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

[moritheil]

First, let me point out that I subscribe to the "simulated world" style of campaign, where lots of things are going on both above and below the party's encounter range.

Second, let me point out that my campaign has the inherent assumption that there is nothing special about the players. They are not heroes. They are adventurers, but they do not have dragons or powers looking out for them, or any such nonsense. Fundamentally, the world's spotlight is not on them unless they force it to be by going out and doing daring (and important) deeds.

My players are well aware of this, as it is part of my campaign disclaimer. With that said . . .

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.

I disagree strongly with the idea of fudging rolls in combat. (For one, I roll openly, so if I fudge, people will pick up on it rather quickly.) I think that the DM should use NPCs and/or knowledge checks to hint that they should flee the wrath of the berserker on the hill, known to slay a million men when worked up, etc, etc. and give them a chance to run away once they see they are sorely outclassed - but if they insist on returning for more punishment, then by all means let them have more punishment. Anything else totally compromises the realism of the campaign world.

FWIW, I would avoid starting an encounter with something far beyond the party with the assumption of combat - that alone seems to suggest to players that they have a shot at winning.

 

[Mallus]

Should a DM be designing encounters for the characters not playing in the game?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Should a DM be designing encounters for the characters not playing in the game?

Apparently, for some people, the goal of D&D is to punish players if they fail to play according to min/max standards.

Honestly, in the OP's situation, it sounds like his players are wanting a different style of campaign than the DM does, and he needs to speak with them and figure out what their goals are and see if they're compatible with his. It's no different from discovering you have a group full of roleplaying bards and experts showing up to enter the World's Largest Dungeon.

 

[Particle_Man]

In one of my campaigns, the characters do in fact to a lot of sub-optimal multiclassing and the DM has reduced the toughness of the encounters to compensate. To show how weak the party is, I voluntarily gave up my single-class Warlock's chasuble of fell power so that I would not stand out as the power house (at 10th level, the only other single-classed magic using type was the Bard).

 

[3catcircus]

Hmm...

First of all, there are no ineffective characters, period. What you refer to as "ineffective" is really just the in-play results of a person choosing to play a jack-of-all-trades type of PC instead of one specialized in one area. Being able to do multiple things to a lesser degree than being able to do one thing really well is not ineffective.

As to fudging and nerfing - absolutely not. The DM chooses encounters that he feels are an appropriate challenge. I (grudgingly) adhere to the CR/EL rules, but I use the Grim Tales chi/rho method to help determine that (especially since I have more than 4 players and some of them are playing LA PCs.) If the players and their PCs start losing a fight, maybe that is a hint that they should run away or parley...

My players' PCs are 6th level (5 PCs total, with one of them a LA +1 Aasimar), and are assaulting the ToEE. Two sessions ago, they charged into the Earth Temple and got pounded by the 4 Huge Earth Elementals (CR 7 each elemental, total of roughly CR 13). They figured out that it was best to run away, regroup, devise a plan, and return. Last session, they carried out their plans and ended up killing all four elementals, with only one PC killed (and the player chose to have him remain killed so he could play a different character.)

I don't believe in ever taking it easy on a PC - tough but fair needs to be the attitude.

 

[Emirikol]

Players need to do two things: 1) create well-rounded characters and 2) keep up with their role in the party.

The DM needs to provide a world that the PC's can count on. If he's constantly tweaking and modifying, players never know what direction to take their characters. For example: if you're a high-combat DM with no diplomacy or role playing and it's a well-known fact, then players need to understand that and not create characters of high diplomatic skill. The opposite is true in other campaigns.

The DM needs to stick to HIS guns so the players can figure him out.

jh


./

 

[3catcircus]

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

Whats wrong with that combo? They *did* exist in Norse culture and were known as Skalds. Heck, Forgotten Realms even has a PrC known as the Warrior Skald. Fafhrd was a Skald...

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Players need to do two things: 1) create well-rounded characters and 2) keep up with their role in the party.

The DM needs to provide a world that the PC's can count on. If he's constantly tweaking and modifying, players never know what direction to take their characters. For example: if you're a high-combat DM with no diplomacy or role playing and it's a well-known fact, then players need to understand that and not create characters of high diplomatic skill. The opposite is true in other campaigns.

The DM needs to stick to HIS guns so the players can figure him out.

Right, so there's more of them, and they all want something he's not interested in, the answer is -- screw what they want?

The OP needs to talk to his players. "Sticking to your guns" turns you into one of those people posting an angry thread here about how everyone left your game for some MYSTERIOUS reason.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

My recommendation is to fudge the effective party level.

The real sticky wicket is when most PCs are ineffective and one or two PCs are well-designed.

If the party is consistent in style, what is the problem? Is there any need to punish people who are making loopy characters and having fun for the sin of not playing the game "right"?

 

[Herobizkit]

Personally, I love the party in the OP's post. Every character I've ever made ended up milti-classed sooner or later.

Parties who are entirely multi-classed cover every base, just not as well as those characters who specialize. By the same token, they are still X level characters, and can stand toe-to-toe against other specialists... with a bit of strategy thrown in for good measure.

D&D authors create modules and dungeons based on the assumption that a party will consist of 4 PCs, and assume each party member is single classed (or multi-classed with a relevant PrC, relevant meaning one that suits the players' base classes).

This in mind, a party of all multi-classed PC's are going to have a more difficult time going through a traditional "dungeon-buster" campaign if you use the modules 'as is', mostly due to increased DCs for skills (especially Rogue and Diplomacy skills), more "mook" monsters(assuming the players have an area-damaging mage or a warrior with Cleave/Great Cleave), and few "rest stops" (assuming the players have a high-level priest).

On the flip side, a campaign with a greater focus on story-telling and character interaction is less dependant on character abilities.

So, to answer your questions: Yes, I might consider tweaking combats and so forth based on PC ability, but it's ultimately up to the PCs to decide whether to fight or flee. If a player was extremely unhappy with his design, I would allow him to redesign the character with the caveat of my approval -- making an over-effective character to compensate for a formerly ineffective one is what usually happens in such a case.