Player Etiquette: Changing Class

[Donny605]

Thanks for the input everyone! I think what I'll end up doing is trying to retool my warlord using the power/feat swapping rules while leveling up, and having my DM let me know when a good spot for my character to depart.

I saw a few posts asking for more info, and what I'm finding a little dissapointing about the Warlord so far is that there seem to be few options for me when my turn comes up. Part of this may be the low level of the character so far, so I'm willing to give it a few more sessions to see if my warlord turns out to be more active than simply attacking and casting the Warlord's Inspiration power a couple of times.

 

[Mallus]

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

Interesting. You found the one piece of truly bad advice so far in the 4e books. Thanks!

A DM who designs challenges that the party can't reasonably overcome because of the specific party composition --say, all rogues-- isn't doing a good job. Who is the DM creating the adventure for, if not the actual PC's in the game?

 

[Vorput]

Interesting. You found the one piece of truly bad advice so far in the 4e books. Thanks!

A DM who designs challenges that the party can't reasonably overcome because of the specific party composition --say, all rogues-- isn't doing a good job. Who is the DM creating the adventure for, if not the actual PC's in the game?

The question then arises- does the world form itself around the PCs? Or do the PCs exist in a world independent of them?

There are some challenges a party simple can't overcome. A group of all rogues can't take down a dragon- but they're welcome to try. Must a DM tone down the dragon so that the task is able to be accomplished? What if the characters (a balanced group) want to go after the toughest creature in the land? By your logic (unless I'm mistaken)- they should be able to accomplish this because the DM should design it so that its possible.

I personally think it makes sense for characters to recognize the flaws in their party composition (and in their own characters) and adapt and overcome them. It's more memorable than simply having everything you meet be custom made so you can be good at it.

Might just be different DMing philosophies I suppose.

Anyway, done thread-jacking. My two cents are to talk it over with both the DM and the party. In my (limited) experience, roles seem to be very important in 4e. The standard expected combat becomes much more difficult when you start removing roles. Also, if your DM isn't experienced- he may find it hard to compensate (at least at first).

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Interesting. You found the one piece of truly bad advice so far in the 4e books. Thanks!

You may consider this bad advice, but it is how it works in most worlds. Would you hire 5 accountants to run a small company? Maybe, but then you would have to compensate for a lack of IT skills, sales skills, etc. Why would a group of rogues want to work alone together knowing how dangerous their chosen line of work is. Having a balanced party has been the advice given to all players since the very beginnings of D&D.

A DM who designs challenges that the party can't reasonably overcome because of the specific party composition --say, all rogues-- isn't doing a good job. Who is the DM creating the adventure for, if not the actual PC's in the game?

If a group really wanted to play all rogues they should talk to the DM before a campaign begins. It takes alot more work to develop a non-standard campaign based on this choice. And just like a player shouldn't run a character he doesn't enjoy, a DM should not be forced to run a campaign he won't enjoy.

 

[Mephistopheles]

The question then arises- does the world form itself around the PCs? Or do the PCs exist in a world independent of them?

My answer to that is: a little from column A and a little from column B.

The players of characters in a party lacking certain skills will usually do what they can to avoid situations they're not well equipped to deal with, or at the least they'll attempt to develop methods to cope with tackling such situations. The DM does what he can to help them achieve that and keep things fun without compromising the integrity of the game world (too much).

As for the original topic I'd agree with everyone suggesting that you talk it over with your group. Just be up front and explain that you're not enjoying the character. For all you know another player is not enjoying their character so much and might be interested in switching places. Failing that I can't imagine your group would want you to keep playing a character you're not enjoying and will be willing to accomodate you.

 

[Fenes]

There are some challenges a party simple can't overcome. A group of all rogues can't take down a dragon- but they're welcome to try. Must a DM tone down the dragon so that the task is able to be accomplished? What if the characters (a balanced group) want to go after the toughest creature in the land? By your logic (unless I'm mistaken)- they should be able to accomplish this because the DM should design it so that its possible.

I can't speak for 4E, but in 3E, there's not much I can see an all-rogues group unable to overcome. Especially not a dragon of the same CR.

Gather Information (To know how and what to prepare), Use Magic Device (to use all the scrolls, potions, wands and other stuff they procured for the job), a good plan to make use of lots of sneak attack damage and you're set.

 

[steenan]

As for changing characters mid-campaign, it should DEFINITELY be discussed both with the DM and with the whole group.

From a DM's perspective:
- It is sometimes hard to hook up a new character in a sensible way, espacially during an action-intensive part of a campaign.
- There may be campaign threads and motives connected to the character you wany to abandon. If the DM worked hard to integrate your character in the plot and then you change the character, don't be suprised if you won't become someone important to the story.
- Some enemies of the party and challenges it's likely to face taht are already an estabilished part of the world may have been designed for another party composition and you will have a hard time after the change.

From player's perspective:
- There must be a good in-character reason to trust the newcomer and let him join the party. In case of an estabilished group that faced danger and subterfuge before it may be really hard.
- There must be a good in-character reason not to resurrect the previous character, search for him or persuade not to leave the group, as appropriate.
- New character's alignment and personality must be acceptable for the rest of the party. A group of noble, chivalrious and law-abiding characters wouldn't let a thief replace their fallen camrade.

 

[Mallus]

As for changing characters mid-campaign, it should DEFINITELY be discussed both with the DM and with the whole group.

I think everyone can agree on this. But allow my to disagree on two of your points...

- There must be a good in-character reason to trust the newcomer and let him join the party. In case of an established group that faced danger and subterfuge before it may be really hard.

This doesn't have to -- and shouldn't -- be hard. If the group can't come up with a good reason, use a bad or cliched one, and then move on. Classic D&D is built on contrivances ("you all meet in a tavern!"), and when your buddy wants to swap characters, it's not the time to go all Method roleplaying and start looking for your characters motivation for trusting the replacement PC.

Looking at it from another perspective, since the outcome is a forgone conclusion --ie, the party accepts the new PC-- there's no drama in it.

So don't make it hard for someone to switch characters. Make it easy. Use your imagination. Help them integrate into the party with a minimum of fuss. Unless, of course, you have a good reason for wanting that person to not enjoy the game.

- There must be a good in-character reason not to resurrect the previous character, search for him or persuade not to leave the group, as appropriate.

See above. Respect your fellow players wishes, then help them realize them.

 

[Mallus]

The question then arises- does the world form itself around the PCs? Or do the PCs exist in a world independent of them?

Ultimately, the world forms itself around the players. Any illusion of a persistent, independent world is just another trick in the DM's bag, a tool for creating an interesting game. I don't see the benefit in forgetting the purpose for an RPG setting; as the 'board' for a role-playing game. Form follows function, etc.

And I say this as an inveterate homebrewer with a great affinity for the RPG settings I've cooked up.

Must a DM tone down the dragon so that the task is able to be accomplished? What if the characters (a balanced group) want to go after the toughest creature in the land? By your logic (unless I'm mistaken)- they should be able to accomplish this because the DM should design it so that its possible.

No, you're mistaken. All I said was that a DM should consider party composition when designing adventures, not that the party should be able to tackle any opponent at any time with a reasonable chance for success. "Don't run the Mega-Crypt of the Undead for a party of 3e rogues".

I personally think it makes sense for characters to recognize the flaws in their party composition (and in their own characters) and adapt and overcome them.

I think my point is that we should stop thinking in terms of 'ideal' parties. Whatever the players choose to create is 'ideal', with the right adventures.

 

[Mallus]

Would you hire 5 accountants to run a small company? Maybe, but then you would have to compensate for a lack of IT skills, sales skills, etc.

This would be relevant if D&D were a job.

Why would a group of rogues want to work alone together knowing how dangerous their chosen line of work is.

Because the group of rogues spend the bulk of their time stealing things? And the knight in plate mail and the unusually blessed parish priest would just get in the way?

Having a balanced party has been the advice given to all players since the very beginnings of D&D.

I think this is why I'm tired of it. Bring on the more tightly-themed campaigns!

If a group really wanted to play all rogues they should talk to the DM before a campaign begins.

Of course.