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

[Dannyalcatraz]

This case, isn't really a case, as it wasn't designed by purpose to defeat the PCs and render them incompetent, without having any other purpose.

The OP questions whether a DM should take into account specific character abilities when setting up encounters.

Which is why I posted my entirely germaine example.

He designed an encounter that REQUIRED a particular spell.

No PC had that spell & there was no way for them to acquire that spell within the context of the adventure constraints.

By not taking into account the specific abilities of the PCs- here, the lack of a certain spell- he guaranteed that the adventure would grind to a screetching halt.

 

[sniffles]

I find it interesting in reading through this thread that the general assumption of the anti-fudging contingent is that if you fudge the dice, your players will become overconfident and blase' about facing challenges. Perhaps the group I belong to is odd (well, I'm pretty sure we are ), but despite the fact that we have several GMs who fudge, we continue to be just as afraid of PC death as we would be in a let-the-dice-fall-where-they-may style of game. We tend to be very cautious and do everything we can to minimize risk, despite the fact that we know our GMs will not kill our characters if they can possibly avoid it. We all enjoy playing the same character for the long term, so we don't generally mind being aware that fudging is going on. And our characters don't know that they're virtually immortal. We roleplay that they are afraid of dying, just as real people would probably be.

As others have said, it would be worthwhile to find out what the players want out of the game. If they get as attached to their characters as my fellow players and I do, they may be a lot happier knowing they're not going to have to roll up a new PC every week.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I find it interesting in reading through this thread that the general assumption of the anti-fudging contingent is that if you fudge the dice, your players will become overconfident and blase' about facing challenges.

I can only speak for myself, of course, but my objection to fudging has nothing to do with players becoming "overconfident and blase." It's that they'll become bored.

It's like that Twilight Zone episode where a gambler dies and goes to Heaven, which is this big casino. He's totally stoked at first, having loads of fun because he's winning piles of money. But then he notices that he never loses. Then he starts trying to lose, but he can't...at which point, he realizes that he's actually in Hell.

 

[Nightfall]

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?

Not sure I'd consider any build "ineffective" merely "not what you're expecting..." So yeah they should take that into consideration but only if they don't bother with other stuff too. Like having fun.

 

[Drowbane]

Kidding? On ENworld? Only 90% of the time.

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...

Are you kidding? The Barbarian/Bard (i.e., the Norse Skald) is a wicked cool character idea!

I agree that the Skald is a cool character concept, I remember playing one back in 2e. However, I see nothing in the concept that suggests that a barbarian/bard multiclass is the only way to make one. A bard with the proper background would suffice... or heck, any class with a few ranks in Perform!

Many archetypes can be (and should be) open to interpretation.

Most importantly, I hate bards. Thus, any concept or class combo that involves even a single level in this abomination requires a good drubbing. Drubbery and perhaps even the dreaded comfy chair!

Bards are meant to be mocked (that is, as long as they're not known as "Louis...)... much like the "25pt buy Monk".

 

[Infiniti2000]

...or any such nonsense.

By that comment, it seems like you feel that "your way" to game is the only proper way. I'd wager that such an attitude will gain you no support anywhere.

I disagree strongly with the idea of fudging rolls in combat. ...

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.

But, what if you did? What if the ensuing encounter is the DM's fault, leading to a sure TPK? You have one of three choices. 1. fudge some rolls. 2. kill the party. Or 3. fudge a MUD-like "con" check on the BBEG, like you suggested. Personally, I'd go with 1. Those who go with 2 are basically turning in their DM's license. retcon-ing, I'd put in with 1. #3 is the worst aspect IMO because it doesn't just fudge semi-meaningless random numbers, it fudges roleplaying. That's a load of nonsense. Talking about compromising the realism of the gaming world.

The DM chooses encounters that he feels are an appropriate challenge.

And if the DM doesn't? If the DM has a "realistic" world like moritheil and pits the 4th-level party against a CR20 bad guy?

No. If you're going to set aside the results of the dice, why bother rolling them in the first place?

Exactly the point. When the DM decides to break tradition, plain don't roll the dice. Decide what happens (what is 'rolled'). I see nothing wrong with that in the right circumstances. An experienced DM can handle that just as well, easily, and seamlessly as setting up an appropriate encounter in the first place. What scares me are the inexperienced DM's who refuse to do either.

I can only speak for myself, of course, but my objection to fudging has nothing to do with players becoming "overconfident and blase." It's that they'll become bored.

That's true. That's why 'fudging' carries a "depends" clause. Don't fudge for the wrong reasons. The death of a PC (or NPC) could be a huge benefit to the story and game.

 

[Herobizkit]

I got the Human Paladin. I rolled two 9's. I decided to put them on str and int. I made a Paladin that wears light armor and fights exclusively with a crossbow (17 dex). I've got the same to-hit as the Barbarian and Fighter in the party, but my damage isn't as good. Thus, I've made an ineffective PC (didn't help rolling low all week, either). If I had free reign, I would not have chosen Paladin unless I rolled really good stats. Instead I would have done a fighter, and focused a bit more (more feats) on archery. by designing the PC against archetype, I limited myself.

I don't think you've made an ineffective PC at all. You've probably made a LESS effective PC than possible, but you said it yourself... your to-hit is on par with the other warriors, just not as damaging. One feat, Weapon Finesse, and suddenly you're awesome at melee combat too. Sure, your most powerful weapon is still less damaging than a crossbow (Rapier, 1d6, unless there's a d8 or even a d10 finesse-able weapon I'm forgetting), but you're still hitting more often than you would with a bigger, higher-damage melee weapon. Strap on Two-Weapon Fighting after Weapon Finesse, and now you're a melee beast. Even without the TWF you're still hitting more often than you would using your Str score.

It's all about perception... and if your character concept is solid, it doesn't matter how sucky your character is.

Also, consider if you had put your 9's on CHA and WIS...

 

[Orcus]

I'll chime in as a designer.

You have actually hit on a huge topic for adventure designers. We have no idea what your home campaign consists of. We cannot tailor adventures for you. Instead, we make certain presumptions.

Generally, If the average character level is 6, I presume access to 3rd level spells. That is a HUGE design bump. And most people look at spell access only as it relates to damage, with fireball being the obvious one.

But actually, the biggest impact I have found on adventure design are obstacle avoidance, movement and information spells that have a big impact and change the way a party that has these spells deals with an encounter versus a party that doesnt.

In my opinion, there are a few milestones:

Invisibility (2nd level) changes things but not super huge.

Fly totally changes encounters. That is a 3rd level spell. Invisibility sphere also changes the way PCs handle encounters because it lets them have a massive round of surprise generally. Of course, dispel magic is impactful. But Fly is far and away the biggest changer.

Stoneskin adds a whole new layer of defense. D-door really keeps wizards out of trouble. These are 4th level. The wall spells change things. But all in all there is no 4th level spell as huge of an impact as fly. arcane eye and charm monster can be big.

5th level, ok normally i know that damage spells dont make the difference but cloudkill does. but the real biggie is teleport. passwall and the transmute spells give the pcs huge ability to alter their surroundings--something that normally a dm can use to channel choices. not anymore!

6th gives you legend lore and true seeing. disintegrate. huge.

7th, once again, greater teleport is a total game design changer. mass invis.

8th level has a really big change: maze. no save. SR, sure if they have it. this changes the boss monsters you can use. the big strong baddie is no longer a real viable final foe since the wizard can maze him, no save.

And that is just the arcane spells. Think about divine spells.

to me hold person and silence are the first impact spell at 2nd level that affect design.

3rd brings create food and water, meaning dungeon delving is basically hunger proof. locate object has huge design implications. and speak with dead is a truly adventure-changing spell. you absolutely need to plan how corpses will respond and what info they have. this spell is huge! all of a sudden your pcs are solving murders.

4th gives dimensional anchor, which impacts certain monsters and abilities. dismissal is big. but divination is probably the game changer. but there are a couple big ones, though not as big as the last few: neutralize poison, planar ally, restoration, death ward. these really change things.

5th has commune. again, the info gathering spells have massive impact on adventure design. plane shift is huge. true seeing, massive. and slay living is big.

6th has blade barrier. i know, normally i dont list offensive spells but this one is a doozie. create undead. is you adventure ready for the necromancer or the conjurer? but maybe the biggest for 6th level is find the path. this one can kill adventure design. for a good way of handling it, see Thirteen Cages, one of the SCAP adventures.

I havent listed them all. And sorry if I left our your favorite. This isnt a list of favorites, it is a list of spells that can impact adventure design.

Is it right to presume that 6th level PCs have access to fly and thus can get around an obstacle that needs fly? Like, say, the pcs need to get to an inaccessible ledge on a mountain or something. if your 6th level PCs are all ftr2/bard2/monk2 or wiz3/rog3s then you are screwed.

So ABSOLUTELY YES you have to tailor things to your PCs. It is the one job that the adventure designers cant do for you. We have to presume access to certain abilities. But only you know what your PCs can and cant do.

Clark

 

[green slime]

Yes Orcus, those spells are powerful.

And 6th level pc's will most likely have access to fly. Yet Encounters should always be set up so that there is more than one way to circumnavigate them. Over-under-around-through.

It is perfectly feasible for a 6th level party not to have fly; one that has only a sorceror, rogue, cleric, and fighter. In this case, the sorceror may well have taken dispel magic.

Yet; arcane spellcasters can cast spells from scrolls, and what is more, it is a basic assumption of DnD 3x, that players can basically equip themselves within their means. So this means that even the party with a multiclassed arcane spellcasters (removing access to the highest level spells) can access 3rd level spells through scrolls. Finally, Use Magic Device is a skill available to both Rogues and Bards.

My point is that the unfolding story should require certain events/happenings/encounters, and these should not require a single "correct" method of solution. To do so is tedious, boring, unimaginative, stifling, and contrived. Real Life does not consist of black and white, and actions have consequences. Players selection their actions and deal with the consequences.

An encounter with a woodsman who knows the way to a shack, the PC's need to find may be resolved in a multitude of ways. Encountering a steep ravine, a blizzard, a flying castle, two twin necrophiliacs, whatever, should all be resolvable in a multitude of ways, just as real life is. I cannot for the life of me understand why a RPG, should hang on a single encounter requiring a very specific solution revolving around the pc's access to a single specific spell. This really strikes me as very bad design. That is like having an entire game revolve around a single roll of the die: Roll a d20. 1-16 you lose. 17-19 roll again. 20 you win. Because there is no guarantee that a WIzard has prepared the required spell, even if capable of casting it.

 

[Janx]

Yes Orcus, those spells are powerful.

And 6th level pc's will most likely have access to fly. Yet Encounters should always be set up so that there is more than one way to circumnavigate them. Over-under-around-through.

It is perfectly feasible for a 6th level party not to have fly; one that has only a sorceror, rogue, cleric, and fighter. In this case, the sorceror may well have taken dispel magic.

Yet; arcane spellcasters can cast spells from scrolls, and what is more, it is a basic assumption of DnD 3x, that players can basically equip themselves within their means. So this means that even the party with a multiclassed arcane spellcasters (removing access to the highest level spells) can access 3rd level spells through scrolls. Finally, Use Magic Device is a skill available to both Rogues and Bards.

My point is that the unfolding story should require certain events/happenings/encounters, and these should not require a single "correct" method of solution. To do so is tedious, boring, unimaginative, stifling, and contrived. Real Life does not consist of black and white, and actions have consequences. Players selection their actions and deal with the consequences.

I think GreenSlime is missing part of Orcus's point (though he makes good points as well).

Orcus isn't saying to make an adventure that presumes PCs have access to certain spells. He's saying to write your adventure and be prepared for the use of those spells, as well as non-use of those spells. I think most encounters easily FORGET access to those spells, thus are thwarted unexepectedly (to the detriment of the game). If the DM planned a reaction to those spells, the encounter may be a bit more challenging (though the DM should not counter every one of those spells on every encounter).

By all means, it would be bad to presume access to a specific spell. I've got a 9th level Gnome Conjurer in one party. None of us can fly. I have no fireball. All my spells are Conjuration spells (kinda the point). We're in a resource constrained campaign. It would be VERY foolish of the DM to write an adventure that assumed we could cast fly and get somewhere. On the other hand, I have Dimension Door and Teleport. It would be equally foolish to assume I can't get somewhere.

It's basically a balancing act.