DM needs advice

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I thank you for your response, but take a more than a little offence at that statement. I take alot of pride in providing my players with the best game I can. If I didnt I wouldnt have made this post in the first place.

I am not an advesarial DM at all and am trying to seek a way of allowing this player his character whilst keeping an important sub-set of monsters relevant. If anything, I am trying to be non-adversarial and am seeking your advice in how to achieve this.

Pointing your finger and throwing a bad DM accusation didnt help, and certainly saying "seek another game" was really below the belt.

You have given me something. You have helped me understand how my posts can be mis-interpretted by strangers, and for that I thank you.

Neutral observer here: you're being oversensitive. It doesn't read like the poster is attacking you in any way.

 

[Tai]

It's always difficult when a player overspecializes. Fortunately, the Radiant Servant PP does fine against non-undead - the improved crit range, action point damage, and powers are still nice to have. So, when your encounters include undead, accept that half of them are going to spend their first turn stunned, and make the encounters tougher to take into account the extra damage he can put out. Also, don't feel compelled to put undead in every session - he should be able to hold his own against regular monsters too.
Finally, don't be afraid to mix things up a bit! Put down an encounter with a bunch of undead, then when he uses his burst 8, he finds out that they're all minions, and the real bad guys burst out of the ground next to the party. Mix undead with other bad guys, too, or have undead minions pour into the room while the main fight is going on. He'll find his powers are a lot less effective against a steady stream of bad guys than a big mob at the start, but he'll still get to kick some undead butt, which should make him happy.

 

[Halivar]

You have given me something. You have helped me understand how my posts can be mis-interpretted by strangers, and for that I thank you.

I was hoping more for helping you understand how it can be interpreted by the players. I was placing myself in their shoes and giving you a gut reaction, something I think every DM needs to do. My post was intended solely as constructive criticism.

 

[Legildur]

Neutral observer here: you're being oversensitive. It doesn't read like the poster is attacking you in any way.

Agreed.

I was hoping more for helping you understand how it can be interpreted by the players. I was placing myself in their shoes and giving you a gut reaction, something I think every DM needs to do. My post was intended solely as constructive criticism.

That's also the way I read it. In fact, when I saw Bob's retort, I went back and re-read your post to see what I had missed.... nothing!

To Bob: if the player is a great undead smiter, then that will simply enable them to take on greater challenges of that type, which might mean more fun for you as the DM.

 

[Nifft]

Mixed encounters (not just Undead).

The Evil Wizard (tm) will first throw a legion of zombified horrors at the party, laughing an evil laugh, but as the Cleric's turn comes up his evil laugh dies in his evil throat!

"Well fine, then let's see how you like... DEMONS!"

Wave two is demons, or aberrations, or enslaved faerie critters; those die too, the party says "yay!".

Cheers, -- N

 

[Skallgrim]

First, I would talk to the player, not to 'correct' them, or anything, but to make sure that you understand his motivations and goals. Does he want to become the "undead smiter" or did he just kind of fall into that path? How does he envision the character developing?

Second, I would share with the player some ideas about the 'undead smiter'. Here are some of my own:

If he becomes known as a Enemy of Undeath, then you might run stories with Orcus cultists and the like, as Orcus will become angered at someone destroying his creations.

If the cleric is known for being a Terror to the Undead, then intelligent undead might try to take him out first. This is NOT to punish him. The party might enjoy the whole "Undead Fight! Protect the Cleric until he NUKES 'em!" dynamic. Just as a fire wizard become the target for Trolls, the undead smiter becomes the priority target for undead.

Consider pointing him to the feats which allow him to affect Demons and Devils as if they were Undead. This can broaden his "threat range", allowing him to be more of a striker/controller against such foes.

Consider pointing out the feats which aid with radiant damage. This will make him more effective with Radiant damage against all opponents, broadening his threat range.

I would not punish a player for picking a character which is effective and fun. If, for some reason, the build really, really causes you problems in encounter design (you wanted to run atmospheric undead scenarios and now he just nukes them), then maybe you can talk him out of the build, but I wouldn't generally work against him just because he is too effective.

Disclaimer: I have the same problem. Our cleric player picked Radiant Servant. I am a bit frustrated because I think he just chose it to be the most mechanically effective, rather than picking anything that exemplified his character, or interests. It also hurts because he was fitting very, very nicely into our party as a really dependable healer, and this pulls him away from that focus. Paragon paths are hard, because they are a one shot decision. If he later realizes this is a wrong choice, there's no way to retrain it.

On the other hand, I think he might have been frustrated because one of our strikers, the party Ranger, gets so much attention for finishing off the bad guys, even though he's the one that always needs the healing. I never tried to spotlight the ranger, but the party really seems to celebrate the person who gets the kill, not the person who ENABLES the kill. Maybe being a little short on healing will get them to appreciate him more.

 

[DracoSuave]

"Well fine, then let's see how you like... DEMONS!"

Radiant Servants do just as good against Demons, teehee

 

[Tai]

On the other hand, I think he might have been frustrated because one of our strikers, the party Ranger, gets so much attention for finishing off the bad guys, even though he's the one that always needs the healing. I never tried to spotlight the ranger, but the party really seems to celebrate the person who gets the kill, not the person who ENABLES the kill. Maybe being a little short on healing will get them to appreciate him more.

That is generally the healer's lot. You need a specific mindset to play a leader - I find it helps a lot to consider any damage the party does as a result of your buffs to be *your* damage. Gave someone a free attack? Your damage. Someone hits because you gave them an attack bonus? Your damage. This isn't a competitive thing, it's just a way to make sure you realise how useful you are to the party. With healing it's difficult to keep track of that way, which is why I prefer playing Warlords ^^

 

[Ryujin]

That is generally the healer's lot. You need a specific mindset to play a leader - I find it helps a lot to consider any damage the party does as a result of your buffs to be *your* damage. Gave someone a free attack? Your damage. Someone hits because you gave them an attack bonus? Your damage. This isn't a competitive thing, it's just a way to make sure you realise how useful you are to the party. With healing it's difficult to keep track of that way, which is why I prefer playing Warlords ^^

Our Radiant Servant doesn't see this. All that he sees is that he isn't bringing down the bad guys the way that our ranged Ranger is. Not that anyone could, mind you. A couple of sessions back the GM threw the RS a bone by giving us an encounter with what must have been almost 30 minion undead, with a sprinkling of tougher ones. He was bloodied in the first two rounds because he told the rest of us to stay back, but he also cleared half of the battlefield by then.

My Feylock is a joke by comparison to the rest of the party. I don't build optimized characters, just useful ones. Last session was one of the rare times I got a pat on the back because of two back-to-back criticals (standard action and action point) in one round, for 125 damage. Of course no one noticed when I cleared a 5' wide bridge of the high hp thud that was blocking it by raising him to the ceiling for three rounds, then subsequently tossing him off the bridge when he came crashing down on a save. Effectively I did far more damage in that encounter, by taking out 300hp worth of the opposition with one attack, but it's not as flashy.

 

[Rothe_]

I sometimes struggle with similar issues. A character (or party) who overspecializes vs. one specific type of opponent is annoying because "milk runs" are boring. If you run normal encounters vs. this kind of groups, the special opponents will not be a challenge at all, leading to useless encounters.

Game time is limited, so I tend to cut encounters that would not be challenging enough. Some players may not agree with this kind of mentality, but providing easy fodder for characters is essentially just taking time that could be used on something actually meaningful.

As long as there is no heavy focus in the group to deal with specific encounters the DM has easier time challenging them with a variety of things. It is good for the players to realize that many DM's do "counter" the party tactics in one way or another - could be just general bump in difficulty, or adjustment of opponents to party composition etc.

I think that my players don't mind if encounters are difficult in general, they'd probably hate it if I tried to constantly exploit their weakest spots though.