Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7272637" data-attributes="member: 6880599">The GM makes the groups sends the groups into battle and chooses who they attack. There is no reason for a more powerful fighter not to have a reputation that causes the boss/champion of the group of NPCs to head striate for your min/maxer player (if he kills your min/maxer he leaves considering the rest of the group not worth his time and leaving the minions to fight a square fight). Also large numbers of weak enemies that are inelegant enough to attack from different directions an target the strength of the players team, so that they are not vulnerable to AoEs and can overwhelm the min/maxer if not supported. Enemies could shut the door dividing the min/maxer from his group so that the fight different enemies before reuniting for the story. You put so many little minion NPCs that the even the min./maxer can't stop them all but if he fails to be as scary as he normally is the group has to retreat, so that at a point where that player could shine, its not an option but a requirement. Then he is placed in position of bein responsible for the welfare of the whole group if he roles bad, because that is the character he made and the role he chose in the group. put the pressure on but let him succeed, if that player fails, let the face negotiate a way out, let the brute force open and close a door to let the less characters retreat, while the min/maxer licks his wounds in defeat. More than a few options here. Use them all.There is no assumption here. In a world where the DM is basically god the excuse that the GM does not have enough control to challenge the min/maxers without killing those that are not is silly and falls short of the truth. If the GM is not building to his players and running the game to target his players skills then that is a choice by the GM to run a game where some players aren't useful or having fun. Players have no control over that regardless there character builds.That is not to say there aren't "bad players". There are. The way D&D works though, their is some way to benefit from almost anything. It will be harder and harder to make characters NOT USEFUL in some way as they level up. A good GM looks at what they are good at and ensures some of that is in the game. A bad player happens, when he builds a character up for skills, then never wants to use them. You have one high charisma player in your group and he never wants to talk to anyone or make deals, you have one strong player in your group who refuses to do physical labor, one tough player who hides in the back afraid to get hit, etc. Basically min. maxing is not bad but playing to your weaknesses is... I seriously had a wizard in a group with high intelegance and investigation skill who NEVER did investigation checks because he considered it beneath himself unless it only helped him. But any player could have that issue not just a min maxer, because no one is not stronger some where and weaker in another. Even I you give your character all 14 stats as flat as your can make it your strength becomes your a jack of all trades and your weakness is that you are a master of none. If you have player that gets knocked out a lot you as a GM give the group a ring of defense and some healing potions and another player steals them all letting that player continue to get knocked out even with means to prevent that, well yes bad player. If you have character, getting knocked out a lot and you will not give the group any means of helping with that ... bad GM. But those are actions not builds.</blockquote>

Verification