The second one sort of depends on the player. I’ve had a few players that have made absolutely ridiculous characters but played them very well and it was a good experience.
The first one is a strong no. I’ve never seen anyone who does a broken meta build do anything beyond ruin everyone’s time and complain (or quit) if the DM reins them in at all.
I was once in a game where the GM allowed his buddy to be a build like that, but in a nifty “hidden origins” way, where the PC slowly realises their own immense power, but is super clumsy with it, so they’re an active danger to the party but you also can’t just leave them at an inn because they can potentially destroy the world if they have a nightmare…
Then he got turned into the campaign’s secret big bad that was only revealed at the very end. THAT worked out well. Turned out he could control his powers and just used us to get rid of his also evil archnemesis of his before attacking the party.
The first one works in a campaign that expects everyone to do the first one (and where the GM does the same for the enemies). Assuming the character is still a character when looking beyond the stats, that is.
I’m into more listening to game. I’ve never actually laid one.
Wouldn’t what you’re describing be pretty pointless. Like super inflation. Okay you’re a millionaire but bread is 1000 so does it really matter?
A game where every character is doing 1500… how is that different from every character doing 15 damage gameplay wise? You can add as many zeros as you want but if we all have those extra zeros isn’t it essentially the same?
The second one sort of depends on the player. I’ve had a few players that have made absolutely ridiculous characters but played them very well and it was a good experience.
The second one sort of depends on the player. I’ve had a few players that have made absolutely ridiculous characters but played them very well and it was a good experience.
The first one is a strong no. I’ve never seen anyone who does a broken meta build do anything beyond ruin everyone’s time and complain (or quit) if the DM reins them in at all.
I was once in a game where the GM allowed his buddy to be a build like that, but in a nifty “hidden origins” way, where the PC slowly realises their own immense power, but is super clumsy with it, so they’re an active danger to the party but you also can’t just leave them at an inn because they can potentially destroy the world if they have a nightmare…
Then he got turned into the campaign’s secret big bad that was only revealed at the very end. THAT worked out well. Turned out he could control his powers and just used us to get rid of his also evil archnemesis of his before attacking the party.
That sounds like an epic DM/experience!
By chance, was the campaign setting based off a non-dnd fantasy novel? If so, I might’ve been your DM :)
Nope, it was based on one of the, I think, 3.5 one shots?
In half the campaigns, the Doctor Farts PC ends up being the MVP because they weren’t minmaxed and as a result have much more utility.
Doctor Farts: “I cast Stinking Cloud, again.”
Party: sigh
Doctor Farts: ooo! i leveled up and got cloudkill!
The first one works in a campaign that expects everyone to do the first one (and where the GM does the same for the enemies). Assuming the character is still a character when looking beyond the stats, that is.
I’m into more listening to game. I’ve never actually laid one.
Wouldn’t what you’re describing be pretty pointless. Like super inflation. Okay you’re a millionaire but bread is 1000 so does it really matter?
A game where every character is doing 1500… how is that different from every character doing 15 damage gameplay wise? You can add as many zeros as you want but if we all have those extra zeros isn’t it essentially the same?
You mean like the Legend of Poop McDinglefart?