Tailoring characters to a campaign

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Threads come up here regularly that ask for help making a character for a specific campaign, and many of the responses focus on essentially trivializing aspects of the campaign: get a race that sees in the dark for OotA, breathes water for GoS, or is largely immune to cold for ID:RotF. Perhaps this is what the poster is looking for, so fair enough in offering this advise, but for me as both a player and a DM this ruins the experience. This is particularly true if the entire party adopts the same philosophy.
If the entire party breathes (and perhaps swims) underwater, then being there is largely meaningless; there is no fear of drowning and the campaign might just as well occur on land. Further, there is no sense of accomplishment or growth when the group acquires a magic item, spell, or ability that helps in this regard. The same is true if the whole group sees in the dark or is largely immune to whatever environmental conditions are present. I remember my group running and hiding in the dark during OotA and that sense of being hunted, then the happiness in getting the Darkvision spell, and can't imagine their experience would have been as rich otherwise.
I do think there is some common sense advise that is reasonable to make a character or party at least functional for a particular campaign, for example having at least 1 priest in going through CoS, or not building a fire based blaster for a campaign fighting Devils. Beyond not creating a party or character that is really sub-par, I'd say most advise tailoring to a specific campaign is largely counter productive and decreases fun. Thoughts?

[JonBeowulf]

While I completely agree that customizing your hero for the threat they will face reduces the challenge (and thereby, the fun), there are thousands of players that thrive on that type of customization. Optimizers, min-maxers, and even a few munchkins abound on this forum and they find a lot of enjoyment in building the best character they can for whatever situation is presented.

It's not wrong, it's just different.

For me, I'll build a character I want to play and make a tweak or two if the base concept would be a hindrance to the group. If I can't make it work (the rest of the party can <insert ability here> and I can't) then I'll either work on another concept I like (that has that ability) or I'll just find another game. There are lots of folks on Roll20 and Foundry... no need to play a character I don't like in a game I (likely) won't enjoy.

[clash]

I agree with you right now. We are playing a dungeon campaign where the entire thing takes place underground. Every other player has dark vision and a good half of them have sunlight sensitivity but it both didn't fit my race concept or my character concept. So I can't see underground and no one has light or dancing lights spell. It kinda makes me feel like the bottle neck as far as lighting goes because everyone else built to trivialize the campaign challenge and I built who I wanted.

[Unoriginal]

Threads come up here regularly that ask for help making a character for a specific campaign, and many of the responses focus on essentially trivializing aspects of the campaign: get a race that sees in the dark for OotA, breathes water for GoS, or is largely immune to cold for ID:RotF. Perhaps this is what the poster is looking for, so fair enough in offering this advise, but for me as both a player and a DM this ruins the experience. This is particularly true if the entire party adopts the same philosophy.
If the entire party breathes (and perhaps swims) underwater, then being there is largely meaningless; there is no fear of drowning and the campaign might just as well occur on land. Further, there is no sense of accomplishment or growth when the group acquires a magic item, spell, or ability that helps in this regard. The same is true if the whole group sees in the dark or is largely immune to whatever environmental conditions are present. I remember my group running and hiding in the dark during OotA and that sense of being hunted, then the happiness in getting the Darkvision spell, and can't imagine their experience would have been as rich otherwise.
I do think there is some common sense advise that is reasonable to make a character or party at least functional for a particular campaign, for example having at least 1 priest in going through CoS, or not building a fire based blaster for a campaign fighting Devils. Beyond not creating a party or character that is really sub-par, I'd say most advise tailoring to a specific campaign is largely counter productive and decreases fun. Thoughts?

Like many thing, it's a question of not overdoing it.

Darkvision doesn't help that much in OotA, GoS doesn't require you to breath underwater or to have a swimming speed. The modules have built-in ways to handle those things, and if you spend character ressources on it you won't have other things that could be useful.

Furthermore, no module is written so that you exclusively have X to handle, meaning that a character built specifically to counter X will have troubles with the rest.

On the other hand, it's generally not fun to have characters unsuited for the campaign, so as long as it's not overdone it's probably better.


I agree with you right now. We are playing a dungeon campaign where the entire thing takes place underground. Every other player has dark vision and a good half of them have sunlight sensitivity but it both didn't fit my race concept or my character concept. So I can't see underground and no one has light or dancing lights spell. It kinda makes me feel like the bottle neck as far as lighting goes because everyone else built to trivialize the campaign challenge and I built who I wanted.

So everyone else is walking around unable to see anything past 30ft and with a negative modifier to WIS (Perception), and they're fine with that?

[5eNeedsDarksun]

While I completely agree that customizing your hero for the threat they will face reduces the challenge (and thereby, the fun), there are thousands of players that thrive on that type of customization. Optimizers, min-maxers, and even a few munchkins abound on this forum and they find a lot of enjoyment in building the best character they can for whatever situation is presented.

It's not wrong, it's just different.

For me, I'll build a character I want to play and make a tweak or two if the base concept would be a hindrance to the group. If I can't make it work (the rest of the party can <insert ability here> and I can't) then I'll either work on another concept I like (that has that ability) or I'll just find another game. There are lots of folks on Roll20 and Foundry... no need to play a character I don't like in a game I (likely) won't enjoy.

I was going to mention min-maxers and munchkins in my OP, but thought the better of it. That said, if I was going to generalize, I'd agree and say those are predominantly the 2 groups looking for this kind of advise. Munchkins are easier to deal with of course; as the DM you can generally guide them towards characters that are functional but not trivializing. Some other more experienced players just perceive that they need to have no weaknesses and be prepared for every situation.
Which kind of leads me to your second point. I'm not sure it's as big an issue if you just have 1 or 2 of those types of players. So long as somebody is having to run around with a torch and be a beacon or hold their breath for that 60' reef, then benefits from the spell/ ability/ magic item down the road, then the adventure usually still has the intended meaning, challenge, and sense of reward. If everyone is doing it then it's a problem. Also, if I show up at a table with the only non-Triton or non-Sea Elf in a somewhat underwater adventure and I'm perceived as a hinderance that's a problem. I'd say it's a problem with the other players and likely find a new table if they are unable to get around the idea that the 'fish out of water' experience of my character and his growth are important.

[Unoriginal]

So long as somebody is having to run around with a torch and be a beacon

I'll never get how this concept became so prevalent.

Having a light source =/= drawing everyone's attention automatically.

[clash]

So everyone else is walking around unable to see anything past 30ft and with a negative modifier to WIS (Perception), and they're fine with that?

The problem is the dm just hand waves the disadvantages of dark vision instead of light

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I'll never get how this concept became so prevalent.

Having a light source =/= drawing everyone's attention automatically.

I feel like you and I aren't going to agree on much.
The other poster mentioned he was the only character without darkvision, meaning if the character wants to see the entire group is now visible from a great distance. In a straight line that's miles (which includes a 5 mile long cave as one of the optional encounter areas in OotA that is designed to be put in early on). Even in a winding cave, the group without the light is going to be aware of you before you are of them, meaning ambushes are always going to be going one way.
So far as GoS, no the early parts of the adventure don't need you to have swimming/ water breathing, and that's the point. What if you fall off the boat? What if the whole group needs to fight on a shallow reef? What if one of those underwater baddies manages to shackle you to a rock? Yes you can do all of those things, but there is a risk. Without that risk from the environment you might as well set the adventures on land in daylight in a moderate temperature because they are irrelevant.

[Unoriginal]

The problem is the dm just hand waves the disadvantages of dark vision instead of light

That is indeed a problem.


meaning if the character wants to see the entire group is now visible from a great distance. In a straight line that's miles (which includes a 5 mile long cave as one of the optional encounter areas in OotA that is designed to be put in early on). Even in a winding cave, the group without the light is going to be aware of you before you are of them, meaning ambushes are always going to be going one way.

I indeed disagree on that. Having a light out does not mean you're automatically visible for miles or automatically detected in a winding cave.

If that was the case, mining would be much easier a job and burglary much harder.



So far as GoS, no the early parts of the adventure don't need you to have swimming/ water breathing, and that's the point. What if you fall off the boat? What if the whole group needs to fight on a shallow reef? What if one of those underwater baddies manages to shackle you to a rock? Yes you can do all of those things, but there is a risk. Without that risk from the environment you might as well set the adventures on land in daylight in a moderate temperature because they are irrelevant.

True, but I haven't disagreed with that. I'm saying the module has ways to handle the underwater environment, so an all-aquatic team is just a shortcut at the cost of other things.

[Addaran]

So everyone else is walking around unable to see anything past 30ft and with a negative modifier to WIS (Perception), and they're fine with that?
When you're a DM, do orcs and goblins travel with torches? During raids? Cause if they don't do it, I'm certainly not going to do it. What about kobolds and drows? Is the cut-off point for no light source between 60ft and 120 ft of darkvision? Sunlight sensitivity (though that doesn't trigger with a torch)?

I'll never get how this concept became so prevalent.

Having a light source =/= drawing everyone's attention automatically.

I LARP and even with a good moon, if you're in the dark and someone comes with a spotlight, torch or a lantern, you definitively see them from far away. Even in a forest. On a plain or if it's really dark, it's even worst.
Having a torch during a good moon means you see in the light radius and absolutely nothing further. If i don't have a torch, i won't see as much details, but i'll see a lot further then i could with a torch.

[Ettina]

I disagree that being able to swim & breathe underwater means you "may as well just be playing on land". There's a lot of ways that the experience of swimming and breathing water in an aquatic campaign differs from a land campaign. I mean, unless you're assuming the land campaign features an all-aarakocra party fighting almost entirely flying opponents, an underwater campaign is automatically going to be more 3D. It's also got very different terrain and monsters.

And many of the races that are best able to function underwater are races you're unlikely to ever pick for a land campaign, so that in itself would make me want to encourage their use in the one kind of campaign they're best suited for. I can't think of a single land campaign where anyone has played a triton or sea elf, for example. You can play your high elf or human anywhere, but an underwater campaign is the chance to feel cool for picking a triton instead of feeling like you're wasting most of your racial abilities.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I'm thinking some of this discussion around minutia of specific rules is getting away from my OP around how much characters should be tailored to challenges in a campaign. (No blame: probably my responses as responsible as any)

Anyway I just think back to DMing Ghosts of Saltmarsh and how genuinely scared my players were when their characters were diving down to loot a wreck and I had skeletons attack with manacles that were chained to boulders. It added such a great dynamic to a fight where it was no longer about just killing the opponents. If we could all breathe water, who cares?
Looking ahead I'm going to be a player in Rime of the Frostmaiden. I don't know anything about the module other than it's going to be cold. Yes, I could make a character who is largely resistant to that, but for me when the DM preps an entire evening around a journey where we are fighting to survive the elements, I just have no interest in playing the guy who is largely resistant or immune. Even if somebody does, it's probably not the end of the world, but if we all are...

[Unoriginal]

I'm thinking some of this discussion around minutia of specific rules is getting away from my OP around how much characters should be tailored to challenges in a campaign. (No blame: probably my responses as responsible as any)

Anyway I just think back to DMing Ghosts of Saltmarsh and how genuinely scared my players were when their characters were diving down to loot a wreck and I had skeletons attack with manacles that were chained to boulders. It added such a great dynamic to a fight where it was no longer about just killing the opponents. If we could all breathe water, who cares?
Looking ahead I'm going to be a player in Rime of the Frostmaiden. I don't know anything about the module other than it's going to be cold. Yes, I could make a character who is largely resistant to that, but for me when the DM preps an entire evening around a journey where we are fighting to survive the elements, I just have no interest in playing the guy who is largely resistant or immune. Even if somebody does, it's probably not the end of the world, but if we all are...

Well, you could make a character that addresses the issue, rather than being immune to it.

For example, for Rime of the Frostmaiden, you could make a character that is great at survival, or help the group travel, or is all about fire.

[Addaran]

I'm thinking some of this discussion around minutia of specific rules is getting away from my OP around how much characters should be tailored to challenges in a campaign. (No blame: probably my responses as responsible as any)


Regarding your OP, i wasn't sure what to answer because it's such a complicated question. For example, picking a ranger with the right environment and enemy is exactly the right way to play it. Otherwise you use your features only once every 10 fights in a normal campaign. Ettina brings a good point too. When do you play an aquatic race outside of aquatic campaign? The only time you get to use your stuff, aside from a tricky encounter is when you go explore alone underwater cause nobody can follow, so you steal all the spotlight.

But the other extreme of super tailoring your character to trivialize everything is not fun for the others and GM. Especially if you have a "walkthrough" character cause someone who read/played the campaign tell you what to get.

From personal experience, being the only one without darkvision, the only one who can't survive a huge fall, the only one without mobility, stealth, etc really sucks. It tend to make scenes where you're left out or you do nothing but move toward the conflict. If 50%+ of the team have it, i'll try really hard to have it.

[Corsair14]

I think the problem here is DMs giving too much away of their campaigns thus allowing the PCs to prepare for it. We will use my next campaign intro for example. Fluff I give them is essentially they are entering Jerusalem after several years of nonstop fighting and trudging across Europe and then Byzantium and then finally the Holy Land. Through hardship and loss etc etc. They pick Humans, classes available are X, gear depends on what type of profession they are be it knight, man at arms, priest etc. Then I totally throw them for a loop and unbeknownst to them send them to Ravenloft where they become tools of various darklords while trying to find a way home and I try to corrupt them to the point one of them becomes a dark lord.

Good luck power gaming in advance from that.

If you are running a pre-made campaign, dont tell your players. They will simply go wikki the campaign and figure out what works best. For some reason DnD has turned into a competition instead of being characters in a story. Tell them what level, races and classes are available or what books they can use. You can mention if zoo races will be treated badly by the inhabitants like in most ravenloft realms or if anything goes and no one cares like new FR stuff. Put a opaque cover on your campaign book. Never tell them what premade you are playing until afterward.

[Lupine]

I LARP and even with a good moon, if you're in the dark and someone comes with a spotlight, torch or a lantern, you definitively see them from far away. Even in a forest. On a plain or if it's really dark, it's even worst.
Having a torch during a good moon means you see in the light radius and absolutely nothing further. If i don't have a torch, i won't see as much details, but i'll see a lot further then i could with a torch.

Having done quite a lot of camping (record being twelve days straight of backpacking) i can confirm that this is 100% true. When you’re within a fire’s light, you see basic shapes outside that light, typically only if they’re against the horizon. However, if you’ve been in the dark for a while, you can generally see a much wider area, with much better detail.

If someone has a lantern, or a fire, or a flashlight, you see that stuff, pretty much automatically. This is because your eyes are drawn to such sources of light, AND coupled with the fact that the reflected light from that area’s surrounding allows you to see that area with detail and color. Yeah. You’re seeing that stuff. Maybe not from miles away, but certainly from a couple hundred.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I think the problem here is DMs giving too much away of their campaigns thus allowing the PCs to prepare for it. We will use my next campaign intro for example. Fluff I give them is essentially they are entering Jerusalem after several years of nonstop fighting and trudging across Europe and then Byzantium and then finally the Holy Land. Through hardship and loss etc etc. They pick Humans, classes available are X, gear depends on what type of profession they are be it knight, man at arms, priest etc. Then I totally throw them for a loop and unbeknownst to them send them to Ravenloft where they become tools of various darklords while trying to find a way home and I try to corrupt them to the point one of them becomes a dark lord.

Good luck power gaming in advance from that.

If you are running a pre-made campaign, dont tell your players. They will simply go wikki the campaign and figure out what works best. For some reason DnD has turned into a competition instead of being characters in a story. Tell them what level, races and classes are available or what books they can use. You can mention if zoo races will be treated badly by the inhabitants like in most ravenloft realms or if anything goes and no one cares like new FR stuff. Put a opaque cover on your campaign book. Never tell them what premade you are playing until afterward.

Kind of arguing against my own OP here, but can you go too far here? Would you let a player bring a fire dragon sorcerer into a campaign where all the meaningful fights are against monsters that are totally immune to fire?

[Sigreid]

Kind of arguing against my own OP here, but can you go too far here? Would you let a player bring a fire dragon sorcerer into a campaign where all the meaningful fights are against monsters that are totally immune to fire?

Let them? Yes. Warn them that they'll be at a disadvantage relying primarily on one damage type? Yes. Tell them that it's specifically fire they should be avoiding? Probably not.

[Unoriginal]

An example of over-tailoring your character for a campaign I know of (I didn't see it myself, but the people involved told the story afterward) was from a group who were playing a campaign including the module where you can find Blackrazor.

One of the players had designed their PC to be the optimized Blackrazor wielder, with the goal of getting that Legendary sword ASAP. Except they were mistaken about what kind of sword Blackrazor is in 5e and optimized for a different kind of sword.

[Corsair14]

Kind of arguing against my own OP here, but can you go too far here? Would you let a player bring a fire dragon sorcerer into a campaign where all the meaningful fights are against monsters that are totally immune to fire?

I would actually. If its a pre-existing campaign world like greyhawk or FR I would tell them whether zoo races are going to be welcome or chased out of the average town or city with torches and pitchforks for being some sort of demon or whether magic is tolerated or not. But I would not tell them we are playing X campaign.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

An example of over-tailoring your character for a campaign I know of (I didn't see it myself, but the people involved told the story afterward) was from a group who were playing a campaign including the module where you can find Blackrazor.

One of the players had designed their PC to be the optimized Blackrazor wielder, with the goal of getting that Legendary sword ASAP. Except they were mistaken about what kind of sword Blackrazor is in 5e and optimized for a different kind of sword.

Sounds like Karma. I think if I had an idea that a player had done that sort of digging I'd be changing the item to suit someone else.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Well, you could make a character that addresses the issue, rather than being immune to it.

For example, for Rime of the Frostmaiden, you could make a character that is great at survival, or help the group travel, or is all about fire.

Had a blast playing a dwarf nature cleric who was an aspiring mountaineering guide. Not optimized, but fun to play,