Friends Don't Let Friends Play Apostle of Peace (DM Advice)

Okay, so there is this feat called VoP, or vow of poverty. If you've been around for a while, it's one of the ultimate "hamstring yourself" feats out there. The feat is horrible from a min-max point of view, but what's worse, it usually winds up harming the party indirectly, as you simply cannot carry your weight. It's written to appear seductive to the untrained eye. Some people just like to take it for the challenge.

Then there is the PrC Apostle of Peace.

This takes VoP and puts it on steroids. It actively causes issues with the rest of the party. Unless it's a group where everyone is going to agree to suck it up, it's a bad idea. In fact, there have been reported cases of people murdering the AoP just to get rid of them and move on. How bad does a class have to be screwing over your party just by being in it that you have to kill them ICly just to get rid of them? Me? I would have fired them.

"Uhh... Yes. Well. You see... We've been looking over the budget and we've had to make some cut backs. We simply cannot afford you in the party any more. Since you have that vow of nonviolence we know you won't do anything about it, so we're firing you, keeping your stuff, and we're going to go murder a whole bunch of people and take their stuff as well. Not much you can do about it, since you suck, and all. So... well. As far as exit interviews go, this has gone nicely. Please don't use us as a reference."

So do your game a favor and just ban this class right off the bat and avoid the hard feelings that are bound to come with allowing a player to play this Trojan Horse of a PrC. Friends don't let friends play Apostle of Peace.

NOOB TRAP: Self-nerfing (Player Advice)

The ugly truth of D&D is that 94% of everything sucks, 5% of everything is so awesome as to give the DM seizures, and that leaves 1% that is actually fairly balanced. I’m serious. See, as the game evolved, the developers got better at game balance. So the fairly balanced classes and feats and spells came late in the edition’s life cycle. That often means that if you want to get rid of the unbalanced crap, you’d be better off banning core. That’s right, the game works better if you get rid of most of the main rule books.

Well, that’s the DM’s job. He’s the one to figure out what’s balanced and what isn’t and what he can handle, and what’s out of control. It isn’t your job to limit yourself. It also isn’t a war. You are not trying to make the DM cry. You are not trying to stealth the ultimate combo past him. Talk to him. Lay out your plans. Ask for the combo of powers you want and let the DM decide if you are Son-Of-Pun-Pun, or if you’ll fit in the campaign.

Now, if your DM shuts down EVERYTHING you do, there are two possibilities. You are a twink and a powergamer or your DM is a dick. The solution is third party arbitration. Bring in the other players and point out the two options. Ask which one it is. Remember, the one constant thing is all your failed relationships is you.

MURDER YOUR PLAYERS AS HARD AS YOU CAN (DM advice)

Now, some people don't understand what I mean when I say this. Basically it can be summed up like this. You are the DM. You have a duty to try to murder your players to the best of your ability. You shouldn't create one sided encounters the players cannot win. You shouldn't tell them that "Rocks Fall. Everyone Dies." What you should do is play the NPCs to the best of their ability. If the NPCs are dumb as a box of rocks, they can make tactical mistakes and the players can run rings around them. But if he's got an Int of 34, he'd better have some sweet contingency plans ready.

It's murder them as hard as you CAN. As in, ability, given the limitations imposed on you by the scenario you have created and the limits of the rules. More then anyone, you need to come down on yourself as hard as possible to keep yourself in line. If a PC can't get away with something, you sure as heck shouldn't either. By working hard to murder them, but making sure to keep yourself in check by sticking with the framework of the rules, you know that the players are succeeding, or failing, on their own.

It's a poorly kept secret that most DMs are actively rooting for the players to win. We want them to have an epic journey and have fun overcoming horrible odds to save the day. But if you just let them win, the victory means nothing. So you owe it to the players, and to yourself, to murder them as hard as you can.

NOOB TRAPS: Not making a character to fit the campaign. (Player Advice)

I run a campaign which by anyone else’s standards is stingy and slow advancement. Players are normally below WBL, but a few times they exceeded it slightly. I track inherent bonuses against WBL. No magic mart. If you have a charisma of 6, chances of you finding some place to sell your magic items is next to nil. Hell, my players still bitch about the epic shit-fest they had to go through to acquire a stinking handy haversack. Advancement is slow as well. However, I run every Thursday for upwards of 8 to 12 hours. 50 weeks a year, going on year 8.

One of my players started playing with another group on Fridays. He went on and on about how awesome it was to start out at 10th and that advancement was one level a session and he had everything planned out for the next 10 levels. Then he discovered it didn’t matter what treasure the monsters had, because you could only have EXACTLY what your WBL allowed you to have. Also, you could have any magic item in the book just by going to town and buying it, so the other players had the most powerful magic items they could get for the money. He planned poorly, apparently.

Then after three sessions the DM got bored with running and wanted someone else to run. When he finally got back around to wanting to run again, he wanted to start a new campaign with new PCs.

My player went into that game with the idea that he was going to be able to play for another 10 levels. He built his PC around that idea. He was used to playing with me, where you can plan out the next 20 levels and know that I’m going to be here, every single week. The players in the other game were used to only having a few sessions then discarding the PC, so they planned short term.

Is one way better then another? No. I have a preference, but one is not better then the other. What’s important is to understand what to expect long term. Are we starting at 1st? How easy is it to get new magic items? How strict is the Wealth By Level enforced? Are we playing until we defeat the X? Is this an open ended campaign? What level should I expect to reach?

If it’s going to be a short run, plan your PC accordingly. Planning on being the Uber-Mage at level 15 means nothing if you never make it past level 8. Making the ultimate level 5 character means nothing if he has no room to grow and the campaign is going to last years.

In other words, the first trap is planning too much, or not enough, for the campaign you are playing in

Welcome to the Game

Hello, I finally broke down and stepped into the twenty first century. I figured if I was going to embrace this little project of mine, I should take it to the