I don't know if this is an okay place to ask for this kind of help, but I didn't know any other place to go.
I have a D&D group with a few newbies and one veteran. I'm planning on being a DM for a campaign soon, but the veteran is making a character that is incredibly overpowered (having an AC of 22 at level 1). I want to make the campaign suitable for the newer players, but the veteran is going to breeze his way through, making everyone else obsolete. I've tried talking to him, but he's too stubborn to change, and I don't have the heart to kick him out.
1) Obviously, talking to the players is key to having a good game. It sounds like you've already tried this, but it's always worth considering if there's another angle to take. Something that comes to mind is checking WHY he wants to play a character that will be out-of-whack with the rest of the group. What is it about that character that excites him? Is there a way to achieve that in a manner that doesn't render the rest of the group irrelevant?
2) Another thing you have control over as the GM is the rules/limitations. For instance, adventure league has a rule where any character has to be based off the PhB + one other book. No mixing and maxing multiple books. I'm not sure how your player is pulling off AC 22 (and I would check the rules on that, regardless), but if he's mixing all sorts of rules into his character you could simply impose such a rule (to all players, obviously). Lots of min/max players are fine sticking to rules like that as long as they're clear. Part of min/maxing is working within guidelines and it's not making the best possible character, but the best possible character given the rule set.
3) Another possible consideration is to think about how the character will actually affect the game for the other players. Ok, so he's hard to hit. But does he kill things? Or is he just a tank? A meat shield isn't a bad thing for newbies. It gives them something to hide behind when the going gets tough so if they're playing damage dealers/support they might actually really like the solid wall helping them do their job better. This is obviously situational, but not something to overlook.
4) At the end of the day, as the person running the game, you do have an obligation to ensure the players have a good time. And if the veteran is just not willing to play in a manner that would allow the other players to have fun, maybe they shouldn't be playing in the same game. That doesn't mean you can play with both sets of people, just not at the same time. It's not fun (it really isn't), but if you don't take steps to resolve a real problem, it tends to resolve itself (often with the new players leaving). And who does that help in the end? Now no one gets to play.
5) This last point isn't really a serious one. But here's a video about something you probably shouldn't do. Maybe it will make you smile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVfGZPVqCNk
Dracen has covered most points so I cannot add anything more to that but as for AC 22?
Level 1 Barbarian has Unarmoured Defense where if not wearing armour your AC is 10 + Dex mod + Con mod. They cannot use armour but can use shields for +2. For races with the bonuses to Dex and Con would be Goliath or Orc or Half-Orc which all have +2 Str and +1 Con. If he rolled 18 for both that's 20 (+5) Str and 19 (+4 Con) for total AC 19 with shield AC 21. No starting items of use because can't wear armour and no armour would be as much. There are other classes that allow AC boosts but he then wouldn't have the +4 con bonus to AC and no other AC boosting class would grant this amount. Max AC 21.
Draconic Bloodline sorcerer class has 13+Dex AC to start with, can roll 18 dex and choose a +2 Dex race to get +5 to AC for starting AC 18 and then use Shield spell to bump their AC by 5 for a turn to 23. Now throw in some tempory hit point buffer with false life and the wimpy mage just becomes your tank. Not as effective, but even so, not something you should not be able to handle.
If you have seen and verified the rolls then really there's nothing wrong as he's played by the rules. You can overrule as DM but overruling somebody because they were luckier in their dice rolls than you'd have liked is not a good thing to do as a DM. However, if you did not see the dice rolls - they don't count. The DM must see the dice rolls in the interest of honesty and fair play. Otherwise, insist on Point Buy or Standard Array which will lower the AC a fair bit.
You can always have the encounters include magic spells or events which target saving throws instead of AC or enchant his character into not fighting (like level 1 Charm spell or possibly Sleep spell or sleeping gas trap) or use monsters with lots of strength/dex for good attack bonuses and multi attack or pack tactics or similar monster abilities. You control the monsters and will likely see the warrior as the better target - more attacks against him mean more chance of hitting. His AC could be a million but a Nat 20 still hits. High AC at start of game is a great advantage but is not game breaking and there are many ways to create encounters based on other things. Not everything is a battle. His high AC is useless at diplomatic / social encounter challenges, for instance. It won't save him from drowning. It won't solve the puzzle to open the unbreakable door in the crypt holding the macguffin of your quest. It won't save him from a fall into lava...
...AC is not that important if you don't want it to be.
You are effectively god so feel free to show him how puny he is before you to make him realise that shoving everything into an AC-based build was truly a silly move.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Another thing you can do is to give your enemies abilities that they don't normally have in their official stat blocks. It's your game. If that player thinks they know how certain monsters work... change it. Throw them for a loop and make them second guess. Maybe those Kobolds get a lair action in their own territory, as well as their pack tactics, and hit and run guerrilla warfare, reinforcements, maybe those Kobolds unwittingly learned a few things from being under the command of Hobgoblins or Bugbears.
Also, if this player has pulled all their resources into AC, they must either be weak in a few other areas which you can exploit (as mentioned above) or else they are playing a Mary Sue, in which case that would immediately (IMHO) make that character the obvious first choice to enemies. Your players often try to take down the biggest and baddest in the room... so why wouldn't the enemies do the same?
One more thing: Magic Items. Maybe the other players find things they can use which that one player can't. I would advise caution on this, but it is a way to help even the field between players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Welcome to the Grand Illusion, come on in and see what's happening, pay the price, get your ticket for the show....
Ah sure, with rolled stats I can see where you'd get that level of AC. I was thinking in terms of points buy (which is my preferred method) where stats won't be over 17 (unless there's a race that gets a +2 and a feat or something). As an aside, I prefer points buy because it avoids a significant, long-term, and near-insurmountable difference in the power levels of characters. For a similar reason, I much prefer fixed HP gain per level. I just don't see it as fun for a character's power level over months or years to be determined by a single die roll at the beginning of that period. Rolling a 1 to attack is exciting because how did you flub it? What happens? Do you get countered now? Rolling a 1 on hp or one of your stat rolls is just annoying because there's no story associated with it and now you're weaker than everyone else.
As for using enemies that target not-AC (or using spells that do so), that is 100% a thing that you can do (and should do, at least some of the time). As Azalin says, in many cases the enemies aren't brainless. The lich is going to see something its minions can't hit and is going to cast a mind-attack type spell. The hobgoblins are going to set traps. The beholder is going to.... do exactly what it was always going to do which is disintegrate you. That said, I wouldn't use ONLY those types of minions since it would reduce the variety of the game. And I wouldn't try to punish the player using those mechanics (see the video), but that doesn't mean you have to always play to his strengths either.
I talked to him today and he said that he used standard array, and as a paladin with chainmail, a shield, and the highest constitution and wisdom he could get. As for Puffin Forest, I love his channel! I've been watching his videos since I started playing (which is about 1 month). I really appreciate the help!
If you are saying that the character that has a 22 AC supposedly has that while wearing chainmail and using a shield, there is a misunderstanding of how the rules work going on.
Chainmail has an AC of 16 - full stop. Ability scores have no influence on AC while wearing chainmail as it is heavy armor. A shield then provides a +2 bonus to AC, meaning this character could have an AC of 18 at level 1.
I talked to him today and he said that he used standard array, and as a paladin with chainmail, a shield, and the highest constitution and wisdom he could get. As for Puffin Forest, I love his channel! I've been watching his videos since I started playing (which is about 1 month). I really appreciate the help!
Then he has not calculated his AC correctly. The absolute maximum AC you can have as a Level 1 Paladin with chain mail and shield will be 21.
If he's a Human (Variant) then can use bonus feat 'Defensive Duelist' which lets you use your reaction when you have been hit with a melee attack to add your profiency to your AC against that attack if the weapon you're holding is a Finesse weapon, possibly causing it to miss instead. At level 1 your profiency is +2 so this would make the AC situationally 21 against only 1 attack on a round, otherwise AC 19 is the best that can be done.
If he's adamant his AC should be 22, can you get the details of all options taken to achieve this? Without going homebrew or using non-official playtest stuff from Unearthed Arcana his AC is not possible for the choices so far given.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
We already have a similiar discussion going on elsewhere, but being a DM in a game where a player knows the rules better than you and has more experiance is going to be an issue...
A player knowing the rules better than the DM is not an issue by itself.
Neither is a player being more experienced than you.
Both of these nonsensical thoughts suggest that no one can ever be a DM unless they start a group of completely new and inexperienced players to ensure their knowledge and experience is superior to everyone else at the table, which is absolutely not the case.
I have 30 years of RPG experience that says otherwise...
You appear to be assuming that your experience is not only longer, but also inherently more relevant than my own. That's a silly thing to do.
I find it interesting that this forum is full of DM's seeking help, describing this exact problem (DM's having trouble with experienced players), ones you and I are discussing, yet you keep saying "its not a problem", when clearly these DM's are having an issue in there game with exactly this issue. I mean, if its not a problem, than why are people seeking help in dealing with them?
I have not said "it's not a problem" except in the specific case of a player knowing the rules.
You misunderstand my attempts to point these DMs seeking help at their actual problems - which one or more of their players knowing the rules is not one of - as me trying to say they aren't having a problem.
I understand that this is a player problem, but its a player problem caused by a difference of experience...
You appear to be saying that it is literally impossible for an experienced player or DM with extensive knowledge of the rules to sit down at a new DM's table as a player and there to not be a problem.
I posit that the games you have seen destroyed that you blame a difference of experience for destroying were actually destroyed by someone being a jerk, even if their being a jerk happened to be accompanied by a difference of experience.
Because, in my experience (which I'm not stating the length of because I don't believe in that kind of measuring contest), there are hundreds (if not thousands) of DMs out there today that learned from having a more experienced and knowledgeable person as one of their players when they were starting out DMing, and everything went relatively smoothly (no game destruction occurring). More than a handful having done so at my own table over the years, with me being more knowledgeable and more experienced than they - but I didn't act like a jerk player.
And I've been the newbie with a more knowledgeable player - when I joined a group that played Vampire: the Masquerade, which I'd not heard of before that point. It blew up on me - but it was because the more knowledgeable player was being a jerk by trying to insist I had to adhere to what they knew about the setting that I didn't, not because they knew stuff I didn't know.
I don't know if this is an okay place to ask for this kind of help, but I didn't know any other place to go.
I have a D&D group with a few newbies and one veteran. I'm planning on being a DM for a campaign soon, but the veteran is making a character that is incredibly overpowered (having an AC of 22 at level 1). I want to make the campaign suitable for the newer players, but the veteran is going to breeze his way through, making everyone else obsolete. I've tried talking to him, but he's too stubborn to change, and I don't have the heart to kick him out.
Others have covered the AC 22 issue (double check all his stuff - post all the details here if you need help, you will find its not right).
I want to address the "I've tried talking to him, but he's too stubborn to change, and I don't have the heart to kick him out." part.
What did you say to him? I can understand some push back if he thinks he made a legal character according to your instructions and you just think he build it too well. But if you are saying, hey lets double check that - it needs to be legal (you generated ability scores the way I said to, you only used the books and variant rules I allow, etc) - and you are getting push back then that is a different story - you will need to stand up to him and put it on him if he wants to play as a part or your game or not - because that attitude will keep showing up over and over and could ruin everyone else's fun.
I've had to let down one particular player of mine three times now as he interpreted the rules (wrongly) in his favor and I had to correct him. I could tell he wasn't happy each time, but he loves the game and he has accepted my judgement and moved on from each.
Actually, the only assumption I've made is that you use the same definitions of words as I do.
What I "literally" mean is that these DM's are having problems because they are inexperienced and the experienced players are taking advantage of it.
The part I have bolded is the problem. The players being experienced isn't the problem. Over our conversation so far, it has appeared that you disagree with my previous sentence. Please correct me if I am not reading you properly.
...it is quite normal in a situation where the DM is inexperienced and the players are more experienced.
This is where our experiences differ. I don't find it to be "quite normal" for experienced players to be jerks to inexperienced DMs. And your prior statements on the matter have used words that, to me at least, go beyond it being "quite normal" and suggest that you think it to be inevitable (read: it appears you are saying no experienced player has ever, or will ever, not take advantage of an inexperienced DM if they play with one).
No offense but I don't need you to quote me and than make a bunch of assumptions about what I mean or what you think I'm trying to say. I say exactly what I mean and exactly what I want to say, nothing more, nothing less.
No offense, but what I have done is assume you mean exactly what you say, nothing more, nothing less - that's how we got to where we are right now in this conversation; because I believed you meant the words you chose in the order you chose to use them in the context they were used within.
Its a difference of opinion...
I accept where our opinions and experiences differ. What I do not accept is where you appear claim the facts differ. We can have different opinions about facts, but we cannot actually have our own facts - and it is a fact that an experienced, rules-knowing player, is not inherently a problem player, whether or not their DM is inexperienced. Which, again, correct me if I am wrong in believing that your earlier comments meant you think it is knowing the rules and being more experienced than the DM that is the problem - not the inappropriate behavior that sometimes accompanies that situation.
You stand correct, I said its a potential problem that needs to be dealt with before it becomes an actual problem and I do think its an inherent problem and no I don't think its a fact one way or the other, Its my opinion.
I have claimed no facts at any time whatsoever, I have given my opinion. Nothing you have said is a fact either, you think it is, its ridiculous that you do, but whatever, your entitled to your opinion.
So... are there just no such thing as facts, or... what? I'm genuinely lost now.
What you are saying seems to be that your "opinion" is that no one has taught anyone to DM and not have any problems in the campaign while doing so, ever, because them being more knowledgeable and experience than the learning DM was a problem - that's not an "opinion" that's you being demonstrably wrong about the fact that many new DMs have benefited from having experienced and knowledgeable players, who weren't behaving inappropriately, in their campaigns.
I think its hilarious that you quote people and than start with "what you are saying is..." eh no.. What I'm saying is exactly what you quoted, you don't need to try to find other meanings or try to interpret it
What I said is that "its a potential problem" you bloody quoted it for crying outloud. How do you get "potential" and convert that in to "no one has taught anyone to DM ..etc etc.." from that?.. A POTENTIAL problem, that is not an absolute statement, its not "always or nothing" response. I don't understand your insistence on trying to rephrase the intent of what I'm trying to get across to you. Its like you are incapable of simply listening/reading.
I am seeking understanding - that is what me saying what I have read you saying with different words is; me telling you what you just told me, to make sure we understand the words used in the same way.
Because "it's a potential problem" is a completely different thing from "I do think its an inherent problem", and you've said both - one of which (that it is an inherent problem) is out of touch with reality, so I didn't want to believe you were actually saying that without you confirming for me, and the other of which is a new and completely different thing from what you have said previously.
I will agree that there are potential problems with a player knowing the rules better than their DM does - but those potential problems all rely upon another factor, specifically the choice of social behavior at the table, to fulfill their potential.
I will not agree that a person that is knowledgeable in the rules and more experienced than the DM they are sitting down to play with is inherently a problem player (which, because we are clearly having difficulty reaching shared understanding of words, I will elaborate upon: Inherently means 'existinginsomeoneorsomethingasapermanentandinseparableelement,quality,orattribute' and thus would apply in all cases, not just some of them).
Getting back to the original question, Dracen hit a lot of the high points.
With your campaign, even if you are less experienced, it's still your campaign, and you decide what is game breaking or not. And hey, the only way you're going to get experience is to do it and find out what works best for you. You'll end up developing your own style and system for handling issues. It's ok "not to know everything" to start with, and yes, mistakes will be made -- just remember, you're in this for fun, your players are in this for fun. work to maximize the fun.
When you chat with your veteran player, remind them of that. This is also a great way to learn about handling interpersonal conflicts, so it's a great opportunity!
Best wishes and good luck!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"An' things ha' come to a pretty pass, ye ken, if people are going to leave stuff like that aroound where innocent people could accidentally smash the door doon and lever the bars aside and take the big chain off'f the cupboard and pick the lock and drink it!"
My suggestions for dealing with a min/maxer or a veteran who is being stubborn (might repeat some things).
1. Standard Array for Ability Scores
2. Read the Rules. Read the Player's Handbook front to back. That way they are less likely to surprise you with some over powered things out of nowhere.
3. Throw in some monsters who deal magic damage too. Make that player use saving throws.
4. Also keep in mind that they are essentially filling a "tank" role with that high AC. So the mentality of monsters could very easily be to gang up on them. That high AC will help, but with 6 Kobolds biting at their heels, they are going to be hit.
5. Run a "Session 0" with everyone and go through a bunch of encounters ranging in difficulty from easy to deadly (there's a section in the Dungeon Master's Guide you could use to calculate encounter difficulty if you want to use that). That way the group can change things around and optimize some things before the campaign really starts. Most importantly, if you realize some characters are vastly over powered, then you will know moving forward what kind of difficulty you need to be throwing at them.
6. Consider not allowing Feats. If it's your first campaign, you could not allow Feats to keep things a little more simple.
I agree from some other posts that the 22 AC doesn't make sense unless their is an error somewhere so have them go through where every point is coming from (you knowing the rules helps here). It was also said before, but try talking to the player. Especially when they are a veteran in a sea of noobies, make it clear that it would be a lot more helpful if they helped the other players along. Let them know you dont want them just making the most OP character and making the other PCs feel like they aren't playing "right" or "good enough".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't know if this is an okay place to ask for this kind of help, but I didn't know any other place to go.
I have a D&D group with a few newbies and one veteran. I'm planning on being a DM for a campaign soon, but the veteran is making a character that is incredibly overpowered (having an AC of 22 at level 1). I want to make the campaign suitable for the newer players, but the veteran is going to breeze his way through, making everyone else obsolete. I've tried talking to him, but he's too stubborn to change, and I don't have the heart to kick him out.
So, you might have better luck with this forum: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/dungeon-masters-only as I've seen similar type questions there.
That said, here are a couple of thoughts:
1) Obviously, talking to the players is key to having a good game. It sounds like you've already tried this, but it's always worth considering if there's another angle to take. Something that comes to mind is checking WHY he wants to play a character that will be out-of-whack with the rest of the group. What is it about that character that excites him? Is there a way to achieve that in a manner that doesn't render the rest of the group irrelevant?
2) Another thing you have control over as the GM is the rules/limitations. For instance, adventure league has a rule where any character has to be based off the PhB + one other book. No mixing and maxing multiple books. I'm not sure how your player is pulling off AC 22 (and I would check the rules on that, regardless), but if he's mixing all sorts of rules into his character you could simply impose such a rule (to all players, obviously). Lots of min/max players are fine sticking to rules like that as long as they're clear. Part of min/maxing is working within guidelines and it's not making the best possible character, but the best possible character given the rule set.
3) Another possible consideration is to think about how the character will actually affect the game for the other players. Ok, so he's hard to hit. But does he kill things? Or is he just a tank? A meat shield isn't a bad thing for newbies. It gives them something to hide behind when the going gets tough so if they're playing damage dealers/support they might actually really like the solid wall helping them do their job better. This is obviously situational, but not something to overlook.
4) At the end of the day, as the person running the game, you do have an obligation to ensure the players have a good time. And if the veteran is just not willing to play in a manner that would allow the other players to have fun, maybe they shouldn't be playing in the same game. That doesn't mean you can play with both sets of people, just not at the same time. It's not fun (it really isn't), but if you don't take steps to resolve a real problem, it tends to resolve itself (often with the new players leaving). And who does that help in the end? Now no one gets to play.
5) This last point isn't really a serious one. But here's a video about something you probably shouldn't do. Maybe it will make you smile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVfGZPVqCNk
Dracen has covered most points so I cannot add anything more to that but as for AC 22?
Level 1 Barbarian has Unarmoured Defense where if not wearing armour your AC is 10 + Dex mod + Con mod. They cannot use armour but can use shields for +2. For races with the bonuses to Dex and Con would be Goliath or Orc or Half-Orc which all have +2 Str and +1 Con. If he rolled 18 for both that's 20 (+5) Str and 19 (+4 Con) for total AC 19 with shield AC 21. No starting items of use because can't wear armour and no armour would be as much. There are other classes that allow AC boosts but he then wouldn't have the +4 con bonus to AC and no other AC boosting class would grant this amount. Max AC 21.
Draconic Bloodline sorcerer class has 13+Dex AC to start with, can roll 18 dex and choose a +2 Dex race to get +5 to AC for starting AC 18 and then use Shield spell to bump their AC by 5 for a turn to 23. Now throw in some tempory hit point buffer with false life and the wimpy mage just becomes your tank. Not as effective, but even so, not something you should not be able to handle.
If you have seen and verified the rolls then really there's nothing wrong as he's played by the rules. You can overrule as DM but overruling somebody because they were luckier in their dice rolls than you'd have liked is not a good thing to do as a DM. However, if you did not see the dice rolls - they don't count. The DM must see the dice rolls in the interest of honesty and fair play. Otherwise, insist on Point Buy or Standard Array which will lower the AC a fair bit.
You can always have the encounters include magic spells or events which target saving throws instead of AC or enchant his character into not fighting (like level 1 Charm spell or possibly Sleep spell or sleeping gas trap) or use monsters with lots of strength/dex for good attack bonuses and multi attack or pack tactics or similar monster abilities. You control the monsters and will likely see the warrior as the better target - more attacks against him mean more chance of hitting. His AC could be a million but a Nat 20 still hits. High AC at start of game is a great advantage but is not game breaking and there are many ways to create encounters based on other things. Not everything is a battle. His high AC is useless at diplomatic / social encounter challenges, for instance. It won't save him from drowning. It won't solve the puzzle to open the unbreakable door in the crypt holding the macguffin of your quest. It won't save him from a fall into lava...
...AC is not that important if you don't want it to be.
You are effectively god so feel free to show him how puny he is before you to make him realise that shoving everything into an AC-based build was truly a silly move.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Another thing you can do is to give your enemies abilities that they don't normally have in their official stat blocks. It's your game. If that player thinks they know how certain monsters work... change it. Throw them for a loop and make them second guess. Maybe those Kobolds get a lair action in their own territory, as well as their pack tactics, and hit and run guerrilla warfare, reinforcements, maybe those Kobolds unwittingly learned a few things from being under the command of Hobgoblins or Bugbears.
Also, if this player has pulled all their resources into AC, they must either be weak in a few other areas which you can exploit (as mentioned above) or else they are playing a Mary Sue, in which case that would immediately (IMHO) make that character the obvious first choice to enemies. Your players often try to take down the biggest and baddest in the room... so why wouldn't the enemies do the same?
One more thing: Magic Items. Maybe the other players find things they can use which that one player can't. I would advise caution on this, but it is a way to help even the field between players.
Welcome to the Grand Illusion, come on in and see what's happening, pay the price, get your ticket for the show....
Ah sure, with rolled stats I can see where you'd get that level of AC. I was thinking in terms of points buy (which is my preferred method) where stats won't be over 17 (unless there's a race that gets a +2 and a feat or something). As an aside, I prefer points buy because it avoids a significant, long-term, and near-insurmountable difference in the power levels of characters. For a similar reason, I much prefer fixed HP gain per level. I just don't see it as fun for a character's power level over months or years to be determined by a single die roll at the beginning of that period. Rolling a 1 to attack is exciting because how did you flub it? What happens? Do you get countered now? Rolling a 1 on hp or one of your stat rolls is just annoying because there's no story associated with it and now you're weaker than everyone else.
As for using enemies that target not-AC (or using spells that do so), that is 100% a thing that you can do (and should do, at least some of the time). As Azalin says, in many cases the enemies aren't brainless. The lich is going to see something its minions can't hit and is going to cast a mind-attack type spell. The hobgoblins are going to set traps. The beholder is going to.... do exactly what it was always going to do which is disintegrate you. That said, I wouldn't use ONLY those types of minions since it would reduce the variety of the game. And I wouldn't try to punish the player using those mechanics (see the video), but that doesn't mean you have to always play to his strengths either.
I talked to him today and he said that he used standard array, and as a paladin with chainmail, a shield, and the highest constitution and wisdom he could get. As for Puffin Forest, I love his channel! I've been watching his videos since I started playing (which is about 1 month). I really appreciate the help!
If you are saying that the character that has a 22 AC supposedly has that while wearing chainmail and using a shield, there is a misunderstanding of how the rules work going on.
Chainmail has an AC of 16 - full stop. Ability scores have no influence on AC while wearing chainmail as it is heavy armor. A shield then provides a +2 bonus to AC, meaning this character could have an AC of 18 at level 1.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
A player knowing the rules better than the DM is not an issue by itself.
Neither is a player being more experienced than you.
Both of these nonsensical thoughts suggest that no one can ever be a DM unless they start a group of completely new and inexperienced players to ensure their knowledge and experience is superior to everyone else at the table, which is absolutely not the case.
You appear to be assuming that your experience is not only longer, but also inherently more relevant than my own. That's a silly thing to do.
I have not said "it's not a problem" except in the specific case of a player knowing the rules.You misunderstand my attempts to point these DMs seeking help at their actual problems - which one or more of their players knowing the rules is not one of - as me trying to say they aren't having a problem.
You appear to be saying that it is literally impossible for an experienced player or DM with extensive knowledge of the rules to sit down at a new DM's table as a player and there to not be a problem.I posit that the games you have seen destroyed that you blame a difference of experience for destroying were actually destroyed by someone being a jerk, even if their being a jerk happened to be accompanied by a difference of experience.
Because, in my experience (which I'm not stating the length of because I don't believe in that kind of measuring contest), there are hundreds (if not thousands) of DMs out there today that learned from having a more experienced and knowledgeable person as one of their players when they were starting out DMing, and everything went relatively smoothly (no game destruction occurring). More than a handful having done so at my own table over the years, with me being more knowledgeable and more experienced than they - but I didn't act like a jerk player.
And I've been the newbie with a more knowledgeable player - when I joined a group that played Vampire: the Masquerade, which I'd not heard of before that point. It blew up on me - but it was because the more knowledgeable player was being a jerk by trying to insist I had to adhere to what they knew about the setting that I didn't, not because they knew stuff I didn't know.
Actually, the only assumption I've made is that you use the same definitions of words as I do.
The part I have bolded is the problem. The players being experienced isn't the problem. Over our conversation so far, it has appeared that you disagree with my previous sentence. Please correct me if I am not reading you properly.
This is where our experiences differ. I don't find it to be "quite normal" for experienced players to be jerks to inexperienced DMs. And your prior statements on the matter have used words that, to me at least, go beyond it being "quite normal" and suggest that you think it to be inevitable (read: it appears you are saying no experienced player has ever, or will ever, not take advantage of an inexperienced DM if they play with one).
No offense, but what I have done is assume you mean exactly what you say, nothing more, nothing less - that's how we got to where we are right now in this conversation; because I believed you meant the words you chose in the order you chose to use them in the context they were used within.
I accept where our opinions and experiences differ. What I do not accept is where you appear claim the facts differ. We can have different opinions about facts, but we cannot actually have our own facts - and it is a fact that an experienced, rules-knowing player, is not inherently a problem player, whether or not their DM is inexperienced. Which, again, correct me if I am wrong in believing that your earlier comments meant you think it is knowing the rules and being more experienced than the DM that is the problem - not the inappropriate behavior that sometimes accompanies that situation.Getting back to the original question, Dracen hit a lot of the high points.
With your campaign, even if you are less experienced, it's still your campaign, and you decide what is game breaking or not. And hey, the only way you're going to get experience is to do it and find out what works best for you. You'll end up developing your own style and system for handling issues. It's ok "not to know everything" to start with, and yes, mistakes will be made -- just remember, you're in this for fun, your players are in this for fun. work to maximize the fun.
When you chat with your veteran player, remind them of that. This is also a great way to learn about handling interpersonal conflicts, so it's a great opportunity!
Best wishes and good luck!
"An' things ha' come to a pretty pass, ye ken, if people are going to leave stuff like that aroound where innocent people could accidentally smash the door doon and lever the bars aside and take the big chain off'f the cupboard and pick the lock and drink it!"
My suggestions for dealing with a min/maxer or a veteran who is being stubborn (might repeat some things).
1. Standard Array for Ability Scores
2. Read the Rules. Read the Player's Handbook front to back. That way they are less likely to surprise you with some over powered things out of nowhere.
3. Throw in some monsters who deal magic damage too. Make that player use saving throws.
4. Also keep in mind that they are essentially filling a "tank" role with that high AC. So the mentality of monsters could very easily be to gang up on them. That high AC will help, but with 6 Kobolds biting at their heels, they are going to be hit.
5. Run a "Session 0" with everyone and go through a bunch of encounters ranging in difficulty from easy to deadly (there's a section in the Dungeon Master's Guide you could use to calculate encounter difficulty if you want to use that). That way the group can change things around and optimize some things before the campaign really starts. Most importantly, if you realize some characters are vastly over powered, then you will know moving forward what kind of difficulty you need to be throwing at them.
6. Consider not allowing Feats. If it's your first campaign, you could not allow Feats to keep things a little more simple.
I agree from some other posts that the 22 AC doesn't make sense unless their is an error somewhere so have them go through where every point is coming from (you knowing the rules helps here). It was also said before, but try talking to the player. Especially when they are a veteran in a sea of noobies, make it clear that it would be a lot more helpful if they helped the other players along. Let them know you dont want them just making the most OP character and making the other PCs feel like they aren't playing "right" or "good enough".