PDA

View Full Version : Features versus character role



Marcloure
2017-09-04, 11:41 AM
In this thread I want to discuss ways for a GM to handle wierd, unconventional and not-meant proposals players put up. My intention is not to focus only in D&D, but I will use it for the examples. Also, my intention is not to fall into the "Optimization vs Characterization" fallacy (or problem, as you will).

OK, let's say there is a player who wants to play as a Dwarf Wizard in D&D 5th edition. We all know this is a bad combination, wizards don't need STR or WIS and they don't usually use the bonus weapon proficiency. At least the armor prof. is somewhat good, and the mountain subrace gives bonus to CON. But that is it for the race (ok there are some other things). However, this player really wants to play a Dwarf Wizard, maybe he thought of a great background, maybe he is inspired by some WoW character, or maybe he just finds dwarves ****ing awesome.

What should the GM do in this case? I see two main options here, (1) change some of the dwarf features to better suit the wizard, swaping the +2 STR to +1 INT, or (2) the player knows the deal, he wants do be a Dwarf Wizard, so be it with all that comes with it. The option (1) is basically saying "all races are +2/+1 in two atributes" in this case, and the atributes bonus tells that a dwarf is thougher than a human, and halflings more nimble. But it could be a feature change that doesn't involve the stats bonuses, like in the example to follow.

In the 4th edition, there is the Void Genasi, a race that can banish itself for a turn. While it is a great ability for backliners, it's not so good if the player wants to be a paladin or fighter. Should the GM then change this feature to better suit a defender or should he let the player deal with his choice? I could use Savage Attacks from 5th edition as another example, once it only works for melee weapon attacks, and there are certainly more in D&D and other systems.

So, what are your thoughts in this? I think the answer will end up being very personal, but I would like to hear what you guys think of the matter.

Drakevarg
2017-09-04, 11:48 AM
Absolutely the second route. Optimization is a choice, and if someone goes for a suboptimal build let them. Changing things around to be as advantageous as possible basically just makes the presence of racial stats meaningless, since they have nothing to do with the race and everything to do with the 'build.' RPGs are about having fun, not about winning. Efficiency is for machines.

Slipperychicken
2017-09-04, 12:29 PM
Don't bother changing the rules about it. It is literally a difference of one point; players need to realize that it's okay to miss out on one or two points if they will have more fun doing so. Your player can deal with it.

Besides, despite the lack of an INT bonus, mountain dwarves are arguably the best race for wizards in 5th edition dnd. Trading off one or two int for 2 con and medium armor proficiency is extremely strong. Getting an extra hit point per level, better con saves, better concentration, weapon proficiencies, and having AC 16-17 instead of 10-12 is really good for one of the squishiest classes in the game. So there's nothing to worry about there anyway.

People shouldn't let themselves turn down roleplaying ideas because they're scared of having a slightly different tradeoff than their favorite netbuild. It's a problem created more by modern roleplaying culture's character-building paradigm, not so much by any particular ruleset. While the paradigm encourages players to focus on just one or two numbers at the expense of all else, the problem can be treated by encouraging players to take a more holistic view of both their characters and the statblocks behind them.

Frozen_Feet
2017-09-04, 01:33 PM
OK, let's say there is a player who wants to play as a Dwarf Wizard in D&D 5th edition. We all know this is a bad combination...

No we don't.

It may not be optimal combination, but sub-optimal =/= bad. As far as I can tell Wizard is a solid class regardless of race and the extra Con and Armor proficiency are nice for staying alive at low levels.

Ask yourself, are the enemies in your game so strong that every player character needs to be as optimized as can be to even have a chance? If not, then you have no reason to worry or change the rules.

Slipperychicken
2017-09-04, 01:50 PM
It may not be optimal combination, but sub-optimal =/= bad. As far as I can tell Wizard is a solid class regardless of race and the extra Con and Armor proficiency are nice for staying alive at low levels.

Even the "not optimal combination" part is only so when viewed through the extremely narrow lens of maximizing intelligence-based wizard features such as spells prepared and and spell DCs. That ignores the many other components that set up a statblock for success (or even save it from being KO'd by an owlbear), and the diminishing marginal returns of intelligence boosts from race.

When you take a step back and look at the game statistics more broadly, it quickly becomes apparent that being a mountain dwarf shores up a wizard's greatest weaknesses without sacrificing anything significant. I'd go so far as to say that mountain dwarves are the best race for wizards because of that.

Marcloure
2017-09-04, 01:55 PM
No we don't.

It may not be optimal combination, but sub-optimal =/= bad. As far as I can tell Wizard is a solid class regardless of race and the extra Con and Armor proficiency are nice for staying alive at low levels.

Ask yourself, are the enemies in your game so strong that every player character needs to be as optimized as can be to even have a chance? If not, then you have no reason to worry or change the rules.

I used a Dwarf because I didn't want to use the half-orc as an example twice. I agree that the Mountain Dwarf can do a great wizard, I just took them badly as a fast example without much thought given. The point wasn't to discuss if this combination is good or not, but if the DM should change the game to help the players when they come with them (think of a half-orc wizard then).

Thrudd
2017-09-04, 02:37 PM
No, the DM should not change the game to help the players. The rules of the game are known to the players, changing the game to help them (or hinder them) only invalidates their ability to make meaningful choices. Choosing your character abilities at the beginning of the game are part of the strategy of playing the game.

In the case of D&D, if you don't want choice of race to impact a character's abilities, you can create houserules - you could remove races altogether, and assign ability score bonuses based on class (or let players choose any two ability scores to get bumped). Or remove all the special racial abilities, make it more generic, and the choice of race can just be like choosing a "skin" for your character - all the defining game mechanics would come from the class.

Frozen_Feet
2017-09-04, 03:15 PM
The point wasn't to discuss if this combination is good or not, but if the DM should change the game to help the players when they come with them (think of a half-orc wizard then).

The same general principle applies: are the enemies in your game so strong that the character needs to be better to have a chance?

If not, you have nothing to worry about. Weaker than normal characters are not an issue if they can still conceivably get through the game.

So when should you worry, then?

Suppose your enemies are still not particularly tough, but you can see a character would plainly lose. If this is clearly result of the player's conscious choice, you still have nothing to worry. (For example, a player picked a race with Int penalty for a Wizard, and you pointed out that Int is main ability for Wizards, and they still want to do it. Just let 'em.)

But suppose the character would lose for reasons that are not transparent to the player. Like, they made Half-Orc Fighter that looks good on paper, but all enemies are heavily resistant to HP damage. Or they made a Sorcerer who relies on one element that most enemies are immune to. That's when you at least want to warn the player and possibly recheck your monster design.

The worst issues, which really need rule adjustments to fix them, tend to not be obvious nor transparent. You won't catch them in character generation untill after you've seen those characters in play.

Jay R
2017-09-04, 04:21 PM
Let them build the character they want to build, and then design scenarios for the actual party you're running them for.

Darth Ultron
2017-09-04, 06:44 PM
I go with number two.

The first one is just two 'gamy'. You might as well not have any ''race'' and just give each character bonuses to whatever they want/need.

And from a more Storytelling stand, I really like 'hard to play' characters. Any one can make an Easy Bake Character, pick the right race and class and feats and abilities and bam, you have a good character. But it takes a whole other type of player to not just do that (again).

And over the years I 've seen plenty of players ''over come'' such things. Like the dwarf wizard in 3E that did punch touch spell attacks.

Quertus
2017-09-04, 06:54 PM
(2) the player knows the deal, he wants do be a Dwarf Wizard, so be it with all that comes with it.


Absolutely the second route. Optimization is a choice, and if someone goes for a suboptimal build let them.


It may not be optimal combination, but sub-optimal =/= bad.


No, the DM should not change the game to help the players. The rules of the game are known to the players, changing the game to help them (or hinder them) only invalidates their ability to make meaningful choices.

I'm going along with the crowd here. Option #2, let them play what they want to play, without modification. The game need not be "optimal" to be fun, and, in fact, optimal may not be fun.

But, this assumes that the wizard knows the deal.


Ask yourself, are the enemies in your game so strong that every player character needs to be as optimized as can be to even have a chance? If not, then you have no reason to worry or change the rules.


The same general principle applies: are the enemies in your game so strong that the character needs to be better to have a chance?

If not, you have nothing to worry about. Weaker than normal characters are not an issue if they can still conceivably get through the game.

So when should you worry, then?

Suppose your enemies are still not particularly tough, but you can see a character would plainly lose. If this is clearly result of the player's conscious choice, you still have nothing to worry. (For example, a player picked a race with Int penalty for a Wizard, and you pointed out that Int is main ability for Wizards, and they still want to do it. Just let 'em.)

But suppose the character would lose for reasons that are not transparent to the player. Like, they made Half-Orc Fighter that looks good on paper, but all enemies are heavily resistant to HP damage. Or they made a Sorcerer who relies on one element that most enemies are immune to. That's when you at least want to warn the player and possibly recheck your monster design.


This has a key point, inform the player if you feel that they are making a significantly suboptimal choice, especially if knowing that requires hidden information not available to the player, not listed as a major point, but buried as a "well, duh, of course you do that" assumption. Kudos! Being good to your players really should be so commonplace as to be an obvious assumption.

Other good points here are, a) consider what style of game you are playing: are you playing a competitive war game where you have to eek out every last drop of efficiency, or a more casual role-playing game? Both are valid, but knowing which you are playing will help you, and your players.

B) if all your challenges are very same-y, this is a good time to ask yourself if that's really what you intended. Is this an oops that will make the game boring / make certain strategies "optimal", or an intentional theme to the opposition that will add flavor to the game?

ATHATH
2017-09-04, 07:06 PM
Remember, refluffing is your friend(,) here. If your player wants to play a Half-Orc Wizard but is disappointed that that would be a really sub-par option, just let him use the stats for, say, a Human while having the fluff of being a Half (or even Full)-Orc.

NecroDancer
2017-09-04, 11:39 PM
I played a Half-Orc Bard in a 3.5 campaign and it the most charming, rocking, and magical bard I've ever played. Suboptimal choices can work perfectly fine, if your worried about bad stats just let the players use point buy. If you think an ability doesn't work good for their class maybe make a situation where it's useful. If the player is ok with a suboptimal choice then let them play it without having to go through the trouble of changing everything.

JBPuffin
2017-09-05, 07:46 AM
Make a game suited to the party's strengths rather than change the party to suite the campaign. I do like homebrew, though, so I'm okay with brewing things for their sake.

redwizard007
2017-09-05, 10:38 AM
I'm not sure that I can explain how much more important it is for the player to like the character than their stats.

Ever run a gullydwarf? How bout rolling 3d6 in order for stats? Have you at least rooted for a hobbit in LOTR. If not, I'm not sure you can understand how much fun it can be to overcome those kind of roadblocks to success.

Let the players play. Point out the optimization issues they might not see, but don't rewrite the rules because you are afraid things might get too hard. It's like choosing the Browns, well the Lions anyway, in a game of Madden. Not everyone wants to play as the Patriots.

Jay R
2017-09-07, 08:48 AM
I'm not sure that I can explain how much more important it is for the player to like the character than their stats.

This is a crucial point. Some players really want a perfectly optimized character. 3e and its derivatives implicitly encouraged this view, and there's nothing wrong with it.

But it's not the only way to play. Those of us who started by rolling 3d6 in order in original D&D are used to the idea that you take what you start with and do your best with it, however challenging it might be. And there's nothing wrong with that, either.

And some people want a specific type of character, and accept the drawbacks to get the idea they want. And there's nothing wrong with that.

The problem comes when the GM tries to force the player away from the approach he or she wants to take. Changing the game so the character is less like the concept and more optimized is just as bad as forcing a 3.5e player to roll 3d6 in order, and for the same reasons.

Let him play the way he wants to play. Why not?

Telonius
2017-09-07, 10:27 AM
I'd go with a variation of Option 2. Make sure the player knows why their choice is not as strong as it could be. If they understand that it's a weaker option, then let them. They know what they're getting into.

It would be a different story if they're trying to deliberately self-gimp the character (playing a Wizard with a final Int score low enough that they can't cast spells, or something equally silly). Any character has to be able to work in the context of the rest of the PCs. If it's not at least roughly equal, the rest of the team is going to feel like they're dragging around a bunch of dead weight.

Slipperychicken
2017-09-07, 10:29 AM
For people saying to make a game based on PCs which are already made, I think that's a bit backwards.

It makes more sense to negotiate both the sort of game to be played and what sort of PCs are appropriate for that before anyone makes any characters. That will help the GM be more certain that his players actually want to play the game, and for players to know what sort of characters will be well-suited and motivated for involvement in the campaign's events. Likewise, it makes sense to vet the PCs long beforehand to ensure a good fit.

For example, if my players and I discuss and agree that we want to play an investigative slice-of-life highschool superhero game set in a fictionalized early '90s Pennsylvanian suburb, then they will understand what is expected: That they are meant to play as mercurial teenagers struggling to keep their superpowers secret while navigating highschool politics and trying to reach the bottom of a mystery. Because expectations have been properly set, and characters will be reviewed prior to play, nobody's going to show up on game day demanding to play a 70 year old retired drill instructor who wants nothing to do with mysteries or schoolchildren, even though such a character could exist in that time and place.

JBPuffin
2017-09-07, 02:45 PM
For people saying to make a game based on PCs which are already made, I think that's a bit backwards.

It makes more sense to negotiate both the sort of game to be played and what sort of PCs are appropriate for that before anyone makes any characters. That will help the GM be more certain that his players actually want to play the game, and for players to know what sort of characters will be well-suited and motivated for involvement in the campaign's events. Likewise, it makes sense to vet the PCs long beforehand to ensure a good fit.

For example, if my players and I discuss and agree that we want to play an investigative slice-of-life highschool superhero game set in a fictionalized early '90s Pennsylvanian suburb, then they will understand what is expected: That they are meant to play as mercurial teenagers struggling to keep their superpowers secret while navigating highschool politics and trying to reach the bottom of a mystery. Because expectations have been properly set, and characters will be reviewed prior to play, nobody's going to show up on game day demanding to play a 70 year old retired drill instructor who wants nothing to do with mysteries or schoolchildren, even though such a character could exist in that time and place.

I agree on the second part, but the first certainly varies from group to group. If there isn't a session 0, DMs need to double-check characters as their players bring them in, but I'm not sure that takes more than, say, an hour or two before the session if they know you're coming that night or maybe a day ahead if you're new to the campaign as a player and maybe not a regular fixture. It also depends on the DM; some will want characters quite a bit in advance or want to participate in character generation, others aren't particularly concerned with what you play so long as you don't shatter the world in the process, and some don't even care if you DO shatter the world in the process so long as you do so in a story-coherent manner.

So while I agree that players and DMs should know what kind of game everyone wants/is willing to play together, when I say "DMs play to the PCs," it's about power level and not concept. I won't throw a beholder at a party that can't handle it, and I won't send in goblins one at a time if the party's a bunch of powerhouses. However, depending on scheduling, I will sit down for a session 0 and get a sense of everyone's characters before we actually get into the game proper rather than just say, "Let's set up a game time, bring your own characters with these parameters..." and go from there. Heck, every game I've run thus far has been for people who didn't/couldn't make their own characters, so I statted them up myself according to suggestions/asks and gave them some time to learn their abilities. Best session was a party of four I statted myself and guided through a dungeon crawl/Indiana Jones expedition.

LibraryOgre
2017-09-07, 04:24 PM
I have a heirarchy of what I'm likely to allow to be changed.

*The first is non-mechanical traits. Want your dwarf to have green hair? Go for it. You've got green hair. Is it a dye, a curse, some weird fungus?
*The second is cultural traits without specific mechanics. These dwarves always state their full name at an introduction. To state less than one's full name is a insult, ranging from slight to great (an obviously false nickname says "I don't trust you not to be a witch.")
*Then there are cultural traits that have mechanics attached to them. You want to play a dwarven wizard? Sure, that's not normally allowed, but we'll give you a level limit of, say, 4. Sure you don't want to multiclass thief?
*Then there are physical traits... attribute modifiers, ability to see in the dark, that sort of thing. If you want to change those, you need to have a good reason to change them, and I consider it a lot more carefully.

Psyren
2017-09-07, 05:25 PM
At best I would warn the player that the dwarf's racial traits might not give their wizard any special advantages, if they're completely new. If they wanted to play the combination anyway, I'd let it drop. For an experienced player I woudln't even bring it up in the first place.

Having said that, 3.5 and PF races tend to have a vast array of subraces and traits that you can use to tailor a specific race to a specific build. For example, an Elf Barbarian may not be a particularly common combination, but if you use Wild Elves or Wood Elves instead, well, they're still elves. Similarly, you can make a quite bookish/lore-savvy dwarf who would pursue wizardry. Prestige Classes like Runesmith would help with this as well.

Tinkerer
2017-09-07, 06:09 PM
Half orc isn't even a bad choice for a wizard in 5th, partially depending on the stat gen that you go with (okay it is a bad choice but in 5th there are limits as to how bad it actually is in gameplay). I DEFINITELY wouldn't swap the +2 Strength for a +1 Intelligence because you are actually removing the flavour of the race then. Plus you still get that +1 Con. Sure he's still going to be scrawny for a half orc but not as scrawny as he'd be as a human. Plus with the half orc there's a good chance of being able to surprise enemies as you are a lot less likely to be a wizard than say an unarmoured elf or human. Plus as a wizard there are plenty of ways to get advantage on that intimidation check...

wumpus
2017-09-07, 08:42 PM
I'd claim the biggest issue for a mountain dwarf wizard is explaining why he's a wizard. Then there is how is he treated by other dwarves. Can he go home?

Having extra constitution on a squishy class can't hurt (I'm less up on my 5e rules, but can't see anything hurting a wizard).

"Character role" should mean a few things. Dramatic role? Party role? Both of those are important. Controller (vs. tank/healer/striker?) is irrelevant. Since he is likely only going to be working with this party, he hardly needs to fit such generic and limited roles. It helps for his strengths to be either where the party is weak or such they can bring all their strengths to bear at once and for his weakness to be covered by the party. That should cover "character role".

JAL_1138
2017-09-07, 10:21 PM
The thing about 5th is it takes some doing to make a character unplayable. As long as you're rocking a 16 in your main stat by 8th level or so, you're probably fine. You don't need a 20 in the stat ever to be entirely viable. Feat overload, bad multiclass decisions, and whatnot are about the only ways to ruin a character build to the point of unplayability.

Some Volo's races have actual penalties to stats, which can be much harsher than PHB races, but even they can work for classes they aren't ideal for if your other build choices kinda compensate for that.

So if somebody wants to play a half-orc wizard—sure, why not? It can work fine.

Slipperychicken
2017-09-07, 10:54 PM
I'd claim the biggest issue for a mountain dwarf wizard is explaining why he's a wizard. Then there is how is he treated by other dwarves. Can he go home?

You just need to keep an extra fireball prepared for demonstration, every time a dwarf looks at you funny.

Or just wear a holy symbol of Moradin, have a medium armor a warhammer, and hope no-one notices you can't cast cure spells.

Adeon Hawkwood
2017-09-08, 01:38 PM
I'd claim the biggest issue for a mountain dwarf wizard is explaining why he's a wizard. Then there is how is he treated by other dwarves. Can he go home?
I gave him the Soldier background and said that his clan maintained units of Warmages which neatly explains both his Wizard training and Weapon/Armor proficiency.