What Classes/Features require significant adaptation from "default" DMing?

[Ionathus]

Hard to describe in a snappy title, but let me give some examples:


Monks want arrows to catch, but DMs might forget to shoot at them (or worse, might avoid it entirely b/c they know the arrow will be caught).
Call Lightning lasts 10 minutes and could kill up to 100 mooks in a chokepoint if sustained the entire time, but despite its staying power is not very flashy in a 3-round combat (this applies to many of a Druid's concentration spells like Flaming Sphere, Moonbeam, Sunbeam, Storm of Vengeance).
Numerous Background features like Ship's Passage, Military Rank, or Criminal Contact are highly situational and rely on DM buy-in.
<Basically the entire PHB Ranger's set of features>

Do you fellow DMs out there have any memorable stories of needing to recognize a non-standard playstyle or ability, and then create opportunities for it in the world? How did you do it, without presenting the players with, say, an obviously Moonbeam-shaped narrative lock?

[Randomthom]

Monks in general once they get stunning strike.

Rogue's reliable talent.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Generally speaking, I try to design adventures with a total disregard for the party's abilities (apart from basic stuff like encounter levels). If someone has an ability that trivializes a challenge, well, good for them--they get to feel awesome. If no-one has the right sort of ability, then they're going to have to get creative or try something else.

Besides being good for verisimilitude, I find that not thinking too much about how the party might approach a problem is good for my DMing. You might not consciously try to railroad the party, but if you've got a particular solution in mind it's easy to find yourself coming up with perfectly logical reasons to shoot down other plans.

THAT SAID, fast travel methods (teleport, wind walk, etc) do force you to change up how the campaign runs-- no more random encounters, no more getting lost in the wilderness, no more travel times.

[Angelalex242]

The Ranger's stuff...well.

People really should just avoid that whole class.

[Man_Over_Game]

Taunt effects (OA effects without PAM, Ancestral Guardian, Cavalier)
Several rogue types (Inquisitive, Assassin)
Wild Magic Sorcerer
Illusionists or Enchanters (mostly Wizards and Warlocks)
Folks who invest too heavily in the wrong skills (Medicine, Nature, History, etc)


The Ranger's stuff...well.

People really should just avoid that whole class.

I did like what they did with Tasha's to address that. Almost everything that was ambiguous on the Ranger (Favored Terrain, Favored Enemy, Primal Awareness) were swapped out for things that are a lot more precise and immediately obvious in their value. For instance, the Hide in Plain Site can be swapped for a limited use Greater Invisibility that's cast with a BA on yourself for 1 round.

They basically now feel like adventuring Fighters, where Fighters are better described as gladiators in comparison (good in very sterile environments).

[Waterdeep Merch]

I prefer Grod's method myself. Design your encounters and dungeons around a generic party, not the one your players play. If they decide not to have a healer, then they've chosen a deliberate handicap that ought to have all the associated risks. The same should go for any other role. And sometimes they choose things that run roughshod over encounters; this is also acceptable. Abilities should feel good and impactful when they're appropriate, and you should feel their loss when you don't have them. As a player, I despise Burger King "have it your way!" gameplay that adapts to make sure no ability is ever weak or strong. It takes all meaning out of making any particular choice if each has the same ultimate outcome as printing my character sheet on blue paper instead of white.

If someone decides they're a sailor and take that background despite the setting not being near water, then any fault lies with the player for choosing an incompatible concept, not the DM for refusing to bend a setting in half over them.

[Man_Over_Game]

I prefer Grod's method myself. Design your encounters and dungeons around a generic party, not the one your players play. If they decide not to have a healer, then they've chosen a deliberate handicap that ought to have all the associated risks. The same should go for any other role. And sometimes they choose things that run roughshod over encounters; this is also acceptable. Abilities should feel good and impactful when they're appropriate, and you should feel their loss when you don't have them. As a player, I despise Burger King "have it your way!" gameplay that adapts to make sure no ability is ever weak or strong. It takes all meaning out of making any particular choice if each has the same ultimate outcome as printing my character sheet on blue paper instead of white.

If someone decides they're a sailor and take that background despite the setting not being near water, then any fault lies with the player for choosing an incompatible concept, not the DM for refusing to bend a setting in half over them.

The problem with that is, you're basically telling the player "Play it my way, not your way".

Let's say I want to play an Inquisitive Rogue because I like the playstyle, not because a Bonus Action Search is actually useful in the campaign, and you choose not to make accommodations because that's what's fair. Is the player having any more fun?

It'd be one thing if we're comparing Flaming Sphere to Moonbeam. We're talking about what kind of game players want to be playing vs. what game the DM thinks everyone should be playing.


Fact is, even video games change things to make sure players are having more fun based on their decisions, why can't we when we replace the robot with a person?

I know you can't make everyone happy - that's the benefit behind having a generic, boring expectation of a party like suggested - but that's a table issue, not a DM issue.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Generally speaking, I try to design adventures with a total disregard for the party's abilities (apart from basic stuff like encounter levels). If someone has an ability that trivializes a challenge, well, good for them--they get to feel awesome. If no-one has the right sort of ability, then they're going to have to get creative or try something else.

Besides being good for verisimilitude, I find that not thinking too much about how the party might approach a problem is good for my DMing. You might not consciously try to railroad the party, but if you've got a particular solution in mind it's easy to find yourself coming up with perfectly logical reasons to shoot down other plans.

Ditto.

In session zero, you get to pitch the campaign and (in general terms) describe what the sources of conflict will be (Rampaging dragon, rival kingdom rumored to be building an army, a necromancer is trying to build an undead army, you will be helping people in general during a calamity, etc.), after which the players build their characters. They ignore the pitch at their peril. Consider Dragon Heist. Players delivering violence is all but nonexistent for much of the game. Consider Curse of Strahd. If no one has the ability to crowd control undead or social skills to figure out the intrigue, that's kinda bad. My current Strahd game party completely neglected insight. Nobody had it. They were expecting something different I suppose, and I added a new player to specifically shore up the glaring weakness.

[Stangler]

Conjure animals for a Shepherd Druid has easily been the biggest challenge to adapt to in my experience.

Rogues who constantly want to try and steal everything is another.

[Segev]

The problem with that is, you're basically telling the player "Play it my way, not your way".

Let's say I want to play an Inquisitive Rogue because I like the playstyle, not because a Bonus Action Search is actually useful in the campaign, and you choose not to make accommodations because that's what's fair. Is the player having any more fun?

It'd be one thing if we're comparing Flaming Sphere to Moonbeam. We're talking about what kind of game players want to be playing vs. what game the DM thinks everyone should be playing.


Fact is, even video games change things to make sure players are having more fun based on their decisions, why can't we when we replace the robot with a person?

In theory, you should be designing for a generic party such that the campaign will make anything useful. In practice, I think a subclass that doesn't work in a generic game is one that needs a warning label that it is designed for a particular kind of unusual campaign.

[Dark.Revenant]

The problem with that is, you're basically telling the player "Play it my way, not your way".

Let's say I want to play an Inquisitive Rogue because I like the playstyle, not because a Bonus Action Search is actually useful in the campaign, and you choose not to make accommodations because that's what's fair. Is the player having any more fun?

It'd be one thing if we're comparing Flaming Sphere to Moonbeam. We're talking about what kind of game players want to be playing vs. what game the DM thinks everyone should be playing.


Fact is, even video games change things to make sure players are having more fun based on their decisions, why can't we when we replace the robot with a person?

I generally advocate having players and GMs meet in the middle somewhere, but the current reality is that it's a GM's market. If you're making the game, you get to choose what the game is about. If you decide your game is about sword and sorcery in an endless desert, the campaign simply won't have sailing ships in it. There's no compromise to be had, there: there's no large body of water anywhere. The player can either accept that "sand-skiffs" are close enough to ships to fit their fancy, or the player can choose a different concept.

What starts to annoy me is when specific party roles are enforced. Imagine joining a group with a bunch of ideas in your head, only to have none of them matter because the players all insist you play a healbot. Or play a bucket-of-HP tank (insisting that a mountain dwarf abjurer is not a tank).

[Willie the Duck]

Generally speaking, I try to design adventures with a total disregard for the party's abilities.

I prefer Grod's method myself. Design your encounters and dungeons around a generic party, not the one your players play.

General agreement, although this just shifts the question to 'What Classes/Features require specific gameplay styles the party should seek out inside the sandbox?' Different onus on who should make a shift if there is a Class/Feature-challenge discrepancy, but not changing that such a situation can occur. Thinking down the list, aside from Rangers and their abilities, I think the next obvious large category would be spells like Heat Metal and Hold Person -- if you don't spend a lot of time battling tool-using humanoids, these abilities will see less use. Darkvision is another prime example -- in some campaigns it is a ribbon, in others a primary concern.

[Waterdeep Merch]

The problem with that is, you're basically telling the player "Play it my way, not your way".

Let's say I want to play an Inquisitive Rogue because I like the playstyle, not because a Bonus Action Search is actually useful in the campaign, and you choose not to make accommodations because that's what's fair. Is the player having any more fun?

It'd be one thing if we're comparing Flaming Sphere to Moonbeam. We're talking about what kind of game players want to be playing vs. what game the DM thinks everyone should be playing.


Fact is, even video games change things to make sure players are having more fun based on their decisions, why can't we when we replace the robot with a person?

I know you can't make everyone happy - that's the benefit behind having a generic, boring expectation of a party like suggested - but that's a table issue, not a DM issue.

This is the purpose of a Session Zero.

I tell my players, "here is the game I was thinking of". Then I ask them if they want to play this game. Then I hand them all three page questionnaires that include everything from themes and expectations to how strict the rules ought to be applied and how hands-on I should be in inter party conflicts. We then talk through the results, measure by measure, and come to a democratic consensus on each. After this, we discuss all the homerules we might want- openly and honestly- and decide which we will apply.

If a player goes through a proper Session Zero, agrees to a meat grinder dungeoncrawl, and decides to play an Inquisitive Rogue? I have zero sympathy for them. I might boot them if they whine about it. I also require any guest or Johnny-come-lately players to accept the principles laid down in Session Zero. If they don't like it, they don't get to join.

There's some wiggle room; sometimes we agree to things that turn out to be unfun later, and we have a little after session discussion to course correct (or abandon the game entirely. There's nothing wrong with scrapping a bad game). But I've never met the player that suddenly decides they're too good to honor their own buy-in that I've been willing to play with. Boot 'em.

[Segev]

I generally advocate having players and GMs meet in the middle somewhere, but the current reality is that it's a GM's market. If you're making the game, you get to choose what the game is about. If you decide your game is about sword and sorcery in an endless desert, the campaign simply won't have sailing ships in it. There's no compromise to be had, there: there's no large body of water anywhere. The player can either accept that "sand-skiffs" are close enough to ships to fit their fancy, or the player can choose a different concept.

What starts to annoy me is when specific party roles are enforced. Imagine joining a group with a bunch of ideas in your head, only to have none of them matter because the players all insist you play a healbot. Or play a bucket-of-HP tank (insisting that a mountain dwarf abjurer is not a tank).

When GMs who've run successful games, in my experience, put out their call for games, they tell the players what kind of game it'll be and what kind of characters, roles, and abilities would be useful in it. Which is how they tend to "meet in the middle," because the GM may or may not design with some specifics in mind for certain PCs, but he will certainly be building the adventures around what he said the game will be about.

[verbatim]

Gloomstalker Ranger's Umbral Sight: "While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness."...

...can be problematic, though a lot of that stems from the fact that the darkvision rules didn't mesh well with default DM'ing to begin with.

[Segev]

Gloomstalker Ranger's Umbral Sight: "While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness."...

...can be problematic, though a lot of that stems from the fact that the darkvision rules didn't mesh well with default DM'ing to begin with.

Can you elaborate with what you mean about darkvision not meshing well with default DMing?

[JackPhoenix]

If a player goes through a proper Session Zero, agrees to a meat grinder dungeoncrawl, and decides to play an Inquisitive Rogue? I have zero sympathy for them. I might boot them if they whine about it. I also require any guest or Johnny-come-lately players to accept the principles laid down in Session Zero. If they don't like it, they don't get to join.

What's funny is that Inquisitive rogue, specifically, is useful even in such situation. Dungeoncrawl implies lots of use to use Perception to notice traps, secret doors and ambushes, Inquisitive has a way to ensure he can get sneak attacks even without allied help, and even Ear for Deceit can find use if the players decide to capture few enemies alive and interrogate them.

There are worse choices for such campaign.

[Waterdeep Merch]

What's funny is that Inquisitive rogue, specifically, is useful even in such situation. Dungeoncrawl implies lots of use to use Perception to notice traps, secret doors and ambushes, Inquisitive has a way to ensure he can get sneak attacks even without allied help, and even Ear for Deceit can find use if the players decide to capture few enemies alive and interrogate them.

There are worse choices for such campaign.

Absolutely, and I respect the player that knowingly commits to suboptimal choices. I'd just be annoyed if they start bugging me to include social mysteries for them just because they made that choice instead of accepting that we're playing a different game.

Or, at the very least, asking to play a game with aspects of social mystery from the very start and convincing the rest of us to play the same. Then other players have a chance to build for it and we don't end up with giant clumps of the game where only the guy that wants to play Sherlock Holmes does anything while the rest of the party ends up bored out of their minds.

[Man_Over_Game]

Can you elaborate with what you mean about darkvision not meshing well with default DMing?

If I had to wager a guess, I think it's based on leveraging vision differences in situations where players are together. It's almost assumed that, anywhere the party goes, there's ample lighting for everyone regardless of their form of vision. Rarely does half the party go in blind while the others guide them.

Put another way, rather than asking for permission for lighting (through things like lanterns, torches), a lot of tables ask for permission for Darkvision ("I'd like to scout without any light sources").

Even when Darkvision is used appropriately, it's rare to see the Disadvantage on Perception Checks.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Generally speaking, I try to design adventures with a total disregard for the party's abilities (apart from basic stuff like encounter levels). If someone has an ability that trivializes a challenge, well, good for them--they get to feel awesome. If no-one has the right sort of ability, then they're going to have to get creative or try something else.

Besides being good for verisimilitude, I find that not thinking too much about how the party might approach a problem is good for my DMing. You might not consciously try to railroad the party, but if you've got a particular solution in mind it's easy to find yourself coming up with perfectly logical reasons to shoot down other plans.

THAT SAID, fast travel methods (teleport, wind walk, etc) do force you to change up how the campaign runs-- no more random encounters, no more getting lost in the wilderness, no more travel times.

Add me to the list of DMs largely agreeing here. We generally play published mods that I modify, so players generally know what they are getting into. Yes, if a character is struggling I'll occasionally add something to allow a skill or ability to shine, but for the most part no. I think doing so too much might be 'overthinking' anyway; I'm constantly surprised at what my players come up with to overcome particular obstacles.
I currently have a party of 5 going through DiA with no Sorcerers, Wizards, Warlocks, Bards, or ranged martials, so as much as they are strong and almost trivialize some things, other times they find themselves found wanting or having to be creative. I think those sorts of imbalances are fine and make the experience unique and reflect the group they wanted to play.

[Segev]

Even when Darkvision is used appropriately, it's rare to see the Disadvantage on Perception Checks.

This does, for some reason, seem to be very easily forgotten about both dim lighting and the fact that Darkvision sees darkness as dim, not clearly.

[Cass]

What's funny is that Inquisitive rogue, specifically, is useful even in such situation. Dungeoncrawl implies lots of use to use Perception to notice traps, secret doors and ambushes, Inquisitive has a way to ensure he can get sneak attacks even without allied help, and even Ear for Deceit can find use if the players decide to capture few enemies alive and interrogate them.

There are worse choices for such campaign.

In my experience those examples of Perception use don't really benefit from being a Bonus Action. The main reason I can think of where it matters is if the Boss is stealthy and is continuously hiding, otherwise to me seems just a ribbon ability.

[Man_Over_Game]

In my experience those examples of Perception use don't really benefit from being a Bonus Action. The main reason I can think of where it matters is if the Boss is stealthy and is continuously hiding, otherwise to me seems just a ribbon ability.

Yeah, the number of DMs I've had that required a Perception Check to be made with the Search Action is exactly zero. I tried requiring it recently with a group of noobies (as one of them was planning on being an Inquisitive Rogue), they just thought I was being a huge stickler.

So the Inquisitive, to me, is basically a bunch of words for "Observant Feat and occasionally lock on to a target without allies for Sneak Attack" (and the sneak attack bit is irrelevant, you're going to focus the enemy who's being attacked by your melee allies unless it's a niche situation).

[Bigmouth]

I generally avoid balancing against player abilities, however, I totally DO try to balance so that players get to use their abilities and feel special.
I typically don't do a lot of trap and locks for instance, but if someone builds a lock/trap person I'm going to go out of my way to give them some chances to use that.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The problem with that is, you're basically telling the player "Play it my way, not your way".
I try to design adventures without thinking too much about the characters' abilities-- the players' preferences are an entirely different bag, as is overall campaign structure. If someone in the group hates "escape from jail" plots, I'm not going to use one. But if no-one minds, I'm going to drop them in a cell without worrying too much about how they'll get out.

Basically, when I saw "adventure," I'm not talking about the entire campaign. "Adventure" means a specific dungeon to raid, a band of thieves to catch, a diplomatic situation to untangle. It's something
that will take one or two sessions to get through, and consisting mostly of tactical decisions. Player preferences and roleplaying determine what kinds of adventures the party embarks on.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Yeah, the number of DMs I've had that required a Perception Check to be made with the Search Action is exactly zero. I tried requiring it recently with a group of noobies (as one of them was planning on being an Inquisitive Rogue), they just thought I was being a huge stickler.

So the Inquisitive, to me, is basically a bunch of words for "Observant Feat and occasionally lock on to a target without allies for Sneak Attack" (and the sneak attack bit is irrelevant, you're going to focus the enemy who's being attacked by your melee allies unless it's a niche situation).

Ha, I never thought our group was weird for it, but we use things like the search action and passive perception nearly every fight. A lot of my players like sneaking around in fights and a lot of my monsters often try to do the same. It's part of why some of them have a refrain: You don't dump Perception in my campaigns.

Two of them never get past level 8 without the Alert feat. Observant usually shows up by then, too.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I see players' choices about abilities/feats/etc as information about what they want to see. I don't build adventures (or even campaigns) ahead of time in anything but the vaguest terms. Campaigns have a starting seed arc, but that's just an initial hook they've bought into and rarely goes beyond level 3 or so. It's just something to get them into the world.

So in a sense, I'm always building for the particular characters. That doesn't mean I'm just tailoring everything so they can't fail, but it means that the pieces of the world they see are the pieces of the world that they, through their characters' actions, have been asking for. And I don't know that in advance at all.

At the individual session level, I try to do a few things.
1. Poke someone in a weakness (trying to rotate who gets poked). So if I've got a sniper type who really doesn't like up close and personal monsters, I'll try to have a monster get up close and personal at least once every few sessions.
2. Let someone have a glory time (again, rotating who gets the glory). Set things up so that someone's strength shines out strongly.
3. Create situations that can't be solved by any one person doing any one thing. Where no single "uber clever" idea can win the whole shebang--it can speed things up, but it's not a one-man band.

Certain builds cause more concern with this for me--
* Any class that can "do it all" is a problem. Having weaknesses, having opportunity costs means something. If "who you are" changes from session to session, it's harder to find ways to engage you. And the whole "poke you in your weakness, let your strength shine" thing turns into a mess.
* Builds that are too min-maxed. If you've only got one strength, and it's a doozy and you can't really interact well with any other part of the game, then you end up one-dimensional and it gets boring to keep poking that. Had a character who we (the player and I) decided to retire because his story and his mode was too fixed. No chance for growth or surprises. It was just one note, over and over.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Warlocks, and to a lesser extent other short-rest-focused classes.

[MrStabby]

So as DM I find that other players dictate the playstyle as much as I do.

I provide a world and a plot and it is up to the players to decide how they interact with it. The party as a whole decides if they want to solve problems through social encounters or by smashing heads.

Sometimes you can provide all the opportunities for a player to use an ability but the party won't let them. The ranger with favoured enemy of giants, but the party declines quests related to giants. The thief with Thieves Cant but the party never picks up quests in cities, the bard with expertise in persuasion but the party is Roll for Initiative First and Ask Questions Later in its playstyle.

The DM can put a of these opportunities in the world and if their players have agency and you don't hard railroad them then some of them may never come up.

[Crucius]

Gloomstalker Ranger's Umbral Sight: "While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness."...

...can be problematic, though a lot of that stems from the fact that the darkvision rules didn't mesh well with default DM'ing to begin with.

Aye, this one. For one player I suddenly had to make a torch-disabling minigame so he could make pockets of darkness. I had to space out lights perfectly all the time which took a not insignificant amount of effort.

This subclass and the drow/kobold's sunlight sensitivity have changed daytime adventuring into nighttime adventuring which eliminates a lot of monsters (without darkvision or light options) and creates a rift between players with these features and players without darkvision.

I also find any character that focusses heavily on stealth to significantly impact my prep work, having to think of sneaky routes, fail states, what information can be gleaned by scouting, how to entertain the rest of the party that are not sneaking.

Speaking of scouting; familiars (especially the warlock's imp) have had a major impact in game design. Big revelations have to be locked behind big metal doors or be very far ahead. Not as big of a problem, but it's a thing I have to keep in mind while prepping something with surprise/shock-value.

[EggKookoo]

Let's say I want to play an Inquisitive Rogue because I like the playstyle, not because a Bonus Action Search is actually useful in the campaign, and you choose not to make accommodations because that's what's fair. Is the player having any more fun?

I think there's totally middle ground there. I try to take into consideration the kind of game my players want and I try to pick up on backstory details, and flesh out the fiction to take advantage of that as much as I can. I don't tailor encounters specifically to player features, skills, spells, etc. (unless an actual in-fiction reason to do so appears) but I do throw things in from time to time that might let a particular player get to feel cool.

Same with magic items. The majority of them are things that seem interesting or weird but not particularly aimed at a given PC. Once in a while, especially if I see a lack, I'll drop something in meant to shore it up. Sometimes that works, sometimes the "wrong" PC grabs it, sometimes no one's interested and they sell it.

[Man_Over_Game]

I don't tailor encounters specifically to player features, skills, spells, etc. (unless an actual in-fiction reason to do so appears) but I do throw things in from time to time that might let a particular player get to feel cool.

But what's the difference?

[EggKookoo]

But what's the difference?

Frequency, I guess?

What I mean is, I design most encounters without specific concern over individual PC capability. That is, I don't look at spells prepared or known, or run down class features, or whatever. I just aim for a general level of challenge. The details of the fight come from the setting and environment. At the same time, if those details result in something that dovetails with a specific PC's ability, I might change something to up the interest level or challenge. For example, one of my players has a magic sword that deals extra damage to fiends. If it seems likely the party will encounter a fiend in a fight, I make note of that. Either to make it so the PC can shine by taking out the fiend, or maybe work out a way to make the fiend's true nature not immediately obvious, so I can reward the player/PC when they figure it out. Something to help the player feel good about holding onto that sword.

Another PC is a Levistus tiefling and has gone with a cold theme. She picks spells that deal cold damage a lot. Normally, whatever. But once in a while I make an encounter loaded up with creatures that don't handle cold very well -- custom monsters for the most part -- so she can have a moment to shine (dice willing!).

These make up the minority of encounters, which is why I say I do it "once in a while."

[Man_Over_Game]

Frequency, I guess?

I guess that's the point I'm trying to make.

It's not "DMs have to cater to every player's whims" vs. "Players should have to play around what the DM wants to do". It's a spectrum that's determined solely by whatever the DM thinks is best for everyone at the table.

I'm not sure if we're arguing about anything beneficial for anyone by this point, it just feels like a tangent that OP didn't ask for. That's not a slam against you or anything, I think that we should respect what OP's looking for rather than railroading the thread onto a side topic that (as far as I can tell) isn't actually helping anyone.

He asked for answers, and he got flooded with responses of "Well, you shouldn't be asking for that". I've been pushing hard on the opposite side, to show how important it is for DM's to adapt around their players to help get things back on track, but I realize that I was doing it the wrong way and was just a different kind of riot on his thread.

[verbatim]

Yeah, the number of DMs I've had that required a Perception Check to be made with the Search Action is exactly zero.

What I think I might do going forward is make it so that a successful action Perception Check against an invisible foe's passive stealth makes the entire team aware of their location, with everyone except the person who made the check having disadvantage as they are relying on second hand information as to where the target is.



Legalease: Anyone can use their action to make an active perception check against the passive stealth score of all invisible creatures within their line of sight. The active perception checker knows where every invisible creature whose stealth score they tie or beat is and suffers no penalties against them, but their teammates still suffer the normal penalties of interacting with an invisible target since they have to rely on second hand information. This ends if the invisible person moves, which the active perception checker would not know unless they repeat the check and succeed again on a subsequent turn.

An active perception check that equals or exceeds the stealth check of someone who is hiding but is not invisible reveals the location of the creature to everyone, and if the previously hidden individual rehides everyone is aware that they have rehidden (I think this paragraph is RAW?).

[Ionathus]

Thank you everyone for your responses! This got more chatter than I expected.


Generally speaking, I try to design adventures with a total disregard for the party's abilities (apart from basic stuff like encounter levels). If someone has an ability that trivializes a challenge, well, good for them--they get to feel awesome. If no-one has the right sort of ability, then they're going to have to get creative or try something else.

Besides being good for verisimilitude, I find that not thinking too much about how the party might approach a problem is good for my DMing. You might not consciously try to railroad the party, but if you've got a particular solution in mind it's easy to find yourself coming up with perfectly logical reasons to shoot down other plans.

I agree that you don't want to go around writing a single solution to every encounter with a certain PC's abilities in mind: every fight shouldn't be a checklist for their different abilities. I don't think that necessarily precludes making sure you switch things up every once in a while, though, for both narrative and mechanical variety, and I do like to make sure I know every ability my PCs have, especially the ones they got in their most recent level-up, to make sure my encounter design doesn't specifically exclude those abilities every time.


I prefer Grod's method myself. Design your encounters and dungeons around a generic party, not the one your players play. If they decide not to have a healer, then they've chosen a deliberate handicap that ought to have all the associated risks. The same should go for any other role. And sometimes they choose things that run roughshod over encounters; this is also acceptable. Abilities should feel good and impactful when they're appropriate, and you should feel their loss when you don't have them. As a player, I despise Burger King "have it your way!" gameplay that adapts to make sure no ability is ever weak or strong. It takes all meaning out of making any particular choice if each has the same ultimate outcome as printing my character sheet on blue paper instead of white.

I've certainly seen my fair share of the "running roughshod" encounters from my players! Pass Without Trace is a great example: our ranger picked it up and now uses it all the time, and they've basically trivialized all stealth encounters where the party can stick together. I'll include little side bonuses that only 1 person can do (thus having to leave the PwT zone) for optional challenge, but I don't go out of my way to negate or counter that spell use. They earned it fair and square, and Rangers don't even get that many spells per day, so it's a great tradeoff of resources for a powerful effect.

Can I ask an example of what you mean when you say 'Burger King "have it your way!" gameplay'? Because I kinda get what you're saying, but have never seen that level of adaptation where "no ability is ever weak or strong." That feels like an insane level of fine-tuning, pretty much beyond what any human DM could do. I certainly don't nerf my players' fireballs or divine smites, but I also don't exclusively give them obvious hordes to fireball or solo boss monsters to smite. Fun encounter design, to me, is about including varied set pieces and seeing how the players improvise to either supplement or replace their single favorite predictable class feature.


I generally avoid balancing against player abilities, however, I totally DO try to balance so that players get to use their abilities and feel special.
I typically don't do a lot of trap and locks for instance, but if someone builds a lock/trap person I'm going to go out of my way to give them some chances to use that.


I see players' choices about abilities/feats/etc as information about what they want to see. I don't build adventures (or even campaigns) ahead of time in anything but the vaguest terms. Campaigns have a starting seed arc, but that's just an initial hook they've bought into and rarely goes beyond level 3 or so. It's just something to get them into the world.

So in a sense, I'm always building for the particular characters. That doesn't mean I'm just tailoring everything so they can't fail, but it means that the pieces of the world they see are the pieces of the world that they, through their characters' actions, have been asking for. And I don't know that in advance at all.

At the individual session level, I try to do a few things.
1. Poke someone in a weakness (trying to rotate who gets poked). So if I've got a sniper type who really doesn't like up close and personal monsters, I'll try to have a monster get up close and personal at least once every few sessions.
2. Let someone have a glory time (again, rotating who gets the glory). Set things up so that someone's strength shines out strongly.
3. Create situations that can't be solved by any one person doing any one thing. Where no single "uber clever" idea can win the whole shebang--it can speed things up, but it's not a one-man band.


This pretty effectively sums up my attitude on the subject. I love looking at player abilities and trying to puzzle out how I could tweak an encounter/dungeon to give them chances to shine. I don't handhold, and I don't only play to their strengths (e.g. my party of all non-divine casters fights a lot of undead, with nary a Turn Undead to be found), but I do like it when my players get excited about finally breaking out that spell or feat they've been sitting on.


They ignore the pitch at their peril.


any fault lies with the player for choosing an incompatible concept, not the DM for refusing to bend a setting in half over them.


I have zero sympathy for them. I might boot them if they whine about it. I also require any guest or Johnny-come-lately players to accept the principles laid down in Session Zero. If they don't like it, they don't get to join.
...
But I've never met the player that suddenly decides they're too good to honor their own buy-in that I've been willing to play with. Boot 'em.

I wasn't really talking about players getting upset or having a bad time, and I didn't see anyone else saying that either, so I don't know where this argument is coming from. If I touched a nerve about whiny metagaming players I understand, but would far prefer to steer the conversation towards adaptations that can make a good experience into a great one, rather than complaining about hypothetical players hypothetically picking a bad class and hypothetically getting upset that the DM won't change the hypothetical campaign to fit their whims.

Especially since you said yourself that you've never had a player actually act like that! If so, why are we talking about it?

[EggKookoo]

He asked for answers, and he got flooded with responses of "Well, you shouldn't be asking for that". I've been pushing hard on the opposite side, to show how important it is for DM's to adapt around their players to help get things back on track, but I realize that I was doing it the wrong way and was just a different kind of riot on his thread.

Gotcha, I think I misinterpreted your question about the difference. In essence, I'm agreeing with you and just fleshing it out more, rather than trying to show a contrast. But point taken about derailment. I'm sure I'm not the only one guilty of it but often I read the early posts, form an opinion, and skim to the end so I can make sure everyone hears it. :smallsmile:

[Ionathus]

I guess that's the point I'm trying to make.

It's not "DMs have to cater to every player's whims" vs. "Players should have to play around what the DM wants to do". It's a spectrum that's determined solely by whatever the DM thinks is best for everyone at the table.

I'm not sure if we're arguing about anything beneficial for anyone by this point, it just feels like a tangent that OP didn't ask for. That's not a slam against you or anything, I think that we should respect what OP's looking for rather than railroading the thread onto a side topic that (as far as I can tell) isn't actually helping anyone.

He asked for answers, and he got flooded with responses of "Well, you shouldn't be asking for that". I've been pushing hard on the opposite side, to show how important it is for DM's to adapt around their players to help get things back on track, but I realize that I was doing it the wrong way and was just a different kind of riot on his thread.

I missed this before: thank you for your insight!

On the subject of Inquisitive, I remember joining a LMoP campaign as a player 2-3 years back, and one of our party members really shone as an Inquisitive Rogue! I'm not sure if the module was well-suited to that or if the DM made any adjustments to the module to accommodate her, but her skills and features just seemed to really frequently come up.

That is, until the final Black Spider fight and all the spiders kept web-shooting her. I don't know if she ever got a Sneak Attack in. Gnome Rogues aren't known for their Strength modifiers!

[nickl_2000]

Moon Druids
What makes a Moon Druid special is that they are able to wildshape into bigger and better forms. However, according to RAW rules the Druid needs to see those animals to be able to shape into them. Give the Druid a chance to see animals. Whether that is a travelling menagerie, or combat with animals, or a zoo, or downtime to find more animals, or the ability to learn it from other Druids. Just give them a way.

Wizards, all wizards.
I get it that Wizards can function with just the 2 spells they get every level. However, part of the fun of being a wizard is having a full spellbook of options. You want ALL the options. So, throw them a bone. Drop scrolls, have them fight wizards who leave behind spellbooks after they are dead, have them run into travelling wizards so that they can trade spells. Just give them more spells!

[da newt]

It's not "DMs have to cater to every player's whims" vs. "Players should have to play around what the DM wants to do".

In general, I agree w/ Grod - the DM makes encounters and it ought to be mostly PC/Player agnostic, but the DM does have a responsibility to allow the players/PC to use their abilities when they come up with clever ways to do that - ('Yes And' vs 'Nope'). As DM , I try to remind myself that it's good to root for the PC's to do well (much better than rooting for the bad guys to make life hard for the party).

I also prefer to balance with a bit of PhoenixPhyre's:
I try to do a few things.
1. Poke someone in a weakness (trying to rotate who gets poked).
2. Let someone have a glory time (again, rotating who gets the glory).
3. Create situations that can't be solved by any one person doing any one thing.

Overall - it's a bit of a balancing act / Goldilocks issue - don't cater to the PCs / Players, but do enable them to shine. You can mess up going too easy/permissive or too hard/stringent, but somewhere in between is just right.

[ZRN]

If someone decides they're a sailor and take that background despite the setting not being near water, then any fault lies with the player for choosing an incompatible concept, not the DM for refusing to bend a setting in half over them.

This is a trivial example but people say the same about stuff like suboptimal character builds and tactics. My response is always that the game is intended to be fun, and if the DM expects me to have significantly less fun for dozens of hours of my precious leisure time to punish me for making character design choices - even mistakes - that he doesn't like, I'm going to find a different DM.

That said, sometimes I want to play a more challenging character! I think it's mostly about being on the same page as the player.

[Segev]

This is a trivial example but people say the same about stuff like suboptimal character builds and tactics. My response is always that the game is intended to be fun, and if the DM expects me to have significantly less fun for dozens of hours of my precious leisure time to punish me for making character design choices - even mistakes - that he doesn't like, I'm going to find a different DM.

That said, sometimes I want to play a more challenging character! I think it's mostly about being on the same page as the player.

I think the "sailor in a campaign nowhere near water" example is more meant with the idea that the player knew this going in. Possibly even was warned about it.

[Ionathus]

Moon Druids
What makes a Moon Druid special is that they are able to wildshape into bigger and better forms. However, according to RAW rules the Druid needs to see those animals to be able to shape into them. Give the Druid a chance to see animals. Whether that is a travelling menagerie, or combat with animals, or a zoo, or downtime to find more animals, or the ability to learn it from other Druids. Just give them a way.

Wizards, all wizards.
I get it that Wizards can function with just the 2 spells they get every level. However, part of the fun of being a wizard is having a full spellbook of options. You want ALL the options. So, throw them a bone. Drop scrolls, have them fight wizards who leave behind spellbooks after they are dead, have them run into travelling wizards so that they can trade spells. Just give them more spells!

I've seen 3 different druids played at 5e tables, and for the most part they seem to stick to just a couple of wildshape forms -- 1 flying, 1 swimming, maybe 2-3 ground-based ones. In my opinion, if you're playing a druid you're already more interested in flavor than pure optimization, so druid players are also less likely to change the animal they wild shape into for minor tactical advantage...even if a Giant Hyena would technically be better than a Giant Elk, the difference isn't crazy, so the player just sticks with the Elk in most scenarios that call for a ground-based fighter. Since most druids have a backstory that involves roaming the wilderness, collecting those core forms is often complete before the campaign starts!

As a result, wanting to see and collect specific wildshapes a la Strago/Blue Mages from Final Fantasy has never struck me as something most druid players intentionally pursue -- but if they did want certain ones, I'd definitely ask them to tell me as DM and then would work to accommodate it!

Wizards are a big one, though. My current wizard player is constantly collecting & scribing scrolls, and even creates some herself! It's really helped me to bulk out the magic items & loot that I have to prepare. Scroll randomizer websites are incredibly helpful in this regard.

[nickl_2000]

I've seen 3 different druids played at 5e tables, and for the most part they seem to stick to just a couple of wildshape forms -- 1 flying, 1 swimming, maybe 2-3 ground-based ones. In my opinion, if you're playing a druid you're already more interested in flavor than pure optimization, so druid players are also less likely to change the animal they wild shape into for minor tactical advantage...even if a Giant Hyena would technically be better than a Giant Elk, the difference isn't crazy, so the player just sticks with the Elk in most scenarios that call for a ground-based fighter. Since most druids have a backstory that involves roaming the wilderness, collecting those core forms is often complete before the campaign starts!

As a result, wanting to see and collect specific wildshapes a la Strago/Blue Mages from Final Fantasy has never struck me as something most druid players intentionally pursue -- but if they did want certain ones, I'd definitely ask them to tell me as DM and then would work to accommodate it!

Wizards are a big one, though. My current wizard player is constantly collecting & scribing scrolls, and even creates some herself! It's really helped me to bulk out the magic items & loot that I have to prepare. Scroll randomizer websites are incredibly helpful in this regard.

The Moon Druid comes from personal experience. My DM made an accommodation on the Moon Druid, when I get new CR or style of forms he just let me choose 1 wildshape automatically. If he hadn't, I wouldn't have had any flying or swimming forms and would have been missing some of the favorite other forms. This seemed like a perfectly acceptable solution that was easy for him and for me, but if he hadn't I wouldn't have gotten all that many choices. I will admit though, I'm a collector and that was part of the PCs personality. He was creating and writing a veterinary anatomy book, and would study and dissect any animal that the party killed.

[Amnestic]

The Moon Druid comes from personal experience. My DM made an accommodation on the Moon Druid, when I get new CR or style of forms he just let me choose 1 wildshape automatically. If he hadn't, I wouldn't have had any flying or swimming forms and would have been missing some of the favorite other forms. This seemed like a perfectly acceptable solution that was easy for him and for me, but if he hadn't I wouldn't have gotten all that many choices. I will admit though, I'm a collector and that was part of the PCs personality. He was creating and writing a veterinary anatomy book, and would study and dissect any animal that the party killed.

You managed to get to level 8 without seeing a single bird? Like, not even one?

[nickl_2000]

You managed to get to level 8 without seeing a single bird? Like, not even one?

Without one technically being described, yes. Although, I'm sure it would be pretty easy to argue that CR0s were seen. That being said, there is a big difference for a Moon Druid between a CR 0 bird and a CR appropriate bird.

[Stangler]

Without one technically being described, yes. Although, I'm sure it would be pretty easy to argue that CR0s were seen. That being said, there is a big difference for a Moon Druid between a CR 0 bird and a CR appropriate bird.

This to me doesn't seem like a significant adaptation from "default" DMing. I think the DM has to make a choice but it is not complicated and doesn't fit any definition of significant that I could think of. There is a table in one of the books that helps with this by the way if your DM wants some printed guidance on how to rule this.

[Man_Over_Game]

This to me doesn't seem like a significant adaptation from "default" DMing. I think the DM has to make a choice but it is not complicated and doesn't fit any definition of significant that I could think of. There is a table in one of the books that helps with this by the way if your DM wants some printed guidance on how to rule this.

Yeah, the stuff I'm thinking of when it comes to the thread is stuff that could come up in almost every session and wouldn't be something you'd adjust without thinking about it.

Like, if your Ancestral Guardian is taunting everything, but all the enemies are going to be attacking you regardless of whether or not they're taunted, it's time to talk to your DM.

[Xervous]

I also prefer to balance with a bit of PhoenixPhyre's:
I try to do a few things.
1. Poke someone in a weakness (trying to rotate who gets poked).
2. Let someone have a glory time (again, rotating who gets the glory).
3. Create situations that can't be solved by any one person doing any one thing.


How do you react to characters that are tuned to not have glaring weaknesses, with specialized performance being a secondary concern?

[nickl_2000]

This to me doesn't seem like a significant adaptation from "default" DMing. I think the DM has to make a choice but it is not complicated and doesn't fit any definition of significant that I could think of. There is a table in one of the books that helps with this by the way if your DM wants some printed guidance on how to rule this.

This character is Pre-Covid and long retired and the DM took care of the problem is a different way (see above). But, looking at those tables is good for others.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I've certainly seen my fair share of the "running roughshod" encounters from my players! Pass Without Trace is a great example: our ranger picked it up and now uses it all the time, and they've basically trivialized all stealth encounters where the party can stick together. I'll include little side bonuses that only 1 person can do (thus having to leave the PwT zone) for optional challenge, but I don't go out of my way to negate or counter that spell use. They earned it fair and square, and Rangers don't even get that many spells per day, so it's a great tradeoff of resources for a powerful effect.

Can I ask an example of what you mean when you say 'Burger King "have it your way!" gameplay'? Because I kinda get what you're saying, but have never seen that level of adaptation where "no ability is ever weak or strong." That feels like an insane level of fine-tuning, pretty much beyond what any human DM could do. I certainly don't nerf my players' fireballs or divine smites, but I also don't exclusively give them obvious hordes to fireball or solo boss monsters to smite. Fun encounter design, to me, is about including varied set pieces and seeing how the players improvise to either supplement or replace their single favorite predictable class feature.

You've more or less got what I'm getting on about. Options are good, but if combat, casting, stealth, and diplomacy have the same basic outcome and equal levels of difficulty, why even make me choose? It's a ton of work for the DM that amounts to railroading as a player. Just let the diplomacy be the high risk high reward option, stealth be the easiest if you can manage it, combat be your last resort, and magic be the wild card of possibility (an example, not verbatim what situations ought to be). The DM has to prep for less here and can instead put their time towards adapting their outcome based on how the players overcame their challenges. It's better for everyone this way.


I wasn't really talking about players getting upset or having a bad time, and I didn't see anyone else saying that either, so I don't know where this argument is coming from. If I touched a nerve about whiny metagaming players I understand, but would far prefer to steer the conversation towards adaptations that can make a good experience into a great one, rather than complaining about hypothetical players hypothetically picking a bad class and hypothetically getting upset that the DM won't change the hypothetical campaign to fit their whims.

Especially since you said yourself that you've never had a player actually act like that! If so, why are we talking about it?

My point is to have Session Zeroes, really. It gives you a perfect opportunity to discuss what your players really want to see, or what balance issues they feel would ruin the game. It can be neat noting a detail they didn't expect to be relevant and bringing it up later (the sailor thing I keep bringing up; maybe it was just a little meaningless flavor, but if you get to a point in the game where Ship's Passage can suddenly get them to where they need to go, they feel good and you look smart), but that's much different from trying to base the game around a detail the player might not have wanted (back to the sailor; the player might like the themes but actually hate nautical gameplay. This is an actual problem I had, and I made the wrong call in designing a session around it. That's my lesson here- don't go overdesigning for things your players didn't sign on for).


This is a trivial example but people say the same about stuff like suboptimal character builds and tactics. My response is always that the game is intended to be fun, and if the DM expects me to have significantly less fun for dozens of hours of my precious leisure time to punish me for making character design choices - even mistakes - that he doesn't like, I'm going to find a different DM.

That said, sometimes I want to play a more challenging character! I think it's mostly about being on the same page as the player.
It's all about that open communication. I feel like a good DM will generally be okay adapting for whatever their players ask for, but it's no sin to just not have the hours in the day to reconfigure their game for a sudden change. They should just be upfront about it. And hopefully not overly rigid about it either- if a player makes a decision and the DM can't or won't honor it, they ought to at least get the opportunity to make a different decision.

Though hopefully all of this got addressed back at Session Zero. That really is the best way to head these problems off at the pass.

[Ionathus]

How do you react to characters that are tuned to not have glaring weaknesses, with specialized performance being a secondary concern?

Poke them in the character weaknesses instead! For real though, I've never met a player who didn't want to be specialized. Having no weaknesses comes at the cost of having no strengths either, and players typically like to make their characters really iconic and stylized. I just had a player in last night's session say "wow, guys, I might be overdoing it on the dirt thing...let me know if I'm turning into Mole from Atlantis."

Maybe there's something you can do to exploit their lack of a strength? Narrative-wise, the other characters are more likely to be well-known since they have easily-defined traits or have done big flashy cool things. Mechanics-wise, I don't know if it's a problem to be solved...if the player just likes being generally competent and not flashy, I wouldn't try to take that away from them or nudge them in a different direction.


You've more or less got what I'm getting on about. Options are good, but if combat, casting, stealth, and diplomacy have the same basic outcome and equal levels of difficulty, why even make me choose? It's a ton of work for the DM that amounts to railroading as a player. Just let the diplomacy be the high risk high reward option, stealth be the easiest if you can manage it, combat be your last resort, and magic be the wild card of possibility (an example, not verbatim what situations ought to be). The DM has to prep for less here and can instead put their time towards adapting their outcome based on how the players overcame their challenges. It's better for everyone this way.

I like that idea of prepping all 4, but still having them at different levels of both challenge and success. My typical route is to design an encounter/dungeon and ask myself "what would the most conventional approach to this be?", make sure that such an outcome would be both challenging and entertaining, and then spinning potential for branching paths off from that -- for instance, there's probably a stealth or diplomatic option, so I'll include nonlinear tunnels and a few people who have conflicting interests with the rest of the dungeon's inhabitants, but beyond that I don't plan very far out. My players are too unpredictable and I've learned to really only determine the NPCs' abilities and motivations.


My point is to have Session Zeroes, really. It gives you a perfect opportunity to discuss what your players really want to see, or what balance issues they feel would ruin the game. It can be neat noting a detail they didn't expect to be relevant and bringing it up later (the sailor thing I keep bringing up; maybe it was just a little meaningless flavor, but if you get to a point in the game where Ship's Passage can suddenly get them to where they need to go, they feel good and you look smart), but that's much different from trying to base the game around a detail the player might not have wanted (back to the sailor; the player might like the themes but actually hate nautical gameplay. This is an actual problem I had, and I made the wrong call in designing a session around it. That's my lesson here- don't go overdesigning for things your players didn't sign on for).

It's all about that open communication. I feel like a good DM will generally be okay adapting for whatever their players ask for, but it's no sin to just not have the hours in the day to reconfigure their game for a sudden change. They should just be upfront about it. And hopefully not overly rigid about it either- if a player makes a decision and the DM can't or won't honor it, they ought to at least get the opportunity to make a different decision.

Though hopefully all of this got addressed back at Session Zero. That really is the best way to head these problems off at the pass.

Session Zero all day, every day, baby. It seriously solves 95% of problems, before the campaign even starts.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Poke them in the character weaknesses instead!

This, but not blue. Mechanical stuff is, ultimately, boring after a bit. Toying with their character, exploiting the fact that A is greedy and will jump at the sight of gold, while B has a hero complex and C hates to be called "short" (despite being short even for a halfling) is much more fun. And never gets old.

I'd say a lot of the art of DM'ing is knowing how to lay out lures and hooks that, while the players could totally disregard them and the game would continue[1], the characters are almost guaranteed to bite hard on. And make antagonists and supporting casts that the characters will love to hate and hate to love and love to love and hate to hate. The worst response to a situation or an NPC is "meh." That's failure.

I've loved when players say "As <my character>, I totally hate this guy. As a player, I kinda like him." And when I can poke the characters such that the players get emotionally involved. Positively, negatively, and in bizarre and unusual ways as well. DM'ing is, to a degree, about being a gigantic but good-hearted troll. Knowing where to poke the characters and players so that they react...and like it. Technical encounter-running or rule-adjudication skills can be replaced (to some degree) with a computer, as can pretty graphics and great stories. But only a human can understand other humans and adapt to their specific needs. So far, at least.

[iTreeby]

The Guards and Wards spell is the one that bugs me the most. I cannot, for the life of me figure out how players interact with it.

Imagine you are having combat in a four way mist filled corridor an you are playing on a grid board. The enemy shoots a bow from the center of the corridor and then moves west. On a players turn, the head west but they fail the percentile roll so the "feel like they went the wrong way".

Do you move their piece west or east?do you just tell them they feel like they went the wrong way? Do you interrupt their turn to tell them they went the wrong way?

Then there is the issue with hidden doors in foggy Corridors, if the Corridors are obscured with fog, how do they even see the illusion of a wall covering a door, aren't they unable to see the doors anyway? But at the same time does bumping blindly into wall even have rules? How do they even know they are in a Corridor anyway? Do you draw the map square by square as they move through it and make them spend movement bumping into walls that are really locked doors covered by illusions they can't see? Do you draw the map based on what direction they think they are going?

Basically I can't figure out how it's supposed to be done or how to balance it according to the CR system for any sort of actual encounter.

[Luccan]

If you run Wild Magic Sorcerer by the book, it requires a fair amount of recollection on the DM's part to function. Even if you don't, say you allow the player to roll their wild magic chance whenever it could apply, you'll have to keep in mind a general level of potential disruption the wild magic table can cause.

[Segev]

If you run Wild Magic Sorcerer by the book, it requires a fair amount of recollection on the DM's part to function. Even if you don't, say you allow the player to roll their wild magic chance whenever it could apply, you'll have to keep in mind a general level of potential disruption the wild magic table can cause.

For this, my recommendation is to let them roll it at every opportunity UNLESS the moment would be ruined by randomness interfering. Treat it as the DM choosing sometimes that it doesn't trigger rather than as the DM sometimes choosing to trigger it. Deny it when the tension ratchets up if it isn't reliably available, or if you don't want wackiness entering into the scene at that moment.

[Rafaelfras]

I made a infiltration adventure so the assassin could use her ability.
It was quite effective and even when to cover was blown the bad guys though our party tricked her.
After that the other party members think we'll better of that assassin feature.
I am planing on another situation it could be useful again.
I also tend to shoot arrows on my monk and let her elemental cantrip do cool things, I try sometimes paralyze the player with a freedom of movement ring, throw fire at the one with fire resistant e and etc.
All in all my players seems very happy with their classes and magic itens, nothing until now went to waste

[Pixel_Kitsune]

THAT SAID, fast travel methods (teleport, wind walk, etc) do force you to change up how the campaign runs-- no more random encounters, no more getting lost in the wilderness, no more travel times.

Is it bad that both myself and my wife throw Fast Travel into games very very quickly BECAUSE we dislike random encounters and side tangents?

My Planescape Campaign I got them onto a Spelljammer almost immediately. Initially they were somewhat at the whim of the Captain and Crew, but as they earned the trust of these NPCs suddenly boom, go where you want.

Likewise my wife runs a game where by level 5 we had found these crystals that could be smashed to open portals IE: Wheel of Time or Rick and Morty. Initially they were limited by how fast they could be grown and that they break when used, but by level 10 we had a moderate surplus plus 2 characters had managed to develop magic rings that let them do it at will.

Neither game suffered for this, though I imagine it might have bit a PHB ranger.

[Amnestic]

Is it bad that both myself and my wife throw Fast Travel into games very very quickly BECAUSE we dislike random encounters and side tangents?


It's not bad, it just depends on what sort of game you're aiming for. Most 5e games, in my experience, lean away from a lot of random encounters during travel (and personally I think the mechanics for 5e support this, since you get full HP back on a long rest, along with all your resources, save hit dice which is only half, making random encounters somewhat time wasting). There are game types where you'd want them, but there's nothing wrong with just going "[...] and then you arrive at your destination."

[Segev]

It's not bad, it just depends on what sort of game you're aiming for. Most 5e games, in my experience, lean away from a lot of random encounters during travel (and personally I think the mechanics for 5e support this, since you get full HP back on a long rest, along with all your resources, save hit dice which is only half, making random encounters somewhat time wasting). There are game types where you'd want them, but there's nothing wrong with just going "[...] and then you arrive at your destination."

I actually think this is a failure of design in 5e (and other editions, as well, but particularly 5e): 5e talks about three pillars of the game, and "exploration" is one of them. "dot dot dot and then you get there" completely removes an enormous chunk of exploration.

It has its place, mind: if you know exactly where you're going and you're not going to discover anything new and there's no reason why a random encounter would add anything at all to the sense of the danger of travel or the like, sure, skip the travel time OOC and just "get there." But random and not-so-random encounters while traveling should be more significant, and exploration itself should have more "game" to it than it does.

[Amnestic]

I definitely think there can be 5e games focused on exploration, but for your more contemporary story-focused game, running across 1d3 assassin vines and then later 1 shambling mound and 1d4 will o' the wisp, and then later 1d12 ankhegs is just time the players (and DM) could be spending engaging with the story they actually want to tell.

One day I'll make a hexcrawl game and it'll be great. And the Wanderer background feature will be banned.

[EggKookoo]

If you go back and look at older edition published modules, especially 1e/2e stuff, it's all about getting there over being there. Later editions got more goal-oriented, so being there increased in significance.

I think there's a belief that modern players prefer the goal-oriented being there approach, but I'm not so sure. I'm running my players through a large complex and I did give them the macguffin of a Big Important Magic Item to find that's surely hidden deep in the depths of the place. I expected them to try to plot a direct course to it but so far they're happy to do a room-by-room. Granted, they have no idea where the thing really is, so it could be in one of those random rooms as far as they know, but they don't seem bothered by this and all indications are they're enjoying the process.

[Ionathus]

I definitely think there can be 5e games focused on exploration, but for your more contemporary story-focused game, running across 1d3 assassin vines and then later 1 shambling mound and 1d4 will o' the wisp, and then later 1d12 ankhegs is just time the players (and DM) could be spending engaging with the story they actually want to tell.

One day I'll make a hexcrawl game and it'll be great. And the Wanderer background feature will be banned.

Fun story, I actually tried to implement a 5e travel mechanic to make 6 days of travel through hostile countryside at least slightly challenging: if you're on the road, away from taverns or beds or friendly campgrounds, a long rest takes 24 hours instead of 8.

Suddenly, it was worth giving them 3 random (i.e. "plot-relevant") encounters and a few social/deception interactions spread across that week of travel, without making it either zero-challenge or overclocked to cram all the challenge into a single fight.

It pushed my Wizard to conserve her spellslots and she enjoyed having to make those risk calculations, but it did piss off the Paladin something fierce :smallbiggrin:

[heavyfuel]

When I make a campaign, I usually have the general stuff ready literally years before any player is made aware the campaign even exists. Checking my upcoming campaign folder, stuff like a few key NPCs and plot points are marked as "Date modified 04-Sep-19"

Session zero of a campaign will be used to give players a general idea of what to expect from the campaign. My games are all very sandboxy, so which problems and how to approach them, are very player-dependant, so I don't feel the need to tailor encounters, as players will usually do it themselves.