Should I Change the Dungeon for a PC?

[Gorfang113]

Right, so i have a big dungeon of undead and demons planned out (mostly finished, just treasure left to do). One of my players has a PC, an Unbodied Telepath. I now have the problem that most of the dungeon is immune to what he can do. Should i tell him to just change to a different disipline (the PC has not been introduced yet) or should I do something else. If I did do something else I promised to do a sort of Mages Lab for medical "experiments" (lots of wierd stuff). Im drawing a blank for what to do, like what monsters, what plot, how does this tie in with the rest of the campaing? Help!:smalleek:

[Shadowknight12]

Easy way out: Give him a free feat or a free item that lets him affect non-mindless creatures immune to mind-affecting effects (though they get a +5 on their saves). Alternatively, remove mind-affecting effects immunity from non-mindless creatures and replace it with a bonus Iron Will feat and a pseudo-mettle effect that only affects Will (they treat spells as if they said "Will negates" instead of "Will half" or "Will partial").

[Mando Knight]

I'd warn the player that what he's got planned for his PC doesn't really fit with the next big encounter that the rest of the players were going after. If he still wants to play the same character, then modify the dungeon enough that there's something for him to do, without making it too obvious that it was redesigned with him in mind.

That said, any character who's stopped cold by common enemy types needs a bit of work and thought put in before being accepted... and unfortunately, several classes (ROGUE) were forced down that path by the developers...

[Rossebay]

Characters deserve background on the entire campaign world in general before creating a character.
That said, don't tell him he'll fail. Rather, shift the rules slightly to fit him, or give him an item to two to keep him out of harm's way. It is the party's duty to adapt.

[Kenneth]

Right, so i have a big dungeon of undead and demons planned out (mostly finished, just treasure left to do). One of my players has a PC, an Unbodied Telepath. I now have the problem that most of the dungeon is immune to what he can do. Should i tell him to just change to a different disipline (the PC has not been introduced yet) or should I do something else. If I did do something else I promised to do a sort of Mages Lab for medical "experiments" (lots of wierd stuff). Im drawing a blank for what to do, like what monsters, what plot, how does this tie in with the rest of the campaing? Help!:smalleek:

Id let him try the dungeon unaltered myself. I mean it is the same as having a charatcer based around criticals, would you change an entire dungeon over 1 characters concept?

for me as a DM it is up to the party to over come obstacles not for me to make it so its becomes even easier for them to get over those said obtsacles.

[Rossebay]

Id let him try the dungeon unaltered myself. I mean it is the same as having a charatcer based around criticals, would you change an entire dungeon over 1 characters concept?

for me as a DM it is up to the party to over come obstacles not for me to make it so its becomes even easier for them to get over those said obtsacles.

To add to this, what if the rogue walks into a dungeon of oozes? Are you going to make the oozes vulnerable to sneak attack? No.
Your options are: Warn him, or let him go as is.
I suggest let it go.

[Sylivin]

I wouldn't change your dungeon around at all. You already put quite a bit of thought into it - after all, any character that is a one trick pony (or can only damage / effect certain things) will always have troubles if not now then later on in the campaign.

Still, I would definately warn him before he introduces his character that the group will be going into an undead-centric period of time. Aka: Make sure his character still has ways to contribute and feel useful for his own sake.

[Shadowknight12]

To add to this, what if the rogue walks into a dungeon of oozes? Are you going to make the oozes vulnerable to sneak attack? No.
Your options are: Warn him, or let him go as is.
I suggest let it go.

I would completely disagree, but I'm pretty sure I'm the minority here.

What matters is that the player has fun. Is the player having fun by having to out-smart the dungeon and he enjoys the challenge? If yes, good, you're doing it right. If not, saying "OOZES ARE IMMUNE TO SNEAK ATTACK, PERIOD. YOU'RE DOING THIS DUNGEON, PERIOD. SUCKS TO BE YOU." is not going to make it fun.

[Gamer Girl]

I would not do anything.

Part of the fun of a game like D&D is the unexpected. And this is something the game has lost in recent years. The modern view is that characters should be the 'perfect fit' for the adventure. And if it's not perfect, it's not fun.

Take the telepath. Yes, most of his telepath powers won't be of any use vs undead. But this is exactly why no specialist type only has one type of power. This is why a psion can pick from a general list. So he can't use brain lock on undead, but he can use energy push. Now if the player picked all 100% pure mind effecting powers...well, that was his choice.

Or you could just say intelligent undead are effected by his telepathy so he can go nova and have 'fun'.

[Kenneth]

I would completely disagree, but I'm pretty sure I'm the minority here.

What matters is that the player has fun. Is the player having fun by having to out-smart the dungeon and he enjoys the challenge? If yes, good, you're doing it right. If not, saying "OOZES ARE IMMUNE TO SNEAK ATTACK, PERIOD. YOU'RE DOING THIS DUNGEON, PERIOD. SUCKS TO BE YOU." is not going to make it fun.

thats a bit of an extremsist view. Well it is also the player option at all time to just never GO INTO the dungeon.

to clearify here, cuz I am not really understanding your mentality, you should let every character that plays in your campaigns be able to do anything he built his character around at any time, so you would say.. for example let the rogue sneka attack undead, the crit fighter crit the undead, the enchnater charm teh undead ? I mean there should be cases where one partymenber is going to do a little bit better than the rest and well as times where one player is not going to be able to do much at all.

for an example. I am playing a bard. when it comes to combat, im not much better than a melee wizard, so when he get ambushed by people I tend to get HURT and the other 5 party members save my life. whne in social situations OR time where we have a round or two before the other side is dead set on causing harm, that where I shine, ive turned a a part into our allies via my insanely high diplomacy skill and offering some money.

If would be very disappointed if I played under you, knowing that my bard can fight as good if not better than anybody else but alos that everybody can do my sweet talking just as god as me.

there needs to be, in my opinion, a seperate of what charcaters can do what, and when you build your character around 1 or 2 things, well there is going to be even MORE disparity over what one is capable of.

case in point Michael jordan may have been the greatest basketball player ever. but when he did play baseball.. well you know the rest.

[Rossebay]

The challenge of D&D is where a player thrives. Or gaining all those levels after that painstaking dungeon, that's always fun.
Having a campaign tailored to what you want? Sure, if you're okay with a gigglefest where everyone feels safe.
The thing is, the players aren't supposed to feel safe.
I, as a player, am supposed to feel scared, challenged, confused, yes. Safe? Never. Were you going to never introduce Mind Flayers? Can the elemental plane of fire be defeated by dropping a cup of water?
I certainly hope not.

OOZES CAN'T BE SNEAK ATTACKED. PERIOD.
Sort of the point of an ooze. Don't give the player a +5 short sword of sneak attacking oozes, constructs, and undead. You've just imbalanced the game.
When a character builds and adaptable, balanced character, they're useful in all situations, but great in none. When you optimize, great! But you're useless sometimes. They have to get used to that.

[Honest Tiefling]

I am probably also in the minority (Hello, one other poster?) but I think you should speak with your player. In my mind, these monsters do not challenge the PC as much as completely negate him and will possibly make the game unfun for him. I believe that for the game to be interesting, all PCs must have an ability to contribute to the party's success and have something to do a lot of the time.

I also wonder if the dungeon is the campaign. A good dungeon is nice, but if it is the only game in town I really advise speaking with the player or changing things.

But, as this dude is your friend, consider how he'll react to this situation. If he scrambles to find a way around it, run as-is. If you think he'll wander off to play x-box or take a nap, consider telling him to redo his character or swap out creatures. Maybe put in a necromancer to heal/aid the undead that he can focus on while other people take out the other targets. If you have someone who likes critical, you may need more then one necromancer per encounter. Hordes of minions that are slaves/cattle can also work. Undead do get the munchies!

Also think of how your player approached you. Was it:

Possibility A: OOH! I love Unbodied Telepaths! They are the best class ever! I've been wanting to play one forever!

Versus:

Possiblity B: New campaign? Oh, thank you for the invite. I think I'll play a...Hrm. Druid? No. Erudite...Oh, how about an Unbodied Telepath. Yes, that'll do.

Bascially, how enthusiastic and attached is the player to the concept, and how sad will you make him if he has to play another class? If it is A...Rework the dungeon a bit is my advice. If B...Maybe if you warn him that might not work (hint hint) he'll fall in love with something else.

[Arbitrarious]

Something to remember is that any good psion will pick powers that cover their weaknesses. A telepath with only mind-affecting powers is making a mistake period. Secondly, demons aren't immune to mind-affecting. That means if he knows he will encounter more undead he can prepare to throw a charmed/dominated demon at it.

On a side note I would definitely consider giving him a feat to affect non-mindless creatures. Bards have one for their bardic music. Along those lines there are feats that let you burn fire elementals and spells that let you sneak attack things that are immune to it. So creating the option isn't necessarily unbalanced so long as there is a resource cost. Personally I've always thought it was silly for non-mindless creatures to be immune to mind-affecting as a type trait. But that's just me.

[Quietus]

I'll throw in as another voice saying "Warn him". Case in point : One of my players has a Ranger/Beastmaster that hates clerics. He wanted to take a variation on Favored Enemy (Arcanist) for divine spellcasters. I told him flat out that while he could do so if he wanted, the campaign would feature very few thing capable of casting divine spells, and I don't think he would get a lot of use out of that ability. He decided not to take it.

If he'd taken it anyway? I would have found a way to make it work. Would I have populated every dungeon with divine spellcasters, effectively changing everything for him? No. But I would have ensured that he got SOME use of that class feature.

Of course, if the PC in question is all mind-affecting, all the time... well, still give him warning. If the campaign is going to go past that into things that aren't immune to his schtick, tell him so, and he can decide for himself. If he wants to keep going with it, then do add in a couple things susceptible - vampire's dominated minions, or living followers of the mummy's religion, or whatever - so that he has things he can take over and play with. Don't change the ENTIRE dungeon for him, but do try and make sure he won't just be wasting all his time.

[mootoall]

Remember the Unbodied part! He'll still make an excellent scout, with him being, y'know, ethereal and able to change his appearance at will.

[HunterOfJello]

You can always throw in some necromancers who are controlling the undead. That, and maybe a few NPCs who happen to be questing in the area and can be mind-controlled to help out the group.

[big teej]

Right, so i have a big dungeon of undead and demons planned out (mostly finished, just treasure left to do). One of my players has a PC, an Unbodied Telepath. I now have the problem that most of the dungeon is immune to what he can do. Should i tell him to just change to a different disipline (the PC has not been introduced yet) or should I do something else. If I did do something else I promised to do a sort of Mages Lab for medical "experiments" (lots of wierd stuff). Im drawing a blank for what to do, like what monsters, what plot, how does this tie in with the rest of the campaing? Help!:smalleek:

well, if the player has had no advance warning of the situation, they deserve to be given every opporutnity to shelve/redesign the character.

if they've been given numerous advance warnings, and they did it anyways.

not your fault.

I'd personally give them the opportunity to shelf the character for the duration of the dungeon if I found this out after creating it.

[Curmudgeon]

The standard answer is no, don't change things to suit a 1-trick pony. Do you have all your winged enemies suddenly drop to the ground to aid a land-based übercharger? :smalltongue:

What I always do is look over character sheets in advance, and point out when they're relying very heavily on a tactic with situational dependencies. A dedicated trapsmith is going to be fairly useless when crossing plains, and a cavalry charger is going to suffer when they can't bring their horse into a dungeon. Over-emphasis on characteristics that only work in the right conditions will lead to periods of player boredom as their characters just become part of the scenery. That is a useful learning experience for players, which they can take to heart when they have a chance to level up; maybe they'll diversify their character with class or feat choices.

[BlueInc]

You can always throw in some necromancers who are controlling the undead. That, and maybe a few NPCs who happen to be questing in the area and can be mind-controlled to help out the group.

This. Give them an opportunity to use their powers the way they were meant to be used that is valuable to the party.

[FMArthur]

I wouldn't take anything away, but I would use what is known of the player's abilities to add more content. It doesn't have to be in a direct, solves-this-encounter sort of way. There could be rival parties, demon-worshipping cultists, streams of mental energy to investigate, mental assailants from afar, or even just incorporeal dead. Really, it's easier to come up with interesting campaign elements if you already have an area of focus like this in mind. Don't contrive ways for mental abilities to be useful all the time - they'll figure something out - but a simulationist world that the PCs never see and are not involved in is wasted effort as well, so some contrivance can be good.

[Mando Knight]

Sort of the point of an ooze. Don't give the player a +5 short sword of sneak attacking oozes, constructs, and undead. You've just imbalanced the game.

*Snrk*

...Sorry, that's utterly ridiculous. First, there's items in the Magic Item Compendium that allow you to sneak attack those three groups, and second, letting the rogue actually use all of his class features in most dungeons will not break a game that also has things like Wizards, Clerics, and Druids that can decide to study for an hour on how to replace another class for the day... and use relatively little of their daily resources to do it.

Letting a character deal his normal fistful of dice of damage to several enemy types is the least of a 3.5 DM's worries.

[Shadowknight12]

Or you could just say intelligent undead are effected by his telepathy so he can go nova and have 'fun'.

I love how a pair of apostrophes can completely change the tone of the sentence, from neutral to dismissive. Ah, the wonders of communication.


thats a bit of an extremsist view. Well it is also the player option at all time to just never GO INTO the dungeon.

Actually, no, it isn't. Otherwise the DM wouldn't be asking this question. It's pretty clear that the player WILL go into the dungeon, which is why it's a concern that he might be utterly ineffective.


to clearify here, cuz I am not really understanding your mentality, you should let every character that plays in your campaigns be able to do anything he built his character around at any time, so you would say.. for example let the rogue sneka attack undead, the crit fighter crit the undead, the enchnater charm teh undead ? I mean there should be cases where one partymenber is going to do a little bit better than the rest and well as times where one player is not going to be able to do much at all.

Yes, because the point is that the player has fun. If the player builds his character around something, basic logic tells us that he will find it fun to do just that. If he is put in a situation where he won't be able to do do that, then either he'll have fun outsmarting the dungeon and its enemies (in which case, nothing needs to be changed, because, again, he's having fun), or he won't be having fun, in which case you have failed as a DM.

If a player plays a sneak-attack focused rogue and I put him in a situation where he's going to feel useless for the entirety of the campaign (like a dungeon full of undead, oozes and constructs), then yes, I will alter the rules of the game to render him valid again. It's my duty as a DM to do so. "Tough luck, suck it up" is for Real Life(TM). We are not in Real Life(TM). We are in a game, a recreational activity that is meant precisely to let us escape from the constraints we find in our daily lives. If someone can play a wizard with the power to rewrite reality, why should I tell the player playing the rogue that nope, his fantasy isn't allowed?


for an example. I am playing a bard. when it comes to combat, im not much better than a melee wizard, so when he get ambushed by people I tend to get HURT and the other 5 party members save my life. whne in social situations OR time where we have a round or two before the other side is dead set on causing harm, that where I shine, ive turned a a part into our allies via my insanely high diplomacy skill and offering some money.

Good, you've given me the perfect example. Imagine that you and your bard are going to spend the entirety of the campaign inside a dungeon with oozes, constructs, undead and no social situations whatsoever. How would that feel?


If would be very disappointed if I played under you, knowing that my bard can fight as good if not better than anybody else but alos that everybody can do my sweet talking just as god as me.

That's not what I meant, thank you for exaggerating my views to the point of ridicule.

What I advocate is for every player to feel useful and have fun. It's one of those things that you sit down to talk about with the party. You say "Okay, so the bard handles social stuff, the barbarian leads the way and front-lines enemies, the cleric buffs, acts as a flanker and handles undead, the rogue handles traps and deals precision damage, and the sorcerer blasts from behind. Everyone happy with that?"

In this case, it's "Player A handles this, Player B handles that, Player C handles that other thing and Player D follows behind quietly and handles cooking and watch duty." Again, if the player is having fun with that role, that's fine. If the player feels useless, something must be done. Otherwise, why is he playing? The player is playing for a reason. If you remove that reason, he literally has no reason to play. If he is playing because he wants to telepathically control creatures and you deny him that, you are removing any reason to sit at that table. If he simply chose Telepath because he likes it, but his true reason for playing is because he likes the camaraderie and he's happy to do anything as long as he gets the social interaction he likes, then the dungeon itself won't be much of a problem.


there needs to be, in my opinion, a seperate of what charcaters can do what, and when you build your character around 1 or 2 things, well there is going to be even MORE disparity over what one is capable of.

case in point Michael jordan may have been the greatest basketball player ever. but when he did play baseball.. well you know the rest.

Again, thank you for completely disfiguring my views to the point where they're no longer recognisable. Jack the Ripper would be so proud of you.

All of that is fine. Read what I said above. It's not about one player being able to do anything (if that was the case, I'd tell him to play a wizard, a cleric or a druid). It's about a player doing nothing. That's completely different.


The challenge of D&D is where a player thrives. Or gaining all those levels after that painstaking dungeon, that's always fun.

Those are your views and you're entitled to them. My views differ completely and they're equally as valid as yours. In my view, there is no "one thing" where a player thrives in D&D. There is no "right way" to play. It varies from table to table, from campaign to campaign, from player to player and DM to DM. There is no universality in the way we game.


Having a campaign tailored to what you want? Sure, if you're okay with a gigglefest where everyone feels safe.
The thing is, the players aren't supposed to feel safe.

Your opinion. Valid. My opinion? Different. Also valid.

A player is supposed to feel the way he wants to feel. If your player wants to feel safe, then it's your job to make him feel safe. I've had players who got very attached to their characters. My job was to make them feel challenged without actually endangering them with permanent death. And that is fine. Because, again, there's no "right" way of playing D&D.


I, as a player, am supposed to feel scared, challenged, confused, yes. Safe? Never. Were you going to never introduce Mind Flayers? Can the elemental plane of fire be defeated by dropping a cup of water?
I certainly hope not.

Again, opinions.

If my players tell me don't want to see a Mind Flayer ever, and I have a Mind Flayer dungeon prepared, I scrap it like it's made of vomit, and design a new one.

You have a different way of doing things. That's fine. You can play your game however you want. Just don't tell me that my way of playing is wrong, because it isn't, and the more you try, the more you make yourself look narrow-minded and ignorant.


OOZES CAN'T BE SNEAK ATTACKED. PERIOD.
Sort of the point of an ooze. Don't give the player a +5 short sword of sneak attacking oozes, constructs, and undead. You've just imbalanced the game.
When a character builds and adaptable, balanced character, they're useful in all situations, but great in none. When you optimize, great! But you're useless sometimes. They have to get used to that.

I, as the DM, decide what the point of an ooze is. If I choose to say "Oozes are actually quite sentient, irredeemably evil, out to take over the world and possess a core of crystallised intelligence floating inside them that is quite vulnerable to sneak attacks." I can do that. Because I'm the DM.

Have I imbalanced the game? I was under the impression that I decided what was balanced or not. If my players are a batman wizard, a CoDzilla cleric and a rogue, I might have just tipped the scales slightly (but only slightly) in favour of the rogue. After all, the other two have a myriad of ways to deal with the ooze, by the Rules As Written, without being even slightly fazed.

[Grendus]

He's a psion. Unless he's taking nothing but his discipline manifestations (which is impossible, you run out of options fairly quickly), he should pick a good variety - Psionic Grease, Ego Whip, Matter Agitation, etc. If you're really worried, suggest he use his Psion 5 bonus feat for Expanded Knowledge (Energy Missile). Probably the best blasting spell before level 10, even if he wanted to be a manipulator type, having him take a back seat position as a blaster for a dungeon is fine.

[Taelas]

If this is the entirety of the campaign (i.e. that telepath won't leave the dungeon and play against something not immune to his abilities), then tell him. The players should know about such limits from the beginning.

If it's just the beginning of their careers (and they will face plenty of other stuff later), then there's no acute need to tell him; he'll be less than optimal for a while, and it'll suck, but he ought to get over it. (I would probably still tell him he's gonna have a hard time at the start, though.)

Remember: it's a game. It's supposed to be at least enjoyable (and hopefully fun). Sitting around watching while being unable to do something is rarely either.

[wayfare]

Talk to him, but don't change your plans. The player might even want to go through with the dungeon anyway -- I become far more interested in my characters than how practically they fit into a setting.

[Rossebay]

I love how a pair of apostrophes can completely change the tone of the sentence, from neutral to dismissive. Ah, the wonders of communicati...

I like the way you work.

Indeed, those are all opinions. I suppose I was defending my nostalgic view of the game instead of looking at things objectively. I concede defeat.

[ajkkjjk52]

Warn him. I've been in his shoes and it sucks.

[Kenneth]

I love how a pair of apostrophes can completely change the tone of the sentence, from neutral to dismissive. Ah, the wonders of communication.



Actually, no, it isn't. Otherwise the DM wouldn't be asking this question. It's pretty clear that the player WILL go into the dungeon, which is why it's a concern that he might be utterly ineffective.



Yes, because the point is that the player has fun. If the player builds his character around something, basic logic tells us that he will find it fun to do just that. If he is put in a situation where he won't be able to do do that, then either he'll have fun outsmarting the dungeon and its enemies (in which case, nothing needs to be changed, because, again, he's having fun), or he won't be having fun, in which case you have failed as a DM.

If a player plays a sneak-attack focused rogue and I put him in a situation where he's going to feel useless for the entirety of the campaign (like a dungeon full of undead, oozes and constructs), then yes, I will alter the rules of the game to render him valid again. It's my duty as a DM to do so. "Tough luck, suck it up" is for Real Life(TM). We are not in Real Life(TM). We are in a game, a recreational activity that is meant precisely to let us escape from the constraints we find in our daily lives. If someone can play a wizard with the power to rewrite reality, why should I tell the player playing the rogue that nope, his fantasy isn't allowed?



Good, you've given me the perfect example. Imagine that you and your bard are going to spend the entirety of the campaign inside a dungeon with oozes, constructs, undead and no social situations whatsoever. How would that feel?



That's not what I meant, thank you for exaggerating my views to the point of ridicule.

What I advocate is for every player to feel useful and have fun. It's one of those things that you sit down to talk about with the party. You say "Okay, so the bard handles social stuff, the barbarian leads the way and front-lines enemies, the cleric buffs, acts as a flanker and handles undead, the rogue handles traps and deals precision damage, and the sorcerer blasts from behind. Everyone happy with that?"

In this case, it's "Player A handles this, Player B handles that, Player C handles that other thing and Player D follows behind quietly and handles cooking and watch duty." Again, if the player is having fun with that role, that's fine. If the player feels useless, something must be done. Otherwise, why is he playing? The player is playing for a reason. If you remove that reason, he literally has no reason to play. If he is playing because he wants to telepathically control creatures and you deny him that, you are removing any reason to sit at that table. If he simply chose Telepath because he likes it, but his true reason for playing is because he likes the camaraderie and he's happy to do anything as long as he gets the social interaction he likes, then the dungeon itself won't be much of a problem.



Again, thank you for completely disfiguring my views to the point where they're no longer recognisable. Jack the Ripper would be so proud of you.

All of that is fine. Read what I said above. It's not about one player being able to do anything (if that was the case, I'd tell him to play a wizard, a cleric or a druid). It's about a player doing nothing. That's completely different.



Those are your views and you're entitled to them. My views differ completely and they're equally as valid as yours. In my view, there is no "one thing" where a player thrives in D&D. There is no "right way" to play. It varies from table to table, from campaign to campaign, from player to player and DM to DM. There is no universality in the way we game.



Your opinion. Valid. My opinion? Different. Also valid.

A player is supposed to feel the way he wants to feel. If your player wants to feel safe, then it's your job to make him feel safe. I've had players who got very attached to their characters. My job was to make them feel challenged without actually endangering them with permanent death. And that is fine. Because, again, there's no "right" way of playing D&D.



Again, opinions.

If my players tell me don't want to see a Mind Flayer ever, and I have a Mind Flayer dungeon prepared, I scrap it like it's made of vomit, and design a new one.

You have a different way of doing things. That's fine. You can play your game however you want. Just don't tell me that my way of playing is wrong, because it isn't, and the more you try, the more you make yourself look narrow-minded and ignorant.



I, as the DM, decide what the point of an ooze is. If I choose to say "Oozes are actually quite sentient, irredeemably evil, out to take over the world and possess a core of crystallised intelligence floating inside them that is quite vulnerable to sneak attacks." I can do that. Because I'm the DM.

Have I imbalanced the game? I was under the impression that I decided what was balanced or not. If my players are a batman wizard, a CoDzilla cleric and a rogue, I might have just tipped the scales slightly (but only slightly) in favour of the rogue. After all, the other two have a myriad of ways to deal with the ooze, by the Rules As Written, without being even slightly fazed.

I enjoy how i can take verbatim what you say and then you claim I am attempting to twist your words, oh well.

so the gist of what I am getting form you as a DM is there are no actual ROLES in your games, for me that is a difficult concept to wrap my head around, but it is at least something I cna respect for another who is attemtping to create a more 'fun' game for his/her players.

and Ok so what if my bard goes into a dungeon with a bunch of oozes, contruct and undead? though his main ability may not shine he is not useless ( i ma not a dumb enough of a player to have a 1 trick pony) he just isn't in the ideal situation, besdies there will be times for him to shine and say.. times for the barbarian to shine.

for me as a DM its my duty to make sure that every player feels special, not 100% of the time becuase as you know EVERYBODY gets in a situation where he or she feels inadequate, not completely uselss but bowing out to the more capabale party members in this particular circumstance. while a particular dungeon may be filled with undead and contrusts and the rouge be feeling sad about no getting to roll so many extra d6s for sneak attack, there is still a mage in there that created all of them, and he gets to sneka attack him when the party reaches the mage.

If i have a partyo f a undead cleansing zealous cleric, rouge, fighter, wizard and bard each has a role to play ( again this is how i have always seen a party each fills a particular niche but I can see, that others such as yourself see it much differently) when up against undead the rouge knows that his sneak attack is not going to work and that the cleric is going to do a MUCH better job at handeling the undead anyways and so lets him do his thing vice versa when it comes time to sneak around to scout ahead and maybe take out a lone sentry with a well place sneak attack to the rouge.


in the end what the question really becomes is this. " Do i change my whole entire campaign to suit one of the 5/6 players at my gaming sessions so that no matter the situation he is in he has the perfect counter?"

I am of the opinion that no, no one person has every solution to everysingle issue that might come up, why.. after all they are just mortals though heroes indeed.. they still have their flaws.
It seems to me (correct me if i am wrong) that you are of the opinion that yes, no matter what a character is or focuses on no matter how singlizied he should be able to counter anything they go up against.

again, while I might not understand your trian of thought or how being able to overcome any bostacle, with no chance of failure is fun for anybody. I concede that is your playstyle and if your players enjoy it, more power to you.

[Shadowknight12]

I like the way you work.

Indeed, those are all opinions. I suppose I was defending my nostalgic view of the game instead of looking at things objectively. I concede defeat.

Thank you. I apologise for any unnecessary vitriol. There's nothing wrong with doing things a certain way, so long as everyone is happy with that.


I enjoy how i can take verbatim what you say and then you claim I am attempting to twist your words, oh well.

Yes. Verbatim. Indeed.


so the gist of what I am getting form you as a DM is there are no actual ROLES in your games, for me that is a difficult concept to wrap my head around, but it is at least something I cna respect for another who is attemtping to create a more 'fun' game for his/her players.

There are roles if the players want them to be. I'm more used to solo games, though I once DM'd a PbP game for over fifteen people. It was... very hard. But they had roles. Highly specialised roles.


and Ok so what if my bard goes into a dungeon with a bunch of oozes, contruct and undead? though his main ability may not shine he is not useless ( i ma not a dumb enough of a player to have a 1 trick pony) he just isn't in the ideal situation, besdies there will be times for him to shine and say.. times for the barbarian to shine.

And those "times to shine" are the responsibility of the DM. If the DM does not provide you with "times to shine" you will not, in fact, shine. You will not even glitter.

Also, I do not appreciate calling players who make 1-trick-ponies "dumb." There is an infinity of character concepts, and if a player wishes to play a character who can only do one thing, then that's his right, and he's no "dumber" than the guy who plays the batman wizard.


for me as a DM its my duty to make sure that every player feels special, not 100% of the time becuase as you know EVERYBODY gets in a situation where he or she feels inadequate, not completely uselss but bowing out to the more capabale party members in this particular circumstance. while a particular dungeon may be filled with undead and contrusts and the rouge be feeling sad about no getting to roll so many extra d6s for sneak attack, there is still a mage in there that created all of them, and he gets to sneka attack him when the party reaches the mage.

That is the way you DM, that's fine. In your example, if the rogue feels happy with that, that's fine. If he doesn't, I would do things differently. I don't presume to know what's better for my players (which are all mature adults), I don't presume to know what is and is not a reward for them, and whether or not a couple of rounds of sneak attack makes up for long hours of being fairly useless. There are some things I do not consider myself entitled to pass judgement on. Your views may differ. That's fine.


If i have a partyo f a undead cleansing zealous cleric, rouge, fighter, wizard and bard each has a role to play ( again this is how i have always seen a party each fills a particular niche but I can see, that others such as yourself see it much differently) when up against undead the rouge knows that his sneak attack is not going to work and that the cleric is going to do a MUCH better job at handeling the undead anyways and so lets him do his thing vice versa when it comes time to sneak around to scout ahead and maybe take out a lone sentry with a well place sneak attack to the rouge.

If that's what you do, that's fine. I would do that only if the party is okay with that, and if that's the way they have fun. If they don't, then something has to be changed so that everyone is having fun.


in the end what the question really becomes is this. " Do i change my whole entire campaign to suit one of the 5/6 players at my gaming sessions so that no matter the situation he is in he has the perfect counter?"

You are exaggerating my point, again. That's why I said you had disfigured my views, because I never said "has the perfect counter." I said "having fun" and "feeling useful" and "not feeling useless." None of those things necessarily equal "having the perfect counter."

The question is, to me, "has fun" instead of "has the perfect counter." That is the question I ask myself, and the answer is always a doubtless yes.


I am of the opinion that no, no one person has every solution to everysingle issue that might come up, why.. after all they are just mortals though heroes indeed.. they still have their flaws.
It seems to me (correct me if i am wrong) that you are of the opinion that yes, no matter what a character is or focuses on no matter how singlizied he should be able to counter anything they go up against.

And I never said that one person should have every solution to every single issue that can come up. That's why I said you had disfigured my views, because I never said that. And for the record, there is a class who has every solution to every single issue that can come up, and its name is "wizard."

I will correct you, because you are wrong. What I advocate is that the player has fun. Normally, having fun means feeling useful, being able to do something meaningful. If the player is denied of his usefulness, he will usually stop having fun. This becomes a problem that I must fix. The easiest way to fix it is to return his usefulness to him. The wrong conclusion that you are drawing is that you assume that by returning his usefulness, I am necessarily giving him the option to counter every scenario. That is wrong, because I never said that.


again, while I might not understand your trian of thought or how being able to overcome any bostacle, with no chance of failure is fun for anybody. I concede that is your playstyle and if your players enjoy it, more power to you.

I never said that. You are drawing conclusions that I never stated. There IS a way for a player to play a class that can overcome any obstacle with no chance of failure, as per the Rules As Written, and that class is the Wizard. Cleric, Druid, Archivist and Artificer also count. There is extensive discussion on the matter, but rest assured that it can be done without the need for a DM to actually lift a finger. A player can, well within the rules, overcome any obstacle placed before him. All he needs to do is play an optimised Tier 1 class.

But that's getting off topic. My point is that I don't tell my players "You're not having fun? That's too bad. Suck it up." I tell them "What would you want me to do in order to make it fun again?"

[ericgrau]

If it was an old character I'd say no, but since he's new I'd say the guy finds out it's full of immune things and joins a different party. Tell the PC to play something else.

You could make the monsters vulnerable but it's hard to balance properly. You might make him play with someone who's still fairly gimped if the monsters even have a bonus (a +5 is usually a pretty severe gimp), or it could get out of control if the monsters really really aren't meant to fall to the power.

[Kenneth]

Thank you. I apologise for any unnecessary vitriol. There's nothing wrong with doing things a certain way, so long as everyone is happy with that.



Yes. Verbatim. Indeed.



There are roles if the players want them to be. I'm more used to solo games, though I once DM'd a PbP game for over fifteen people. It was... very hard. But they had roles. Highly specialised roles.



And those "times to shine" are the responsibility of the DM. If the DM does not provide you with "times to shine" you will not, in fact, shine. You will not even glitter.

Also, I do not appreciate calling players who make 1-trick-ponies "dumb." There is an infinity of character concepts, and if a player wishes to play a character who can only do one thing, then that's his right, and he's no "dumber" than the guy who plays the batman wizard.



That is the way you DM, that's fine. In your example, if the rogue feels happy with that, that's fine. If he doesn't, I would do things differently. I don't presume to know what's better for my players (which are all mature adults), I don't presume to know what is and is not a reward for them, and whether or not a couple of rounds of sneak attack makes up for long hours of being fairly useless. There are some things I do not consider myself entitled to pass judgement on. Your views may differ. That's fine.



If that's what you do, that's fine. I would do that only if the party is okay with that, and if that's the way they have fun. If they don't, then something has to be changed so that everyone is having fun.



You are exaggerating my point, again. That's why I said you had disfigured my views, because I never said "has the perfect counter." I said "having fun" and "feeling useful" and "not feeling useless." None of those things necessarily equal "having the perfect counter."

The question is, to me, "has fun" instead of "has the perfect counter." That is the question I ask myself, and the answer is always a doubtless yes.



And I never said that one person should have every solution to every single issue that can come up. That's why I said you had disfigured my views, because I never said that. And for the record, there is a class who has every solution to every single issue that can come up, and its name is "wizard."

I will correct you, because you are wrong. What I advocate is that the player has fun. Normally, having fun means feeling useful, being able to do something meaningful. If the player is denied of his usefulness, he will usually stop having fun. This becomes a problem that I must fix. The easiest way to fix it is to return his usefulness to him. The wrong conclusion that you are drawing is that you assume that by returning his usefulness, I am necessarily giving him the option to counter every scenario. That is wrong, because I never said that.



I never said that. You are drawing conclusions that I never stated. There IS a way for a player to play a class that can overcome any obstacle with no chance of failure, as per the Rules As Written, and that class is the Wizard. Cleric, Druid, Archivist and Artificer also count. There is extensive discussion on the matter, but rest assured that it can be done without the need for a DM to actually lift a finger. A player can, well within the rules, overcome any obstacle placed before him. All he needs to do is play an optimised Tier 1 class.

But that's getting off topic. My point is that I don't tell my players "You're not having fun? That's too bad. Suck it up." I tell them "What would you want me to do in order to make it fun again?"

I guess we speak different languages.

My whole point is, I like to give my players challenges that they have to overcome, through teamwork and brilliant ideas. to me that is not only fun for my players, but also leaves them with a lot of satisfaction. if i went around and gave the rogue the ability to sneak attack everything in sight or the enchanter the ability to charm mindless creatures, WITHOUT having to go into a specific prestige class For me the defeats the puropse of D&D as a party based game. I see that you are used to running a solo campaigns and I will concur that those require special rules.


and even if a character plays a optimized tier 1 ( imo tiers only count in regards to the player behind the class) cannot counter everythnig that he/she encounters, Maybe that is just my bad for the decades ive been DMing. but I hate to see 1 player have all the cards in a given sitation, as i previously stated. for me it supposed to be a game about teamwork.

real life example inc!!
you are playing CTF lazer tag, you have the one guy who is a good markmans and instead of defedning your flag OR protect your flag carrier he is out in the field farming points by shooting the neemy, at not point does he attempt to cover your flag carrier or to shoot teh enemy flag carrier.
he ends the game with the most points and brags about it. the thing is becase he went solo and did not help his team. they lost.


that Is just how I see well, all of my many campaigns that I have run, it a team based game and only by working together to overcome will you succeed.

Now I am not saying liek you are accusing me of of telling a rogue/psinocists "tough deal with it"

I do expect my players to be somewhat knowledgeable of the game though and their character, if they are beginniers I will explain to them 'now your sneak attacks don't work against undead, but that necormancer controlls them is fair game"

another real life example from a capmaign of mine.

the party conissted of a ranger with a bear pet that went order of the bow initate, a Paladin who went in Knight of the Chalice, and a straight Eldritch (modified warlock).

to make a long campaing short they had to take out a demon who was influencing and corrupting the nearby orc and bug bear tribes, in the mid game the ranger was pretty much the dominating force, in the end when they assaulted the head Demons keep ( the paladin honestly randomly chose this prestige he did not know the story behind the cmapaign during character creation) the paldin who had, yes been somehwat lacking behind the other shone extremly well, in fact he practically soloed the big demon himself. on a side note the Eldrithc was consitently good and his abilty to problem solved saved their behind more than once.

[Gnaeus]

Right, so i have a big dungeon of undead and demons planned out (mostly finished, just treasure left to do). One of my players has a PC, an Unbodied Telepath. I now have the problem that most of the dungeon is immune to what he can do. Should i tell him to just change to a different disipline (the PC has not been introduced yet) or should I do something else. If I did do something else I promised to do a sort of Mages Lab for medical "experiments" (lots of wierd stuff). Im drawing a blank for what to do, like what monsters, what plot, how does this tie in with the rest of the campaing? Help!:smalleek:

Why not tell him that the next phase will involve a fair selection of mind immune critters, and see what HE says? He could then choose to play something totally different, or pick a few powers that work on mindless, or he could say "O.K. could you then toss a couple of monsters that I can use my powers on, and I will be ok in the other fights", or even "I don't care. I don't need to be uber to play the character I want to play." I think his opinion is probably more relevant than mine.

[Tokiko Mima]

If this is the first time the Telepath has been confronted with "all undead are immune to mind-affecting *anything* by virtue of type" (which I personally think is dumb. Mindless undead, yeah, but if you have a mind a telepath should affect you) then I propose the first encounter with undead in the dungeon include a corpse of a drow telepath. When searched the corpse contain a magic circlet of undead control, a custom magic item that allows telepathic powers of the wearer to affect undead.

This will allow them to complete the dungeon. As they step outside though, the circlet will begin dissolving the moment it's touched by sunlight and lose it's powers and fall into pieces within minutes. Now it is clear to the telepath that they need to come up with some method of dealing with undead in the future.

[Shadowknight12]

I guess we speak different languages.

My whole point is, I like to give my players challenges that they have to overcome, through teamwork and brilliant ideas. to me that is not only fun for my players, but also leaves them with a lot of satisfaction. if i went around and gave the rogue the ability to sneak attack everything in sight or the enchanter the ability to charm mindless creatures, WITHOUT having to go into a specific prestige class For me the defeats the puropse of D&D as a party based game. I see that you are used to running a solo campaigns and I will concur that those require special rules.

And if that's what works for you and your players, that's fine. Nobody's saying that's wrong. I was merely offering another option. Options are good, because they're not compulsory. I am not forcing the OP to take the options I'm providing him.


and even if a character plays a optimized tier 1 ( imo tiers only count in regards to the player behind the class) cannot counter everythnig that he/she encounters, Maybe that is just my bad for the decades ive been DMing. but I hate to see 1 player have all the cards in a given sitation, as i previously stated. for me it supposed to be a game about teamwork.

I will remind you that in the decades you've been DMing, your players didn't have access to the internet, with forums full of intelligent people giving each other ideas on how to optimise and overcome every encounter. With the advent of the internet and optimisation forums, your player is not facing encounters alone, he has the intellect, knowledge and wisdom of hundreds of people supporting him.


real life example inc!!
you are playing CTF lazer tag, you have the one guy who is a good markmans and instead of defedning your flag OR protect your flag carrier he is out in the field farming points by shooting the neemy, at not point does he attempt to cover your flag carrier or to shoot teh enemy flag carrier.
he ends the game with the most points and brags about it. the thing is becase he went solo and did not help his team. they lost.

that Is just how I see well, all of my many campaigns that I have run, it a team based game and only by working together to overcome will you succeed.

And maybe the players have fun doing that? Have you ever considered that? Maybe the players don't care about winning or losing, and are just out to have fun? And they don't begrudge the marksman for going solo because they accept that everyone's out to have fun?

There is no "right way" of playing. It varies from table to table. Teamwork might work for you and that's fine. But that does not make it the One True Way to play. Not everyone has the same priorities you and your friends do, and not everyone finds the same things fun in the same measure. What matters is not what you're doing, but that you're having fun while doing it.


Now I am not saying liek you are accusing me of of telling a rogue/psinocists "tough deal with it"

I do expect my players to be somewhat knowledgeable of the game though and their character, if they are beginniers I will explain to them 'now your sneak attacks don't work against undead, but that necormancer controlls them is fair game"

Again, if that's what your players find fun, that's fine. Other players differ. I have players who would get upset if I placed them in a dungeon where they can only use their special abilities against one out of every fifty enemies. And they have every right to, because it's my job to enable their fun. If I am impeding their fun, I am doing the exact opposite of what I should be doing.


another real life example from a capmaign of mine.

the party conissted of a ranger with a bear pet that went order of the bow initate, a Paladin who went in Knight of the Chalice, and a straight Eldritch (modified warlock).

to make a long campaing short they had to take out a demon who was influencing and corrupting the nearby orc and bug bear tribes, in the mid game the ranger was pretty much the dominating force, in the end when they assaulted the head Demons keep ( the paladin honestly randomly chose this prestige he did not know the story behind the cmapaign during character creation) the paldin who had, yes been somehwat lacking behind the other shone extremly well, in fact he practically soloed the big demon himself. on a side note the Eldrithc was consitently good and his abilty to problem solved saved their behind more than once.

And that sounds like a great campaign. If that works for you, that's fine. What I would've done in your place would've been to check with the players to ensure that everyone is having fun. If they all say "Yes, I am!" then I carry on. If any of them says "Well... not really," then I step in to find a way to solve it.

My point is that there is no "one way" of doing things. Circumstances change. What is right will depend on what helps your group has fun. Seriously, you're not doing it wrong if you're players are having fun. I'm not demeaning your style. What I'm saying is that my style is not wrong and it's just as valid as yours.

[Yuki Akuma]

Ask yourself two questions:

1: "Would it be more fun for the player if I did this?"
2: "Would it be less fun for the other players if I did this?"

If the answers are "yes" and "no", respectively, change it.

[ClothedInVelvet]

Without getting into the middle of the uber-long fight going on on a sublevel, I think it's important to know your player. Some of the best adventures I've played in have been ones that I was more or less worthless during. But I found ways to make up for it by doing things like scouting, brainstorming, and having fun with my character. If your player can do that, you don't need to change anything.

[Tvtyrant]

My suggestion would be to talk to the party and see how they feel. Having been introduced into other people's parties and made the mistake of taking tons of turning feats and the sun domain (it was undead heavy; I basically ended every encounter) I ended up rerolling because they didn't want to change the campaign but I had rendered them impotent.

[JaronK]

Basically, there are a few solutions to consider here.

1) If you want to be running a game where any characters your players make will be fine, simply adjust the game to their strengths, and make sure they generally keep playing characters like this.

2) If you want to be running a game where you can throw all sorts of random stuff out there and expect the players to make adaptable enough characters, do so but warn the players and ask them to play more flexible characters.

JaronK

[ffone]

Use fewer undead. IMO undead themed campaigns are nauseatingly common and bad for balance (rogue vs cleric etc.)