Wait Wait Wait

[Thinker]

And how are you supposed to roleplay if your character is deceased?

They roleplay being dead, duh!

Kryptonite is a great idea. I think all of my campaigns will have a different one for each class and race. One gets rid of abilities, the other gets rid of hit points.

I think fax missed my sarcasm

[Dalboz of Gurth]

They roleplay being dead, duh!

Kryptonite is a great idea. I think all of my campaigns will have a different one for each class and race. One gets rid of abilities, the other gets rid of hit points.

I think fax missed my sarcasm

There are a plethora of monsters than have various draining abilities

Drain Skill
Drain Life
Drain Spell

etc....

[Fax Celestis]

I'm not saying the game should be safe. Far from it: a safe game is dull. But what I am saying is that having a DM shut down your character time after time by denying you your only class feature and essentially make you a fighter with a crappy HD and an insignificant attack bonus is...well, it makes the player feel like crap, and it makes the rest of the players feel like they're either insignificant weaklings (after all, the DM doesn't need to take such drastic measures with them), or that they're somehow blessed by the DM and can get away with anything.

Neither is conducive to a good gaming environment.

[tainsouvra]

A player who has already abused the rules has attempted to destroy the fun.

However, a Wizard can be more powerful than the rest of the party without any abuse of the rules at all. In that situation, what you are proposing is simply punishing the player based on what character class he chose to play in a game. Seriously, ponder how inappropriate that is if your goal is to have fun.

[Reinboom]

Doesn't really matter what edition of Psionics. ;D

Have you read the psionic rules for 3.5? No really? Be honest? Please?
A full psion is about the same power as say... a sorcerer.
There are ways to abuse psionics (of Smack), but... there are ways to abuse nearly everything.

2.0/2.5 Psionics? Ugh, no thanks. There's your overpowered psionics.


Back on track to wizards:
Constant anti magic field? BAD IDEA.
As stated - every player should do something. Instead of thinking about the classes - think about the players.
You start the session. You all gather around wherever.
The DM points at player B.
"Sorry, you can't do anything for a large portion of the game."
<insert reaction here... come on... you can think of one... there's a million bad ways for this to turn out.>

Compare this to the rogue, with constructs or undead. At least the rogue can do -something-. Not incredible sneak attack damage, no. But they can at least hit the thing at all. What does a wizard do with nothing? Sits in the corner.

=edit=
How I handle the issue of wizards in comparison to the rest of the party in overshadowment:
I don't allow them. Voila. No risk taken.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

I'm not saying the game should be safe. Far from it: a safe game is dull. But what I am saying is that having a DM shut down your character time after time by denying you your only class feature and essentially make you a fighter with a crappy HD and an insignificant attack bonus is...well, it makes the player feel like crap, and it makes the rest of the players feel like they're either insignificant weaklings (after all, the DM doesn't need to take such drastic measures with them), or that they're somehow blessed by the DM and can get away with anything.

Neither is conducive to a good gaming environment.

Dude, go back and read my posts. I didn't say shut down someone's character every time they game. I said instill the fear that they can be shut down if they keep abusing their character and their power.

You only ever need to shut down a munchkin player once or twice at a critical moment for them to rethink how they play the game.

I'll let players play anything they want in my games, if they are willing to deal with the consequences, and quite frankly, I've only rarely ever had problems with a player who couldn't deal with consequences of his character or his actions.

And I did use the pronoun HIS specifically - never has a gal ever attempt to abuse her character in one of my games. It's only the adolescent juvenile or adolescent minded players who've ever tried to snowball me.

[EndgamerAzari]

And this quickly makes the game not fun for the players. And it's a game, right? So the purpose is to have fun?

Alas, my dear Fax, what is described above (the post you quoted) is what a lot of people consider fun.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

Have you read the psionic rules for 3.5? No really? Be honest? Please?
.

Ok not 3.5 But I did read the ones for 3.0 and I did notice some of the same issues that croped up with 3.0 as in 2nd ed. In either case, it only takes a slight nudge to make psionicists feel fear.

[Reinboom]

Dude, go back and read my posts. I didn't say shut down someone's character every time they game. I said instill the fear that they can be shut down if they keep abusing their character and their power.

You only ever need to shut down a munchkin player once or twice at a critical moment for them to rethink how they play the game.

The issues with this are:
Wizards don't have to be abused or munchkinned in order to overshadow nearly everyone.

[tainsouvra]

And I did use the pronoun HIS specifically - never has a gal ever attempt to abuse her character in one of my games. It's only the adolescent juvenile or adolescent minded players who've ever tried to snowball me.

Being juvenile is not in any way a male trait. Women do it too.

[Fax Celestis]

Dude, go back and read my posts. I didn't say shut down someone's character every time they game. I said instill the fear that they can be shut down if they keep abusing their character and their power.

Right, because fear is a great tool to use to display your dominance as DM. A DM shouldn't be a tyrant. They should, rather, be a guide. Also, stop calling me "dude" and "bro": I am neither.

You only ever need to shut down a munchkin player once or twice at a critical moment for them to rethink how they play the game.

I think that prevention is a better method than denial, really. I make my players approve every step their character build takes, from feat selection to spell selection, from base class choice to prestige class choice. If I see the cheese warning (and I most often do because I know the game that well), then I tell them to try something else. If I somehow miss the cheese factor, then I make it clear at the beginning of the game that I reserve the right to ask them to change their character at any time.

Alas, my dear Fax, what is described above (the post you quoted) is what a lot of people consider fun.

What a sad state of affairs we are in then.

[tainsouvra]

Ok not 3.5 But I did read the ones for 3.0 and I did notice some of the same issues that croped up with 3.0 as in 2nd ed. In either case, it only takes a slight nudge to make psionicists feel fear.

3.5 Psionics is dramatically different from 3.0.

[Fax Celestis]

Ok not 3.5 But I did read the ones for 3.0 and I did notice some of the same issues that croped up with 3.0 as in 2nd ed. In either case, it only takes a slight nudge to make psionicists feel fear.

3.5 psionics is absoballylutely nothing like 3.0 psionics. Nothing like.

[Overlard]

Ok not 3.5 But I did read the ones for 3.0 and I did notice some of the same issues that croped up with 3.0 as in 2nd ed. In either case, it only takes a slight nudge to make psionicists feel fear.

3.0 and 3.5 psionics are a world apart.

The wizard problem is this: in order for a wizard not to be game-bendingly powerful, and leave most players and monsters in the dust, the player has to make a lot of bad decisions. They have to try not to be amazingly powerful. If you screw over a player for not purposefully screwing up their character, then that's poor gaming. Someone isn't a munchkin for choosing to play a wizard competently.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

The issues with this are:
Wizards don't have to be abused or munchkinned in order to overshadow nearly everyone.

If the player is not a munchkin and is NOT abusing his power, then it's 100% DM fault for not making balanced encounters for all the classes.

Right, because fear is a great tool to use to display your dominance as DM. A DM shouldn't be a tyrant. They should, rather, be a guide. Also, stop calling me "dude" and "bro": I am neither.

Fear is what keeps you from cossing the middle of an intersection without looking both ways.

Fear is what keeps you from sticking your hand into the fire.

Fear is what keeps you alive.

Players forget to properly play fear. They think because it's just a piece of paper, there is no fear. They need to be reminded that they fear for the wellbeing of their character. By utilizing fear correctly, you can give your players a rush of enjoyment and satisfaction. It's clear however, you've never experienced this.

With the attitude you've given me, Fax, I'll send your comments to my committee for review to determine how I should address you, dude.

I think that prevention is a better method than denial, really. I make my players approve every step their character build takes, from feat selection to spell selection, from base class choice to prestige class choice. If I see the cheese warning (and I most often do because I know the game that well), then I tell them to try something else. If I somehow miss the cheese factor, then I make it clear at the beginning of the game that I reserve the right to ask them to change their character at any time.

You just called me a tyrant for using fear in my campaigns, and then brag about "cherry picking" feats and forcing your players to follow a communistic chain of approvals to make their characters.

What a sad state of affairs we are in then.

It isn't a sad state of affairs. That's how this game was handled from its very inception. If you want to be coddled and want to treat your players the same way, then that's your choice. But it's a choice that does break from even the very origin of Dungeons and Dragons, and in fact, all board games ever produced from ages 8 and up.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

3.0 and 3.5 psionics are a world apart.

ok I did not know this.

srry ^_^

The wizard problem is this: in order for a wizard not to be game-bendingly powerful, and leave most players and monsters in the dust, the player has to make a lot of bad decisions. They have to try not to be amazingly powerful. If you screw over a player for not purposefully screwing up their character, then that's poor gaming. Someone isn't a munchkin for choosing to play a wizard competently.

I am not arguing against playing a wizard competently, but I am saying there are ways to handle over powered wizards, and there are ways to handle munchkinning wizards. Adjust the severity as necessarry.

[Reinboom]

And I did use the pronoun HIS specifically - never has a gal ever attempt to abuse her character in one of my games. It's only the adolescent juvenile or adolescent minded players who've ever tried to snowball me.

That... that's kind of insulting.

I've personally optimized - and even played a planar shepherd, a fiend of possession, and other generally over powered classes (including strict sorcerer, intended on power abuse - I refuse to play 3.5 wizards before you ask) - just to teach my GM a lesson.
I know my 6th eldest sister has also optimized -atleast- her rogue for her and her husband games (and probably many more, they living 2000 miles away means I don't see their games much).

Optimization: It's not sexist.

Aside... lets take some examples of 'abuse'.
A cold oriented wizard. Completely for RP reasons. Loves the snow, lives the snow. Took a LA +6 race that was even arctic. Completely unoptimized.
Takes shivering touch. It's cold, completely in character.

ECL 17 (level 6 wizard, level 5 frost mage, 6 levels into LA)
Maximize shivering touches the dragon.
Dragon dies.

That's 3 things used. Shivering touch. Maximize. Spellcasting progression.

[Overlard]

With the attitude you've given me, Fax, I'll send your comments to my committee for review to determine how I should address you, dude.

Look babe, maybe you should ask for a review on gender too.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

That... that's kind of insulting.

I've personally optimized - and even played a planar shepherd, a fiend of possession, and other generally over powered classes (including strict sorcerer, intended on power abuse - I refuse to play 3.5 wizards before you ask) - just to teach my GM a lesson.
I know my 6th eldest sister has also optimized -atleast- her rogue for her and her husband games (and probably many more, they living 2000 miles away means I don't see their games much).

Optimization: It's not sexist.

I'm a guy. I was not being sexist against my own gender. I'm just stating a fact. No woman, or girl, has ever tried to snowball me in an AD&D game. The only people who have tried to snowball me are very juvenile. Almost all the males in my games have acted mature enough they don't snowball me. I hope this cleared up the misconception of my statement.

Aside... lets take some examples of 'abuse'.
A cold oriented wizard. Completely for RP reasons. Loves the snow, lives the snow. Took a LA +6 race that was even arctic. Completely unoptimized.
Takes shivering touch. It's cold, completely in character.

ECL 17 (level 6 wizard, level 5 frost mage, 6 levels into LA)
Maximize shivering touches the dragon.
Dragon dies.

That's 3 things used. Shivering touch. Maximize. Spellcasting progression.

A DM should know this.

Here are ways to prevent:

Prevent touch damage. Have the dragon recognize that the character is an Ice Wizard/Mage. Have the dragon cast a spell: protection from cold or some other like spell, or shield of spell protection, whatever is within the dragon's spell casting ability.

Send off several warnings, by having the dragon use ranged attacks.

Then, if the caracter ignores your wanring and decides to walk up to the dragon, have the Dragon step on him and squish him like a bug: crushing damage against mages is usually if not always fatal. Feel free to kill the dragon, but make it a very costly victory for the mage.

Make it clear to the player that stupid strategies like that need to be avoided for fear of their life.

[Fax Celestis]

If the player is not a munchkin and is NOT abusing his power, then it's 100% DM fault for not making balanced encounters for all the classes.

False. The wizard class is built in such a way that it is significantly more powerful when poorly built than nearly any other class when they are well-built.

Fear is what keeps you from cossing the middle of an intersection without looking both ways.

Fear is what keeps you from sticking your hand into the fire.

Fear is what keeps you alive.

Players forget to properly play fear. They think because it's just a piece of paper, there is no fear. They need to be reminded that they fear for the wellbeing of their character. By utilizing fear correctly, you can give your players a rush of enjoyment and satisfaction. It's clear however, you've never experienced this.

There's a difference between creating fear within the bounds of the game and creating fear outside of those bounds.

You just called me a tyrant for using fear in my campaigns, and then brag about "cherry picking" feats and forcing your players to follow a communistic chain of approvals to make their characters.

I didn't brag about anything: I demonstrated what I have done to prevent munchkinry. And frankly, I don't ban much of anything except the obvious Roads To Brokenness. My players understand this, are mature about it, and make decisions that won't cause me to have to ask them to change their character.

It isn't a sad state of affairs. That's how this game was handled from its very inception. If you want to be coddled and want to treat your players the same way, then that's your choice. But it's a choice that does break from even the very origin of Dungeons and Dragons, and in fact, all board games ever produced from ages 8 and up.

There is absolutely no reason that the game should exclude a player at any given time, and what you're saying is just that: exclusion.

[Fax Celestis]

Here are ways to prevent:

Prevent touch damage. Have the dragon recognize that the character is an Ice Wizard/Mage. Have the dragon cast a spell: protection from cold or some other like spell, or shield of spell protection, whatever is within the dragon's spell casting ability.

Send off several warnings, by having the dragon use ranged attacks.

Then, if the caracter ignores your wanring and decides to walk up to the dragon, have the Dragon step on him and squish him like a bug: crushing damage against mages is usually if not always fatal. Feel free to kill the dragon, but make it a very costly victory for the mage.

Make it clear to the player that stupid strategies like that need to be avoided for fear of their life.

So you are advocating breaking the rules in favor of the monsters merely because you don't like what a player is doing?

[Alex12]

In our next campaign, my group has already decided: no arcane magic. There will be divine magic and psionics.
But on-topic, if you want to lessen the effect of spellcasters, well, Beholders and other creatures that generate AMF effects are always useful for that.

[Goumindong]

If the player is not a munchkin and is NOT abusing his power, then it's 100% DM fault for not making balanced encounters for all the classes.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

This is what I said:

If the player is not a munchkin and is NOT abusing his power, then it's 100% DM fault for not making balanced encounters for all the classes.

This is what you said:

False. The wizard class is built in such a way that it is significantly more powerful when poorly built than nearly any other class when they are well-built.

If you want to keep arguing that wizards are so over powered that there's nothing a DM can do to learn how to adjust the encounters, then maybe you and everyone else who agrees with that sentiment needs to stop allowing wizards or needs to stop playing 3rd edition

There's a difference between creating fear within the bounds of the game and creating fear outside of those bounds.

I always create my fear within the bounds of the game. Are you suggesting I pick up a chainsaw and pretend to be Jason? If not then accept the fact I am talking about the bounds of the game.

I didn't brag about anything: I demonstrated what I have done to prevent munchkinry. And frankly, I don't ban much of anything except the obvious Roads To Brokenness. My players understand this, are mature about it, and make decisions that won't cause me to have to ask them to change their character.

See that's the main key difference in my eyes between being a veteran DM and being a micro-manager: A veteran DM knows how to handle any character any time anywhere. It is against my person ethics to ever consider a DM who forces his players into a cookie cutter of what he or she deems an appropriate group choice.

But, if you have fun playing that way, all the more power to you. Just take now that I will NEVER advise ANYONE to play in such a manner.

There is absolutely no reason that the game should exclude a player at any given time, and what you're saying is just that: exclusion.

No, actually I'm not talking about exclusion. And I'd kindly like you to stop such poorly researched accusations, especially after you brag about micromanaging your characters. It's more than irritating. Start reading my posts before you respond with those accusations.

The only exclusion I see here is you talking about how you force your players to play a certain way through a micro managed approval system.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

So you are advocating breaking the rules in favor of the monsters merely because you don't like what a player is doing?

I didn't suggest breaking any rules. If you knew how to play your monsters, you'd know that.

[Temp]

I guarantee you, so many of these problems I keep reading about didn't exist in 2nd edition.

I think this may be a large part of your problem with 3rd edition. If your opinions are based upon messageboard discussions on the system, you're bound to come away with a skewed viewpooint. Posters here aren't interested in what works. Everything should work; it's just not that interesting. So we discuss and bicker over the flaws--the Save-or-Die spellcasters, the Nova-ing Wizards and the powers of CoDzilla.

...And 2nd edition had just as many problems, many the same (Example? Wizards squishing everyhing else at high levels--the primary fault of D&D v3.5). It's a different game though, with different mechanics, so the specifics are bound to change.

[Fax Celestis]

I didn't suggest breaking any rules. If you knew how to play your monsters, you'd know that.

Shivering touch deals Dexterity damage, enough to take a dragon down to 0 Dexterity and thereby paralyze them. You recommend making the dragon capable of taking one of these, crushing the wizard, and then continuing on. It is physically impossible short of failing to pass spell resistance for a dragon to survive a maximized shivering touch spell.

So, in essence, what you are advocating is in fact breaking the rules.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

I think this may be a large part of your problem. People aren't interested in what works. Everything should work. It's just not that interesting. The flaws are discussed often--save-or-die wizards and CoDzilla's powers for instance.

And 2nd edition had just as many flaws, many the same (Example? Wizards squishing everyhing else at high levels--the main problem discussed here about 3.5)

Yeah that high level wizard squishing everything at high levels, just doesn't happen in 2nd edition unless you're given the keys to the city by a lax DM.

However I am beginning to see some of the major issues with 3e wizards. But nothing that can't be overcome by a DM who has read his rulebooks from cover to cover.

[Goumindong]

I didn't suggest breaking any rules. If you knew how to play your monsters, you'd know that.

If you had ever DM'd or played 3.5 or 2e you would know this is false.

[cupkeyk]

In our next campaign, my group has already decided: no arcane magic. There will be divine magic and psionics.
But on-topic, if you want to lessen the effect of spellcasters, well, Beholders and other creatures that generate AMF effects are always useful for that.

Uhhh, Ego Whip is ten times more broken than Shivering Touch, though.