fail to grasp the basic mechanics of their own characters. The problem is that there is a much larger subset of players who lack a thorough understanding of 3.5 game balance but have read the manual and are not stupid. At every turn, you refuse to address this gap.

Casting color spray on a group of enemies is not rocket science. You don't need to be Sun Tzu. You don't need to be an optimizer. You don't need to read anything outside the Player's Handbook. You hardly need to read anything in the Player's Handbook. The most intuitively obvious thing to do with an area effect spell is to cast it on multiple enemies. The range is listed directly in the spell block (there's not even anything to calculate). It says right in the text that it doesn't work on sightless creatures. It says [Mind-Affecting] up at the top, and even if you don't bother to read the rules for mind-affecting spells it seems pretty obvious that a spell that is mind-affecting won't affect something without a mind (and if it is somehow unclear, then this is the sort of mistake that most players will make exactly once).

[AnimeTheCat]

It's a game that can be played by young teenagers, not quantum physics. You can be playing your first session, and overshadow people.

1. Until lvl7, every Druid has companion that's their level or higher, just helping in combat. They overshadow other inexperienced people playing fighters or rogues just by choosing a particular class.
2. Just picking a monk, compared to someone lucky enough to not pick monk. Especially with low ability scores.
3. A fighter who doesn't really understand how bad dual-wielding is when your offhand isn't a light weapon, vs a fighter who 2-hands a greatsword. The greatsword guy can pick literally any feats at all, he'll do better in a every combat.
4. Someone makes a Wizard, they give themselves an 18 Int because the rulebook points out that Int is important. They have DC15 Color Sprays, and when they cast it on round one, the encounter is over.
5. Same game, the party is lvl3 now and the Wizard is throwing out DC16 Glitterdusts on round one. Same result.

I feel like your definition of "not system mastery" is people picking classes, spells and feats at random, or accidentally making weak characters.
Then people with who make accidentally good characters, people making a pretty good character like a Whirling Frenzy Barbarian, and a Tippyverse Wizard with a pet dragon Simulacrum all have "system mastery". You're putting very different people into one category that's separate from a badly-defined other category, then insulting them.



Ah yes... it's great when a powerful character's best path of action is "do nothing". But if you communicate with your fellow players and make characters that don't do each other's jobs... it's dirty bad optimizing?

These are just my thoughts on your 5 points. Take the as the opinions they are.

1) I will agree, and can attest to, the situations Darth Ultron is talking about. Your statement is mostly correct, in the sense that yes every druid does have an animal companion. It is incorrect that said animal companion will be helping in combat, and that said animal companion will be overshadowing anyone, including inexperienced fighters. For example, a druid could select any of the many core subpar animal companions such as the badger, camel, dire rat, eagle, hawk, owl, pony, or snake. I have seen each of them selected as the animal companion and each used for non-combat functions. On top of that, there is added difficulty of tricks that are bound to the intelligence of the creature. But I digress. You aren't wrong, every druid gets an animal companion, you are wrong that every animal companion will be better in all combat situations than an inexperienced fighter.
2) if we are considering inexperienced decisions, monk isn't the worst. Your body deals scaling damage, starting off as the same as a short sword. As an inexperienced player, one of the first characters I played was a monk. We rolled stats, and I had 13/16/12/12/16/11. They clearly weren't great. I even made subpar feat choices like dodge and improved grapple. The party's druid had a wolf companion that went around biting and trip attempting. I too was going around punching for the same damage and trip attempting and being more successful. I was surviving encounters better than the wizard as well. We were all inexperienced and it showed. (More about said wizard in point 4 and 5). In other words, I didn't feel overshadowed in that situation and I didn't regret picking a monk, especially when I was getting a better two weapon fighting with what equated to dual welding greatswords.
3)on the note of two weapon fighting, I feel that it is slightly dishonest to consider that a druid will read the feat text of natural spell, but a player wanting to dual weird as a fighter wouldn't read the feat text of two weapon fighting and decided to dual weird longs words or something. If you consider selecting a feat and then poorly utilizing it for one example, but grant privilege of knowledge or even luck to another, that argument is flawed in its inception. If you argued that a druid selecting a hawk would contribute better or more than a fighter using two one handed weapons, I would still argue against that, but I that's an opinion. Bottom line, keep the arguments equal or you don't really have one. Anyone can argue "good x is better than bad y".
4/5) on the topic of spellcraft, as someone else pointed out, I agree that you must first even consider that a spell with a save like color spray is superior to magic missile or other saveless direct damaging spells. Once that is in consideration, you have to account for positioning and risk vs reward. Color spray is a 15' cone. That's plenty close enough for any enemy to give you a whak if they pass their save. And at levels 1-2, your mesley 6-12 hp (if you bothered with a 14 con) isn't going to take you far and, if we're talking inexperienced here, you probably have an AC of 12-13. Even if we're talking probability here, it's not a flat 75% chance of knocking all of them out its a 27/64 chance, so less than 50% chance of knocking 3 enemies without a will save bonus out all at once. Hardly a "combat ender" if you ask me. And that all is dependent upon being able to even get all 3 combatants in the same spell effect area. Intelligent enemies are likely to go one of two ways. Target the weakest looking opponents first (wizards or monks as they don't have much in the way of weapons or armor) or target the songs looking ones first (clerics, fighters, paladins, as they usually have heavier arms and armor equipped). Most intelligent opponents I know don't bunch themselves up. Think about dodgeball, most intelligent players spread out and cover wider areas so as to create more elusive targets and it prevent rebounds from getting them out. Beyond 1st level, starting at level 3, you get that +1 DC from higher spell level, meanwhile those CR1/3 or 1/2 creatures at level 1 are CR1 creatures now and probably have +1 to their will save, at least, making the prbability of a total enemy KO in one spell, less than 50% likely, even less still considering area of effect and line of effect.

Those are just my thoughts from reading what you wrote. I appreciate your opinions and views, I just happen to disagree that the game is in such diametric opposition to itself as you claimed, especially when considering inexperience on both ends.

This is the fatal flaw in your position: it does not account for the large number of players with a basic understanding of the rules and a pulse.

Your examples are absolutely ridiculous.

- What if it doesn't occur to the druid that a pet wolf could be helpful in combat?
- What if the player doesn't read the range entry on their spell and casts it at nothing?
- What if the player doesn't read the spell text and casts it in a situation where it could not possibly have any effect?

The problem with your argument isn't that such players don't exist. We've all seen players utterly fail to grasp the basic mechanics of their own characters. The problem is that there is a much larger subset of players who lack a thorough understanding of 3.5 game balance but have read the manual and are not stupid. At every turn, you refuse to address this gap.

Casting color spray on a group of enemies is not rocket science. You don't need to be Sun Tzu. You don't need to be an optimizer. You don't need to read anything outside the Player's Handbook. You hardly need to read anything in the Player's Handbook. The most intuitively obvious thing to do with an area effect spell is to cast it on multiple enemies. The range is listed directly in the spell block (there's not even anything to calculate). It says right in the text that it doesn't work on sightless creatures. It says [Mind-Affecting] up at the top, and even if you don't bother to read the rules for mind-affecting spells it seems pretty obvious that a spell that is mind-affecting won't affect something without a mind (and if it is somehow unclear, then this is the sort of mistake that most players will make exactly once).

A pet wolf would certainly be useful in combat, but there are far more options that "wolf" for animal companions. See my response to point 1 above for more on that opinion of mine.

There are arguments against "less privileged" classes that have assumed not reading the basics, like the above comment about two weapon fighting without an off-hand light weapon. See point 3 about how I feel about that. As a caveat, a fighter, barbarian, monk, ranger, rogue, or paladin have less content to read than a wizard, cleric, sorcerer, or druid. Would it be safe to surmise that an individual playing one of those classes would understand their content better since they have less to read? I'm playing devil's advocate because I don't believe that is the case and I believe everyone glosses over somethings at some point. There are regulars on these forums that forget basics too and they've been involved for years. It just happens.

I feel like you underestimate what pop culture has made people think about magic. A lot of new players immediately gravitate to evocation and, even after reading color spray, will still pick damage spells over others. This is even more outwardly true of new sorcerers, in my experience. I am no official source, but I tend to see fewer new players pick what are commonly considered "smart" choices and more pick spells based on damaging effect. What's more, a DC 15 spell is not impossible to beat at level one for a CR 1/3 or CR 1/2 critter, and doesn't just immediately end combat. I explained this above too. I would argue that if a player came from a particular background, like support role in a MOBA or similar, they would be more inclined to pick those less damaging options. This is just my experience and opinion. I regularly run games at the local comic shop that are geared towards new players to get them interested in the hobby and game, so it is an area I have a fair bit of experience in.

Again, I appreciate you sharing your opinions and viewpoints, even if ours differ from each others.

[BassoonHero]

For example, a druid could select any of the many core subpar animal companions such as the badger, camel, dire rat, eagle, hawk, owl, pony, or snake. I have seen each of them selected as the animal companion and each used for non-combat functions.

That's true. The player might choose an animal companion that will significantly contribute to interparty balance problems, or they might choose one that will have little effect. An experienced optimizer would choose a combination of abilities, including an animal companion, that harmonizes with the rest of the party without overshadowing them. A novice player doesn't have the system mastery to do that. This is the problem.

on the note of two weapon fighting, I feel that it is slightly dishonest to consider that a druid will read the feat text of natural spell, but a player wanting to dual weird as a fighter wouldn't read the feat text of two weapon fighting and decided to dual weird longs words or something.

The difference is that understanding why Natural Spell is good is easy — you can now do both of the things you're best at the same time — while understanding why Two-Weapon Fighting is bad requires that you crunch the numbers. TWF is a trap for a fighter because it sounds really cool but makes you worse at fighting (unless you're doing something complicated, but a novice player probably isn't). The standard “good feat” for a fighter is Power Attack, but understanding why requires more number-crunching, and it's complicated to use well. Rapid Shot is a good example of a fighter-oriented feat that both sounds cool and is actually good.

As a caveat, a fighter, barbarian, monk, ranger, rogue, or paladin have less content to read than a wizard, cleric, sorcerer, or druid. Would it be safe to surmise that an individual playing one of those classes would understand their content better since they have less to read?

No. Spellcasters are easier to build and to run effectively (I didn't say optimally). Fighters, in particular, are faced with an intimidating gauntlet of irrevocable decisions, there are many more bad decisions than good ones, and it's hard for a novice to tell which is which. Fighter-types also rely a lot more on synergistic abilities, and it's very unlikely that a novice player will luck into a sequence of good choices.

It's easy to underestimate the learning curve for melee combat — tactical movement, full attacks, flanking, attacks of opportunity, and so on. Casting a spell is relatively simple. For one thing, the spellcaster action economy is simpler, at least at the novice level. Most of the time, you move and cast a spell, or cast a spell and move. Routing movement is a lot easier when you don't want (or need) to be near the enemy in the first place. Sure, all of those fiddly combat rules do apply to you, but when they're relevant the appropriate response is usually to run away until they aren't anymore. Casting spells generally requires fewer rolls (for the player, at least). There are fewer situational bonuses and penalties that apply.

And from a build perspective, picking spells is much easier and more forgiving than picking a fighter's feats. If you aren't satisfied with a spell, you can pick another one. (Sorry, sorcerers.) While fighters are rewarded for carefully choosing synergistic abilities, spells generally work on their own. The text of a spell is all in one place, and it's usually easy to see what the spell is for and when it should be used. When a spell fizzles, it's usually easy for even a novice to see why.

I see a lot of new players choosing the fighter class because it looks easier than managing spells. I see a lot of new players picking Dodge and Weapon Focus as bonus feats. Most of them never figure out that their feats suck. I also see a lot of new players picking Burning Hands, and most of them figure out that it sucks and prepare a different spell next time. (Sorry, sorcerers.)

A lot of new players immediately gravitate to evocation and, even after reading color spray, will still pick damage spells over others.

Sure. And this isn't a bad thing; arguably, spellcaster balance was based on the assumption that players would pick Burning Hands instead of Color Spray, and Fireball instead of Stinking Cloud. And — as I said about druids above — a skilled optimizer can deliberately design their character for party balance. But a novice is going to pick whatever jumps out at them, and if the right spells jump out at them, this can be a real problem.

[JNAProductions]

I guess some of the disconnect here is that we, the people saying you can accidentally overshadow others, are not saying it ALWAYS happens, or anything like that. A Druid can pick an owl animal companion and not overshadow the Monk or Fighter. But if they choose a wolf, then there's a good chance they will, simply because the wolf has good stats and a nice trip ability.

[AnimeTheCat]

I guess some of the disconnect here is that we, the people saying you can accidentally overshadow others, are not saying it ALWAYS happens, or anything like that. A Druid can pick an owl animal companion and not overshadow the Monk or Fighter. But if they choose a wolf, then there's a good chance they will, simply because the wolf has good stats and a nice trip ability.

Eh... I'll take a fighter with combat expertise and improved trip over a wolf pretty much 100% of the time. The fighter is going to have a higher strength score, and an inherent +4 to trip before other modifiers. Additionally, will have full BAB and only need a touch attack to initiate the trip before getti g a free attack with what equates to a +4 bonus to the attack roll (in the form of a -4 AC penalty for being prone).

The wolf has slightly higher HP (possibly only equal) but lower damage than a sword/shield fighter. Also it will need to make a successful melee attack to attempt its meager +1 trip attempt. This may be effective at level 1, possibly even 2, but after that it won't keep up while that inherent +4 bonus from improved trip will keep a fighter's trip relevant longer.

BassoonHero, I will respond to your thoughts, but tomorrow, when I've slept and I'm not on my phone.

[JNAProductions]

Right... But all the Druid had to do to achieve that is think "Hey, wolves are predators. That'll be good in a fight,", whereas the Fighter needs to realize that tripping is something to specialize in, and if really doing it well, needs a reach weapon with tripping, such as the spiked chain, and allocate their stats right so they can have a decent strength score while having enough dex for Combat Reflexes...

[Sun Elemental]

AnimeTheCat, I respect your opinion and typing stamina, but I wasn't intending to spark an exact deliberation of numbers and such.
1) I honestly was just working with the assumption that new players who realize they get a combat pet, would choose a wolf, hunting dog, bear or large predatory cat. However, it is possible to pick something like a skunk, as a player of mine did.
2) I just wanted to make a Monk joke, forgive me.
3) In terms of fictional characters who dual-wield, I can't think of a single person who does the 'optimal' combination of 1hander+dagger. It's either a pair of 1h cool weapons like swords, axes or maces, or the 'almost optimal' double daggers. And if someone's making a Drizzt clone, they're dual-wielding scimitars. Roronoa Zoro or Deadpool? That's katanas. Even action movie heroes, dual guns. And I assume some people will ignore the text of TWF to do the cool thing.
4/5) I didn't want to consider all the statistics because it becomes an argument of "Your argument is invalid because you forgot this bonus or this rule". However, your points are fair.

Try and grasp that a player might, for example, never have their animal companion attack.

A Druid player is explicitly given the AC, attack bonus, damage, etc of their companion. If they don't think to have it attack, they might not think to attack at all if playing a fighter. They can both be equally passive and unskilled!

A Story

Is that the story behind your avatar? That's awesome!

[EldritchWeaver]

Is that the story behind your avatar? That's awesome!

Yes and thanks!

[Quertus]

This is exactly my point though. You, and optimizer just see the druids companion as a pure awesome combat ability. And I'm sure in game play you are flanking, aiding another, fighting combo of death, doom and destruction. Try and grasp that a player might, for example, never have their animal companion attack.

My point here is still the player needs to know what they are doing. The foe on round one is a skeleton. So, color spray is wasted. Or foe is 25 feet away. Or foe is sightless.

On the one hand, I've played with 7-year-olds who had sufficient sense to make that seem a laughable suggestion.

On the other hand, I've played with college-educated adults who've done just that.

Also, one of my players had a character who miraculously survived several deaths by being outside the AoE. In retrospect, I'm starting to wonder if it wasn't coincidence, and he might not have actually planned it...

(Also, I did tone down my playing after the others complained, in case you wonder.)

So, um, what did this look like in practice?

[Eldariel]

In the first two of my games of 3e that transitioned to 3.5 over the years, I (playing Fighter 6/Wizard 1/Arcane Archer in the first and Fighter 4/Scout 2/Dervish in the second) was overshadowed by party casters with equally little experience. In the first game we got to level 13-14 trying to believe against the increasingly strong evidence that the party Wizard and Cleric were more useful than the other 5 of us (me, another Fighter/Dwarven Defender, Rogue/Assassin, Ranger, Bard).

G1 had encounters where we could do nothing or not enough or being just effed (Ragewalker, Storm Elemental, etc.) kept baffling us while one of them always got to save-or-lose or Harm it. They had next to no items and started reading the spell list when they began the game on L1 and we still had them just become a 2-man party more or less. My biggest contribution was a 6th sense use of Scroll of See Invisibility to save us from an assassin: they never prepared divinations. We also had an intraparty conflict later: was solved by my character being Forcecaged by the Wizard. I spent time looking for answers and found out I'd need to use an 11k item every time I was spent 1.5k on.

I also realised they got new different ways to solve problems every level while I got slightly better at my one option. And that Fighter 6 is the wrong entry to AA and that casters half-progress fighting while warriors 0 progress casting. And that AA sucks; we eventually buffed the class giving it multiple uses of its abilities and 2/3 casting but eventually we realised that sucked too. At least I correctly identified Grease as the best level 1 spell to Imbue. In short, my character was the most multiclassed, rich as **** and not at all efficient. They were poor, singleclassed and singlehandedly carrying us.


The second, we had a 2man party and the second was a Wizard (second char; started a Warlock but got bored). We figured we needed extra muscle and he was enanoured by the idea of Planar Binding. One Cha check later we had a helpful Glabrezu (which we had encountered, and Knowledge revealed as a possible target) and made a casual stroll through Expedition to the Demonweb Pits. My char was largely superfluous; Scissorhand Ed outperformed me in every way. Hell, I couldn't even fly without magic items and when I was outta charges... Let alone not having Reverse Gravity at will or such.