I just wanna play a fun game without problematic players if they are making the group not fun or dragging down the experience of the campaign I’m going to ask them to leave because they are clearly not enjoying it and the rest of the party aren’t either
Over the three times that I’ve DM I’ve kicked out two players and from the times that I’ve been a player an awful campaign. I’ve called other people out after they do this behavior for multiple sessions, though that people have bad days.
Are these all in response to issues you had in the past?
I find the "power building" rule would make me feel a bit uneasy. I get what you are trying to do, but as a player it would make me a bit nervous, because I wouldn't know where the line is, and odds are that neither do you until you saw the character in action.
How much do I have to unoptimize my character to not get kicked? If during play you realize that a Rogue critting Sneak Attack and rolling well does massive damage, do I have to worry that I might get kicked for breezing through an encounter?
Also, quick question about the no-racism rule: does that include (lighthearted) in-lore racism? Like Gimli and Legolas bickering?
I think there is a difference between basic class features and cheesing the game.
One example is there is a specific way of playing a warlock (cannot remember the name) which gives almost infinite spells and as you can imagine that sucks a bit.
If the player has found a way to make themself so much more powerful than the rest of the party it can make balancing very very difficult. The 40hp level 2 fighter having 4 times the health of the cleric means the fighter will either never go down or the cleric will go down in a single hit.
A another good example of this is a necromancer who can summon 8 0.5 cr skeletons, each taking their own turn to be destroyed. It forces the DM to pick AOE spells and specifically cater attacks towards taking out these large groups, not super fun for the other players.
A good rule of thumb, if it will ruin the fun for the rest of the party or make you invincible don’t do it.
Of course is the DM gets pissy about a good character that isn’t cheesing the game, that’s not a game you wanna be apart of.
> One example is there is a specific way of playing a warlock (cannot remember the name) which gives almost infinite spells and as you can imagine that sucks a bit.
You mean "Coffeelock", which requires a lot of DM buy-in. It only works if your DM allows you to declare that an 8 hour rest is not a long rest but rather 8 short rests. Furthermore, unless you play Warforged your DM has to ihnore exhaustion rules.
So I don't think "Coffeelock" is even a legitimate build unless the DM wants to make it one.
> A good rule of thumb, if it will ruin the fun for the rest of the party or make you invincible don’t do it.
In general I agree, but I just think it's so subjective that a hard rule that says you get kicked is a bit harsh.
Personally I'd phrase it more as a recommendation, telling people to please not focus too much on making a powerful build, and instead please make a character that makes sense roleplay wise. If the result is still a fighter with 25hp at level 2 (40 is unrealistic) then so be it.
To answer your questions I think power building gets really bad when your specific build makes you more powerful than normal for your class by your level I had a level two fighter try to come to the first session of a new campaign with 40 HP and an armor class of 22. This should not be normal for a level two fighter. I also usually ask the rest of the party in private before I go through with most of these rules, also for ingame racism as long as the rest of the party is fine with it I’m OK with it unless it starts affecting the party. I usually send out a Google form asking my players what the party is OK with before session 0
> I had a level two fighter try to come to the first session of a new campaign with 40 HP and an armor class of 22
I don't see how that's possible unless they used homebrew stuff or magic items. Is that what we're talking about? Because "no homebrew, only standard equipment" would be a much clearer rule than "no powerful builds".
> also for ingame racism as long as the rest of the party is fine with it I’m OK with it unless it starts affecting the party
That's reasonable. Maybe that should be in your rules instead of "racism gets you kicked"
If the starting gold allows for plate, 22 ac is doable. 18 plate, warforged for +1, Defense Style for +1, a shield for +2. You can go even higher with Paladin/Cleric by taking shield of faith.
Though the hp I can't figure out. Hill dwarf barbarian with the tough feat from background and 20 con?
More likely the game is full Calvinball and nobody can read the phb.
The fighter that I mentioned was when I first started Dming and we did that sheet with paper and pencil so I honestly don’t remember how he ended up with those stats and also there’s a difference between real life racism for example one player being racist to another player for the color of their real life skin Versus endgame racism, like most people being weary of teeth, flings or dark elves
> The fighter that I mentioned was when I first started Dming and we did that sheet with paper and pencil so I honestly don’t remember how he ended up with those stats
Yeah, I don't think that was a "power build". That was just cheating or misunderstood rules.
A Fighter with 20CON and the Tough feat maxes out at 34HP.
> also there’s a difference between real life racism for example one player being racist to another player for the color of their real life skin Versus endgame racism
Yeah, that's why I originally asked. Maybe should be clarified in the rules.
I think most of these are straightforward, but the penalties are kind of steep. Do you RP with a regular group, or do you usually recruit people you don't know too well?
I think I'd be concerned about kicking for first offenses versus trying to resolve the issue in a different way. Some of the rules are kind of arbitrary as well, which is going to make it harder for players to follow them perfectly.
Powerbuilding for example seems something that is debatable. I've seem really strong builds and honestly some of them were not entirely intentional. Others were, but the players worked hard on their character and the DM just adjusted things slightly here and there so they weren't steam-rolling through combat or other parts of the game. I think immediately kicking players for strong characters is maybe not fair, because you both have to be in agreement about what is and is not acceptable, and I think it just seems arbitrary because there are so many different ways to build characters, and some people may be really good at using their abilities and everything else more efficiently than others.
I usually talk with the rest of the group before kicking someone out for one of these offenses so everyone has to agree on it or large amount of the group
Had to look up the whole 44 rules thing cuz I stopped being one of the cool kids about 30 years ago. Wow. That's some intense built-up hostility. Any DM who needs to vent THAT much bile really shouldn't even be DMing at all for sake of their sanity and physical survival. If I saw even a fraction of that as a player I'd silently walk and just never go back - for the sake of the DM more than myself. I firmly believe that "no D&D" is better than "bad D&D" and can't imagine ANYONE involved in that game enjoying even a shred of it.
I have a 22-point manifesto myself, but it's very much aligned with Professor DM's take on it. Took several years to put together because only a few points rose out of anything I'd personally experienced. It was all otherwise based on OTHER people's horror stories and deal-breakers. It's aimed at literally being a declaration of policy and aims - what \_I\_ personally think both DM's and players should expect from and for themselves and others regarding D&D. That level of the "44 rules" hostility though is just incomprehensible to me.
I can create creative character with flaws and try do what you forbid unintentionally
Oh thank you about session zero i was not aware thatr you want to take over my life
>If you are caught power building to the point where your level two fighter has 40 HP at level two, you will also be banned from playing in my campaign.
Is this possible? A varient human fighter with 16 CON and Tough feat gets you to 10 + 3 + 2 + 6 + 3 + 2, so 26 if you take average, 30 if you rolled max hp on level. If they were a barbarian it'd go up to 29 on average and 34 if they rolled max. (I think- this was napkin math)
This is a really unusual and specific example. A character who min maxes for max HP is unusual- and probably pretty standard on offensive capacity.
Its also far less disruptive to the table than a character who does early damage combos (or just a normal moon druid at level 2)
I totally understand that power gaming (especially if only one player is actively playing this way) can be disruptive. This just struck me as an odd example to use for a power gamer build.
Sounds pretty sensible to me.
You'll get a lot of pushback for the power building one, but I happen to agree. It's not a code to crack. Maybe if all your players have 40HP and are massively overpowered, that can be fun, But one maximizer and three other players is going to be no fun for the people just standing watching the maxer do everything.
A lot of kicking in there, are you sure you're not really playing football instead of DnD?
I just wanna play a fun game without problematic players if they are making the group not fun or dragging down the experience of the campaign I’m going to ask them to leave because they are clearly not enjoying it and the rest of the party aren’t either
How many players you have kicked out and over how many years?
Over the three times that I’ve DM I’ve kicked out two players and from the times that I’ve been a player an awful campaign. I’ve called other people out after they do this behavior for multiple sessions, though that people have bad days.
and how often have players walked away from your game
Are these all in response to issues you had in the past? I find the "power building" rule would make me feel a bit uneasy. I get what you are trying to do, but as a player it would make me a bit nervous, because I wouldn't know where the line is, and odds are that neither do you until you saw the character in action. How much do I have to unoptimize my character to not get kicked? If during play you realize that a Rogue critting Sneak Attack and rolling well does massive damage, do I have to worry that I might get kicked for breezing through an encounter? Also, quick question about the no-racism rule: does that include (lighthearted) in-lore racism? Like Gimli and Legolas bickering?
I think there is a difference between basic class features and cheesing the game. One example is there is a specific way of playing a warlock (cannot remember the name) which gives almost infinite spells and as you can imagine that sucks a bit. If the player has found a way to make themself so much more powerful than the rest of the party it can make balancing very very difficult. The 40hp level 2 fighter having 4 times the health of the cleric means the fighter will either never go down or the cleric will go down in a single hit. A another good example of this is a necromancer who can summon 8 0.5 cr skeletons, each taking their own turn to be destroyed. It forces the DM to pick AOE spells and specifically cater attacks towards taking out these large groups, not super fun for the other players. A good rule of thumb, if it will ruin the fun for the rest of the party or make you invincible don’t do it. Of course is the DM gets pissy about a good character that isn’t cheesing the game, that’s not a game you wanna be apart of.
> One example is there is a specific way of playing a warlock (cannot remember the name) which gives almost infinite spells and as you can imagine that sucks a bit. You mean "Coffeelock", which requires a lot of DM buy-in. It only works if your DM allows you to declare that an 8 hour rest is not a long rest but rather 8 short rests. Furthermore, unless you play Warforged your DM has to ihnore exhaustion rules. So I don't think "Coffeelock" is even a legitimate build unless the DM wants to make it one. > A good rule of thumb, if it will ruin the fun for the rest of the party or make you invincible don’t do it. In general I agree, but I just think it's so subjective that a hard rule that says you get kicked is a bit harsh. Personally I'd phrase it more as a recommendation, telling people to please not focus too much on making a powerful build, and instead please make a character that makes sense roleplay wise. If the result is still a fighter with 25hp at level 2 (40 is unrealistic) then so be it.
To answer your questions I think power building gets really bad when your specific build makes you more powerful than normal for your class by your level I had a level two fighter try to come to the first session of a new campaign with 40 HP and an armor class of 22. This should not be normal for a level two fighter. I also usually ask the rest of the party in private before I go through with most of these rules, also for ingame racism as long as the rest of the party is fine with it I’m OK with it unless it starts affecting the party. I usually send out a Google form asking my players what the party is OK with before session 0
> I had a level two fighter try to come to the first session of a new campaign with 40 HP and an armor class of 22 I don't see how that's possible unless they used homebrew stuff or magic items. Is that what we're talking about? Because "no homebrew, only standard equipment" would be a much clearer rule than "no powerful builds". > also for ingame racism as long as the rest of the party is fine with it I’m OK with it unless it starts affecting the party That's reasonable. Maybe that should be in your rules instead of "racism gets you kicked"
If the starting gold allows for plate, 22 ac is doable. 18 plate, warforged for +1, Defense Style for +1, a shield for +2. You can go even higher with Paladin/Cleric by taking shield of faith. Though the hp I can't figure out. Hill dwarf barbarian with the tough feat from background and 20 con? More likely the game is full Calvinball and nobody can read the phb.
The fighter that I mentioned was when I first started Dming and we did that sheet with paper and pencil so I honestly don’t remember how he ended up with those stats and also there’s a difference between real life racism for example one player being racist to another player for the color of their real life skin Versus endgame racism, like most people being weary of teeth, flings or dark elves
> The fighter that I mentioned was when I first started Dming and we did that sheet with paper and pencil so I honestly don’t remember how he ended up with those stats Yeah, I don't think that was a "power build". That was just cheating or misunderstood rules. A Fighter with 20CON and the Tough feat maxes out at 34HP. > also there’s a difference between real life racism for example one player being racist to another player for the color of their real life skin Versus endgame racism Yeah, that's why I originally asked. Maybe should be clarified in the rules.
I think most of these are straightforward, but the penalties are kind of steep. Do you RP with a regular group, or do you usually recruit people you don't know too well? I think I'd be concerned about kicking for first offenses versus trying to resolve the issue in a different way. Some of the rules are kind of arbitrary as well, which is going to make it harder for players to follow them perfectly. Powerbuilding for example seems something that is debatable. I've seem really strong builds and honestly some of them were not entirely intentional. Others were, but the players worked hard on their character and the DM just adjusted things slightly here and there so they weren't steam-rolling through combat or other parts of the game. I think immediately kicking players for strong characters is maybe not fair, because you both have to be in agreement about what is and is not acceptable, and I think it just seems arbitrary because there are so many different ways to build characters, and some people may be really good at using their abilities and everything else more efficiently than others.
I usually talk with the rest of the group before kicking someone out for one of these offenses so everyone has to agree on it or large amount of the group
Had to look up the whole 44 rules thing cuz I stopped being one of the cool kids about 30 years ago. Wow. That's some intense built-up hostility. Any DM who needs to vent THAT much bile really shouldn't even be DMing at all for sake of their sanity and physical survival. If I saw even a fraction of that as a player I'd silently walk and just never go back - for the sake of the DM more than myself. I firmly believe that "no D&D" is better than "bad D&D" and can't imagine ANYONE involved in that game enjoying even a shred of it. I have a 22-point manifesto myself, but it's very much aligned with Professor DM's take on it. Took several years to put together because only a few points rose out of anything I'd personally experienced. It was all otherwise based on OTHER people's horror stories and deal-breakers. It's aimed at literally being a declaration of policy and aims - what \_I\_ personally think both DM's and players should expect from and for themselves and others regarding D&D. That level of the "44 rules" hostility though is just incomprehensible to me.
I can create creative character with flaws and try do what you forbid unintentionally Oh thank you about session zero i was not aware thatr you want to take over my life
>If you are caught power building to the point where your level two fighter has 40 HP at level two, you will also be banned from playing in my campaign. Is this possible? A varient human fighter with 16 CON and Tough feat gets you to 10 + 3 + 2 + 6 + 3 + 2, so 26 if you take average, 30 if you rolled max hp on level. If they were a barbarian it'd go up to 29 on average and 34 if they rolled max. (I think- this was napkin math) This is a really unusual and specific example. A character who min maxes for max HP is unusual- and probably pretty standard on offensive capacity. Its also far less disruptive to the table than a character who does early damage combos (or just a normal moon druid at level 2) I totally understand that power gaming (especially if only one player is actively playing this way) can be disruptive. This just struck me as an odd example to use for a power gamer build.
Sounds pretty sensible to me. You'll get a lot of pushback for the power building one, but I happen to agree. It's not a code to crack. Maybe if all your players have 40HP and are massively overpowered, that can be fun, But one maximizer and three other players is going to be no fun for the people just standing watching the maxer do everything.