What to do when one PC is *far* weaker than rest of party

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I believe it is precisely this scenario that is in fact under discussion.

Doesn't really seem that way to me. I mean, sure, not many DM's really enjoy killing a PC, especially when they see that the PC is really, really vulnerable, but I'm not seeing how the death of the PC in question actually screws up the game. A simple, quick mention by the DM that they see the PC as not survivable is about the extent of the DM's concerns here. After that isn't it supposed to be up to the player to decide whether they find that their own concern?

Certainly under 3rd Edition rules it would be. The player would be expected to utilize their "system mastery" to ensure their characters survival - or demonstrate that they have more to learn along those lines as they see their PC get cut down. Under earlier editions there wouldn't be any cause for the DM to get involved either. In fact, SOME dm's would call it a perfect opportunity to demonstrate how the game is played by taking out that character asap. Not as familiar with 4E but my impression has been that it's supposed to be hard to make a character that is woefully less survivable than anyone else. Less effective, yes, in particular if not played up to others expectations, but not outrageously vulnerable.

I will say that 3E and 4E (especially 4E) seem to me to have created expectations on the part of players that if OTHER players fail to create and play characters to one's own personal satisfaction of what those OTHER player's characters are supposed to be/do, then they have basis for complaint. However, I see that as more of a mindset developed for a particular table or gaming group than something that the rules ever meant to enforce.

I think either the DM takes it in stride after a duly considered warning to the player - and then if the PC dies, they die. The player either then begins to take steps to ensure the survival of the resurrected PC, or at some point they won't have a choice in simply creating a new PC altogether and, one would hope, learn that their own enjoyment of the game is dramatically improved by creating a PC that isn't so weak. I mean, it's either that or the DM simply takes the character sheet, makes changes to suit him/herself, and then hands it back saying, "THAT is your character - now play it correctly."

 

[Celebrim]

Doesn't really seem that way to me.

I believe the complaint was raised by a fellow player, which means that it has in fact already reached the point of being a table concern.

A simple, quick mention by the DM that they see the PC as not survivable is about the extent of the DM's concerns here. After that isn't it supposed to be up to the player to decide whether they find that their own concern?

To some extent, yes, it is. But if the player is purposefully playing a low survivable character to the extent that other players aren't having fun trying to keep that player alive, then you have a potential problem that you as the DM need to defuse before it creates table drama. Exactly how you'd do that depends on the personalities of the players involved.

Certainly under 3rd Edition rules it would be. The player would be expected to utilize their "system mastery" to ensure their characters survival - or demonstrate that they have more to learn along those lines as they see their PC get cut down. Under earlier editions there wouldn't be any cause for the DM to get involved either.

I disagree that this is an edition specific issue. Evidence for that - if you haven't encountered it in your own play - can be found in how 'Knights of the Dinner Table' satirizes this issue from time to time. Many groups historically did expect that players would come to the table with a viable character and play it in an efficient manner than enhanced group success and that to do otherwise was an indication of poor play or a selfish personality. "All for one and one for all" was the social contract, but part of that social contract was the expectation you could be there to pull their characters out of the fire.

I will say that 3E and 4E (especially 4E) seem to me to have created expectations on the part of players that if OTHER players fail to create and play characters to one's own personal satisfaction of what those OTHER player's characters are supposed to be/do, then they have basis for complaint. However, I see that as more of a mindset developed for a particular table or gaming group than something that the rules ever meant to enforce.

Again, this expectation existed in many groups long before 3e was around. The expectation that each character will pull their own weight is a natural expectation when any player at the table has 'winning' as a desired aesthetic of play. A player that has PC's that repeatedly die is violating the table's social contract in many cases. Likewise, any suggestion that the other PC's patheticness is causing the DM to divert attack to different PCs and so threaten them more, is likely to be unwelcome by at least some players at the table. This is really no different than having a rule like 'Don't steal from other party members' as part of the social contract.

I mean, it's either that or the DM simply takes the character sheet, makes changes to suit him/herself, and then hands it back saying, "THAT is your character - now play it correctly."

When I approve a character to enter the game, one of the things I'm looking for is a character that is very badly made and so unlikely to contribute much to the group. I will often make suggestions to the player regarding different ways he could spend his resources more effectively. It's ultimately up to the player to decide how he wants his character to look and what he wants to be skilled at, but I do have minimum standards of combat effectiveness in particular before I'd approve a character. For some players, this isn't an issue. They have high system mastery and anything they present is going to be pretty good at something. It's precisely because you have a mix of players with different degrees of system mastery that you sometimes need to coach players on their builds. In my opinion, these mechanical tweaks aren't taking away from the player's core concept for a character, since in my opinion what's really important about a character from a narrative perspective is 'who they are'. A character whose core character concept was, "I'm incompetent; that's who I am", would not be approved for play unless I knew the whole group would have fun with that.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

When I DMed 2e, I was young and naive, and I pretty much exulted in the insanity. When I DMed 3.0 and then 3.5, I used a combination of friendly advice and a mountain of house rules to keep things more or less on an even keel. Now when I DM, it's always 4e, so this is all a non-issue for the most part. I did have a 4e group a few years ago, where one player had a habit of making gimped characters. Early on I offered to give him a few pointers, but he assured me that he knew exactly what he was doing, so I left him to it.

On the rare occasions when I play any edition, I make sure my character is competent -- or at least will be competent in a couple of levels, as is so often the case when starting at 1st level in non-4e editions. I've never been in a position where another player's character was in constant danger of death, but I imagine I'd suggest a house rule or two to the DM and/or offer the player some friendly pointers.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I disagree that this is an edition specific issue. Evidence for that - if you haven't encountered it in your own play - can be found in how 'Knights of the Dinner Table' satirizes this issue from time to time. Many groups historically did expect that players would come to the table with a viable character and play it in an efficient manner than enhanced group success and that to do otherwise was an indication of poor play or a selfish personality. "All for one and one for all" was the social contract, but part of that social contract was the expectation you could be there to pull their characters out of the fire.

D&D has long had a sort of tension between the cooperative and competitive aspects. Early on it was all over the map. Some players cooperated, others had their PCs come to blows, some DMs were adversarial, &c. And it wasn't without reason, the presence of a DM echoed the 'Judge' or referee sometimes used in wargames to mediate rules disputes or handle other issues between two competitive players. The way a party could pull together overcome a DM created challenge implied the DM was competing with them. The way rewards were doled out and risks were incurred encouraged players both to cooperate to succeed or even survive, and to compete for the best treasure, most exp, and, again, simply to be one of the survivors.

All 3e did was shift some of that tension to system mastery and optimized builds. Players cooperated by creating builds that pulled their own weight, and perhaps even complemented the rest of the party and synergized, but also competed to have the 'best' build.

 

[Ancalagon]

I think I should offer some precision (as the OP) as to why I'm asking this and the situation:

1: I'm asking as a DM (as I will soonish run a game) for advice how to fix such a situation, and also to just have general discussion.

2: I gave a specific example to illustrate how bad it can get. That game ended a few years ago so it's too late to be fixed. I was a PC in that one. I've seen other instances of weak PCs, but that was the worse.

3: Not that it matters too much given the game ended, but the bard was an "important plot person" (run away daughter of important noble whatnots), and subject to a few assassination attempt. Keeping her alive was a challenge. We had this huge battle map and a fairly big party, so we had pretty big battles with waves of enemies from different directions etc. It can add dramatic tension to a battle when one of the PCs is in trouble and has to be rescued, but the treshold for the bard was so low it was more frustrating than dramatic. "My cousin, the dwarven barbarian, is getting hit a lot by those 3 orgres, I better go support her!... but the bard is being murderized by a goblin runt... again". It's not "you are in trouble because of overwhelming odds, or you endangering yourself for the sake of the party, but because you couldn't be bothered to guy armor".

 

[Herobizkit]

Well, FWIW, 5e is far more forgiving with regard to player disparity. One way to ensure that everyone's on an even field is to use Point Buy for stats (versus random rolls). Your min-maxers will min-max and the new players will understand "my highest stats go to what makes my character work". The starting package for each class as given in the PHB will work very well with no tinkering necessary.

Finally, Bards are practically the new "power" class (especially Half-Elven Bards), so your Pretty Pretty Princess won't be too helpless. ^_^

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, FWIW, 5e is far more forgiving with regard to player disparity.

I guess compared to the 3.x cult of system mastery.

One way to ensure that everyone's on an even field is to use Point Buy for stats (versus random rolls). Your min-maxers will min-max and the new players will understand "my highest stats go to what makes my character work".

I've found that having a 'lucky' PC or two, with better stats than you get from the array is a help at very low levels, and with stats capping at 20, it takes care of itself down the line, especially if you're not using feats.

 

[Greenfield]

Get him a Ring of Invisibility. That keeps him out of the immediate line of fire, while allowing him to use Bardic Music, healing and Summon spells with impunity.

Some opponents will be able to See Invisible, some will follows the sound he makes (Bards are, by definition, noisy fellows), and some aoE spells will still hit, so this is a long ways from any kind of plot armor or immunity to damage.

If the Ring is too much for the level, give him an amulet of Health to give him that CON bonus, or an Amulet of Natural Armor to bump his AC.

Or, as an alternative, use DM fiat to alter his spell list to include a defensive spell or two.

One way or another, try to correct his bad build decisions. And if he resists, let the character die. Maybe the player will do better next time.

 

[Herobizkit]

Man, the joys I recall as a lad getting his first D&D Ring of Invisibility...

Drove my DM nuts. ^_^

 

[Dandu]

Or, as an alternative, use DM fiat to alter his spell list to include a defensive spell or two.

Don't bards have quite a few decent defensive spells? Mirror Image, Invisibility, Alter Self, etc?