[DMs] Dealing with player's who have "ineffective" builds...

[3catcircus]

And if the DM doesn't? If the DM has a "realistic" world like moritheil and pits the 4th-level party against a CR20 bad guy?

If he is going for that feel, then the players should already know this and be prepared to run away a lot. If you *know* there will be fights you are expected to run from (or not get into in the 1st place), and you go toe-to-toe anyway, you deserve all the misery you get.

 

[Orcus]

Janx is correct. I am certainly NOT saying that you should design so that those spells are required to solve a problem. I am saying when designing, keep in mind that the players will have access to these spells. And also understand that depending on the PC build, some PCs particuarlly if they multiclass may not have access to certain key spells.

This is a big change from edition to edition. If you were designing for 5th level PCs in older versions of the game, you knew they have fireball and fly. I cant think of a group of pcs of 5th level that didnt have a 5th level wizard. Now, in 3E, with so many choices and so many possible builds, there is a reasonable chance (though foolish ) that a party of 5th level PCs will not have access to 3rd level spells--either because of multiclassing or because they chose sorcerer or whatever.

There are a much wider set of things to design for these days.

Clark

 

[green slime]

Janx is correct. I am certainly NOT saying that you should design so that those spells are required to solve a problem. I am saying when designing, keep in mind that the players will have access to these spells. And also understand that depending on the PC build, some PCs particuarlly if they multiclass may not have access to certain key spells.

This is a big change from edition to edition. If you were designing for 5th level PCs in older versions of the game, you knew they have fireball and fly. I cant think of a group of pcs of 5th level that didnt have a 5th level wizard. Now, in 3E, with so many choices and so many possible builds, there is a reasonable chance (though foolish ) that a party of 5th level PCs will not have access to 3rd level spells--either because of multiclassing or because they chose sorcerer or whatever.

There are a much wider set of things to design for these days.

Clark

Aha! Well, yes, I suppose there is. But that is all for the good, IMO. It means that the choice of how to deal with threats and events is ultimately in the hands of the players, as it should be.

 

[Nyaricus]

Here's my PoV:

Assuming standard CR, just let the dice fall where they may. If they die, you can not say it was your fault - it was theirs for a craptastic character and the dices for killing 'em!

 

[sniffles]

Janx is correct. I am certainly NOT saying that you should design so that those spells are required to solve a problem. I am saying when designing, keep in mind that the players will have access to these spells. And also understand that depending on the PC build, some PCs particuarlly if they multiclass may not have access to certain key spells.

This is a big change from edition to edition. If you were designing for 5th level PCs in older versions of the game, you knew they have fireball and fly. I cant think of a group of pcs of 5th level that didnt have a 5th level wizard. Now, in 3E, with so many choices and so many possible builds, there is a reasonable chance (though foolish ) that a party of 5th level PCs will not have access to 3rd level spells--either because of multiclassing or because they chose sorcerer or whatever.

There are a much wider set of things to design for these days.

Clark

These are good points, but I think I'd state that when designing, keep in mind that PCs may have access to certain spells. Just because they can potentially have access to them at a certain level doesn't mean they will ever choose to prepare or know those spells. I've known several players to deliberately avoid ever using fireball or magic missile, just because those spells are so much expected and the players found that boring.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I've known several players to deliberately avoid ever using fireball or magic missile, just because those spells are so much expected and the players found that boring.

Count me among them- while I'd use fireball, I've can't remember ever having used Sleep or Magic Missile in 28 years.

 

[Nightfall]

*bows to the Demon Prince of Undead* All hail the wise and mighty Orcus who can chew up ALL that come before him!

You rock Clark.

 

[PatrickLawinger]

If a player makes an "ineffective" build (and this is a very subjective term), or a party consists of characters who are built "ineffectively", should the DM take this into consideration when planning encounters and such?

Example 1 (Planning Encounters):
Say the party consists of all multiclass characters. A Sorcerer 2/Fighter 2, a Cleric 2/Monk 2, and a Rogue 2/Wizard 2, Barbarian 2/Bard 2. When planning an encounter that a stragiht caster would have the spells for, should that encounter be "nerfed" to take into account the only spellcasters the party has are half as effective? These characters are 4th level, but they are not 4th level casters and do not have 4th level spells. Should a DM take this into consideration when planning an encounter that perhaps a 4th level Wizard would be able to deal with easier than a 2nd level Wizard/2nd level Rogue?

Example 2 (Combat):
Say combat has begun, and it is going poorly for the party. Should the DM maybe fudge a little since the characters aren't really up to par with the creatures the DM has thrown at them?

Okay, normally I wouldn't respond without reading the rest of the thread but the website is slow for me this evening and my wife wants to use this machine ...

These are just my opinions:

I plan encounters based on what I consider to be "party strength." If you are 5th level characters you should have access to 3rd level spells. If you don't, you'll have to find another solution. that being said, I do not design encounters with a single answer to them (ie the magic plate that needs a fireball and nothing else cast at it or some such thing). Player creativity is rewarded. If they come up with a reasonable solution, I go with it. Keep in mind, a Cleric 2/ Wizard 2 can still buy and use scrolls requiring a higher caster level, it is just riskier for them to use them. Rogues can use wands and scrolls as well.

I do try to avoid combat encounters that would force the PCs to use spells they don't have. If such an encounter comes up, I make sure they have at least had the opportunity to find scrolls or magic items they could use in that encounter.

As far as fudging: I roll in the open. I pretty much can't fudge. I roll a 20, they know they are hit, I roll a 1, they know I failed the saving throw. That is simply the way people I play with play the game. If you use a DM screen it is probably easier to fudge and let people live. If you fudge and they know it, they (at least most folks I know) won't like it.

Personally, if there isn't a threat of death (um, character death) there is no challenge, if there is no challenge, there is no reason to play.

This probably makes me sound like an adversarial DM. I am not. I tailor adventures, adventure hooks, etc. to PCs role-playing backgrounds. I just don't nerf encounters or fudge for them. We all seem to have a good time. What you do with your group and players could be very different and only you can decide how to approach it.

How is that for totally not helping?

 

[PatrickLawinger]

hehe, now that I post I see Clark posted a nice long posts with the reasons I pretty much plan for a party of X level.

I presume access to spells such as fly when the party is 5th level. If they can't cast it directly they can certainly afford scrolls, etc. If I pretend they can't and they can, well, they can pretty much munch stuff to pieces.

Patrick

 

[Nightfall]

Patrick,

Just proves you learn from the best.