A party diichotomy

[Calthropstu]

The game I am currently in, wrath of the rightous, has taken a... turn.

Our party is comprised of 5 players. A ranger, a paladin, a bard, a sorcerer and a shaman/summoner.

The ranger, paladin and sorcerer are moderately high powered. The bard deliberately made himself weak, while the sommoner/shaman is unintentionally terrible. His eidolon can't hit our enemies despite having top tier gear. His spells are 3 spell levels behind, his caster level is 5 levels behind. He didn't theurge, he literally took 5 levels of summoner and 8 levels of shaman. These 2 classes do not complement each other in any way. We went up against a nalfeshnee and he was completely unable to contribute. He ended up using his eidolon to use the aid another action so the paladin got a bonus to hit.

He and the bard are complaining that the three useful characters are simply overpowered and that the adventure path is written to cater to "munchkins."

They want to end the ap and start another campaign. At least 2 of us are vehemently opposed to this course of action because it keeps happening. The moment we enter 12th level or higher, these two players start complaining. And by 14th, we're making characters for a new campaign and "we'll start it back up later" but never do.

How would you guys handle this?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Some players have no interest in system mastery (or choose to forsake it), and often their characters are good enough in the early to mid levels, but the differences become more significant into the higher levels. They need to be made aware of what level a game expects to reach, and figure out a way for their character to contribute toward the end of that.

It honestly looks like they're a bad fit for your group as a whole. A Nalfeshnee is CR 14, a suitable challenge for a party of five 12th level characters, as long as it doesn't summon something else. If they think facing suitable challenges means the adventure caters to "munchkins" then I don't think that word means what they think it means. If they don't understand the game and don't want to learn to play better, maybe they should play something else.

[Maat Mons]

Try to explain to them that, in this system, higher-levels are not meant to play like lower-levels scaled up.

What they are seeing is just what high levels are like. They don't like high-level D&D. That's a valid way to feel. It's really a matter of taste, and the e6 and e8 variants were cooked up to appeal to people just like them.

Unfortunately, the other player's do enjoy high-level D&D, and it would be unfair to them to never play above mid levels.



If you're feeling up to it, maybe you could run an e6 or e8 game on alternating weeks with the current adventure path?

And it might not hurt to let them rebuild their characters. Or make new characters. Maybe if they tried this content with characters who are actually up to the challenge, it wouldn't seem so bad.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm GM, the two whiners get a stern talking to and an invitation to see the door if they don't like how I run things.

Here's the thing, if I'm gming, I've looked over everyone's characters and they'll have already been warned, repeatedly, that where they're going with those characters is going to lead to struggles down the road and I'm not going to drop a game the rest of the group is enjoying now that the chickens are coming home to roost as predicted.

Further, retraining is -always- available in my games. If your character is having a great deal of trouble, you can come to me for a rebuild side-quest. I'd probably have already suggested it before in the situation you've described. In the meantime, I -can- deus ex something in to give you a temporary power-boost until you can actually go do that rebuild quest if it just plain doesn't make sense to do it right now, as long as you're hard committing to that rebuild quest.

The accusation of munchkinism would particularly rankle to the point I'd give serious consideration to giving one or both of them the boot anyway. That's a pretty severe accusation to my mind. It carries connotations of cheating that I very seriously do not appreciate.

No module or AP is written "for munchkins." If a ranger and paladin are keeping up just fine, then it's probably not even poorly written. The bard could -probably- be helped with a few tips on how he might better handle things with the abilities he's got but there's no two ways about the shaman/summoner needing a complete overhaul. 3rd level spells and an eidolon that's comparable to something from SM IV just isn't going to cut it at 13+ and it shouldn't take a rocket-surgery degree to understand that.


If I'm not the GM and the one we're under isn't on roughly the same page I am here, I give serious consideration to walking. No game is better than a bad one catering to whiners.

[Fizban]

He didn't theurge, he literally took 5 levels of summoner and 8 levels of shaman. These 2 classes do not complement each other in any way.
And thus, the DM should not have allowed such a character.

The bard deliberately made himself weak
Again, if the character is obviously too weak to stand alongside the rest of the party, the DM should not have allowed such a character.

He and the bard are complaining that the three useful characters are simply overpowered and that the adventure path is written to cater to "munchkins."

They want to end the ap and start another campaign. At least 2 of us are vehemently opposed to this course of action because it keeps happening. The moment we enter 12th level or higher, these two players start complaining. And by 14th, we're making characters for a new campaign and "we'll start it back up later" but never do.
I've found many adventures are actually quite blatantly over-leveled and/or full of tactical advantages foes with no increase in rewards for the danger or counter-advantages for the PCs.

That said, if 3/5 of the party and the DM can handle it, then the group split is against the remaining 2 PCs/players.

How would you guys handle this?
Undo whatever the Bard did to deliberately weaken themselves, figure out what the shaman/summoner actually wants to do and rebuild their character to do it.

Unless there are further problems in their not wanting to play in the style of high level 3.x DnD in general, in which case that is a separate issue that must be addressed. And again, with 3/5+DM wanting to play at high levels, and the group having apparently capitulated and ditched high level play multiple times in the past, the remainder are already at a deficit in negotiations.


A Nalfeshnee is CR 14, a suitable challenge for a party of five 12th level characters,
At +2 levels above the party, it is a Very Difficult encounter. Expected for around 15% of encounters, or approximately twice per level, where one PC might very well die, and which may be even more dangerous because the party does not immediately realize a need to flee.

Having a 5th character could make that easier, or not- and since one of the party members was essentially useless, but also capable of soaking up buffs and healing, they were quite possibly working at a disadvantage. The DM's tactial use of a Nalhafshnee will also be a critical factor, as they have Greater Dispel Magic and Feeblemind at-will, as well as the party's alignment thanks to Unholy Aura at-will.

[Calthropstu]

And thus, the DM should not have allowed such a character.

Again, if the character is obviously too weak to stand alongside the rest of the party, the DM should not have allowed such a character.

I've found many adventures are actually quite blatantly over-leveled and/or full of tactical advantages foes with no increase in rewards for the danger or counter-advantages for the PCs.

That said, if 3/5 of the party and the DM can handle it, then the group split is against the remaining 2 PCs/players.

Undo whatever the Bard did to deliberately weaken themselves, figure out what the shaman/summoner actually wants to do and rebuild their character to do it.

Unless there are further problems in their not wanting to play in the style of high level 3.x DnD in general, in which case that is a separate issue that must be addressed. And again, with 3/5+DM wanting to play at high levels, and the group having apparently capitulated and ditched high level play multiple times in the past, the remainder are already at a deficit in negotiations.


At +2 levels above the party, it is a Very Difficult encounter. Expected for around 15% of encounters, or approximately twice per level, where one PC might very well die, and which may be even more dangerous because the party does not immediately realize a need to flee.

Having a 5th character could make that easier, or not- and since one of the party members was essentially useless, but also capable of soaking up buffs and healing, they were quite possibly working at a disadvantage. The DM's tactial use of a Nalhafshnee will also be a critical factor, as they have Greater Dispel Magic and Feeblemind at-will, as well as the party's alignment thanks to Unholy Aura at-will.

The paladin is a crit-fish build critting on a 15-20. His crit does along the line of 90 damage on a smite. He generally crits at least once per full attack.

The ranger is a beast. GM allowed him to be half dragon, with an adaptive bow and a huge supply of specialty arrows. He almost never misses, his to hit is hovering around +25 or 30. With around 27 damage per hit, and his crits getting extra damage for about 100 damage total, between the two of them it doesn't take long for them to drop powerful boss monsters. Their biggest weakness is monster hordes

The sorcerer (me) utilizes summons to provide flanking, hold enemies at bay and provide a wall of flesh for me and the archer to hide behind.

The bard is a debuff bard rather than a buff bard. His reasoning: the ranger and paladin already hit too often. So providing a debuff will lessen their damage and help keep us alive. In addition, he puts up an anti-summoning barrier which damages summons and reditects where they appear... (read what my sorcerer does and you start to understand the problem.)

The summoner shaman sank most of his money into his eidelon's ac. The eidelon has an impressive ac (38 last I heard) but only has about +15 to hit. And that is WITH a +3 evil outsider bane long sword. (counts as +5 against evil outsiders.) The damage is negligible, dealing about 15 damage per hit.

So yeah. It's a hot mess.

As for the +2 part, it was a boss monster the first time we fought it at lvl 12. We then immediately leveled right after and are now lvl 13. We then fought another one. It dropped me the first time because I literally couldn't move. I was perfotming a ritual. The second time was much easier.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

At +2 levels above the party, it is a Very Difficult encounter. Expected for around 15% of encounters, or approximately twice per level, where one PC might very well die, and which may be even more dangerous because the party does not immediately realize a need to flee.

Five level 12's rate a CR 12 at Easy, CR 13-16 as Very Difficult. So it's on the low end of the Very Difficult range. Still a reasonable encounter for a party with powerful characters.

[Fizban]

According to an encounter calculator someone wrote, using their idea of a formula, not the original text. The DMG does not claim nearly so much precision as people want there to be (at least not the 3.5 one, wouldn't be surprised if Pathfinder made that mistake). There is also no such thing as "low end," the DMG makes it very clear that even a single encounter one above the party's level might tax them to their limits. Which leaves room that it might not, but does not have anything like the level of safety suggested by saying "low end" of Very Difficult.


The paladin is a crit-fish build critting on a 15-20. His crit does along the line of 90 damage on a smite. He generally crits at least once per full attack.

The ranger is a beast. GM allowed him to be half dragon, with an adaptive bow and a huge supply of specialty arrows. He almost never misses, his to hit is hovering around +25 or 30. With around 27 damage per hit, and his crits getting extra damage for about 100 damage total, between the two of them it doesn't take long for them to drop powerful boss monsters. Their biggest weakness is monster hordes

The sorcerer (me) utilizes summons to provide flanking, hold enemies at bay and provide a wall of flesh for me and the archer to hide behind.
I figured you must have some serious oomph if you fought something over-level without complaint while some of the party was useless.

The bard is a debuff bard rather than a buff bard. His reasoning: the ranger and paladin already hit too often. So providing a debuff will lessen their damage and help keep us alive. In addition, he puts up an anti-summoning barrier which damages summons and reditects where they appear... (read what my sorcerer does and you start to understand the problem.)
Your bard. . . debuffs your own party? Or the former is supposed to be that they're debuffing since the party lacks any healing or defensive buffing. . . and then they cast a spell which blatantly interferes with your primary tactic and barely affects the vast majority of enemies.

As for the +2 part, it was a boss monster the first time we fought it at lvl 12. We then immediately leveled right after and are now lvl 13. We then fought another one. It dropped me the first time because I literally couldn't move. I was perfotming a ritual. The second time was much easier.
Yup, sounds reasonable.

[Calthropstu]

According to an encounter calculator someone wrote, using their idea of a formula, not the original text. The DMG does not claim nearly so much precision as people want there to be (at least not the 3.5 one, wouldn't be surprised if Pathfinder made that mistake). There is also no such thing as "low end," the DMG makes it very clear that even a single encounter one above the party's level might tax them to their limits. Which leaves room that it might not, but does not have anything like the level of safety suggested by saying "low end" of Very Difficult.


I figured you must have some serious oomph if you fought something over-level without complaint while some of the party was useless.

Your bard. . . debuffs your own party? Or the former is supposed to be that they're debuffing since the party lacks any healing or defensive buffing. . . and then they cast a spell which blatantly interferes with your primary tactic and barely affects the vast majority of enemies.

Yup, sounds reasonable.

The entire party has healing. Me via summons, the shaman via... something. Not sure what, but it did come in handy a few times. The paladin has channel and lay on hanfs in addition to a leadership cleric. The bard because bard. So healing isn't a problem.

The bard debuffs the enemies. All of our enemies are either demons or summon demons. So a lot of enemy summoning can occur. The aura also damages anything trying to teleport in or out. Since demon teleportation is a thing, it's a valid tactic. I have to summon outside of his 50 foot aura which isn't a problem as I have a 60 foot summon range. It's still a hassle. And a buff bard would greatly synergize with my summons. -2 to all enemy attacks and damage isn't near as useful as the +6 he could grant my summons.

[Fizban]

Sounds like you know what you want to suggest for the bard then, so it's just the other left. I've no idea what shaman does (though I presume it's another PF class), but since they've got 8 shaman to the 5 summoner I would suggest they change to full shaman. Except if they've spent all their cash on upgrading their eidolon's AC, it's clearly important to them- so maybe see if whatever they've getting from shaman can be grafted onto a full summoner build instead.

[AvatarVecna]

The bard deliberately made himself weak

...

He and the bard are complaining that the three useful characters are simply overpowered and that the adventure path is written to cater to "munchkins."

Without commenting on anything else, I just wanna say that this is hilarious.

"I'm gonna deliberately build my character for fairly nonoptimal tactics and strategies!"

[tactics and strategies prove to be nonoptimal]

shockedpikachu.jpg

If the bard player wishes to locate the person who is to blame for him being weak and having a bad time, might I suggest loaning him a mirror?

[MoiMagnus]

3.X reward system mastery. It rewards even more trying to build a good character.
While I might be wrong, I don't think the bard willingly wanted to have a weak character. I just think the player refused to compromise with the system, and to bend his character concept and not take the abilities that he think his character "should have" thematically just because they are objectively bad. And in the end, he is unhappy that the game designers made his character concept bad.

When the whole team is like that, it's not that bad. You just overlevel them. As a GM, you literally stop increasing the powerlevel of the enemies up until the challenge is acceptable (that's the balance that naturally happen in video game, if a game is too hard the player will remain longer in low level area and then go through the remaining of the game while being significantly overlevel). You might need to increase XP rewards by some factor to compensate that overleveled PCs advance much slower than usual.

When the team is mixed, that's much more of a mess. Balance-wise, you could grand few level up to the weak characters. But that would not necessarily feel "fair" to the other players, and would break the "XP as a reward" as you literally gave free XP as a compensation for being bad at the game.

[This gap in powerlevel in 3.X when players play with different mindsets is one of the core reasons why 5e is popular. While the gap still exists, it is much much smaller.]

[Quertus]

He and the bard are complaining that the three useful characters are simply overpowered and that the adventure path is written to cater to "munchkins."

They want to end the ap and start another campaign. At least 2 of us are vehemently opposed to this course of action because it keeps happening. The moment we enter 12th level or higher, these two players start complaining. And by 14th, we're making characters for a new campaign and "we'll start it back up later" but never do.

How would you guys handle this?

Balance to the table… and the module.

The 2 players have clearly failed to do so.

This would be explained to them, hard.

They would get it, they would stop ruining everyone else's fun, or they would leave.

Also, we would finish that AP, then resume the ones that their whining incompetence had put on hold. And, quite possibly, never play below 14th level again. At least not for a few years. Until repetition had worked their former drives out of their system.

Wanting to be useless is fine. Balance is a range, not a point. If the table is fine with the range of Not!Thor to the Sentient Potted Plant, great.

But you don't get to build a Sentient Potted Plant, then complain that the other PCs have the ability to manipulate their environment that the module was clearly written expecting the PCs to be able to do.

[illyahr]

As stated above, 4/6 players (including the DM) are running through the adventure appropriately. You need to stop messing with 2/3 of the people just to satisfy the other 1/3. By the teens, players should know how to run their characters and what they need to do to support the party. It seems that your players fail to do this every game you play.

You need to talk to your bard and Sha/Sum. The Sha/Sum needs to switch to mass summoning (which both classes are good at) and the bard needs to switch to group buff instead of debuff (which isn't too useful against high-CR targets unless you invest feats into it). By spamming the field with summoned creatures that have been mass-buffed, you can pull off flanking maneuvers and BFC (summon a lot of wolves for chain-tripping, etc).

[BettaGeorge]

On a less harsh note than some of the replies here and in the interest of staying friends with these people – please understand that it is completely valid to play DnD the way the shaman and bard do! They seem to want to play low-powered, roleplaying-focused, and that is fine and doable with 3.5, als long as the entire party does it.

Likewise, it is completely valid to want to play 3.5 the way it was designed, i.e. high-powered and with a focus on strategic character building.

The problem here is that while both of these play styles are fine, they are not compatible.

I would explain this to the players to that they understand that you are not trying to hurt them out of personal spite. Since three fifths of your group (two thirds if the DM agrees) prefer the latter way of playing, I would say that this group is a high-powered strategic group and anyone who can not live with that is simply not a good fit for the party. So they can either adjust their way of playing and see whether that is also fun for them, or they can stop whining and leave for another group (maybe with the same people, maybe with different people). Leaving a pen&paper group is not a sign that you do not get along as human beings, it may just mean that you have incompatible ideas about that particular hobby. People forget that and make a big emotional issue out of it. I am friends with all the people in my playgroup, but if one of them leaves because they do not like mystery-driven campaigns, I understand that it is not that they hate me and wish I would die, but that they just want something else from the game. That is no worse than not going running with your boyfriend because you want to train for a marathon while he prefers powerwalking.

If the players do agree to try out the new playstyle, cut them some slack. Let them rebuild their characters. You are well into prestige class territory, so have the DM whip up a custom prestige class that allows the shaman to focus mostly on their eidolon in combat. Give the eidolon some serious combat power to complement the rest of the group. The shaman player might actually enjoy that! Remember one of the most overlooked sentences in the DMG: The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself!

If the players are simply not that good at optimizing, give them a hand! 3.5 options, especially with Complete [something] books, are daunting! Tell them a few options and let them decide which one to pursue. Introduce custom magic items that fit their roleplaying flavor while making them stronger in combat. There is nothing wrong with giving certain characters "overpowered" items if the end result is that they are just as strong or a little weaker in combat than the "normal" optimized characters.

That is my opinion. I know some people disagree about handling things this way, but that is okay, because we do not have to play in the same group ;-)

Remember that the most important thing is that everyone has fun. If there is a way to achieve that, great. If there is not, some of you will have to leave, because then the remaining players will still have fun, and the ones who left can spend their Saturday night with something that is fun for them as well. Either way, everyone wins unless you start a big fight about it.

Cheers!

[MoiMagnus]

They want to end the ap and start another campaign. At least 2 of us are vehemently opposed to this course of action because it keeps happening. The moment we enter 12th level or higher, these two players start complaining. And by 14th, we're making characters for a new campaign and "we'll start it back up later" but never do.

How would you guys handle this?

I think there need to be a serious and adult discussion. Polite, but direct.
From what you say here, it is reasonably clear that the two of them do not intend to ever play above 14th level, because they just don't enjoy it. I'd advise against trying to force them into a high level campaign, this will just lead to a toxic atmosphere.

So the table should accept that they will likely never play level 14th or higher (which is current situation, except that peoples are honest about it rather than saying "we will come back to it latter"), or should continue without them.

Possibly both if you want to find a compromise, their two characters leave the group, and you play in parallel a casual low level campaign that start back from scratch every time the team reach level 10 (only with those interested interested) and a high level campaign (only with those interested).

And try to be direct enough so that peoples don't stick with a campaign they don't like just because of the "fear of missing out".

[Thunder999]

Honestly that bard sounds like a horrible player, not only did he deliberately make a bad character then complain when the rest of the party are competent, he's actively hindering the sorcerer's summoning out of spite.

You certainly shouldn't ruin things for the rest of the group because two people don't want to face level appropriate challenges and want to actively screw the party over rathert than trying.

[nedz]

This sounds like a play-style issue: where different players have different goals in playing the game.

You are unlikely to be able to fix this and there are no in game solutions since it's a meta-game issue.

Your options are to either break the group, only play at low level or lump it.

[Quertus]

Honestly that bard sounds like a horrible player, not only did he deliberately make a bad character then complain when the rest of the party are competent, he's actively hindering the sorcerer's summoning out of spite.

You certainly shouldn't ruin things for the rest of the group because two people don't want to face level appropriate challenges and want to actively screw the party over rathert than trying.

I'm torn on this one.

I mean, yes, I agree about "deliberately bad + complain". That's very much a "give me a good solution, or there's the door" combination. I made a Sentient Potted Plant for peat moss's sake - I'm not going to condemn making weak characters. But when you intentionally make such a character, then complain? That complaint had better be, "I made a mistake, I need to boost my character, or make a whole new one".

But summons vs anti-summons? Given the campaign, I'm not completely certain that the Determinator wouldn't say that it's the *sorcerer* who is at fault here. *Either* of them has a completely valid tactic; *both* seem to be blaming the other for not matching their playstyle.

Best answer, IMO, would be for them to invent a way for the sorcerer to ignore the summon bane. And for the sorcerer to take a summons-buffing cohort. Then they could have their cake, and eat it too.


On a less harsh note than some of the replies here and in the interest of staying friends with these people – please understand that it is completely valid to play DnD the way the shaman and bard do! They seem to want to play low-powered,

Absolutely agree. Completely valid way to play D&D. *Not* a valid way to play the modules / APs that they've been using, though.

Balance to the table… and the module.

These players have, objectively, failed.


roleplaying-focused

Are you sure? Maybe I missed it, but they could just be low-power war gamers from what I remember.


The problem here is that while both of these play styles are fine, they are not compatible.

They are compatible, so long as you don't care about balance / so long as your balance range is broad enough. That's how I can relish games of Not!Thor and the Sentient Potted Plant.


I would explain this to the players to that they understand that you are not trying to hurt them out of personal spite. Since three fifths of your group (two thirds if the DM agrees) prefer the latter way of playing, I would say that this group is a high-powered strategic group

"high-powered strategic group"? Not really. They're an "AP appropriate" group. Which is more like mid-OP. Whereas the Bard is (supposedly) sabotaging their own character.


If the players do agree to try out the new playstyle, cut them some slack. Let them rebuild their characters. You are well into prestige class territory, so have the DM whip up a custom prestige class that allows the shaman to focus mostly on their eidolon in combat. Give the eidolon some serious combat power to complement the rest of the group. The shaman player might actually enjoy that! Remember one of the most overlooked sentences in the DMG: The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself!

Agreed - kudos for catching that! Very few do.


If the players are simply not that good at optimizing, give them a hand! 3.5 options, especially with Complete [something] books, are daunting! Tell them a few options and let them decide which one to pursue. Introduce custom magic items that fit their roleplaying flavor while making them stronger in combat. There is nothing wrong with giving certain characters "overpowered" items if the end result is that they are just as strong or a little weaker in combat than the "normal" optimized characters.

Also a good call.


Remember that the most important thing is that everyone has fun.

Agreed.

My concern is with the type of people the 2 are, with how willing they are to hurt everyone else's fun. That is, there are enough red flags that the OP's group should work to eliminate the possibility that these are problem players before continuing - and, if they *are* problem players, should eliminate the problems, or eliminate the players.

Maybe I'm biased. Maybe my experiences are atypical. But, IME, the combination of self nerf + complain modules are built for munchkins + act against other characters + "come back to it later" dishonesty + tank games that others are enjoying despite their attempts at sabotage? That isn't a sign of a salvageable player, IME.

[Thurbane]

And thus, the DM should not have allowed such a character.

Again, if the character is obviously too weak to stand alongside the rest of the party, the DM should not have allowed such a character.

I'm not a fan of the DM telling players what characters they can and cannot play (barring table/campaign specific restrictions which apply to everyone).

The DM can certainly have a word with the player, express concerns at the character's ability to meaningfully contribute to the party, and offer to help the player build a character that suits his vision of what he wants, while still being an effective PC. Or, as suggested, allow retraining.

But the DM saying "No, that's not allowed" seems a little draconian to me.

[Nifft]

This sounds like a play-style issue: where different players have different goals in playing the game.

You are unlikely to be able to fix this and there are no in game solutions since it's a meta-game issue.

Your options are to either break the group, only play at low level or lump it.

Yeah.

4th option is to sit down and make the 2 players who have been implicitly sabotaging high-level play face the consensus that they are not being fair about the preferences of the others at the table.

This is inherently somewhat confrontational, so it's very easy to see it not going well, and if it doesn't go well then you're back to "break the group", but at least you've got a chance.

[nedz]

Yeah.

4th option is to sit down and make the 2 players who have been implicitly sabotaging high-level play face the consensus that they are not being fair about the preferences of the others at the table.

This is inherently somewhat confrontational, so it's very easy to see it not going well, and if it doesn't go well then you're back to "break the group", but at least you've got a chance.

Well that *might* work. Most likely you will provoke the crisis which breaks the group.

[Twurps]

I feel the need to stick up for quite a few of the players described.

Please realize that whilst people on this forum are very knowledgeable, and have great advice (mostly anyway). Their general skill level is WAY WAY WAY above that of your average d&d player. So stuff that seems very obvious here, isn't all that obvious to other people, and where we tend to see 'bad intentions' or 'wrong attitudes' much of it might also just be (series of) simple misunderstandings.

For the 2 weak players: As has been suggested, they might not really grasp what 'munchkin' means. They might simply be expressing that they feel unhappy with the power level they are reaching vs the power level of the campaign. And that would be a valid complain.
The average player might also not be as quick as the forum members here in understanding the power level disparity at higher levels, and the value of the advice/warnings given to this end. Some people just need to experience this for themselves before really getting it.

As for the bard: Making your character intentionally weaker might be a very laudable choice, in an attempt to align power levels more with the 2 players above. And having a build that doesn't mesh well with the sorcerer might be an honest mistake/misunderstanding. Or it might be intentional, to give both him and the sorcerer something of a challenge whilst still keeping power levels down for the first 2 players.
As for the complaining: Maybe he gimped himself harder then he expected. Maybe he expected the other powerful players to gimp themselves as well. Or maybe this is his first attempt at gimping his build, and he now realized how much he does NOT enjoy it.

So: My advice from personal experience (DM-ing and playing in a group with very different playstyles, skill levels and 'op-fu'): Have a good 'out of character' talk about what makes this game fun for everybody involved. What makes this particular group work/fun for everybody involved, and make changes accordingly.
Changes could include(in a mix, in varying degrees):
-help the 2 weak players with a more powerful build, either through hits and tips about their character options, better gear, retraining or an outright new character (build it for them if they don't enjoy building it).
-Tone down the 2 most powerful builds. (I know paladin is a challenging class, but is 'leadership cleric' really needed?)
-Mixing up sessions to cater to different styles. Maybe have some high powered play to clear the dungeon/ruins, mixed up with more 'social encounter' sessions once you get back to town to sell your loot.

First and foremost though: Have 'the talk'. Be open minded, assume everybody is doing his/her best and is in this with a positive attitude, and make sure you all understand each other's point of view. none of the above will ever work without 'the talk'. Also: don't assume one good talk is going to be all it takes. 'the talk' is something you have regularly, specially when you're going into uncharted territories power level wise.

And of course, parting ways is always an option, and sometimes a necessity, but it shouldn't be your 'go to' option.

[Jay R]

Here are the principles I will apply to this situation.

1. Nobody should be forced to play a game that they do not enjoy.
2. Nobody should be forced out of a game that they do enjoy.
3. Anybody has the right to try to talk anybody into anything.

I therefore conclude that these two players can drop out at any time, and can try to talk the other three into dropping out and starting a new game.

The other three players can continue playing, and can try to talk the first 2 into changing to characters that the three believe would be more enjoyable for the two.

So talk, or keep playing with three players. Try to convince the other two that building a fun, useful character is their responsibility.

[If the DM had asked for my advice, I’d suggest inventing a couple of magic items that would boost a bard and a shaman-summoner. Also, the DM, not the three, needs to state clearly, “These characters are not overpowered. They are solid thirteenth level PCs. Your two PCs are underpowered.” He should probably allow them to modify their characters, and offer to help them do so, starting with re-designing the shaman-summoner as a mystic theurge, or as a shaman with the Leadership feat and a summoner cohort. I would also start including some lower-level minions for the bad guys, so the bard and shaman-summoner have something they can affect.

But the DM didn’t ask.]

The three do not have to quit a fun game, or nerf their own PCs. They have done nothing wrong. But they should consider what they can do to help their friends, using information about their friends that we don't have.

[Calthropstu]

I feel the need to stick up for quite a few of the players described.

Please realize that whilst people on this forum are very knowledgeable, and have great advice (mostly anyway). Their general skill level is WAY WAY WAY above that of your average d&d player. So stuff that seems very obvious here, isn't all that obvious to other people, and where we tend to see 'bad intentions' or 'wrong attitudes' much of it might also just be (series of) simple misunderstandings.

For the 2 weak players: As has been suggested, they might not really grasp what 'munchkin' means. They might simply be expressing that they feel unhappy with the power level they are reaching vs the power level of the campaign. And that would be a valid complain.
The average player might also not be as quick as the forum members here in understanding the power level disparity at higher levels, and the value of the advice/warnings given to this end. Some people just need to experience this for themselves before really getting it.

As for the bard: Making your character intentionally weaker might be a very laudable choice, in an attempt to align power levels more with the 2 players above. And having a build that doesn't mesh well with the sorcerer might be an honest mistake/misunderstanding. Or it might be intentional, to give both him and the sorcerer something of a challenge whilst still keeping power levels down for the first 2 players.
As for the complaining: Maybe he gimped himself harder then he expected. Maybe he expected the other powerful players to gimp themselves as well. Or maybe this is his first attempt at gimping his build, and he now realized how much he does NOT enjoy it.

So: My advice from personal experience (DM-ing and playing in a group with very different playstyles, skill levels and 'op-fu'): Have a good 'out of character' talk about what makes this game fun for everybody involved. What makes this particular group work/fun for everybody involved, and make changes accordingly.
Changes could include(in a mix, in varying degrees):
-help the 2 weak players with a more powerful build, either through hits and tips about their character options, better gear, retraining or an outright new character (build it for them if they don't enjoy building it).
-Tone down the 2 most powerful builds. (I know paladin is a challenging class, but is 'leadership cleric' really needed?)
-Mixing up sessions to cater to different styles. Maybe have some high powered play to clear the dungeon/ruins, mixed up with more 'social encounter' sessions once you get back to town to sell your loot.

First and foremost though: Have 'the talk'. Be open minded, assume everybody is doing his/her best and is in this with a positive attitude, and make sure you all understand each other's point of view. none of the above will ever work without 'the talk'. Also: don't assume one good talk is going to be all it takes. 'the talk' is something you have regularly, specially when you're going into uncharted territories power level wise.

And of course, parting ways is always an option, and sometimes a necessity, but it shouldn't be your 'go to' option.

"parting ways" would simply result in me no longer gaming. The gm is renting a room at the bard's house. Both have played with sum/sham for over 20 years. I have played 5 years with them, Ranger only 2 or 3 and Paladin 1.5 years.

So avoiding a showdown is paramount. Which is why I wanted some opinions from here.

[MoiMagnus]

"parting ways" would simply result in me no longer gaming. The gm is renting a room at the bard's house. Both have played with sum/sham for over 20 years. I have played 5 years with them, Ranger only 2 or 3 and Paladin 1.5 years.


Do you know if they always used to restart campaign as soon as they reached level ~12?
Or are they only not enjoying high level any more because of the powergap between their characters and yours?

You didn't specified if they played D&D for 20 years, but if that's the case I'd guess that after 20 years of playing the same game, one might have some very precise idea on how strong a PC should be, and would call munchkin/OP any character which is significantly stronger than what they're used to.

If there is a compromise to be found, the only way is to actually understand them and why they act as they do.

[Learn34]

I don't think you've any good options. If the GM actually wants to run high-level games but is caving to his landlord, there's an implicit worry about needing to find a new place to rent. But with the 20yrs shared experience amongst the GM, Bard, and Sham/Summ, it's far more likely that you, the Ranger, and the Pally are just outside the range they are comfortable playing, and are ultimately in the subordinate position. You're only real options are to find another GM or play the low-level games. If these folks have been playing in the kiddy pool for 20yrs, they're not going to willingly change their ways, and you've got no leverage to force them to do so. As the folks on here have said, no one's keeping you at the table.

I get it, it sucks, but the only alternative would be to pickup being a GM yourself, and you'd still have players that didn't want to play the same game as you (or only have two players).

[Nifft]

"parting ways" would simply result in me no longer gaming. The gm is renting a room at the bard's house. Both have played with sum/sham for over 20 years. I have played 5 years with them, Ranger only 2 or 3 and Paladin 1.5 years.

So avoiding a showdown is paramount. Which is why I wanted some opinions from here.

It might be that the pair of low-level players had such a bad experience at high levels that they are sabotaging the game as it reaches those levels as a self-defense mechanism.


Since they have more political power, and they're using it passive-aggressively to sabotage and undermine rather than being up-front about their preferences, you're facing an uphill struggle unless you can get them to want to change -- and then you're still facing an uphill struggle, but if they want to change then it's at least possible to succeed.

Are you ready to act as a therapist for those two players for the year(s) it might take to work through their bad experience, and allow them to try a game at higher levels? Is that worth your time? It may be mentally and emotionally draining, the opposite of fun, and it may not work, and I may not even be making the correct diagnosis -- the saboteurs may be getting off on having control over you three rather than actually having preference about level range.


The best thing for you may be to reduce your emotional stake by having another gaming alternative (and thus being able to walk out). My advice for non-confrontation is to lump it right now, devote yourself to finding another gaming option, and then once you have the option of walking away you can start negotiating from a position of calmness and strength.

[Calthropstu]

Do you know if they always used to restart campaign as soon as they reached level ~12?
Or are they only not enjoying high level any more because of the powergap between their characters and yours?

You didn't specified if they played D&D for 20 years, but if that's the case I'd guess that after 20 years of playing the same game, one might have some very precise idea on how strong a PC should be, and would call munchkin/OP any character which is significantly stronger than what they're used to.

If there is a compromise to be found, the only way is to actually understand them and why they act as they do.

My first game with them gave me a good indication. I came in with a lvl 9 PF DSP thrallherd psion.

The party makeup was:
A fully pimped out kinetecist with very high damage output (50-100) currently the bard.
An ok soulknife currently the sham/sum.
A reasonable sorc/psychic warrior build by a player no longer here.(sor/psy)

By lvl 14, the psywar/sor had been struggling and the soulknife was useless. Both I and the kineticist carried.

I began running Jade Regent because the gm had to work.
Bard played a "can't touch this" monk. Got his ac to nearly 30 by lvl 4, but couldn't do damage.
Sum/sham played a full wizard.
I brought in a life oracle to round out the party.
Bard died, brought in a barbarian, pimped out with damage. Unluckily, failed 20 saves in a row, forced to separate from party and murdered by a yuki onna. Brought in a ranger, pimped out with damage. Later dropped from campaign due to no longer being able to stand the player that is no longer here.

The bard knows how to build optimal characters. This time he... didn't. Mainly to make sum/sham feel vindicated I think.

[AvatarVecna]

Bard died, brought in a barbarian, pimped out with damage. Unluckily, failed 20 saves in a row, forced to separate from party and murdered by a yuki onna.

That's a sign if ever I saw one. Whatever that character concept was, they're cursed.

[Fizban]

I'm not a fan of the DM telling players what characters they can and cannot play (barring table/campaign specific restrictions which apply to everyone).

The DM can certainly have a word with the player, express concerns at the character's ability to meaningfully contribute to the party, and offer to help the player build a character that suits his vision of what he wants, while still being an effective PC. Or, as suggested, allow retraining.

But the DM saying "No, that's not allowed" seems a little draconian to me.
Not allow can include the whole range of modifications before the bottom line, I was just going straight to the bottom line. But if the player's vision demands something mechanically too-weak to play with the rest of the group, there's not much you can do. As mentioned, in this case I would ask them to pick one of their base classes and try to work whatever it was they wanted from the other one into that class- which I would most likely do directly by just changing the class. Before the game started/as soon as it became obvious what was going to happen.


"parting ways" would simply result in me no longer gaming. The gm is renting a room at the bard's house. Both have played with sum/sham for over 20 years. I have played 5 years with them, Ranger only 2 or 3 and Paladin 1.5 years.

So avoiding a showdown is paramount. Which is why I wanted some opinions from here.
Welp.

The bard knows how to build optimal characters. This time he... didn't. Mainly to make sum/sham feel vindicated I think.
Are you sure they intentionally built weak, or is that your interpretation of their debuff build since a buffing build would be stronger? If they did announce during character creation or otherwise a long time ago that they intentionally lowballed, that should have been a red flag requiring immediate discussion as soon as it happened.

You say the current bard has previously played DPS of 50-100, but I think you said the current DPS is more like 100, multiplied by two characters. They may view this as too much (pretty sure it's more than I'd be okay with actually), especially if it seems like you're I dunno, pocket-meatshielding the ranger.

The two complainers have a history of bad and/or dying characters, whilst the current game has the ranger protected by a line of disposable meatshields from someone who didn't even have to spend money upgrading their eidolon, so a bit of a bad look: "glass" cannons only feel like glass when they're constantly cracking. Have they played with a 5-person party before? With two "DPS" characters?

[BettaGeorge]

"parting ways" would simply result in me no longer gaming. The gm is renting a room at the bard's house. Both have played with sum/sham for over 20 years. I have played 5 years with them, Ranger only 2 or 3 and Paladin 1.5 years.

So avoiding a showdown is paramount. Which is why I wanted some opinions from here.

Not trying to insult you, but in that case you are asking us for an Unlimited Wish, which we simply cannot provide. Once we grow out of our teenage exploratory D&D phase, we all have to accept that if there are such differences in playstyle at the table, there are only two outcomes:



You do not do anything, or you try to solve an outgame problem ingame. As a result, everyone's feelings fester, nothing improves, and sooner or later everyone's fun is utterly ruined.
You have an adult out-of-game discussion about it and find a solution. If the playstyles are not reconcilable, then that solution may well be splitting into two groups. The groups can be disjoint (possibly recruiting new people to fill the party), or they can overlap ("Imma play a bard with this playstyle in our weekly group, and a psion with that playstyle in our monthly group"). They can have the same or different DMs.


Anything that does not address the out-of-game issues will end in version 1. So either you suck it up and play D&D their way, avoiding a confrontation and shutting up about your feelings. Or you suck it up and address the issue.

When it comes to splitting off the group, you ultimately have to decide whether you would rather spend time looking for a new group and thus not play D&D for a while, or rather keep playing D&D that you do not enjoy.

[martixy]

BettaGeorge is on the nose with your general options.

So working on the assumption there's at least one adult willing to pursue the only sensible out-of-game course, I have a proposal for how you might handle it.

Next time you get together for D&D, instead of playing the game, you tell everyone you want to address the problems your group's been having. You get everyone on board with sitting and talking about this like adults. This is the first hurdle. If that proves impossible for some reason (e.g. people behaving like petulant children), then you've already learned your most critical piece of information. Run. Run from this game. If they can't overcome even that simple first step, that's a big enough red flag that I wouldn't want to associate with that person too strongly, let alone share a hobby with them over an extended period of time.
(I guess it is possible they might be in some kind of foul mood in which case you might try the idea one more time later. In either case you're better off not playing that day.)

Assuming you all sit down and talk about it, the next step is to try to work through their problems:

Initial complaint: He and the bard are complaining that the three useful characters are simply overpowered and that the adventure path is written to cater to "munchkins."

Why is that a problem? Is it because they feel they are not contributing and as a result they are not having fun in the game?

Would a more power-balanced party fix their issues? How about helping their characters keep up?

Do they not want optimized characters? Why not?

Are the rules too overwhelming for them? Do they not like how optimized characters play? What about it do they not like? Does it break the fantasy they want out of the character? Do they hold some kind of "munchkin=bad" opinion? Do they not like high-level play?

If they're not willing to compromise their preferred playstyle, are you willing to compromise yours?

Is it logistically feasible to split into 2 groups (someone to DM, enough players) as a potential solution?

Are you willing to split into 2 groups? Are they willing to do the same?

If not, why?


From all of the things I read in this thread, I would suggest you sit with them and create a flow chart with all of these questions in front of them, on the fly. That way you have a written and very visual reference of your progress and a way to address rehashing arguments you've already been through.


DPS of 50-100

Needlessly pedantic note: DPR.

[Jay R]

"parting ways" would simply result in me no longer gaming. The gm is renting a room at the bard's house. Both have played with sum/sham for over 20 years. I have played 5 years with them, Ranger only 2 or 3 and Paladin 1.5 years.

So avoiding a showdown is paramount. Which is why I wanted some opinions from here.

If they've been playing D&D this way for over 20 years, you are not going to convince them to change now.

Ask the DM what he thinks you should do. He has experience with these players, and you don't. And any solution has to be acceptable to him in any case.

[BettaGeorge]

Needlessly pedantic note: DPR.

Nah, 50 to 100 DPS just means they deal 300 to 600 damage per round.

Also, you have taken my general bitching and turned it into something constructive. Can I hire you for my relationship quarrels?

[GrayDeath]

Since one of my only 2 long time groups DIED over a similar Ultimatum, whatever you do, talk to them politely, explain why your characters are built as thsey are, offer help, etc, as has been suggested.

Groupsdying because of a likely misunderstanding regarding charactersis not something to be envied.

[Quertus]

If they're not willing to compromise their preferred playstyle, are you willing to compromise yours?

Although usually really good advice, do note that this solution requires the GM to nerf the entire module down to this level. It isn't a reasonable suggestion, unless the GM is onboard with such a workload.

Were I GM, running a module, and you made such a suggestion, it would not receive a warm welcome.

OTOH, were I GM, running my own content, and you asked for something simpler in certain dimensions? That I could accommodate… either by pointing out easier areas of the sandbox, or with a game restart to an easier point in space time.

Not all GMs can easily do the latter. Nor do all GMs look askance at the former. But my point is, don't assume that this is actually a solution without GM buy-in.


From all of the things I read in this thread, I would suggest you sit with them and create a flow chart with all of these questions in front of them, on the fly. That way you have a written and very visual reference of your progress and a way to address rehashing arguments you've already been through.

That… could be a really good idea… or could be taken poorly, depending on the individuals, and the speaker.

Given the lengths that the players have gone to in order to avoid having an honest conversation, be prepared for the players to… either react poorly to an honest conversation, or to lack the skills to have such a conversation. Or possibly to have some secret agenda, like, "I didn't want to say anything, but I hate your guts".

Of course, the flow chart is excellent for helping with the "lack of skills" scenario. But I'm not sure that there's any way to be prepared for the other two, beyond steeling yourself for the possibility.


Also, you have taken my general bitching and turned it into something constructive. Can I hire you for my relationship quarrels?

If that was your "general bitching", if you have "relationship quarrels" that you feel you need help with, I'll go out on a limb and hypothesize that the problem isn't you. At worst… different communication styles, perhaps.

[martixy]

Also, you have taken my general bitching and turned it into something constructive. Can I hire you for my relationship quarrels?

Only if I can get paid in cake. :smallbiggrin:

@Quertus
All good points. I knew I was missing something. I intended to include questions about the module, since it featured as part of the complaint, but I kind of forgot.

You've also successfully sussed out the functions that suggestion. Not that they were terribly hidden or anything. The idea always was to force an honest, productive conversation, despite possible lack of skills for it or players being weaselly. The potential fallout definitely bears mention too.

[BettaGeorge]

If that was your "general bitching", if you have "relationship quarrels" that you feel you need help with, I'll go out on a limb and hypothesize that the problem isn't you. At worst… different communication styles, perhaps.

Yeah, I don't really, but I felt it was worth the joke :smallbiggrin:

@martixy I love baking and don't currently have enough people to distribute to, so we should be able to work something out :smalltongue:


Back to topic, I think the suggestions here are really as good as they can possibly be in this situation. I do not see any other options, OP.

[Calthropstu]

Exchanged some emails and both of them are making new characters. So it went better than expected.

[Jay R]

Congratulations! I suggest you be very supportive of their new characters for awhile.

[Nifft]

Exchanged some emails and both of them are making new characters. So it went better than expected.

Nice, glad to hear it.

[Calthropstu]

Nice, glad to hear it.


Congratulations! I suggest you be very supportive of their new characters for awhile.

Thanks for the advice everyone. I hope things go smoothly. Hitting high level play can get pretty rough.

[wilphe]

No module or AP is written "for munchkins."

Tomb of Horrors

Well not so much "for" as "against" but I think it counts

[BettaGeorge]

Good luck, OP! I hope it goes well.