PDA

View Full Version : Player Obligations



bugsysservant
2007-10-12, 06:54 AM
While visiting these forums (fora?) I have frequently come across the statement that all players should be somewhat optimized, or else they are letting their group down, and breaking realism of the setting by providing a feeble character that would never be accepted by the group as a whole "in real life." Personally I am amazed by this. I have always viewed roleplaying and fun as the point of gaming, and if playing a samurai or a swashbuckler 20 would fulfill these, than more power to you.
So what do you think: do players have a responsibility to optimize their characters (not powergame, optimize) for the benefit of the group as a whole?

Azerian Kelimon
2007-10-12, 06:57 AM
Even then, some optimizing is necessary. You'll agree that playing a samurai with Dilligent and toughness as feats, and his unarmed strikes as weapons isn't fun. So, SOME optimizing IS necessary. ONE thing is that everyone must be a leapattackershocktrooper; That's BS. But the other extreme is bad too. And let's kill the thread before another RP/optimization argument pops up.

Daimbert
2007-10-12, 07:15 AM
While visiting these forums (fora?) I have frequently come across the statement that all players should be somewhat optimized, or else they are letting their group down, and breaking realism of the setting by providing a feeble character that would never be accepted by the group as a whole "in real life." Personally I am amazed by this. I have always viewed roleplaying and fun as the point of gaming, and if playing a samurai or a swashbuckler 20 would fulfill these, than more power to you.
So what do you think: do players have a responsibility to optimize their characters (not powergame, optimize) for the benefit of the group as a whole?

No. Any game is shared world between the players and the DM, and as such a player has an obligation to create a character that can actually participate in the world the DM creates, with the guidance and aid of the DM. So if a DM is going to run a combat-heavy game, that DM should make that clear at the beginning and then players should know that if they want to do anything they need to at least pay some attention to how their character will perform in combat, and choose classes/skills that have some merit in combat. But personalizing and making a player a character matters as well, and so some choices may not be ideal. Fine; it's up to the DM to look at the abilities of the party and choose encounters appropriately. If the game will be mostly non-combat, the same thing applies.

So basically it's up to the DM and the players to decide what the game will be and how it works. If a player is expected to "optimize", that's a function of that game itself and should be made clear at the beginning. And a player who knows that they will want to make non-optimal choices to build a character should make THAT clear at the beginning so the DM can handle it.

Nothing in this should ever be one-sided.

raygungothic
2007-10-12, 07:16 AM
No. Players have a responsibility to confer with each other and the DM to build characters of a comparable power level and complementary roles, but that doesn't necessarily involve everyone having to optimize to a high level - unless it's agreed by all that it will be that sort of campaign.

I think most people who mention "duty to optimize" are playing in games where the DM and a majority of players have made a(n unspoken?) decision that the campaign will feature fairly high-powered characters and that the DM will be basing the party's foes on that assumption. This seems to be the default assumption of the CR system and Monster Manual, though it's not exactly difficult to run other power levels. In such a context, a player who deliberately creates a character so low-powered as to be a drag on the party is pulling away from the rest of the group, but the DM should probably talk this over with them before play starts.

When DMing, I'd never rule out a character *concept* based on its power level (as opposed to fluffiness or suitability), but if it radically didn't match the rest of the party and my intended adventures I'd feel it my duty to have a word with the player about how to bring its powers into line. Up or down. On the other hand, in my experience destructive character concepts and personalities are FAR more trouble than way-out-of-line stats, as it's fairly easy to tweak adventures to sort out mechanical power problems (within reason) but banning a player from depicting a certain personality or attitude is a complete minefield.

Dausuul
2007-10-12, 07:23 AM
While visiting these forums (fora?) I have frequently come across the statement that all players should be somewhat optimized, or else they are letting their group down, and breaking realism of the setting by providing a feeble character that would never be accepted by the group as a whole "in real life." Personally I am amazed by this. I have always viewed roleplaying and fun as the point of gaming, and if playing a samurai or a swashbuckler 20 would fulfill these, than more power to you.
So what do you think: do players have a responsibility to optimize their characters (not powergame, optimize) for the benefit of the group as a whole?

I think players have a responsibility to fit their characters to the rest of the group, both in terms of power level and persona. D&D is a group activity; if one player keeps clashing with the rest of the group, it's generally a problem. That can take the form of a character who is far less effective than everyone else and becomes a drag on the party; it can be a character who is far more effective and hogs the spotlight; or it can be a character whose personality leads to conflict within the party.

Of those problems, though, I find that the poorly built character is by far the easiest to deal with. Such characters don't take away from anyone else's glory and they don't start intra-party fights, they just suck up some resources; which is a mechanical issue easily addressed by the DM. As long as the player of that character recognizes that his failure to perform on the level of the other characters is a result of his own decisions and not someone else's responsibility to rectify, it's usually not a big deal.

And the important thing is relative power levels (that is, compared to the other PCs), not absolute. If you want to play a samurai, and the rest of the party consists of a ninja, a warlock, and a monk? Go for it, you'll fit right in. If you want to play a samurai in a party with a Ruby Knight Vindicator, a CoDzilla cleric, and a Batman wizard, you might want to reconsider your build... although that's not nearly as much of a problem as somebody who wants to play a Batman wizard in the ninja/warlock/monk party.

SoD
2007-10-12, 07:28 AM
Well, as for weather all players must be optimised, let us look to a possibly familier web comic...Order of the Stick, at the begining, is the entire party useful? What about Elan? Most of the party considered him to be 'use-impaired'. At one point, Roy even tries to leave him behind in the clutches of the bandits.

A character doesn't need to be fully optimized. However, you shouldn't make characters that don't make sense. For example, why play as a wizard who wears a full plate and carries a tower sheild. Unless you have some good reason for it, you'll have hardley any hit points...you'll waste 4 feats...and will effectively be a commoner in heavy armour.

That's my 2 cp worth.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-12, 07:33 AM
While visiting these forums (fora?) I have frequently come across the statement that all players should be somewhat optimized, or else they are letting their group down,

I think it's more like they're letting themselves down, at least in some groups. There can be plenty of reasons why a group of adventurers would be obliged (willing or no) to take care of a relative weakling, but it's quite possible that the player of said weakling would get annoyed at being upstaged by everyone.

I've played a level-one character once in a campaign where everybody was level-five. Since the focus was heavily on action, that was no fun at all. Of course, this was a crappy DM to begin with, but the point is that it can be very much unfun to be weak.

Kesnit
2007-10-12, 07:38 AM
A character doesn't need to be fully optimized. However, you shouldn't make characters that don't make sense. For example, why play as a wizard who wears a full plate and carries a tower sheild. Unless you have some good reason for it, you'll have hardley any hit points...you'll waste 4 feats...and will effectively be a commoner in heavy armour.

That's my 2 cp worth.

Or you're playing a Spellsword or Eldrich Knight... Espeically if the full plate and shield are mithral, you took a level of fighter (to get all the proficencies), and you have the feat "Still Spell."

Dullyanna
2007-10-12, 08:02 AM
For example, why play as a wizard who wears a full plate and carries a tower sheild? Unless you have some good reason for it, you'll have hardley any hit points.

So yeah, eldritch knights have a fairly god reason to do that. But anyway, I'd have to say that people should try to keep their characters on a relatively similar level as the others. Gimping your character is only fun when it's not too debilitating, and it actually allows for interesting roleplay (i.e. You're a mute fighter)and the other group members are up for it.

leperkhaun
2007-10-12, 08:26 AM
I think you should do a bit of optimizing. I for one dont think any character should be dead baggage. Just because you make the character really good at what he/she does doesnt mean you dont have to RP.

But characters dont have to be optimized for combat if your campaign does not include alot of it. If you have a social skill monkey, then make it a social skill monkey who does the things he does well.

AKA_Bait
2007-10-12, 08:41 AM
I think you should do a bit of optimizing. I for one dont think any character should be dead baggage. Just because you make the character really good at what he/she does doesnt mean you dont have to RP.

But characters dont have to be optimized for combat if your campaign does not include alot of it. If you have a social skill monkey, then make it a social skill monkey who does the things he does well.

Even if your campagin does have a lot of combat it can still be quite fulfilling to have a character that's not focused that way but on the non-combat situations. There will almost have to be some of those and eeven if your let say, party face bard, isn't going to kicking butt and taking names he can distract foes, buff his friends and heal a little in addition to sweet talking the king into some extra rewards. Even if he hides in the back he during combat he can be a useful member of the party.

"What's he do?"
"Him? Oh, he's the brains of the outfit."

Artemician
2007-10-12, 08:54 AM
Even if your campagin does have a lot of combat it can still be quite fulfilling to have a character that's not focused that way but on the non-combat situations. There will almost have to be some of those and eeven if your let say, party face bard, isn't going to kicking butt and taking names he can distract foes, buff his friends and heal a little in addition to sweet talking the king into some extra rewards. Even if he hides in the back he during combat he can be a useful member of the party.

"What's he do?"
"Him? Oh, he's the brains of the outfit."

Yes, it's definitely possible to have fun even if there is a clash between characters (either nature-wise or powerlevel-wise). However, it is generally harder.

Jade_Tarem
2007-10-12, 08:57 AM
Azerian and AKA Bait both have the right of it, I think. Every time you decide to take a level, a feat, or a skill that is better than another level, feat, or skill, you are optimizing even if that level/feat/skill is more in keeping with your character concept. So often the term optimization is used as a dirty word by the roleplaying "elite" :smallyuk: that people get a skewed perception of what it means. The problem, as Azerian points out, is that it can be taken too far - to the point of detracting from the game. Any battle that goes like this-

Round 1:

Cavalier/Champion of Corellon Larethian/Paladin/Wizard/Eldrich Knight uses Improved Rideby Attack to deal x8 crit for 456 damage to all enemies. All enemies are brought to -123. And implode.

Round 2:

There is nothing left to attack.
Party stares in horror at the carnage.

- probably involves a character that has taken his optimization too far. Note that it is possible to roleplay the character that I mentioned above. The thing is, the mechanics of the character make it too hard to play in a party.

And as AKA Bait mentioned, any campaign worth playing will not be combat from start to finish. Smooth talkers can be some of the most interesting characters, and the particularly wily ones can be entertaining if you have, say, a well-played paladin in the party as well.

Even this, however, is optimizing. Did you put points into Bluff and Diplomacy? Why not Intimidate and Use Rope? The answer: because you're optimizing within your character concept. Nobody wants a party face with no social skills any more than they want a tank with no armor, dexterity, or constitution. The saying goes: "Powergaming - because you can't roleplay when you're dead."

SilverClawShift
2007-10-12, 09:00 AM
To go over what a lot of others have allready said, D&D is a GROUP activity. It's not a single-player endeavor, or even a competition against one another (unless you'd like to slice it up that way).

I think that the players handbook and dungeon masters guide should actually mention that with a little more conviction. Cooperation is the key to a good session of D&D. Fighting with each other (either as players or as a DM) will only detract from the group activity and make it less fun for, not only yourself, but everyone present.
Sometimes compromises have to be made one way or the other, not only in terms of power levels, but in terms of everything. In the end, whatever's going on should be agreed upon, at least in a vague sense if not explicitly.
That applies to all things, including power level. Generally, a good DM should be able to keep things under control, but if players are being hard-headed and not acting with the group, it can spoil things.

I'm actually occasionally amazed at how little some groups seem to cooperate at the table. My group recently let a 6th player in, after a lot of discussion (and it's worked out really well actually, our DM has done great at still making things run smoothly and keeping us on our toes. It helps that he can outthink the lot of us). He was completely shocked at the fact that we actually functioned as a group. Everyone he's played D&D with has spent their time doing their own thing, DM INCLUDED. Players were looking out for their own interests, making characters without even telling each other or the DM what they were up to, deciding to do things the group explicitly planned NOT to do. And the DMs were basically only concerned with telling a story and showing off their world, and killing the characters if they got out of line.
I asked him how that was fun, and he didn't have an answer.
He likes the way we play, but he's still got a little trouble fitting into the "we can talk about the game we're playing together?" mentality. He's getting more and more into it the more we play though, so it's working out well :smallsmile:

My point is, cooperation is really the key. You don't have to explicitly agree on anything, but I think you SHOULD at least have a good idea of what the group intentions for the game are before you sit down and start stabbing things. Making a rogue because you want to sneak attack things, and then finding out the campaign is going to be 100% constructs and undead and "no you can't change your character the campaign allready started, sometimes you have to live with bad choices!" isn't going to be fun. A little agreement can go a long way.

Er anyway, I feel like I'm off topic. But to summarize, I'd say the biggest obligation a player (DM included) has to the group is to remember that you're doing something TOGETHER.

leperkhaun
2007-10-12, 09:07 AM
I agree with that.

For my groups we ussually get together and go "im gonna be a melee type, i wanna be a caster, hmmm ill heal, ill go skill monkey".

The DM ussually sets rules on starting alignment (good or evil) and as a group we generally build characters that fit that (or might have time to move to evil).

In the case of heavy Undead or Construct game the DM informs us most of the time. Like you said, its not fun building a combat rogue only to find out you cant sneak attack anything.

Of course iv had campaigns where everyone was "woot lets go good", i showed up with a pally, one guy had a cleric of my gods most hated enemy and 2 others showed up with chaotic evil characters......

psychoticbarber
2007-10-12, 09:47 AM
I think that the connotations of "Optimized" are different for me than most people on these boards.

I don't consider making sure your Bard has a high charisma and good social skills instead of pumping all your power into constitution and trying to tank is optimizing; I just think it's not being foolish.

If you create a bard build with 64.5 splatbooks to make a bard who can tank, I have to ask, why not play a different character or negotiate with your DM to get whatever class feature of the bard you wanted in exchange for something else?

To me, Optimization is used to make a character or a class do something it's not meant to do, or do something it's meant to do far better than it's meant to do it.

leperkhaun
2007-10-12, 09:53 AM
I think that the connotations of "Optimized" are different for me than most people on these boards.

I don't consider making sure your Bard has a high charisma and good social skills instead of pumping all your power into constitution and trying to tank is optimizing; I just think it's not being foolish.

If you create a bard build with 64.5 splatbooks to make a bard who can tank, I have to ask, why not play a different character or negotiate with your DM to get whatever class feature of the bard you wanted in exchange for something else?

To me, Optimization is used to make a character or a class do something it's not meant to do, or do something it's meant to do far better than it's meant to do it.

Depends on the group. If the entire group is optimized like that, no reason why you cant be, but if the rest of the group isnt......

psychoticbarber
2007-10-12, 09:54 AM
Depends on the group. If the entire group is optimized like that, no reason why you cant be, but if the rest of the group isnt......

Oh, yes of course. Sorry I forgot to mention that none of it matters if you're all happy with however it is.

AKA_Bait
2007-10-12, 09:58 AM
I think that the connotations of "Optimized" are different for me than most people on these boards.

To be frank, I think that a good half of the arguments that happen on boards regarding optimization are a direct result of semantic differences. I've had 3 page long arguments end when both sides suddenly realize "Oh, that's what you meant by optimization, I totally agree with you now."

Pretty much anyone who plays D&D and possesses a speck of wisdom agrees with this principle in various verbages:


Build your character to the power level of your fellow players' and DM's expectations.

Everything else is just a subset of or practical working out of that principle.

slexlollar89
2007-10-12, 10:45 AM
I hate to go in the opposite direction (or apposed at least to most of the earlier posters), but I see optimization as totaly irrelvent. What I value in characters is their RPing potential first, and their usefulness second.

RPing potential is the "character" the story behind the character. Good RPing should not take away from the plot, or detract oter playes from oing their thing, but should mesh coherently with the DM's plots and ideas. Usefulness is how he character supports himself and the party. In this way any class, say a warlock, is usefull, because they can hold their own and provide a great set of abilities to utilize. A bard is also seful because it supports the other party members. Whether or not you have that x8 crit or the +2d6 to an eldrtch blast is irrelavent for both of these.

I can use the example from another similar thread. I had made a venerable elven fighter. He literally had to be whelled around in a wheelchair type device that a (now old and dead) gnome budy had made for him before the campaign started, but he would get up for fighting. His weapon of chioce was the mesperule and the katana, and he eventually could blow fire (I got the DM to sort homebrew a special template based of the 1/2 dragon). He was useless out of battle because he called evryone "yungins" and "dern kids!" even to elves that were older than him (yet in lower age categories) which resulted in alot of disagreements. In battle he was definately sub-par, especially because he refused magical aid via the party cleric (he didn't like the cleric's god, and he was an stuborn old guy). He was one of my favorite characters ever. The party wound up supporting him alot, but they loved the crochety lecherous old hyporiticl bastard that he was. He actually died of old age and left evrything (his posessions, and some stuff the DM said was my estate) to the cleric he hated, but on the condition that the cleric only cast conjuration (summoning) spells to call evil outiders and debate with them for one month.

This guy was the epitome of underpowered, but was a great RP experience, and an awesome source of humor during the very long dungeon hauls the DM put us through. The only person to whom he met expectations was me. The DM gave me fire breath because he was so weak, and even that was for RP purposes and didn't really help him.

AKA_Bait
2007-10-12, 11:27 AM
I hate to go in the opposite direction (or apposed at least to most of the earlier posters), but I see optimization as totaly irrelvent. What I value in characters is their RPing potential first, and their usefulness second.

And given your tales your group is obviously cool with that. You fell within the range of expected power for a member of the group, even if part of that range was 'little to none'. Every group varies. Some will get ticked if a character, no matter how much fun RP wise, is utterly useless in combat (and their character might have justification for those feelings). Some get ticked if you make your charcter nighunstoppable in combat too, regardless of the fluff.

As far as I can tell, you just gave examples of the principle above illustrated in the context of group, both in terms of mechanics and RP.

Nevar
2007-10-12, 11:33 AM
Didn't read all the posts but here are my 2 cents.

No matter what you do you'll optimize in some form or fasion. You play a Hero and Hero's always have at least one thing they can do. You may not be the best in the group at it but you can still do it.

No sure if this logic would make sense to most people but I perfor not to optimize the character but optomize the game.

Winterwind
2007-10-12, 11:43 AM
To me optimisation primarily means "choosing the skills and abilities of a character in such a way as to best represent the character the player wants to impersonate", and in that sense, every player optimises as much as possible. Not due to an obligation, but because everyone wants to play the character they thought of, not some other.

As for the power level, no, there is no obligation to optimise in that sense whatsoever, and neither is there need for it - no matter the strength of a character, every character can still play their part in the story as the player sees fit and as the DM presents opportunities to do so. The hobbits didn't have the power of Gandalf or Aragorn, and yet each of them was part of a fascinating story and I'm sure if it had been a roleplaying campaign (and from the content, it easily might have been) the players playing them would have had a blast. If a character is not good in combat I, as DM, will try to give the character in question something more interesting to do while the other characters have to fight.

Finally, as for the players making characters who fit together, in our group it usually works by them telling me who they want to play and me making suggestions as to how modify their concepts if the characters would be completely incompatible otherwise; it happens rather rarely though, usually I find some way to make them work together.

Kaelik
2007-10-12, 12:25 PM
As for the power level, no, there is no obligation to optimise in that sense whatsoever, and neither is there need for it - no matter the strength of a character, every character can still play their part in the story as the player sees fit and as the DM presents opportunities to do so. The hobbits didn't have the power of Gandalf or Aragorn, and yet each of them was part of a fascinating story and I'm sure if it had been a roleplaying campaign (and from the content, it easily might have been) the players playing them would have had a blast. If a character is not good in combat I, as DM, will try to give the character in question something more interesting to do while the other characters have to fight.

Actually, as per DM of the Ring, the Hobbit players all quit, So they didn't have a blast.

AKA_Bait
2007-10-12, 12:26 PM
As for the power level, no, there is no obligation to optimise in that sense whatsoever, and neither is there need for it - no matter the strength of a character, every character can still play their part in the story as the player sees fit and as the DM presents opportunities to do so... If a character is not good in combat I, as DM, will try to give the character in question something more interesting to do while the other characters have to fight.


You sir are a kind, gentle, and clearly able DM. Not all are so fortunate. The 'obligation' which is, I'll admit, too strong a word for it, really is nothing more than an extension of 'how can I make my friends lives easier'. If the DM is not particularly experienced or the group expects particular kinds of contributions from a player, certianly one can still play whatever concept and power level they like but in doing so they make things harder on their DM, who now has to come up with separate tasks for your character in particular and the other players if the DM is not prepared for a particular character being weaker, as their characters will have to pick up the slack in combat, potentially getting killed or spending lots of resources (such as spells and limited use items) in the process.

Certianly, there was no issue with Pippin Took running about in the Lord of the Rings but Tolkien, as author (or DM for the analogy), knew what they were and what to expect from the characters, and could prepare an adventure where Pippin could do something and Eowyn not get killed as a result of his lack of combat prowess. The issues with optimization come in when a character is signifigantly more or less powerful than the DM has anticipated and challenges are consequentially much easier or more difficult.

As a DM, it's annoying when that happens and requires a lot of work to fix whatever you had planned to match the new powerlevels of the group. It's courtesy to let your DM and players know what to expect from your chracter, and if the DM or your group express that your plan will be troublesome, to change it. This is a group game afterall...

valadil
2007-10-12, 01:03 PM
For the most part we don't worry about players not holding their weight. We do have one player that insists on gimping all his characters to increase roleplayability and that can get irritating, but usually the DM is willing and able to plan around it.

Our group is also usually able to help each other in terms of optimizing. It's not like we all show up with our own builds and see who is best and who just fails.

While character optimizations haven't been an issue, we have had some problems with players sucking at tactics and screwing over the rest of the group. Thankfully its a problem infrequently enough that no real issues have ever come of it.

Solo
2007-10-12, 01:08 PM
For me, a player must do the following:

1) Be respectful of everyone at the table (Don't be a jerk, listen to the DM, no Pun Pun)

2) Be willing to role play.

3) Be an asset to the party; non-optimized characters are ok, but please don't shoot yourself in the foot when designing a character.

Swordguy
2007-10-12, 01:12 PM
Rule of character creation:

1) The rest of the party shouldn't feel useless
2) Don't be a ****, in or out of character

Past that, it's all good.

Winterwind
2007-10-12, 02:59 PM
Actually, as per DM of the Ring, the Hobbit players all quit, So they didn't have a blast.I know, but in that campaign, absolutely nobody had a blast (except for Übermunchkin Legolas maybe). However, in discussions about roleplaying games, I prefer to assume a DM and players who might have been born on this planet, instead of being spawned somewhere in the vast void of space under strange stars to the insane piping of blind ancient gods, where the laws of nature and Euclidean geometry are no more. :smallwink:


You sir are a kind, gentle, and clearly able DM. Not all are so fortunate. The 'obligation' which is, I'll admit, too strong a word for it, really is nothing more than an extension of 'how can I make my friends lives easier'. Reading what I wrote in my last post another time I must apologise; I think I came off arrogantly where I merely wished to share how it works in our group. Whether I am such a good DM as you say I don't know, that's for my players to decide, but thank you for your kind words. :smallwink:
All of what I am about to write is meant merely as conversation and means to communicate how it may be done; I do not wish to say that this is the only valid or a better way to play.


If the DM is not particularly experienced or the group expects particular kinds of contributions from a player, certianly one can still play whatever concept and power level they like but in doing so they make things harder on their DM, who now has to come up with separate tasks for your character in particular and the other players if the DM is not prepared for a particular character being weaker, as their characters will have to pick up the slack in combat, potentially getting killed or spending lots of resources (such as spells and limited use items) in the process. This seems to assume that the DM or the group determined the power level before character creation. I see how that might be necessary if the DM had a particular story to tell or had spent years creating the world in detail (although even then I would argue that lowering a few numbers shouldn't be that much of a burden), but generally I think many of the problems you describe can be avoided by choosing the power level only after character creation. As for the seperate tasks - in my opinion there should always be seperate tasks for each character, as to accommodate their differences and give each of them opportunities for unique contributions - that makes the story much more satisfying.


Certianly, there was no issue with Pippin Took running about in the Lord of the Rings but Tolkien, as author (or DM for the analogy), knew what they were and what to expect from the characters, and could prepare an adventure where Pippin could do something and Eowyn not get killed as a result of his lack of combat prowess. The issues with optimization come in when a character is signifigantly more or less powerful than the DM has anticipated and challenges are consequentially much easier or more difficult. This is why I think it is better to develop the entire campaign only after the characters have been created. This allows to create a story specifically designed for these characters, and no others*1, thus incorporating them much more into the story.
Also, I have found (albeit that's probably just me) that it works better to develop specific adventures only before they are to be played, and not ahead, and the more is improvised, the better. That way, there is much less risk of railroading - one hasn't spent so much time planning ahead, so it is not so bad if the players do something completely different, and one is not bound to bring them to any specific point at the end of the adventure. Also, one sees how well the various characters do and can adjust the next adventure accordingly - even taking such things into account as low HP at the end of the last session and therefore plan either a somewhat more relaxing adventure to allow the characters to regenerate, or to make an adventure where the characters really get to understand the meaning of "exhaustion" and make that a theme for the session.
Basically, what I am saying is that a too low power level becomes a problem only if one made assumptions and planned ahead before learning of the power level. If one takes the opposite approach this problem does not occur (and one gets a whole bunch of other benefits as well).


As a DM, it's annoying when that happens and requires a lot of work to fix whatever you had planned to match the new powerlevels of the group. It's courtesy to let your DM and players know what to expect from your chracter, and if the DM or your group express that your plan will be troublesome, to change it. This is a group game afterall...Definitely, and we have had character concepts which were dropped due to incompatibilities already - although these were always fluff incompatibilities, never mechanical ones. Still, in my opinion since the players are the protagonists, the only thing really relevant within that entire world, I think it's the story that should adjust to them, not the other way around.

*1 Which may be problematic if characters die. Fortunately, this hasn't ever happened in our group yet, even though the players insist that there may not be something like a plot shield that protects them.