Ran a dissapointing game last night

[GnomeWorks]

It's about as effective and interesting as it was in every other edition - that is to say, very dangerous and pretty boring.

See, now, I can understand the comment regarding effectiveness. But boring?

The player was using the staff instead of spells. It wasn't that he ran out of spells, and resorted to the staff - it was his weapon of choice.

If you choose to do it, how is that boring, exactly?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I currently play a Wizard who bashes things with his Staff. He's a Githyanki Wizard specialized in Staff. He has taken the Fighter Multiclass, Toughness, and Armor Prof Leather feats already. He has 17 Str, 16 Con, Int18, and Wis14(thanks to nonstandard ability generation).

My tactics are thus:

1. I use Shield and the Staff Implement Specialization to nullify up to two hits per battle, increasing my survivability to respectable levels.

2. Thunderwave, Thunderwave, Thunderwave

3. My HP and AC are generally on the level of Clerics and Rogues who stand on the front lines.

4. I am a spellcaster, and do most of my work casting spells, though my increased durability means I can take a lot of Close powers, which I take advantage of. I'm a big fan of Fire Shroud.

5. If things get really bad for somebody else, I'll use my Fighter Multiclass to mark something for one turn. I continue to be amazed just how much I use this.

6. When things are winding down and I'm left with only at-wills, I generally beat on things with the Staff. It deals more damage than my Arcane at-wills.

 

[Relbanan]

I really explained to the Warlord how his abilities worked and where he should be in the party formation to be the most effective.

I don't want to hijack this thread - is there a thread where the Warlord's powers and role are discussed? That info would really help the Warlord player in my game, and I'm new to DMing and not real sure of the role myself. Actually, a writeup of each class like that would be awesome.

 

[KingCrab]

Perhaps the best thing would have been to put your foot down and ask the new unexpected player just to watch for the session. It really isn't fair to you to have a 6 person party when you prepared for 5. It can be hard though, but I've learned when DMming that boundaries are important, and if you're not comfortable with something it's best not to allow it.

 

[AtomicPope]

You never said whether or not the person was a regular player or just some new person that the players added to the group. Based on what you wrote, I'll assume they're new because you said nothing lauditory concerning previous roleplaying experiences.

I find it a bit shocking that players would bring someone along to play without telling the DM. That's pretty rude and you need to put your foot down. In fact, I tell people in the game NOT to bring new players. When everyone shows up and makes characters that's it, the game is set. That's right out of 2nd Edition's Campaign Guide (best book evar). Otherwise it's the girlfriend du jour, a friend of mine from another clique, or a cousin in town for the week. I tell them no before it happens. In fact, I lay down every rule of courtesy beforehand. Better to say it now then when it's too late. That way one person's friend/girlfriend/cousin isn't going to party crash. If they do you just remind them.

I've been in groups and DMed groups where the mysterious friend shows up. The situation is always the same - you'll like him; he's a friend from 8th grade; he's my cousin in town for a week; this is my new girlfriend who wants to learn D&D. Whatever relationship that person has with one group member doesn't mean it will be instantly shared with the entire group. It takes time to develop a relationship and adding a new player unannounced, before prescreening, is not the best way to start.

BTW - could you give us more info concerning the situation? Such as, do you know these people? Are they planning on staying? Would it be too much to tell them thanks but no thanks?

 

[AtomicPope]

Any suggestions with regards to 6 player parties, or what to do when neither the players or the Kobold are dying but just going round after round exchanging blows.

I haven't had a problem with 6 players, or 10 players. The problems I've had were always lame players. The person that just sits there with their thumb in their coolo is always a problem. As a DM you want them to get involved, but they resist. My suggestion is not to get frustrated. You mentioned the paladin with zero personality. Just give your attention to the other players. Don't burn yourself out on a player that won't respond. It hurts everyone.

As far as combat, I try to tell a story. The kobolds are never just chopping away. Kobolds don't fight fair, none of this one-on-one $^!@. They're manuvering around, shouting in Draconic, looking for the weakest party members to strike down. They want to kill, loot and run. If someone can speak Draconic then pass them a note describing the person they're going to drop then do your darndest to make it happen. Six minions and a Skirmisher will be enough to take down a soft character. Swarm them and make it hurt.

Trial by fire. Work together or die alone. It changes games without adding new monsters, wacky traps, or other gimmicks. Give the monsters a goal and try to succeed. In a game I'm running the PC's were warned that Bullettes like the taste of Dwarves. There's only one dwarf in the party and they're not high enough level to face a Bullette and they know it. It's fun to watch them avoid sinkholes

 

[Heselbine]

Did the wizard roll his own character? Sounds like he didn't really want to play a wizard. Was it a pregen?

Also, I'm not sure allowing the possibility of a (presumably) 1st level character getting access to a resurrection ritual is necessarily a good idea. Maybe it would have been better just to get them to roll a new character?

Sometimes the game just doesn't work - sometimes it flies. I really appreciate you sharing this because it helps everyone - cheers.

 

[Foxen]

I run a group between 5-7 players right now, and anything over 5 players is starting to get a bit sticky...I feel bad when we have "town" encounters when people are trying to roleplay their characters as they bargain and haggle, or help the needy, or something or another...it just doesn't o justice when each player only get about 30 seconds (or more) before I move onto the next...and they wait like five six minutes before they can "act" again...

Anyhow, for the larger battles, I do my best to describe in detail all the combat action...from lopping off limbs, to critically liquifying opponents, to splattering brain fluids onto their friends, to the bashing and tinking of armor hits, or arms or legs or heads landing in front of them. I think it helps just a little....

But what I also did was increase the amount of minions per battle. My players 'love' minions (we have 3 dragonborn) and they LOVE to be able to use their abilities to rip apart the small beasts. It makes them feel as if their charaters are powerful, and our tanks are now actually starting to tank, by taking an unreal amount of hits from these small guys. Cleave comes into play, the Dire Wolverine Strike of the Ranger, Scorching Blast, etc. all comes into play allowing the party to feel "useful" and "powerful" during the battles. Mind you, the encounters are filled with several larger brutes, or skirmishers, or artillery type mobs...and I think the party is having fun chasing down the small guys, getting mobbed by large groups of kobolds, and even getting totally immobilized by glue shots (they ABSOLUTELY hate it!). Minions, especially kobold minions are quite nasty...they toss javelins and almost never directly charge the PCs right off the bat. Their "minor action" shift really allows them to get into flanks and beat down on the players. A Slyblade lurker sneaking up behind the mages was awesome...then using his teammates as a shield to absorb melee and ranged attacks made the players look twice (to the point where one kobol minion shifted AWAY from the slyblade so he wouldn't be used as a shield!).

They're having fun, as they are dropping the baddies en mass, while feeling challenged. Each character has been critical to each battle so far, using their abilities to maximize their fighting efficiency as a team. They are starting to learn their powers and their roles, which I think, makes them more happy each battle...

Although, they just ran the gauntlet in a highly modified version of the DMG Kobold adventure, and are about to face the White Dragon with his pet drakes...this is going to be interesting (with most dailies burned, and the group has lost a lot of healing surges)...hehe.

The humor of it all....the party was HIRED by a group of kobolds, wishing to clear out the opposing clan, and potentially becoming the servants of the dragon, but they are also testing to dragon...as they are just as ready to become allied with the dragonborn.

Fox

 

[Cadfan]

Playing a mage who fights up close with his staff is a pretty classic trope, there's nothing wrong with a player for wanting to play such a concept, and I don't like how you're judging his playstyle to make the game not fun. The melee Wizard just needsto pick appropriate feats, powers, and multiclassing to accomplish what he wants to do. If he can't because the system won't support it, you could always say...houserule in some things.
If the player has no interest in casting at all, and JUST wants to melee, he probably didn't pick the best class. The OP should try and help him find a better fit.

4e supports a mage who gets up close and casts spells. Thunderwave is the obviously level 1 choice for such a mage. 4e does not support a mage who fights by hitting things with his staff in physical melee combat. File this with a rogue who refuses to sneak attack, or a paladin who hides in the back and throws javelin. The game is balanced on the assumption that your character will be minimally competent, and on the assumption that the fun in the game is in a team effort. Refusing to be part of the team is antisocial at best.

 

[Kzach]

I have come to a conclusion as a GM that I think is important for all GM's to realise at some point and agree on. Reasons include our sanity, the protection of our egos and most importantly, the maintenance of our authority.

We are infallible and everything is the player's fault.

An axiom to live by.