How to avoid ridiculous player character builds

Umbran said:

Technically true. But what you forget is that not everyone believes that to be the case. We had the edition wars. We have seen bits of the same behavior now as 5e comes. This should be proof enough that many folks here speak as if they are speaking objective truths, rather than opinions. So, I am sorry, but the pool is muddied. We cannot assume a preface, because too many people don't believe they are speaking opinions.

Click to expand...

Well there was no need to assume with my post, I expressly stated it was an opinion. No need to tear it down for being just that.

I think you have left the context of my original statement far enough behind that you're arguing against air.

I was originally speaking about the "challenge" of beating players in an individual encounter or tactical scenario, and how as GM I can and do take their individual abilities into account, and how they cannot do the reverse - they cannot build characters to defeat the specific monsters I'm going to throw at them. Building for the general campaign style does nothing to remove the absurd tactical advantage the GM possesses.

Click to expand...

I suppose thats true, but to a degree it also depends on the class and the player. A well-rounded utility wizard can switch out spells pretty readily(at least in previous editions, but that's another story).

Umbran said:

As a GM, I always consider the PC's abilities when creating my adventures. The players cannot do the reverse.

Click to expand...

This deserves repeating.

Umbran said:

As a GM, I always consider the PC's abilities when creating my adventures. The players cannot do the reverse.

Click to expand...

The players do have some capability of doing the reverse, but they don't typically have the possibility of shooting for an exact number. Thus, many simply go for higher numbers because they'll eventually run into something that requires those higher numbers.

However, the DM can definitely nudge players towards wanting certain abilities. If, for example, they know they'll regularly come across enemies that can't fly (and can't negate flight), having the ability to fly gives them a huge tactical advantage. That alone is why some DMs ban the Warlock since it can (and almost always does) get at-will continuous flight. If the players know the campaign will be undead heavy then they'll usually tend to prefer tactics and builds that at least don't become useless (such as crit-heavy builds) against such opponents.

But overall, the players don't typically get to change their entire build when things change. This is partly why prepared casters get a lot of power since they only need a day to change their spell loadout, which can effectively change their entire build in a way.

N'raac said:

So, do you follow the same rule here as the party does - opponents and opponent groups are a mix of various levels?

Click to expand...

Yes, very much so. For example, a few fights ago, it was dire rats (CR 1/3), wererats with 1-2 levels (CR 2-3), a wererat with several PC levels (CR6), and some Owlbears (CR4).

Jackinthegreen said:

But overall, the players don't typically get to change their entire build when things change. This is partly why prepared casters get a lot of power since they only need a day to change their spell loadout, which can effectively change their entire build in a way.

Click to expand...

If the PC's don't always have the initiative (in the military sense, not the D&D sense) and can't always rest, it changes the equation on whether Wizards or Fighters are tougher. If you don't know how long the day will be, what you'll face, whether you'll be hunted down by the enemy having a resilient character that doesn't run out of juice (no limits on healing from items per day in pre-4e) is a good counterbalance to a nova and done spellcaster who has to resort to a crossbow with low skill if he wastes his good spells in the early innings.

I like the logistics management aspect of D&D spellcasting. If all that is hand waved away by always allowed breaks to restore, I get a little bored.

As a DM, I like to have my monsters react intelligently, and sometimes pull their own plans (take the initiative) by attacking friendly targets the PC's. My best scenarios are ACTIVE enemies. Tonight, one of the my players was complaining that the guy they were trying to save got killed just as the first PC arrived on the scene. I meta-explained the enemy did it because they were bugging out due to the frontal assault the PC's were leading, and weren't aware of the side attack than discovered the prisoner, only a round too late.

I agree with Haakon play style. Monsters, BEG, bar maids, just don't wait until the pcs get with detection range. And monsters don't care if you trying to find a clear place to rest/ save game. Table top RPG do not have to be played like CRPGs.