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

[Dannyalcatraz]

The only consideration that need be accounted for is the lack of higher level spells or abilities. So, while they are 4th level PCs, nobody will be slinging a Fireball, and if you've designed an encounter that required Fireball or some equivalent to bypass or survive, you're going to get a TPK. Or at the very least, you'll have unhappy players.

This isn't something new- I had a DM in a high-level 1Ed campaign who had an encounter that just stymied the party. When we retreated and stopped gaming for the evening, he asked us why we didn't cast "X" spell.

Which is when we pointed out "X" was a 9th level spell, and the party had no arcane spellcasters with access to higher than 8th.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Please don't get in the habit of creating adventures that require Solution X. Players never do what you expect them to, and if you create situations where they're required to do what you expect in order to succeed, you, the players or both are going to be very unhappy.

 

[BlueBlackRed]

One thing I've found out is that when you start nerfing monsters or fudging dice rolls it easily becomes addictive to the players.
The party starts to get used to the DM's magically bad dice rolls or the so-so monsters and they don't worry about it.
You can have a TPK to teach them something early at level 4, or a TPK that catches them off guard at level 10.

And if a players realizes that their PC is not that good and wants to toss him out, have them read the redesign rules in the PHB2.
Then you can work a story around how their PC goes from blah to lean 'n mean.

 

[Pierson_Lowgal]

I always take the abilities of the characters, the style of the players [can affect effectiveness] and the competence [think kids vs. adults] of the players into consideration when I design an adventure. Remember its all about fun, and one aspect of DnD fun is characters using the skills they do have to accomplish goals.

Also, a recent Wizards of the Coast website article responded to a question on a party lacking a wizard or bard. Amongst other ideas, the author says that designing an adventure that requires skills your party lacks, is just foolish. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060721a

 

[Imp]

Yeah, a group is going to take on tasks where their skill-sets apply, if possible, so a group full of multi-classed casters... they're going to be attracted to the kind of adventuring where a general level of arcane knowledge is going to be assumed and they have to constantly apply what they know, both pooling their knowledge within the group, and independently – the sort of thing that'll stymie a group where the wizard has all the knowledge, the rogue a little, the cleric has few skills at all, and the barbarian just smashes stuff. It's not necessarily cheesy to have groups take on quests to which they are suited. A scenario comes up where three people absolutely, positively got to read three different arcane scrolls at the same time in a ceremony to stop the eeeevil: the multiclassed "wimps" described here are gonna be the ones to do it, and the four optimized iconics kinda hosed. Stuff like that.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I take it into consideration insofar as I take character level into consideration.

To put it another way, the relative strength of encounters for an optimized party will remain the same.

I mean, most DMs do run campaigns in which the PCs fight an ever-increasing power of enemies as they go up in levels, due to one circumstance or another. 1st level PCs do not fight the same enemies as 5th level PCs in their adventures. Otherwise, you end up with a very boring or a very dead game.

Therefore, why should any other power level be treated as different. Unless the DM has stated beforehand that he expects optimized encounters, why should a party with the equivalent to an optimized level 4 party be put to face level 6 opposition just because that's what it says on their character sheets? Why go by one arbitrary set of numbers and not another arbitrary set of numbers?

 

[Infiniti2000]

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?

Absolutely. The DM has to. If the DM doesn't, (exaggerating a bit, for effect) then he might as well just give the 4 ECL PC's an EL20 encounter. Surely, such encounters exist, right? Why not with the 4 ECL PC's?

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?

It really makes a difference why things are going poorly. If things are going poorly due to the DM's fault, ala "dagnabbit, don't be such a group of 4th-level crybabies. That frenzied berserker BBEG is only 20th level!" then either yes or hand over the reigns to a competent DM.

 

[Drowbane]

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?

I would TPK them just for the Bbn/Brd alone...

 

[green slime]

I find the whole question extremely hypothetical. Why design a specific encounter that can only be handled with abilities beyond those of the player characters? Surely there is some point to the exercise?

Spells can be acquired on scrolls, and it is possible to cast spells of a higher level than you normally could. Therefore requiring a certain spell X to pass obstacle Y is not beyond the capabilities of the players. Surely it is the DM's job to make things challenging, on occassion?

If things go poorly for the party in combat, surely it is up to them to decide when to turn tail and flee, or press on? Should the DM hand them the victory? Fudging, if apparent to the players, is really, really bad, IMO. Fudge often enough, and it becomes apparent. I roll dice in front of players so they see how easily that Blackguard struck the Paladin. It provides an indication of how skilled their opponent is.

 

[Chimera]

I always design my encounters with a view toward what my party can handle, so I don't understand the whole "need to nerf" idea unless you're talking about the use of published adventures. In that case, you need to adjust your ideas of what the party is capable of based on your PCs. As others have stated, they don't have the higher level spells of a 4th level party.

IMG, I have 5 PCs and 1 NPC. 36 point build, Hero Points and Dork Cards. Lots of POWER and options. OTOH, they're only 3rd level and the Wizard is a Rogue 1/Wizard 2. When I start going through appropriate encounters, I need to keep in mind that they can pull a lot of tricks and roll right through a ton of minor creatures. HOWEVER, they're not going to survive multiple hits from a bunch of Ogres or similar high-damage dealing creatures, nor are they going to make a lot of DC 17 poison saves. In other words, I can throw a lot of CR 5+ encounters involving Orcs, Humans and lower CR creatures at them, but a couple of hot rolls with a Troll or a failed poison roll from a Phase Spider and they're dead.

But hey, that works well for my GMing style. I prefer larger battles against multiple creatures to hot battles against single creatures. More opponents give everyone in the party a chance to shine, to feel like they're contributing.

Same applies in the game I play in. I'm playing a Rogue 2 / Wizard 1 who has somehow developed the idea that he's a front line fighter (after acquiring an Adamantine +2 Bastard Sword). In our last session, he killed cultists, ambushed and killed a guard with a beautiful alchemist fire sneak attack (from invisibility) and ultimately killed the enemy leader! But in battles with larger and tougher creatures, he's NOT a factor. He can't stand up to them.

No, he's not optimized. In some respects he's not as effective as a pure rogue or a pure wizard.

But he's a lot of fun to play.

And that's what is important.