[3.5] DM wanting tactical and challening combat, players with bad builds

[TheFallenOne]

So, three days ago I started a new campaign with me as DM(first time in a long time, I once started a campaign years ago, but unfortunately it didn't get far because we were in that age when people start moving for jobs, university and stuff)

I'll give a summary of the session, if you want just the gist of it and what I'm asking advice for scroll down. I'll also talk about the campaign at large, maybe people also have comments or tips for that as well

We were playing Iron Kingdoms before, since one of our regulars is gone for a while we started something new with a replacement player. After a one-shot with our regular DM, we agreed on me DMing a new campaign.

I chose Faerun, told everyone to make a level 3 character, 34 point buy, 2 extra skill points per level(only for craft, profession and knowledge), 3000 GP. Campaign will play in Ravens Bluff, a thriving city in The Vast.
I explicitedly told them flaws and any WotC book they might have access to are allowed(I knew they have the books, but not how familiar they are with them). I didn't fear that anything overpowered might turn up; I'm by a good margin the one most knowledgeable in the rules. Our former DM knows his stuff too and the other two are at least proficient in Core, if nothing or not much else.

Now, in D&D I like both the roleplaying and the many options character building and combat gives you. I like tactical combat where characters make the best use of the options they have at hand(and are built to have said options) to overcome the opposition. I planned the encounters to give an impression of that and show them how I intend to have a dynamic and challening encounter work out.

The characters were
Dorn, Dwarfen cleric of Moradin. Pretty nondescript, though he got quite interested when I mentioned Dwarfen ruins beneath The Vast, so I think I can do something with that
Kerri, a female human fighter, evil. Carries a scythe where the blade can be folded down so it appears more like a strangely formed stick when the blade is somehow covered(I let him have it, it's not anywhere gamebreaking and gives the character something unique).
Dilaan, a halfelven rogue2/cleric1 of Mask. He's the only one who gave me a good piece of background. A former slave of the Zhentarim in a mining colony in the Earthspur Mountains, he managed to flee a couple weeks ago and tries to outrun his past(and potential pursuers, the character is quite paranoid).

Given this background, I decreed he can only have mundane equipment, a single magic item(stolen from an officer) and his wealth wouldn't be money, but a bag of gems that was part of the caravan he was accompanying when he fled.
He doesn't know the value of the gems yet. In fact, I don't either, it will be 1d100x50 GP. And he'll roll openly

I quickly incorporated his backstory into my opening plot to introduce them to the intrigues of Ravens Bluff. I went a bit off-canon; Charles O'Kane is major, but after the Lady Amber desaster the office holds way less authority than once before. Instead, the noble families and merchant houses, organized in the noble council and merchant council, run most things and vie with each other for influence and power. I planned to throw them right into one of these conflicts.

To do that and bring the PCs to work together, the thought was the following: they are bound to arrive per ship in Ravens Bluff, and one of the noble families has an interest in one of them. A spy from an opposing merchant house(Ambrath) learns about this, but doesn't know which of the three they want. So the simple solution: capture all three of them and bring them before Embro Ambrath to learn more.

Here, I made use of Dilaans backstory: a Zhentarim mining colony in the Earthspur Mountains seems far-fetched, it's a good way from their main base of operations. So I decided the mining is just a facade, in truth they're searching for a lost artifact(maybe Dwarfen or hidden in Dwarfen ruins to give the cleric a connection too). A psionic spy learned about this, but was mortally wounded before he could make it out. Desperate, he grabbed the next slave passing by, implanted the knowledge of what he'd learned in his mind, gave him a subconscious desire to flee to Ravens Bluff and altered his memory then to forget this episode. Unfortunately, he was pretty weakened by then, so he screwed up, messing up Dilaans short term memory(which lead to the blackouts he started having in our first session, his reaction was quite interesting ).

Anyway, so much for my planning. The day of playing came, we met, I took a look at their sheets.
Their builds were horrible for the most part.

The Dwarf actually took a feat for martial weapon proficiency, the other was in Quicken Spell. And since I bet he never even heard about metamagic reducers it will be four more levels before he can quicken a zero level spell.
None of them had Flaws even though I sent them the SRD link for them. I thought I had accounted for them not making the strongest of characters, but I suspected combat would be tougher than planned when I made the encounters.

Anyway, they meet in Calaunt. Kerri and Dorn arrived there by ship, the Arianna of Cali****e merchant Dar Al Asam who will bring them to Ravens Bluff as well the next morning. They go into the tavern Fresh Breeze, a quite ironic name(Calaunt is famous for the stink of it's tanneries).
Dilaan arrives with some rafters down the Vesper and looks for a ship to Ravens Bluff. Because of the unusually stormy weather, only two will leave port there the next day, the Arianna and the warship O'Kanes Hammer, so naturally he takes passage on the Arianna. Lacking money, he pays with the smallest gem in his bag, no idea what it might be worth. Dar Al Asam, always looking for profit, gets quite interested and introduces the PCs to each other. They have some talk with each other, Al Asam and the barman, try the local black beer etc. Dilaan, always conspicious, wants a locked cellar room. Everyone goes to sleep.
That's when he has his first black out; one moment in the bar, the next in a cold stone room, door locked from the inside. Insecure, he goes to sleep.

Some unusual morning rituals later(Kerri, to overcome her hangover, devoured a cold hering, which led to the barmaid fleeing sick. After that, Kerri walked out without paying for the room), they set sail. Al Asam invited them for a parting meal and drink(the ship has an exceptional cook, unfortunately all he can do is fish, even the potatoes taste like pike). Dilaan wants to cast Detect Poison, but when I point out that somatic and verbal components won't go unnoticed, he decides against it. To my luck, because the wine was poisoned.
They drift off sleeping; the dwarf last, but he's so captured in conversation about Dwarfen ruins he doesn't notice what's happening to the other two until it's too late(spot 3).

They wake up in the hold, manacled, without weapons and armor. An empty chair before their barred compartment and noises the deck above betrays that there was supposed to be a guard down here, but it grew boring and he joined the other guards above to play cards and dice(once they hear YAHTZEE!). Dilan still has his thieves tools because they were hidden, so they manage to get rid of their manacles and out of the compartment. Searching the hold for equipment, they find leather, studded leather and a single scale mail, small shields, alchemist fires, javelins, a heavy crossbow, woodaxes and a club(the last two were improvised weapons, but I only gave them -2 attack for them).

Kerri has trapmaking and makes a tripwire and greasy floor at the stairs, then, pretending to be just waking up, they try luring the guards down. Once they start smashing vases(their compartment had trade goods too), it works.
The guards were three first level warriors(human, half elf, halfling) and a fighter 1 leader with improved disarm. The elf goes down and gets instantgibbed by a heavy crossbow sneak attack and falls down over the trip wire. Since the shot was fired while he still was on the stairs, the other guards notice, but don't storm down as the PCs hope. Instead, the pause to deliberate if they should handle it alone or inform the rest of the ship. That's when the PCs go on the offensive themselves, taking the stairs.

Since they're in the middle of a storm, the ship as swaying, giving alternating high ground bonus to each side of the ship, with one round of level ground in between. The fight takes quite a toll on them because of some good rolls on my part and bad luck on theirs(the 12 HP leader only went down after four hits). They capture the halfling alive after he tries to open a locked door, pleading to be let in. They interrogate him and learn there are others hidden on the deck and they retrieve their equipment after some healing. They break into the kitchen(that's where the halfling wanted to flee) and capture the cook, but ignore the other rooms for too long, so thr guys hidden there fled on deck and raised alarm.

I had planned for a climatic showdown on the deck in the middle of a storm, using the Stormwrack rules for that, but the PCs decide to barricade below. There's some attempt at negotiating, but no solution is found. That's when smokesticks are thrown down.

The final encounter I had planned was Tirosh, Al Asams bodyguard, an Azurin Warblade 3. He was supposed to be on one hand Mr. Exposition, introducing them to the concepts of Soulmelds and Martial Maneuvers with some Knowledge checks, on the other hand a good challenge. I wanted to pit the three of them against a single decently built character of the same level to showcase what can be done in D&D, but still weak enough to be defeated after a lengthy battle(I built him more for staying power, his feats were Stone Power, Shape Soulmeld: Mantle of Flame, Martial Study: Crusaders Strike. In retrospect, he may have been a more than decent build I guess), they had advantage in numbers, equipment and Tirosh had no flaws and lower point buy(didn't know yet they don't have flaws either when writing him). Also, he would have dropped a lesser version of the White Raven Crown, a headband giving access to a single level 1 maneuver per encounter.
Anyway, Dorn and Kerri retreat to the kitchen, Dilaan stays longer for some reason. Failing his listen check, he is found by Tirosh thanks to Hunters Sense and knocked unconscious with a nonlethal crit.
Cue second blackout: he's suddenly standing before Al Asam, expecting answer to a question Dilaan can't remember.
After some diplomacy, he learns Embro Ambrath offered 20.000 GP for the three of them delivered alive, and only alive. He is ready to negotiate surrender with the others.
Brought down to the kitchen by Tirosh, Kerri taunts the latter, knowing through Knowledge Local that Azurins often act rash because of their shorter life span. She gets him into a duel, which the dwarf suddenly joins, ganging up on the Warblade. It doesn#t go well for them, they score some hits, but take more themselves and Mantle of Flame does the rest; Kerri is in the negatives, Dorn let's his hammer sink. Tirosh stuffs a potion down Kerris throat to save her. That's when Dilaan, who silently removed the ropes binding him, sneak attacks with a dagger, narrowly missing thanks to Uncanny Dodge. Dorn resumes the fight, but is too battered and play ends with all three unconscious and stable, to be delivered to Embro Ambrath next session.

The gist of it
Everyone had a lot of fun, but in the end I think they got frustrated because they had the impression of not being able to win against the Warblade 3 I presented them with. I wanted to give them an impression of my personal favourite Tome of Battle and show them what you can do with a well built character in combat(I particularly like ToB because you can always do something interesting, instead of just alternating throwing d20s with the same modifier again and again until one side is left standing). Instead, it seemed they regard what they witnessed now as inherently overpowered and powergaming(it's more like they are underpowered if you ask me) and when I explained how I'd prefer combat to play out and that they should make better use of the many options given to them, Kerris and Dorns players said they don't want to read through a dozen books to learn powergaming.
Which is a false dillemma I think, first, I'm not asking for powergaming, just that their characters are halfway competent at combat so I don't have to pull my punches anytime they run into an encounter their CR o higher and because tactical and clever combat is an important part of D&D for me. Second, I don't ask them to read through whole books, it's enough if they look at the feat sections in the Complete book corresponding to their class and Complete Adventurer. Looking at the summary tables and sorting out the ones they won't qualify for in a reasonable amount of time that's just a couple pages I ask them to go through(though I failed to make the latter point in our after-session talk).

So, given my situation - I, a DM with a favour for well-built characters, tactical and tough combat and players who know the rules well enough, but rather weak at character building and questionable interest to learn more about it - what should I do? Settle for low power, throw encounters below their level at them or play the monsters purposefully bad? Or stand my ground, trying to clear up what to me seem to be misconceptions about what is and isn't powergaming and the amount of work I want them to invest?

[Saph]

I think the mistake you're making is that you're confusing "tactical and challenging" with "high power level". Fortunately, you seem to have a basically good group and I don't think the problem's going to be hard to fix.

Tactics and build optimisation are completely different things. You can have an involving, challenging tactical encounter between two utterly unoptimised characters. Likewise, you can have players with hideously powerful characters who play them with all the subtlety and finesse of a rabid wombat.

Your players don't seem interested in optimisation; don't try to force them into it, they'll just be unhappy. Instead, build characters on the same power level as them and then play them tactically. ToB characters are among the top 5 most powerful base classes in the game at low levels; of course a well-built Warblade is going to own a bunch of badly built PCs! But you can have just as much challenge and tactics in a battle with a Fighter, or a Barbarian, or even a Warrior. Set the power level to your players and then you can get into the tactics. You get to have challenging and tactical fights; they get to have winnable challenges. Everyone's happy.

[WarKitty]

How experienced are your players? It sounds like you have at least one fairly new character. I've had good luck running 2 or 3 sessions or so at just the level to scare them good, maybe capture them once or twice. Then offer them a chance to rebuild.

[Aotrs Commander]

Frankly, I'd be a little concerned about three level three characters not being able to defeat a single opponent of equal level, regardless of class, assuming they were in a reasonable state to start with. That's barely more than an even-CR, so they should be able to handle three of those per day! If a Warblade 3 is going to run them ragged, how do they expect to stand up to a Cleric or Wizard (which are fairly frequent among character classed enemies?) Their tactics in that encounter seemed rather poor, to be honest. Bad luck is a contributing factor, but only so far.

That said, there is also the point that a 3-man party is actually a lot more vulnerable when thing go south than a four- or six- man group, since the proportion of your capability that goes down is much higher and things can snowball fast; and low-level parties are much more vulnerable than higher level ones (particularly multiclass characters). So bear that in mind.



I find the best solution for an optimisation is generally to offer to help the players with their builds; give them a few good suggestions on what to go for; a few is better than one, as then they still have some choice, obviously. If they don't want to learn the books themselves, that's fine; you as DM (or even as just a more rules-savy player) should be offering suggestions from the best options available. They only have to learn the bits relevant to their characters then. (Making people have to learn the whole system as well as you is kinda harsh, and not everyone has that time or inclination.) My experience has generally been that if you offer helpful and friendly advice, most people will accept it. (Be it about rules or roleplaying.) And you can hopefully try and meet them halfway.

If, on the other hand, they flat-out refuse to follow any of your advice and deliberately make themselves weak, them I would feel no obligation to go easy on them to any large degree. I, as DM, have to put in a hell of a lot of time and effort to run my games, so I expect some effort from the players too, to at least TRY to meet me halfway.



Tactically, nothing is better for encouraging tactics than having the party completely run around by opponents way below their weight range. (That might be even your first bet. Throw encounters with low-level clerics at them, and show them the better cleric spells in practise.)

One party I had once was not working as a team at all. Every fight, they were scattering all over the place, doing their own thing. So I had them run into a mixed encounter of enemies quite a bit below their level. The PCs were a very strong group, fully rested, about 8-10th level, I think, and there were, like, eight of them, verses about two dozen level four fighters, rangers and anti-paladins and four 5th level casters (I tend to run large encounters). They won the encounter, but only because they had the level advantage. (By rights, they should have pretty much creamed the opposition.)

After the combat, I looked at the players and said. "Right. Now imagine what would have happened if there had actually been anyone with any ability there. You'd have been toast. They split you up and totally out-manouvered you. If any of them had been above level 5, you'd all be dead. You guys are going to have to start working together, or you're going to get slaughtered next time." And then they sat down and came up with some plans and starting working as a party, not a collection of individuals, and butchered the rest of the adventure.

You might have similar success with a handful of intelligently-played first level characters. Six-to-eight intelligently played NPCs (or maybe less) could run rinsg round them. Heck, if all else fails, level three is still a viable point to have them get sand kicked over them by 1st level commoners, if you want! The point is to give them an encounter where they are totally and utterly out-manouvered, but one they survive, because well, they are simply higher level than the enemy. Hopefully, the blow to the collective egos (in and out of character) at being schooled by Tim, Fred and Bill the peasent might make them start to improve.

Or, if not, you'll know you either have to not bother running for them or just set up some training dummies to knock down every combat.

[gomipile]

I don't know Saph. I think I'm with the OP on part of this at least. The combat options that a ToB character has are much more interesting to play out than the options available to an unoptimized Fighter.


Also, to the OP: I think you need to draw a distinction between the players' use of options in character optimisation, and the use of all the options available to them on the spot when combat starts.

The latter seems to be where your players are really lacking. If you want to play tactically interesting combats, then your players need to learn to think on their feet and actually use their strengths.

Also, if they really think that ToB is overpowered now, try throwing some optimized druids, clerics, and wizards at them. To rub it in, use core only.

You'd need to break them of the notion that ToB is overpowered, if you want them to ever consider using options from it and similar books.

[Aotrs Commander]

Actually, as a very last resort, if you're confident in your abilities (and feeling a bit mean!), use a Mirror of Opposition and whomp them with their own characters. If that doesn't motivate them to work together (when their mirror-selves do) nothing will!

[ShneekeyTheLost]

So basically, the party consists of:

A Cleric of a race that has a Charisma penalty...
A Rogue2/Cleric1. Not Cloistered Cleric with Knowledge Devotion, not a Scout2/Cleric1 with Travel Devotion. A rogue2/Cleric1.
A character who has more than two levels in Fighter. Who uses one of the worst weapons in the game, barring CDG shenanigans

And this wasn't a hint that the players would not be able to fight their way out of a wet paper bag?

Honestly, I'm surprised they fared as well as they did. I don't think they could get more sub-optimal if they actively tried...

[mikau013]

The thing you need to do is just sit down with your players and tell them that you wanted to run a mid - high powered campaign and tell them that their current chars are low powered in your opinion.

And then you seek a solution together with them.

For example:
A) they rebuild their chars to be stronger / make new chars
B) you turn down the encounters more to their lvl
C) you give them magic items that improve them

Stuff like that will probably be the best solution. I'd advise against throwing optimized chars against them it will just ruin their fun and will to play, unless of course it is part of a get captured plot which may or may not be fun - :P

Keep in mind though tactical fighting doesn't just have to be about char options. Things like setting traps, using different terrain types to your advantage, stall tactics or just using diplomacy can make things tactically interesting as well.

[TheFallenOne]

Tactics and build optimisation are completely different things.
...
But you can have just as much challenge and tactics in a battle with a Fighter, or a Barbarian, or even a Warrior. Set the power level to your players and then you can get into the tactics. You get to have challenging and tactical fights; they get to have winnable challenges. Everyone's happy.

Yes and no. A Warblade has way more options than a fighter with Weapon Focus, Thug, and the rest of the feats I don't even remember, any round. He can select between maneuvers. He has tumble, so he can move around the battlefield without eating AoOs. He has many options, that gives him tactical depth. A fighter like that on the other hand can't do much besides attack, attack, attack, occasional 5 foot step to get into a better position. I want the PCs to have many options avaiable to them and use them wisely; be it a Warblade, a diverse caster or a fighter with Improved X feats

I find the best solution for an optimisation is generally to offer to help the players with their builds; give them a few good suggestions on what to go for; a few is better than one, as then they still have some choice, obviously. If they don't want to learn the books themselves, that's fine; you as DM (or even as just a more rules-savy player) should be offering suggestions from the best options available. They only have to learn the bits relevant to their characters then. (Making people have to learn the whole system as well as you is kinda harsh, and not everyone has that time or inclination.) My experience has generally been that if you offer helpful and friendly advice, most people will accept it. (Be it about rules or roleplaying.) And you can hopefully try and meet them halfway.

I offered them some advise and will continue to do so(maybe send them the crystalkeep feat summary pdf too). After seeing the clerics sheet and seeing he had the Earth and Protection domain and martial weapon prof as feat, I suggested two things:
War domain. Gives him weapon prof AND weapon focus, if he really wants a martial weapon that's the way to go
Protection Devotion since it fits the theme he had in mind. He didn't know the Devotion feats, so I explained how it works

He declined both

Also, to the OP: I think you need to draw a distinction between the players' use of options in character optimisation, and the use of all the options available to them on the spot when combat starts.

The latter seems to be where your players are really lacking. If you want to play tactically interesting combats, then your players need to learn to think on their feet and actually use their strengths.

Also, if they really think that ToB is overpowered now, try throwing some optimized druids, clerics, and wizards at them. To rub it in, use core only.

You'd need to break them of the notion that ToB is overpowered, if you want them to ever consider using options from it and similar books.

Regarding beating them with optimized high-Tiers, that would only further alienate them from whatever I use to do that, they'd just think I'm a show-off who loves powergaming. So I can show them Core has nasty broken stuff too, what does that accomplish? The problem isn't that they think ToB is broken, the problem is that they regard what I consider normal power-level as powergaming and either they don't try to build playable characters or they are bad at it.
And the feats they select don't even give the characters... well, character, which would justify a weaker choice. MPW and Quicken Spell doesn't give the cleric a profile, but out there are many feats that both give flavor and power

And their combat performance wasn't bad. The RP was nice, they had some good ideas, executed the trap well and the fight against the guards had some nice action too; the Dwarf actually moved to get use of the high ground bonus. Halfling vs Kerri was funny; the halfling hid under the table after Kerri cut down the human guard, Kerri jumped on the table. When the floor was slanted again, the halfling gave it a push and with a good strength-check threw it over, crashing Kerri down. Kerri, on lower ground, then kicked the table into the halflings face(got a 20 on strength check), doing d6 damage and throwing him prone.
The problem isn't that they don't use options, the problem is that they don't have many options at all. If I throw a CR3 or 4 creature at them(no, not the damn crab) I predict good chances of a TPK.

And the options they made use of I described here were only possible because I ingored RAW for the table kicking idea and because I set up a battlefield with the changing High Ground

So basically, the party consists of:

A Cleric of a race that has a Charisma penalty...
A Rogue2/Cleric1. Not Cloistered Cleric with Knowledge Devotion, not a Scout2/Cleric1 with Travel Devotion. A rogue2/Cleric1.
A character who has more than two levels in Fighter. Who uses one of the worst weapons in the game, barring CDG shenanigans

And this wasn't a hint that the players would not be able to fight their way out of a wet paper bag?

Honestly, I'm surprised they fared as well as they did. I don't think they could get more sub-optimal if they actively tried...

Cloistered Cleric is definitely something I'll mention to the player, yeah
And I got the hint, that's why my immediate reaction when I saw their sheets shortly before play was Ohoh. They had trouble with 2 first level warriors and a fighter, even with improvised weapons(and only -2 for it) that's bad. It was supposed to rough them up, but way less than it did(rogue/cleric used all his spells, cleric almost all his healing)

[darkpuppy]

I've gotta admit, that this is partly a communication problem (for example, if the guy turned down War domain, he has to have a reason, but you didn't specify what that was) and partly the fact that most players really don't want to read new books unless they a) already know it will benefit them, and b) Have a copy already. There also appears to be a bit of a difference in styles, because at least two of the roleplayers took roleplaying like options, and the third took the new player option of "whatever works for me".

The problem, as stated, seems to me to be one of differing playstyles. You're there asking for a ToB tactical game, and they just wanna get right in and play core. Okay, so core is broken, but the fact is, they see ToB as overpowered, and you're not going to convince them otherwise by next session... especially after they had their asses handed to them by a single warblade of their level. There's also the fact that you explained to the only dude who had a detailed background, a feat in terms of its mechanical benefit, not how it would fit his character and be cool with his background. Also, walking him through Quicken Spell might have been a good idea.

In the end, both parties (the party, and the DM) have differing opinions, and somebody's gotta give, or at least compromise. And, being the one running the game, that sadly means you have to ease them into it. Also, you told them anything goes, but didn't tell them you mainly wanted ToB used? sorry, Fallen One, but that was a bad move, right there. ToB, sad to say, is a book that most DMs need to specify, just like they occasionally have to specify beforehand "no"...

[TheFallenOne]

There's also the fact that you explained to the only dude who had a detailed background, a feat in terms of its mechanical benefit, not how it would fit his character and be cool with his background. Also, walking him through Quicken Spell might have been a good idea.

In the end, both parties (the party, and the DM) have differing opinions, and somebody's gotta give, or at least compromise. And, being the one running the game, that sadly means you have to ease them into it. Also, you told them anything goes, but didn't tell them you mainly wanted ToB used? sorry, Fallen One, but that was a bad move, right there. ToB, sad to say, is a book that most DMs need to specify, just like they occasionally have to specify beforehand "no"...

um, the rogue/cleric was the one with detailed background, my feat suggestions were for the Dwarfen cleric. I don't think I needed to explain War domain since it's core, and I chose to explain Protection Devotion from all avaiable options not because it's really good, but because it fits the characters theme and the domain he selected

And as I already said before, the problem isn't that they think ToB is overpowered; there are enough threads like that already. The Warblade was Mr. Exposition to introduce them to ToB and drop an item giving them access to level 1 maneuvers to ease them into it and either get interested in the book or not, their choice

[darkpuppy]

Then why did he turn down War domain? as a cleric of Moradin, the option is open, but these things must always be asked. Anyways, as far as ToB is concerned, I think they made their choice, considering the concerns they voiced. Which is a shame, because, while I don't personally think it's overpowered (as the DM, I can use it just as easily to tone people down as players can to build their characters up, so I see no problems), they obviously do, and that's cramping your own style.

[Saph]

I want the PCs to have many options avaiable to them and use them wisely; be it a Warblade, a diverse caster or a fighter with Improved X feats.

Then I'd say you've got a problem. If your enjoyment of the game requires the players to play their PCs to a high level of optimisation, then you're going to find it difficult to have fun as a DM unless you're in a very specific type of gaming group.

As someone who's DMed a lot, my advice would be to try to get away from the "I want the PCs to . . ." mindset. It's very easy to get frustrated because the players aren't doing what they're supposed to, but the thing to remember is that the whole point of a RPG is that the players are supposed to be the ones who decide what to do. If they don't want to focus on optimisation and combat effectiveness, it's a bad idea to try to force them.

I think one of the most important skills for a DM to pick up is the ability to run games at all optimisation levels. After all, if you can only handle games in a specific power band, you're effectively limiting yourself to a minority of the playerbase. So think of it as the opportunity to learn a new skill. Once you get used to scaling down the power levels a bit, you'll find that you don't really lose anything very much from the game.

[WarKitty]

It can always get worse. I've had to play a game with 1 player who thought like that...out of 6. Then he got frustrated because he felt useless.

Edit: I do sympathize. There is a certain set of players that just don't seem to want to bother with the rules, so they take whatever choice looks sort of good and stick to it. The player I referenced above was like that; he had Toughness for all but 3 or 4 of his feats as a level 7 fighter, because he didn't want to look through the rules for them.

However it sounds like you aren't going to win this one. It really depends on your players. If they don't want to bother, you're going to end up having to tone it down. I make encounters like that fun for me (as the DM) by starting with a REALLY sub-par option and then optimizing it. Like I'd start with core kobold warriors, and then see how powerful to make them.

[TheFallenOne]

Then why did he turn down War domain? as a cleric of Moradin, the option is open, but these things must always be asked.

beats me, I'll ask next time

Then I'd say you've got a problem. If your enjoyment of the game requires the players to play their PCs to a high level of optimisation, then you're going to find it difficult to have fun as a DM unless you're in a very specific type of gaming group.

I thought I made it clear I don't insist on them optimizing, I want them to be(yes, I said it again) reasonably competent. There's a big gap between "a high level of optimization" on the one end and the powerlevel of the characters I described on the other end. I say I don't want the latter, you hear that I want the former.

I think one of the most important skills for a DM to pick up is the ability to run games at all optimisation levels. After all, if you can only handle games in a specific power band, you're effectively limiting yourself to a minority of the playerbase. So think of it as the opportunity to learn a new skill. Once you get used to scaling down the power levels a bit, you'll find that you don't really lose anything very much from the game.

So, what's your suggestion, throwing single CR1s and 2s on a third level party, never let them fight an NPC of equal level and call it a day? That doesn't seem right(that's a serious question in case it seems passive aggressive. Is this what you would do, if not what then?)

I think it's at least reasonable to expect that they can deal with an equal CR creature. Because that's what the CR system says, wrong as it is in some cases. If their PCs can't do that, it's a good sign that something is wrong with the PCs and not my playstyle

And they have a lot of options, if they don't want to focus on combat, well, they can get into a game of intrigue, I'm prepared for that. But I know they want fights too(because I asked beforehand what they expect of the campaign), it's just that they're not used to the encounters using their abilities to the fullest(previous DM tended to scale down monsters or forget - intentional sometimes, unintentional othertimes I guess - some of their abilities)

[Dralnu]

Okay, I admit I actually had a similar situation to you:

When I read and understood ToB, I thought to myself, "OMG BEST THING EVARRRR!" I was convinced that my players, especially the one that always plays a fighter or barbarian, would fall in love with it just like I did. Even moreso because our group also had someone who always played a druid (albeit as support with Entangle, summons, and heals). Nay, I'd make them love it.

The result? They didn't want to try it. It was new and had funky mechanics. They were happy with their PHBs and it was enough for them. They didn't see balance issues. If they were having fun, why change? Sound familiar? So I didn't force them. Remember, you're running a campaign so your players have fun! If they're not having fun, you already know that you won't have fun either. Such is the life of a DM.

But here's how I solved this problem: The one time that I actually got to be a player in a campaign, I was a swordsage. I rocked house and looked super cool doing it. I intentionally picked swordsage over (yawn) warblade because I intentionally wanted to be stylish and not just rock the damage charts. They loved it. Now they wanted to learn ToB. DING DING SUCCESS!

Now, if that's not an option for you, here's one: load them up with phat lewt. Now the characters as SUPER STRONG (so you can throw optimized NPCs at them) and you're happy, and they don't have to read stuff that they don't want to so they're also happy. Everyone wins!

[Ernir]

Now, if that's not an option for you, here's one: load them up with phat lewt. Now the characters as SUPER STRONG (so you can throw optimized NPCs at them) and you're happy, and they don't have to read stuff that they don't want to so they're also happy. Everyone wins!

I have actually had that option fail.

I dropped an artifact weapon into the hands of the party. I was going to use this as a fix-everything for the party Barbarian, who was starting to lag behind the party casters powerwise at that point (ECL 10-11ish).

Well, the Barbarian didn't use it. Every time initiative was rolled, she instinctively looked at the same attack/damage bonus block she had been using for a while - the damage block for her old greatclub. She never used the artifact in battle.



TL;DR: Players are very strange creatures. And there's not much that can be done about that.

[Urpriest]

Reading through your post, here's what I gather:

1. The players fought through an interesting, fun battle, in which they fought tactically and creatively despite their low optimization and only got hurt more than you expected because of the luck of the dice, and

2. You split up the party and sicced a 3rd level NPC on what the game considers to be half a party (game is balanced around a party of four, your fight was vs. two of them). Furthermore, it was an enemy designed to win by attrition, and the designated "damage dealer" was out of the room. As such, they got trounced, and the late appearance of the guy that they would otherwise rely on to hit the guy every round didn't turn things around.

And you're worried they'll be squished in future? Don't be. Try out giving them CR-appropriate challenges when their party is together to fight them. They'll do fine, even though they threw most of their feats into the rubbish bin. And they and you certainly know how to have tactical fun with the characters at hand.

[Saph]

There's a big gap between "a high level of optimization" on the one end and the powerlevel of the characters I described on the other end. I say I don't want the latter, you hear that I want the former.

I don't think it matters. Here's the issue:

a) You want the players to play at power level X.
b) The players want to play at power level Y.

Someone is going to have to adjust. Since you're the DM, that someone is probably going to have to be you.

So, what's your suggestion, throwing single CR1s and 2s on a third level party, never let them fight an NPC of equal level and call it a day? That doesn't seem right(that's a serious question in case it seems passive aggressive. Is this what you would do, if not what then?)

I'm saying that you should tailor the power level to the players, instead of expecting them to tailor their power levels to you. How you do it is up to you, but I don't think it's a difficult problem.

I mean, do you really need suggestions on how to scale encounters to the party's power level? This is DMing 101 here, and as the group's DM, you ought to have a better grasp on what would be a suitable challenge than me. I can easily think of multiple ways to reduce encounter difficulty, but they're so basic that I'm not sure there's any point me writing out a list.

[Psyx]

I wanted to give them an impression of my personal favourite Tome of Battle and show them what you can do with a well built character in combat

Erm...you're the GM. It's not really your job to 'show them what a well-built character can do'. It's your job to tell interesting stories and involve them.

What you did has probably put a bit of a barrier between you and your players, and frankly does strike as something that would annoy me as a player. Think about it from their perspective: You essentially thumbed your nose at them and said 'I can play this game better than you'. You might think otherwise, but the only perspective that really matters on the matter is your player's.

Imagine that someone has a Ferrari. And that they drive up to you at the lights, lean over to tell you how great their car is, and how fast it is, and how much it cost, and proceed to leave you standing in a cloud of stinking rubber fumes and exhaust blare, waving as they went. Would you think 'he's just showing me what that great car can do' or would you think 'what a jerk'?

If your players don't care about optimising, then don't make them. Don't EVER start a GM vs. Player arms race, because it ruins games. If the players seem happy enough to bimble around in general ignorance of optimising, and are still having fun: Let them. This is a RPG, not a wargame, and you shouldn't be GM to essentially wargame against the players.

And how about this for a scenario: Two of your players think your ideas are great and become massive min-maxxers. They now have characters that far outshadow others in the group. You've just made your game a lot less fun, and your job as GM a lot harder and less fun too, because you now have 2 PCs who trounce everything, and anything that will threaten them will turn the others into meat paste. Not fun.

Kerris and Dorns players said they don't want to read through a dozen books to learn powergaming.

Good on 'em. Don't ever tell players what kind of characters they should make, or how to play them.

Not every player wants to become a rules encyclopaedia and to have a better character than everyone else. Some just want to enjoy the game. Better characters just move goalposts anyway: They all build better characters, you build better monsters. Why real dull rulebooks and spend hours agonising over feats to essentially achieve nothing?

Settle for low power, throw encounters below their level at them or play the monsters purposefully bad? Or stand my ground, trying to clear up what to me seem to be misconceptions about what is and isn't powergaming and the amount of work I want them to invest?

This isn't even something that should be a question that you should need to be asking yourself. You do what your players want.

[TheFallenOne]

I don't think it matters. Here's the issue:

a) You want the players to play at power level X.
b) The players want to play at power level Y.

Someone is going to have to adjust. Since you're the DM, that someone is probably going to have to be you.

You're implying here I'm not flexible with the power level we play at; I am. All I'm saying is that I want the power level to be above "You suck".

Answer me this: is it inreasonable to expect that 3 PCs should be able to beat an equal or +1 CR monster(straight out of the monster manual, nothing I built myself)?

Imagine that someone has a Ferrari. And that they drive up to you at the lights, lean over to tell you how great their car is, and how fast it is, and how much it cost, and proceed to leave you standing in a cloud of stinking rubber fumes and exhaust blare, waving as they went. Would you think 'he's just showing me what that great car can do' or would you think 'what a jerk'?

Thank you for demonstrating how easy it is to display someone as a jerk using a metaphor that leaves out important facts.
1) I showed them what the Warblade Ferrari can do, then told them how they could have something similar or upgrade their own cars with Ferrari parts. Or not, I just wanted to show them it's there and avaiable.
2) I wanted to drop them a lesser version of a White Raven Crown so they can try maneuvers themselves; going with your metaphor, that's like handing them the keys and offering them a free test drive instead of leaving them coughing in the exhaust blare. It only didn't work out because they lost and I couldn't fudge the rolls since I lacked a DM screen that evening and so decided to roll openly

And how about this for a scenario: Two of your players think your ideas are great and become massive min-maxxers. They now have characters that far outshadow others in the group. You've just made your game a lot less fun, and your job as GM a lot harder and less fun too, because you now have 2 PCs who trounce everything, and anything that will threaten them will turn the others into meat paste. Not fun.

Not every player wants to become a rules encyclopaedia and to have a better character than everyone else.

I've said it several times now, I don't ask them to become MinMaxers, I don't demand optimization, I don't expect them to be familiar with all the books out there(a point I made right in the OP; Core and maybe one or two dozen pages from the Complete series are enough).

This is the last time I respond to someone taking "I want their characters to be reasonably competent at combat" as "I want them to go to town with Uberchars and optimization". I made that point clear enough several times now I think

[Saph]

Answer me this: is it inreasonable to expect that 3 PCs should be able to beat an equal or +1 CR monster(straight out of the monster manual, nothing I built myself)?

In a word? Yes.

Not all players are interested in increasing the power or combat effectiveness of their characters. D&D is a game; players play it for fun, not as a job. It is unreasonable to expect players to do something they don't enjoy unless you have a very good reason.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Another solution is to put in 'alternative victory conditions'.

Okay, so your party can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Fine. So change things up. Make it a 'whodunit', create scenarios in which the players can take advantage of the environment in order to defeat their opponents, create diplomacy victory conditions (based on roleplay, not on dice rolls), permit victory in situations in which they can avoid combat.

Look back to Metal Gear games. In most of them, your character is one-shottable. And way outnumbered. Getting into combat is a sure-fire way to die horribly. So, Snake avoids combat to achieve his mission goals.

Look back to the old Super Mario Brothers game. If you didn't have firepower, you couldn't 'kill' Boswer. But, if you could get past him, you could hit the key which would drop the bridge.

This can turn into a tactical battle, where you lead your opponent into defeating himself. I remember in one iteration, you had one of the bowser kids try to jump up and land on you. But the bricks underneath were breakable, and he would break a layer of bricks when he landed. So you dodged around and made him blow through the layers of bricks until he broke the last layer... sending him to his certain doom.

Tactics have little to do with character optimization. Tactics is using what you*do* have to your advantage.

[Jayabalard]

So, given my situation - I, a DM with a favour for well-built characters, tactical and tough combat and players who know the rules well enough, but rather weak at character building and questionable interest to learn more about it - what should I do? Settle for low power, throw encounters below their level at them or play the monsters purposefully bad? Or stand my ground, trying to clear up what to me seem to be misconceptions about what is and isn't powergaming and the amount of work I want them to invest?

As a GM, your job is to run a game that your players will enjoy playing, not force them to play the way that you want to. If you can't enjoy running the game the way that they want to play, then have someone else GM.

So I struck out the thing above that isn't a reasonable option for you... that doesn't mean that you're stuck with the first option (you have some other choices but I don't have time to get into them right now)

[Vangor]

Worry less about the CR. The party has no notion of what a CR= or CR+1 encounter is, only what a simple, capable, challenging, or deadly encounter was.

Play the monsters intelligently, create tactical encounters, etc., but simply adjust statistics for lowered saves, fewer spells, fewer obvious win spells, and similar. As long as they feel the relative power level of the encounter, who cares? Eventually, convince em of better options which do not compromise the character, such as the War Domain you suggested which makes perfect sense for the Cleric investing a feat into Martial Weapon Proficiency (clearly intending to be a warrior).

[WarKitty]

If you want to show them power, here's my little trick. Find the WORST race you can for the job. The optimize it as a character of their level. It'll come out (with a little work) as a completely appropriate encounter.

[Psyx]

1) I showed them what the Warblade Ferrari can do, then told them how they could have something similar or upgrade their own cars with Ferrari parts. Or not, I just wanted to show them it's there and avaiable.

Not everyone wants one. 90% of the population are happy to drive an old beater.

And are you sure that you're thinking about it from your player's perspective enough? Put yourself in their shoes and imagine how it felt to them.

I would be quite delighted to have players who had no interest in the numbers, to be honest: It means that they're interested in the game and the story. That's gold, right there.

Also: When introducing new threats that are untried, always bring a GM screen. You need to accept that this is your own mistake. Don't get narked about it; just learn and ensure that it doesn't happen again.

All I'm saying is that I want the power level to be above "You suck".
Answer me this: is it inreasonable to expect that 3 PCs should be able to beat an equal or +1 CR monster(straight out of the monster manual, nothing I built myself)?

Yes, if they don't want to play that kind of game. There are more players than there are of you. Their opinion matters more than yours on the subject. Do you actually think that your players suck?

You've said that this is only your second campaign. That makes you the rookie, not automatically them. You need to start listening more to the players and adapting to them, instead of trying to make them change to adapt to you.

[BeholderSlayer]

Knock them out with a bunch of core MM house cats. Make sure they know you didn't change them in any way....

[Mikal]

In a word? Yes.

Not all players are interested in increasing the power or combat effectiveness of their characters. D&D is a game; players play it for fun, not as a job. It is unreasonable to expect players to do something they don't enjoy unless you have a very good reason.

Except the game also seems to find it reasonable that such a group could defeat an opponent at that level.

DnD is a game of overcoming challenges. Usually through combat. If your characters are unable to do so then they're not playing the game well. It's like playing monopoly with a person who "likes the colors of the properties" and has a strategy of only getting 1 property per group so they can have the colors.

Are they having fun? Sure. Is that how the game is supposed to be played?
Not really.

DnD is similar.

I don't play easytype dnd. The dice will fall where they may, nothing is fudged. Real roleplayers would appreciate that, as changing the gameworld because your character may suck isn't real roleplay. It's pandering.

Not everyone wants one. 90% of the population are happy to drive an old beater.

And 66% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

And are you sure that you're thinking about it from your player's perspective enough? Put yourself in their shoes and imagine how it felt to them.

I would be quite delighted to have players who had no interest in the numbers, to be honest: It means that they're interested in the game and the story. That's gold, right there.

Someone who is interested in the game is interested in the numbers. The numbers make up a large part of the game. Ignoring the numbers is ignoring that aspect. If you just care about the story, then why use the rules at all? Just throw out the dice, sheets, books, and save yourself cash as you make your interactive story.

Also: When introducing new threats that are untried, always bring a GM screen. You need to accept that this is your own mistake. Don't get narked about it; just learn and ensure that it doesn't happen again.

Wrong wrong wrong! Let the dice fall where they may! GM Screens should be there for notes, not dice! The group could easily retreat if a challenge proves to be too strong. Fudging dice is cheating. Specifically, cheating the players out of a real roleplaying experience. Unless the game you play is specifically designed so that the players win no matter what, then sometimes bad luck will befall them.

Again, if you aren't going to use the dice or the rules, why bother playing the game designed around those dice and rules?

Yes, if they don't want to play that kind of game. There are more players than there are of you. Their opinion matters more than yours on the subject. Do you actually think that your players suck?

If they are unable to make tactical decisions and specifically make their race/class choices like that knowing that such choices are bad then yes.

Just like in monopoly I'd think a player who choses one property of each group and never buys anything else sucks. This is a game. That means some people will be good, some won't.

You can play Candyland DnD if you want. I'll play a rich experience in both mechanics and story rather then be spoonfed a story.

You've said that this is only your second campaign. That makes you the rookie, not automatically them. You need to start listening more to the players and adapting to them, instead of trying to make them change to adapt to you.

I disagree. It's a two way street. If the DM has said that he expects a level of competency in his game, then the players should try to exhibit it. Yes, that means the DM may be without players for awhile, but that happens.

Instead of trying to mollycoddle the players, he should work with them to help find a happy medium.

Is that min/maxing? No, not really. It's realizing that "roleplaying" choices such as being a war priest and not taking a war domain is kind of silly, especially when you waste a feat on martial weapon proficiency anyway, or taking only 3 levels of fighter is essentially wasting a level when you could use that on another class much more easily while keeping the flavor of the character.

The classes are guideline niches. They aren't meant to stranglehold you.

And there's nothing wrong with making the optimal choice when you have two different routes to an objective. Nor with teaching others how to recognize that optimal choice.

[Psyx]

Are they having fun? Sure. Is that how the game is supposed to be played?
Not really.

Does it matter? RPGs can't be 'won'. They are about having fun with friends.

The dice will fall where they may, nothing is fudged. Real roleplayers would appreciate that...

...Wrong wrong wrong! Let the dice fall where they may! GM Screens should be there for notes, not dice!

...Fudging dice is cheating. Specifically, cheating the players out of a real roleplaying experience.

There is another thread where this was being discussed. It is a matter of style and opinion. There is no 'right' or 'wrong'. Your opinion is no more valid than mine, but I do believe it is preposterous to claim that 'real' roleplayers never want fudged dice.

Someone who is interested in the game is interested in the numbers.

Demonstrably untrue. I have had several players who are bad at maths and not interested in rules. They have been some of the most involved, keen and enthusiastic roleplayers that I've ever met.