Player Etiquette: Changing Class

[Runestar]

Same here. Unless you have an intimate knowledge of how the system works, it won't be easy to get it right the first time. It is entirely possible that the character you made is too weak, not as fun/effective as you thought it may be, or you just grew bored of it and want to try something new. No point forcing the player to play a character he does not enjoy.

It might be subject to possible abuse though (you start out with a build that is very strong at low levels, but will be weaker at higher lvs, then swap it out for another build which is the exact reverse at an appropriate time, thereby benefiting from the best of both worlds), though it has yet to occur in my games.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Talk to the DM and group; were I your DM I'd be completely supportive. If the character concept remains the same but you're just changing the mechanics I'd recommend simply making the change in stride. If you're making a different character (different name/race/character concept) then the DM will have to figure out how to write out the old character and write in the new one, but that isn't really that hard.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Speaking as a DM, I'd much rather ret-con a new character into the campaign than have someone play a character they don't want to play.

I also agree.

Honestly, I think as long as your DM is okay with it, you should play whatever character you want to play, without regard to what the group wants or "needs." You're already unhappy with one character, why force yourself into playing another character? That road often leads to discontent with your character.

Furthermore, I completely disagree with the notion that a group "needs" certain roles, and that players should choose their characters by that.

I agree so far.

It is the DM's job to account for group composition, not the players'. [T]here are behind the scenes stuff the DM can do to account for, say, the lack of a leader role.

This is where I disagree. I believe it is up to the group to compensate for their composition. If everyone wants to play a rogue, then they need to modify their tactics to make up for the imbalance. YMMV.

 

[mattdm]

If you're interested in preserving some continuity, you might want to talk with your DM about doing it this way:

Whole-class retraining: bringing the conversion experience to multiclassing

 

[LightPhoenix]

I also agree.

I agree so far.

This is where I disagree. I believe it is up to the group to compensate for their composition. If everyone wants to play a rogue, then they need to modify their tactics to make up for the imbalance. YMMV.

Then you don't agree. If the DM is not making the game run smoothly*, then basically the DM is saying, "Alright, you play what makes you happy, but I'm going to make your life difficult, and possibly kill you. Too bad."

Take your hypothetical example of an all Rogue party. There will be obvious, possible extreme tactical difficulties with such a party, I don't disagree on that part. In fact, my guess would be that such a party would be relatively unsustainable (though now I'm curious). However, everyone is (in theory) playing what they want to play. It's the DM's job then to prevent it being a TPK.

Take a more real example - no one wants to play a leader. The party should be punished by that lack of a role (healing/support) because no one wants to play a character they don't want to?

*Smoothly (wrt combat) does not mean easily; smoothly means not every combat is a near-TPK or an exercise in frustration.

 

[Mercule]

My general thought is that players should play characters that appeal to them. If they aren't having fun, they should switch. Depending on how much concern your group has for continuity, you may want to wait until the end of the current adventure, or not.

As far as an eye toward group composition, I do tend to feel that the players should have a good portion of the responsibility for that. I look at it more from a point of whether the characters would stick together, if the players are mutually having fun, and if people are not doubling up on "spotlight" abilities. If the group has a theme to it (we did a rogue/stealth group once, where everyone maxed their hide/sneak skills), then it's back to the DM to make sure he isn't limiting the group to adventures that run counter to what they're trying.

That said, if your group actually did try to split up the roles, then you bailing on the last leader might be worth running past them because there may be an unspoken (or spoken) assumption that you're playing that "zone". In my group, it would be a non-issue, but it would still be polite to say something, rather than just show up with a different character.

DMs shouldn't run campaigns they don't like and players shouldn't run characters they don't enjoy. It's okay to use your second pick or plan B, since compromise is part of any group activity. But, it should still be fun.

 

[Jhaelen]

Then you don't agree. If the DM is not making the game run smoothly*, then basically the DM is saying, "Alright, you play what makes you happy, but I'm going to make your life difficult, and possibly kill you. Too bad."

Umm. I really dislike what you seem to imply here. There's a world of difference between a DM going out of his way to make life difficult for the pcs and telling the players that they may have a more difficult time because of their choices if they don't take their weaknesses (like missing a role) into account.

Take your hypothetical example of an all Rogue party. There will be obvious, possible extreme tactical difficulties with such a party, I don't disagree on that part. In fact, my guess would be that such a party would be relatively unsustainable (though now I'm curious). However, everyone is (in theory) playing what they want to play. It's the DM's job then to prevent it being a TPK.

Well, I guess it's possible to play a campaign with such a party but it would be a completely different campaign than one with a party covering all of the roles. This is fine if either the DM doesn't care, or it's what the players and DM agreed on beforehand. It's not fine if the players and the DM decided the campaign was going to be a 'standard' campaign.

I like the advice the DMG gives on page 10:

When players are making new characters, they should discuss their preferences in roles, and agree on how to cover all the roles[...]Otherwise, you might end up with a party of five strikers.

Take a more real example - no one wants to play a leader. The party should be punished by that lack of a role (healing/support) because no one wants to play a character they don't want to?

That shouldn't be a problem. Again, the appropriate advice can be found on page 10 in the DMG. As a DM I'd just spell out to them what the section on 'No Leader' says.

*Smoothly (wrt combat) does not mean easily; smoothly means not every combat is a near-TPK or an exercise in frustration.

As I mentioned above there's three ways to react to a party with a non-standard composition:

1) Go out of your way to make things easier for the pcs by avoiding encounters that become more difficult if a certain role is missing - this seems to be your preference.

2) Go out of your way to make things more difficult for the pcs by focusing on encounters that become more difficult if a certain role is missing - this seems to be only other option you see.

3) Don't change anything. Use the suggestions for building encounters straight from the DMG.

Obviously, I'm a proponent of option 3).

I trust my players to be sufficiently creative and clever to deal with standard encounters even with a non-standard party setup. It might be more difficult at times but some players (including mine) enjoy the challenge.

 

[Runestar]

How might one play an all rogue party anyways? In theory, the DM can customize encounters to cater to this unique combination, but what are some areas to watch out for? For example, I can see them being particularly effective vs solos and less so vs minions (being strikers).

I think one issue here is that the DM may not be sufficiently aware of his party's respective strengths and weaknesses to compensate accordingly.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Then you don't agree. If the DM is not making the game run smoothly*, then basically the DM is saying, "Alright, you play what makes you happy, but I'm going to make your life difficult, and possibly kill you. Too bad."

I will politely ask that you please not tell me what I am saying or thinking.

I do agree that players should play what they want. If I am running a standard campaign and they wish to take on the challenge of an unbalanced party, they are welcome to do so.

The advice from the DMG that Jhaelen quoted is good advice. I suggest that my players keep it in mind, but I will not suggest that any particular player play a character they are unhappy with.

I feel my viewpoint is also shared by the designers due to the following quote:

Roles also serve as handy tools for building adventuring parties. It's a good idea to cover each role with at least one character. If you have five or six players in your group it's best to double up on defender first, then striker. If you don't have all of the roles covered, that's okay too - it just means that the characters need to compensate for the missing function.

The PHB places the need for compensation on the characters (i.e. the players), not the DM.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

For situations like this I really like the "dual-class" treatement, as in I'd usually be willing to just go with a retcon that the character was just using some other skills for a while but is now operating fully as the new class. I've done that with a character in 3.x (the character concept didn't change, it was more like the new build better matched the original concept) and storywise it didn't cause any hiccups.