D&D 5E Sudden changes to the party dynamic

[Croesus]

I am curious why you feel the other PCs should "improvise, adapt, and overcome", when a player decides to change characters mid-to-late in the campaign adventure without consulting the others, while the DM introducing a new player to the campaign in the same manner "is a no-no". You seem to at least hint at why it's OK for the player but really give no further explanation why it isn't OK for the DM. I am not saying your view is incorrect at all, I would just like to know your reasons for this position on the matter. Thanks, in advance.

I'd suggest both are questionable because D&D is a cooperative, not competitive, activity and both decisions impose a choice on the players without their say-so. If the GM introduces a new player without seeking group input, he/she is impacting the group dynamics, and groups can be fragile. One ill-fitting player can cause an entire group to come apart.

Likewise, if the group forces a player to play a particular character (historically, the cleric), that impacts the player and limits his/her choices. A single player choosing to run a different character doesn't impose a change on any other player, it just forces the group to adapt to the change in-game. The alternative is to have a group force players to run particular characters, which IMO only makes sense if the group is playing competitively, such as in a tournament with prizes.

BTW, the solution I've found works best for changing characters is recruiting NPCs. The party tank leaves, the party can recruit an NPC to fill that void. The party healer leaves, recruit a healer. Except for very large groups, this should work fine and still allow players to run a character they enjoy, not one the party needs.

 

[Blue]

Yes, as I was poorly trying to say, I think I understood why you felt the player should have carte blanche to change his/her character without discussion. It was more that I didn't understand why a Player could make such changes but a DM could not in the case of allowing another player to join the campaign without first consulting the players.

I'm not as Mighty as Flexor, but I'll give a shot:

Having someone join the group is a group decision at the tables I play with. The DM is only in charge inside the game, and who we want to spend time with in a social game is not solely "in-game".

The DM can't unilaterally decide to top the pizza with pineapple and anchovies either. (Silly DM, pineapples go with ham.)

BTW, I do think a DM can veto allowing a character into the game unilaterally. So while they can't (and shouldn't) force the player to continue to play the dwarven tank, if they didn't like the replacement character they could ask the player to come up with something else.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Yes, as I was poorly trying to say, I think I understood why you felt the player should have carte blanche to change his/her character without discussion. It was more that I didn't understand why a Player could make such changes but a DM could not in the case of allowing another player to join the campaign without first consulting the players.

And to me adding in new players is a totally different thing than existing players wanting to change their PC for IMO a valid reason.

 

[Shiroiken]

Generally a group consists of a tank, a scout/skill monkey, healer, and mage. You can get by without any of these, but it makes the game a bit harder. Without a tank, you'll need to focus more on ranged combat and you'll need to do a lot of scouting ahead (that generally means out of sight of the party) so that you can warn the party of potential encounters and set them up to begin at range. You might need to have someone (fastest character) act as bait to draw the encounters to a place where there is enough range for the party to take advantage of it.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I've been with our D&D group from the start, running a half-elf ranger (with 1 level in rogue since our full-time rogue bailed on us). Our other members were a half-elf (draconic) sorceress, a human cleric and a dwarf fighter. We're now at level 12, and things have taken a disturbing turn.

We just spent 2 entire sessions rescuing the dwarf from what turned out to be a disguised rakshasa, only to have her do a bunk and be replaced by a different character entirely, specifically an elven assassin. Apparently the player was bored and wanted a change. Trouble is, we now have no tank.

The DM also said another player could join the party, without running it by the rest of us first. His character uses Mercer's homebrew gunslinger class, which puts me in a bit of a bind. We now have a dedicated stealth character, and another who can do ridiculous damage at incredibly long ranges, which kind of makes my ranger redundant.

Any suggestions?

Both problems can be fixed by you retiring your ranger and switching to some buff melee build.

 

[ExploderWizard]

And to me adding in new players is a totally different thing than existing players wanting to change their PC for IMO a valid reason.

Yup. A new player joining should be discussed with the group as a whole. Existing players wanting to play a new character is different because you aren't bringing in another person to the group that may or may not get along with the group's play style.

Not every group needs every archetype either. I'm playing in campaign now and we have no arcane spell caster (except an eldritch knight) and no kind of druid or cleric (or bard). Everyone is playing what they want and we are just fine.

 

[GameOgre]

Well first off adding new players with the consent of the rest of the group is a no-no. We had that with a player trying to add in his step-son and we had to say no can do, too many players. As for a player changing characters, well if they don't want to play the "tank" they don't have to. Improvise, adapt, and overcome. Change strategy and tactics.

What kind of game was this? I mean if its a game of friends and one guy wants to bring in a family member and the group said no too many players I would find another group.

A dad wanting to share the hobby with his stepson getting turned down would set off huge red flags to me. Frankly I DM almost all the time and I would never do that, even if the group was about to burst with too many.

if the group decided that I would just leave and start a new group.

I love D&D but it's just a game, Family comes first.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

What kind of game was this? I mean if its a game of friends and one guy wants to bring in a family member and the group said no too many players I would find another group.

A dad wanting to share the hobby with his stepson getting turned down would set off huge red flags to me. Frankly I DM almost all the time and I would never do that, even if the group was about to burst with too many.

if the group decided that I would just leave and start a new group.

I love D&D but it's just a game, Family comes first.

deleted. Actually is there a way to delete this entire post so I can type out what I was trying to type out before it decided to post my half reply?

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Ultimately, I think the best metric is whether you’re having fun playing your character or not. If you’re still having fun with your ranger, keep playing the ranger. If not, then by all means make a new character.

Personally, as a DM I don’t really care if we have the tank, healer, artillery, and whatnot roles filled. I don’t want to penalize a group because no one happens to like playing a tank – encounters will just have to be adjusted to account for it, so that people have fun. Whether your DM will do that or not, I don’t know, but it couldn’t hurt to talk about it – just say you’re a little worried about the lack of a front line, but still want to keep your ranger (if you still do).

Edit:

Oh, and on the subject of the new gunslinger – has non-Wizards material been used in the campaign before? As others have said, there’s different etiquette at different tables for adding people, but for me if someone shows up using third-party content when no one has before, that would put up a red flag for me.