Should a dm mold a campaign around the party composition or vice versa or other?

[gooddragon1]

The DM has the party in a forgotten underground battlefield littered with the corpses of the two sides who fought there and the party makes the decision to stab each of the corpses to make sure they are really not a threat. This jostles some of the corpses enough that diminutive swarms of undead ichorids (literally just made this up on the spot as I was typing this, ichorid is an MTG creature) pour out of a few of them. Combat ensues, but the party composition is a druid, a rogue, a fighter, and a bard. None of them prepared any area of effect spells, they have no way of producing fire quickly either. They have no option except running because none of them can deal damage to the swarms.

Should a DM mold their campaign to accommodate party composition? Or should a party be capable of handling things in the campaign? Or is it a compromise? No wrong answers, just wondering because I feel bad for parties who just want a nice game, but I understand that DMs may want to write a compelling adventure without getting bogged down by what a party can and can't handle. Also, I just made up all that stuff above, never happened or anything even close.

[LunaLovecraft]

Understand that DnD is a collaborative process between Dungeon Master and Player.

As such, the answer is both. It's up to you as dungeon master to communicate with your players in advance about this. Ask your players what kind of game they want to play. Do they want to be given a prompt which they fill, or do they want the creative freedom to do as they please understanding that the story will have to be a little less focused. It's a compromise and ultimately a conversation between party and DM.

[Luccan]

To add to the above: I never present a challenge the party could never overcome. How they might overcome it is a different matter. In your example, they can retreat, regroup, and go in the next day loaded for bear. Or even if they were all mundanes, they can retreat and return with torches (which swarms aren't immune too). Or perhaps they convince something capable of dealing with the problem now to do it for them. None of these have to be planned out solutions, of course; player ingenuity will get the best of you almost every time. But you should never design a scenario, realize there's no feasible way for the players to overcome it, and leave it that way. Think of encounters like puzzles: if there's no solution, it wasn't much of a puzzle to begin with. At least not one anyone wants to try to solve.

[Quertus]

Well, I'm a war gamer. I believe in simulation, in the map is the territory, and in combat as war.

I believe that the GM should present the module as written, present the world as it is, and the party should figure out what they want to do with that. Anything else cheapens the experience, just like any other form of railroading, fudging, etc - anything that removes their agency to win or lose on their own merits.

There are a few notes to this.

First, if the GM says "for level X" (or equivalent, like "for three 200-point characters"), then it had better well be relatively sporting for X characters of capacity Y.

Second, if a module and a character are incompatible (a diplomat in a module of undead, for example), it's on the GM to point that out. This is assuming things are done right, and the module / content existed before the party; if, instead, the GM is allowing themselves to create biased content after the fact, it's on the GM not to create that scenario.

Lastly, this is not the only way to do things, just the only way that I like things to be done.

[OgresAreCute]

At the outset, characters should be appropriate for the campaign. As such, you shouldn't roll up a diplomancer in an undead-focused dungeon crawl and expect to contribute much. You'll likely know before you start roughly what the campaign will be about, so this shouldn't be a problem. Whether the campaign is adjusted to be appropriate to the party or whether the characters are adjusted to be appropriate to the campaign doesn't really matter, end result is the same. However, if your party has a really glaring weakness, they shouldn't expect this to never be exploited by enemies, even if it takes a few sessions before that becomes a possibility.

[BWR]

Neither approach is more right than the other. What I do think is necessary in the interests of fair play and general enjoyment is that the GM inform players of what sort of game s/he's going to be running ahead of time so everyone is on the same page.

[Callin]

If they have no way to combat the swarm and you want them to run as part of the story then its all good. If you dont and dont want to have some Alchemists fire or Torches or something that gives them a chance. Heck in this situation just a torch would scare em off since there is no lack of food for the swarm.

[Jay R]

Should a DM mold their campaign to accommodate party composition? Or should a party be capable of handling things in the campaign?

Neither. The best answer when friends have different desires is rarely 100% one way and 0% the other.


Or is it a compromise?

No, not a compromise. It's an optimization problem. Try to find the best answer for both, not merely an average between two inferior positions accepting the flaws of both.

Don't send immaterial foes after a party who can't hit them, or illithids after a party too weak to resist their mind-affecting powers. If there is a mace of disruption in one tower and a lich in the other, then it matters which tower they visit first.

Meanwhile, don't build a paladin for a thieves' guild political campaign, or a rogue for the Arthurian mythos. Don't design a party that can't do what will be expected of them.

This requires the players to know what kind of campaign the DM is running, and the DM to know what kind of PCs the players want to play. It also requires both to want to provide the best for the other.

Don't compromise. Optimize.

[Elkad]

As the DM, I find it my responsibility to shore up their weaknesses. Especially for new players.

This doesn't mean sticking an NPC with the ability to spam Burning Hands in the party if I intend to use a swarm.
It does mean dropping a few flasks of Alchemist fire in a prior room if they don't have any. Or at least a jug of oil and a torch.

The second one lets them solve the problem themselves, even though I had to hand the solution to them.


Of course, they have the option to run. That's not a bad thing either. Just make sure the swarm is slow enough they can do it successfully.

[Covenant12]

There are definitely times where I wouldn't pull any punches at all, but by default I eyeball the encounter and make sure its reasonable. Unless its a campaign arc BBEG and I want serious risk of death/TPK. But that I spend even longer deciding on balance. If a player has a narrow focus don't make him useless multiple sessions in a row, as well.

That said, an incompetent party should be helped and guided. If a party of four just can't handle a single fire giant at character level = CR, that should be corrected. Swarms in particular are a bit of a puzzle monster, and should be eyeballed longer than most opponents.

[Darth Ultron]

as war.
I believe that the GM should present the module as written, present the world as it is, and the party should figure out what they want to do with that.

The DM should never mold the campaign around the party, mostly as that would be impossible anyway. So many things can come up in game play that the party is not 100% molded for, that it's a bit silly to try. Like caves are dark, and if no character has anyway to make light should the DM say ''oh, um, the caves are as bright as daylight!"? Or if the merrow lair is underwater, and the PCs have nothing, should a merchant be sitting on a rock right there, ready to sell potions of water breathing for one copper?

Each player has to pick what they want their character to be and be able to do. Often it's a choice between many needed things, and you can take greater power in one, and the cost of the others...or spread it around. This is often a big, big, big problem with optimizer: they have to take X, no matter anything else. It's even worse for the optimizer one trick ponies.

And, even if a character has the needed whatever....there is a chance it won't be effective anyway. So this will put the group right back to square one.

[Blue Jay]

The DM should never mold the campaign around the party, mostly as that would be impossible anyway. So many things can come up in game play that the party is not 100% molded for, that it's a bit silly to try.

100% perfection is not the only worthwhile goal. You don't have to make every aspect of your game perfectly fit your players' character builds and expectations, but it seems like a basic courtesy to at least give the players opportunities to do what they build for and what they've expressed interest in.

Like, if a player has expressed interest in a romantic side plot, it shouldn't be too hard to place a couple NPCs who might be a good match, so they at least have a chance to try.

And, if a player has built for precision damage, it shouldn't be too hard to include some opponents that are susceptible to precision damage.

And, if your players lack Darkvision, placing the occasional patch of phosphorescent fungus or loot-able everburning torch shouldn't completely ruin your game, either.

But it will depend on the game. If it's the kind of game that's basically made to test your players' character-building skills, then yeah, it makes perfect sense to show less mercy for character-building oversights. But, if it's the kind of game I personally enjoy --- one that leans more on interesting narrative and collaborative storytelling than on mechanical challenges --- then you really need to be flexible and open-minded about the mechanics to ensure the best narrative drama.

[JNAProductions]

As pretty much ALWAYS, the answer is a mix of both.

To me, what seems a pretty good way of doing it is as follows:

DM pitches the general campaign idea. Dragon hunting, undead purging, intrigue, politics, whatever. (Players are free to have input, but ultimately, it's what the DM wants to run.)

Players build characters appropriate to the campaign. They build people with wings for dragon hunting; Clerics and Paladins for undead; Rogues, Bards, or other talky folk for intrigue and politics; or whatever fits. This doesn't have to be PERFECT-a Fighter focused on two handed weapons in a dragon campaign is fine, so long as the party Wizard knows fly/he has plans to catch dragons where he can reach them. Likewise, a Barbarian can fit a talky campaign, if built right, even if a Bard is the more powerful choice.

Then, playing can begin! The DM should do their best to not throw anything impossible at the players, OR, if something impossible does occur, make it clear so the players can escape and figure out a solution. But no one likes to hear "The world ends in one week unless you can the MacGuffin to Lord Dreadlock, who is a month away by anything except teleportation" when they don't have teleportation and no way to get it. However, "The MacGuffin is underwater," when everyone is an air-breathing race is fine! Just make sure it's possible for the players to get water-breathing somehow, or alternatively, allow them to ignore this plotline.

If the party is a Fighter, a Barbarian, a Rogue, and a Soulknife, then it's perfectly fine to throw an encounter where they have basically no way of handling it. However, such an encounter should not automatically kill them-they should be able to escape, so long as they realize their danger, and find a way around it or find a new thing to do.

If, on the other hand, the party is a Psion, a Wizard, an Archivist and a Druid, then you're a little more within your rights to say "You guys SHOULD be able to handle this!"

I guess the main thing, as always, is to make sure everyone has fun. If your players like Combat As War, everything is predetermined, and you can get screwed hard if you mess up? Do that. If they like Combat As Sport, you can just plunge ahead and everything will turn out okay? Do that. (Obviously within your own preferences. If you HATE Combat As Sport, you don't have to run it, but then you just tell them "Hey, I think we have a style mismatch" instead of running a game they hate.)

[PunBlake]

The best way to go is to know your players (and what motivates them to play) and know the motivations of their characters. Make those characters make hard decisions.
If your party likes (for example) slug-fest monster of the week stuff, provide it, but give them a reason other than typical murderhobo philosophy.

DMing is a balancing act. It's often about improvisational storytelling, with both sides working together to form a narrative. Fear (as in an undeafeatable enemy) can be part of the narrative, but if it's all you get, something's wrong... and there should be signs something is undefeatable.

[Quertus]

but it seems like a basic courtesy to at least give the players opportunities to do what they build for and what they've expressed interest in.

Like, if a player has expressed interest in a romantic side plot, it shouldn't be too hard to place a couple NPCs who might be a good match, so they at least have a chance to try.

And, if a player has built for precision damage, it shouldn't be too hard to include some opponents that are susceptible to precision damage.

This bit here is, IMO, best handled by an important but oft-overlooked GM skill: creating a realistic, varied universe / adventure. That is, if you have this particular GM skill, you don't need to know that there is someone with precision damage to have included a number of, you know, living, breathing, anatomically correct foes. Or to know that someone is interested in pursuing potential romantic interests to include, you know, NPCs of both genders (picky people!).

So, while I agree that it's a good plan to talk to your players about their expectations, and to make sure that your content can accommodate, I believe that the best plan is to combine that with working to develop the skills to minimize the frequency and extent with which you actually have to change anything in order to so accommodate them.

[RoboEmperor]

Casual Gamers: The DM should mold the encounters around the party. Casual Gamers hate it when they lose, and they don't want to put in any effort into learning the system so if the DM doesn't mold the encounters around the party the Casual Gamers will leave.

Noncasual Gamers: The DM should not mold the encounters around the party and doesn't fudge any rolls or play the monsters suboptimally. The DM tries their best to kill the PCs with CR appropriate monsters and gear and its up to the PCs to handle that because the game is rigged towards players not NPCs. If the players lose to CR appropriate encounters its on them not the DM.

I am a noncasual gamer so I prefer the DM try their best to kill me with CR appropriate encounters because I want to optimize my character into the stratosphere.

[Luccan]

Casual Gamers: The DM should mold the encounters around the party. Casual Gamers hate it when they lose, and they don't want to put in any effort into learning the system so if the DM doesn't mold the encounters around the party the Casual Gamers will leave.

No.



Noncasual Gamers: The DM should not mold the encounters around the party and doesn't fudge any rolls or play the monsters suboptimally. The DM tries their best to kill the PCs with CR appropriate monsters and gear and its up to the PCs to handle that because the game is rigged towards players not NPCs. If the players lose to CR appropriate encounters its on them not the DM.


And no. These are huge generalizations based on weird criteria. Not every group is divided cleanly into casual or noncasual and plenty of "hardcore" players (which I guess to you means they know how to build characters and also don't value their characters?) aren't in it just to constantly be under the threat of death. Some of us actually like roleplaying and various other aspects of the game that aren't reliant on DM vs Player mentality (which I actually think will get hardcore players to quit more often than casual players*). Plenty of "casual" players want a challenging fight without having to optimize their characters to insane levels. If all your DM is out to do is kill the player characters, the players will lose. The DM has infinite resources, so even if the challenge is "CR appropriate":

1. The CR system is broken. That Damn Crab will kill an unprepared party of "appropriate" level almost every time, unless the party is optimized to the point where the CR system wouldn't work for them even if it wasn't broken. CR also doesn't account for a series of good or bad roles.

2. Playing everything optimally is not playing the monsters appropriately to every game. Goblins have an average Int of 10. Logically, if a party is giving them enough trouble to notice, they should just swarm the players with the whole warband as soon as they enter their den. And that definitely isn't CR appropriate. But it is optimal.

3. Again, infinite resources. You can easily justify level appropriate encounters that the PCs stand no chance of surviving (such as against a long term enemy with plenty of gold and influence who has completely outmaneuvered them), but what's the point of that? If the PCs made a series of avoidable mistakes, sure (although I still think making the situation unwinnable isn't fun), but it's possible to justify them being outmaneuvered without them having known anything about it.

If all anyone at the table is interested in is combat, there are probably better games for it. Games where people don't get attached to individual characters and where your friend trying to wipe out your units/pieces/characters is expected, and not them going on a power trip. Because DMs wield more in-game power than PCs, it's a bad idea for them to be solely focused on killing PCs.

I'm not saying it's always inappropriate and DMs should certainly play monsters as threats (I've actually never encountered a group that always wanted everything to be a cakewalk), but a DM's job is to present the world and NPCs for the players to interact with, whether as enemies, neutral parties, or allies. So sometimes, the DM should be playing a monster to kill. But that doesn't mean every 6 int ogre is a tactician.

*This is based on my belief that DM vs Player arises out of the DM wanting to win. Not that the DM plays the deadly monsters as (sometimes) intelligent enemies, but that the DM wants to kill the PCs because they somehow see that as a goal of the game. If that is the DM's goal, they can actually achieve this at any time. A "hardcore" player is going to notice they're constantly facing threats verging on too great for them to handle and will likely quit the table after a series of character deaths because they'll realize that their DM isn't interested in the table having fun, they're interested in killing PCs (which is, in this case, probably just fun for the DM). "Casual" players will probably see this table as their only option to play, since to me a "casual" player probably isn't interested in the community at large and just sees the game as a chance to hang out with friends. If they quit, it'll likely be for good because this experience will convince them D&D is just a game where one person plays a vindictive god and everyone else gets to be miserable.

[KillianHawkeye]

As someone who only runs adventures that I write myself, I do like to include a few encounters that will really challenge the party. Ones that have the potential to get PCs killed if handled the wrong way. But I always make sure that they at least have access to the resources necessary to succeed, even when it's not always immediately obvious.

The fun comes when the players aren't sure if a battle will be an easy or a hard one. :smallwink:

[RoboEmperor]

Plenty of "casual" players want a challenging fight without having to optimize their characters to insane levels.

Exactly. They don't want to learn the system and want a "challenging fight" with a standard 20 fighter. Since the standard 20 fighter is utterly worthless you gotta design encounters around him so he gets to participate in the fight. How am I wrong? Casual players don't optimize their magic item loadout nor their feat selection so how exactly is a casual fighter supposed to fight a balor or a pit fiend? Do casual players give the Magic Item Compendium or any build thread online a read to learn of the existence of the Transmuting weapon enhancement? No, which is why the answer is they don't fight balors and Pit Fiends even at level 20. You instead have to cherry pick monsters that a fighter can kill or play the Pit Fiend incredibly suboptimally with a lot of his stuff ignored or house ruled away which means no DR, flight, high AC, and minimal BFC that aren't devastating otherwise he won't have a "challenging fight".

It seems you've taken a very liberal interpretation of what I said and decided to use extreme cases exclusively in a system where extreme cases always break the game to make your argument. If that's what you think I meant then go ahead and think what you want.

There's a difference between a sadistic DM who solely plays to TPK and an experienced DM who doesn't pull any punches. The former is a horrendous DM who should not be allowed to play the game and the latter is an awesome DM that adds realism to the game by making monsters fight to their best ability and not go easy on the players just because they're supposed to die in this encounter. Nothing pisses me off more than watching a DM intentionally not use specific SLAs that would mop the floor with the PCs or house rule/ignore/remove special qualities like regeneration or DR because he wants that monster to die and our party is filled with casual players who spend 0 effort learning the system. Casual players want the DM to fudge everything so they win while hardcore players know that retreat is an option and uses their system mastery to try and figure out how to beat this thing with what they got.

The DM should design encounters based on story and not tailor make it to the PCs strengths. This will utterly murder casual players so if you are playing with casual players you tailor make encounters to the PC's strengths and when playing with noncasual players you can completely disregard the PC's build and just do what the story demands. These PCs can deal with whatever you throw at them even when you don't pull any punches which makes the game much more fun imo.

So again, if your PCs are casual the DM should mold a campaign around them and if your PCs aren't casual it's vice versa.

[Quarian Rex]

This bit here is, IMO, best handled by an important but oft-overlooked GM skill: creating a realistic, varied universe / adventure. That is, if you have this particular GM skill, you don't need to know that there is someone with precision damage to have included a number of, you know, living, breathing, anatomically correct foes. Or to know that someone is interested in pursuing potential romantic interests to include, you know, NPCs of both genders (picky people!).

So, while I agree that it's a good plan to talk to your players about their expectations, and to make sure that your content can accommodate, I believe that the best plan is to combine that with working to develop the skills to minimize the frequency and extent with which you actually have to change anything in order to so accommodate them.

This is the key right here. I tend to lean towards the stimulationist approach as well, and in a well crafted world very little needs to be tailored to the party. I do find that there is a crucial component that many DMs overlook that allows such a thing to actually work, though. Information.

In an actual living world people interact and spread information. In D&D-land this is a key survival tactic. If a dungeon is filled with incorporeal undead that the party can't deal with then someone (probably the person that told them of the dungeon in the first place) will mention that attempts to clear it have been made but everyone has been torn apart by the spirits of the restless dead (there will always eventually be a survivor).

If the 2nd level PC decides to give an attitude adjustment to the abusive drunk harassing patrons in the inn (who happens to be a 9th level Barbarian) a harried barmaid will quickly intercept him and whisper, "For the love of Pelor, don't! That's Brian the Blood-drinker. He's a veteran of the last ork war and once wrestled a dire wolf to the ground, shat in it's mouth (before killing it!), cut off its head and drank from its skull. He doesn't do any actual harm unless someone provokes him, so let it be. Please, I just don't want to mop blood off the floor tonight. There's always so much blood...".

Let the player have the opportunity to make an informed choice. Fill your world with things above the PCs pay-grade, just have people talk about it (ya know, like actual people do) and let the players decide how to navigate it. If you want to run a campaign defined by mystery and surprise then you are probably not running a simulation-type game and need to think about crafting things towards the party. Both play-styles are valid, but if every encounter is functionally an ambush then the DM is solely responsible for the perceived balance of that encounter.

[Telonius]

Think of encounters like puzzles: if there's no solution, it wasn't much of a puzzle to begin with. At least not one anyone wants to try to solve.

+1 to this. An unbeatable foe once in a great while is okay. At that point, it's not an enemy, it's a plot element. If you present the players with enough Kobayashi Marus as though they were actual encounters, don't be surprised if somebody tries to start hacking the computer.

[heavyfuel]

New player pretty much need to have encounters molded for them. They're still learning the ropes and their grasp of mechanics is poor. Throwing an encounter that requires a Fly spell at the party with no Wizard (or a Wizard with only blasty spells) is bound to result in frustration.

As players become more used to the system, encounters should gradually become less molded. As long as you don't put them through encounters where they are massively outmatched, veteran parties will usually have good enough tools to deal with said encounters. Scrolls/Potions/Wands of Fly are bound to be among their equipment if no one's playing a Wizard.

[ezekielraiden]

Understand that DnD is a collaborative process between Dungeon Master and Player.

As such, the answer is both.

It pleases me greatly that this was the first response.


It's up to you as dungeon master to communicate with your players in advance about this. Ask your players what kind of game they want to play. Do they want to be given a prompt which they fill, or do they want the creative freedom to do as they please understanding that the story will have to be a little less focused. It's a compromise and ultimately a conversation between party and DM.

This a million, billion times. Your players are people. Treat them like such. Your DM is a person. Treat them like such. Work it out, and if no solution can be worked out, that's okay--not every proposed game is playable.

[AnimeTheCat]

As a DM, I create a vibrant living world for the party to explore in, experience things in, change things in, and possibly even die in. I tell all of my players the same things, create the character you want and experience things you want your character to experience. I encourage my players to forge inter-character bonds. I also recommend they make several characters, not because they are definitely going to die, but in case they get bored with the one or if they want to experiment a different style or type of play.

All that culminates to, I don't usually tailor anything to the group. I present the world, setting, and civilization they are encountering and interact with them according to their actions.

The last thing I remind them is that running is always a tactic that should be considered and that I do not scale areas or enemies depending on their level. The leader of the Kobold Tribe 15 miles from the settlement is a level 7 sorcerer regardless of whether the party is level 1 or 20. They choose how and when they interact with those entities and that dictates the adventure.

[gooddragon1]

+1 to this. An unbeatable foe once in a great while is okay. At that point, it's not an enemy, it's a plot element. If you present the players with enough Kobayashi Marus as though they were actual encounters, don't be surprised if somebody tries to start hacking the computer.

Awww man. Now I have to homebrew a Kobayashi Marut :/. I'm thinking regeneration overcome by light weapon axes that turns off if it has taken damage at least equal to its HD.

As for other stuff, I guess what you really have to worry about is an inexperienced DM throwing encounters like that by accident.

[Mordaedil]

If I wanted to do a Harry Potter esque campaign where my players were going to play as students attending a magical academy, I'd be disgruntled if one of my players rolled up a duskblade. I'd think they were messing with me if they rolled up a barbarian.

If you have terms and conditions for your game, you need to clear with your players, but you also need to be open to your players not all rolling exactly what you intended too.

[Telonius]

If I wanted to do a Harry Potter esque campaign where my players were going to play as students attending a magical academy, I'd be disgruntled if one of my players rolled up a duskblade. I'd think they were messing with me if they rolled up a barbarian.

I think it could fit in the world with a good enough explanation. Maybe the character is a squib, and is very sensitive about it. They've been relegated to being the assistant Care of Magical Creatures teacher (and seems to be used mostly as a guinea pig). The class abilities and skill set seem like they'd be a good fit for that. But the player does have to be willing to work with the fluff to do it.

[Mordaedil]

I think it could fit in the world with a good enough explanation. Maybe the character is a squib, and is very sensitive about it. They've been relegated to being the assistant Care of Magical Creatures teacher (and seems to be used mostly as a guinea pig). The class abilities and skill set seem like they'd be a good fit for that. But the player does have to be willing to work with the fluff to do it.

Even writing that I could think of plenty of ways to make it work, but my point was that if I wrote a scenario like that, I'd have a certain idea in mind and martial characters probably wouldn't be playing ball with me and my idea. And if I ended up with a party of a barbarian, a monk, a cleric and a warmage, I think maybe I did explain it a tad poorly, when what I wanted was a sorcerer, a warlock, and two specialist wizards.

[Nifft]

Also, I just made up all that stuff above, never happened or anything even close.

Uh... okay?


Anyway, there is no should. You could enjoy a high-lethality game where the threats are not tuned to the PCs at all, and figuring out the monster-puzzles, trap-puzzles, and other survival-puzzles is the fun of the game -- and where PCs are easy come, easy go. Or you could do a heroic fantasy collaborative narrative story where all the original PCs are destined to survive because of their heroic destinies, as was written in their holy backstories, so you tailor all threats and never risk the lives of the PCs because death is for losers and thus not part of their heroic destiny. That's a thing some people enjoy, too. And there's a lot of stuff in between.

[NomGarret]

In the OP scenario, I don’t see a need to modify anything so long as the PCs have a reasonable chance of escape. Go ahead and define reasonable however you would normally for your campaign. Being capable doesn’t have to mean equally capable every encounter, and this can be both on the individual character level and on the party composition level. It’s ok to have roughly 1 in 10 encounters where your character’s weaknesses are exposed as long as there’s roughly 1 in 10 encounters where their strengths will shine through. If the next encounter involves disarming traps, talking to squirrels, and singing, your party will feel great.

Also, do they take the loss as a lesson in their weaknesses and grow accordingly, taking steps to cover gaps in the future?

All this assumes the swarm is a deviation from campaign expected averages. If these undead bug swarms are the primary opponent of the campaign, that’s where previous comments about setting expectations comes into play. If you say it’s ok to play a rogue, you should be honest about roughly how many opponents can be sneak attacked.