Yah, DM question here.
I have a player who always plays the Arcaner. He is almost always the only Arcaner in the group. The point is, no matter what the adventure, he wants to play a Warmage.
The only way to get him to play something other than a Warmage, is by forbidding him to play a Warmage.
In such cases, he will be a Sorceror with a preference for Evocation spells.
Now the point is, that my session's are generally fairly much roleplaying, logical thinking, problemsolving and a lot less 'kick door, fight baddy, take treasure, repeat'ish
So, this makes the Arcaner shine during battle, because he can blast his entire spell repetoire into the one or maybe two combats per day, whilst being a useless piece of #%&*@ during the remainder of the day, ánd making life a lot harder for the rest of the party by being unable to use any other spells that might come in handy.
So, my question is: how can I make him appreciate the other sides of magic a bit more, so that he might be a more useful addition to the team, instead of a walking fireball that takes the shine from the fighters?
|
I don't think it is up to the DM to force a player to change his style of play. Is he having fun? Probably, otherwise he wouldn't go for that sort of character. It is very difficult to get someone to change their preferences, since they are often deep-seated. If it is a problem for the other players, point that out to him. But you probably won't succeed in changing him - decide if that is a game-breaking problem to you or not.
Yep, I agree with Aubrey.
What I do recommend is keeping the challenges in your campaign varied, and sometimes hitting the party with more than 'one or two combats in a day'. The first of these should encourage the player to look at other spell options, or perhaps encourage the group to put pressure on the player to do so. The second will force the player to consider resource management a bit more.
Otherwise, I don't feel it's really the DMs place to force a play style on a player.
Dunno, it's not that I want to force him to change his style, but it's just that because he has no out-of-combat useful spells that I feel a large part of the game and of my challenges is completely lost on the group.
I've tried to show them the power of a few non-combat spells, but they don't really seem to get it... even when nearly frozen to death whilst their opponent was warm in his monk's outfit due to a simple Endure Elements spell, they didn't seem to understand that magic has other purposes then for blowing creatures to bits.
And they're having fun, it's me that's losing a lot of fun in the games. I don't mind running the occasional battle, and I know I can make an exciting battle, but there's more to the game. For me at least...
I have more up my sleeve then bloodthirsty things that want to kill them, and if the guest players sometimes think outside the box, but the regular group doesn't really learn.
Maybe someone can think of an eye-opener? Something to force them to look at useful uses of magic outside of combat? One of my players had an Illusionist once, but he was quickly considered 'useless' when he had to rely on his crossbow for combat =/
Yet that character had a lot of potential, methinks.
I defenitely agree with what's been stated here before me. If your warmage player likes combat so much he defenitely needs more than one or two combat encounters per day. It's our job to satisfy our players styles - if he likes combat cater to that.
If the rest of the players don't have a problem with him running combat characters then it shouldn't be an issue at all. If they do, however, then let the players veto his character choices.
After all, a group of adventurers is not going to let anybody waltz into their company. They are going to choose new recruits based on what is needed. IMO, players always have the right to veto (within reason) another player's character choice.
Fortunately in my years as a DM this is an option that has not had to be used (my players have fortunately been considerate enough to keep party needs in mind when introducing characters), but I would say that players are well within their rights to have a say in their party's composition. But again if your players have no problem with his character choices, then it shouldn't be an issue at all.
|
|
Dunno, it's not that I want to force him to change his style, but it's just that because he has no out-of-combat useful spells that I feel a large part of the game and of my challenges is completely lost on the group.
I've tried to show them the power of a few non-combat spells, but they don't really seem to get it... even when nearly frozen to death whilst their opponent was warm in his monk's outfit due to a simple Endure Elements spell, they didn't seem to understand that magic has other purposes then for blowing creatures to bits.
And they're having fun, it's me that's losing a lot of fun in the games. I don't mind running the occasional battle, and I know I can make an exciting battle, but there's more to the game. For me at least...
I have more up my sleeve then bloodthirsty things that want to kill them, and if the guest players sometimes think outside the box, but the regular group doesn't really learn.
Maybe someone can think of an eye-opener? Something to force them to look at useful uses of magic outside of combat? One of my players had an Illusionist once, but he was quickly considered 'useless' when he had to rely on his crossbow for combat =/
Yet that character had a lot of potential, methinks.
Sounds like the entire party rather than just one character. You have power-gamers, and you probably need to get used to that. As a DM, you only really get one vote but, but on the other hand, they should think about catering to your needs too.
You are trying to be reasonably ambitious, and that is a good thing. I find with my players (avowed power-gamers) that they do like plot and a bit of roleplaying, but get twitchy without a combat or two per session. You may need to change your mindset to something more of a tactical level (i.e. how do I challenge the PCs) instead of strategic (a big story arc with lots of interaction) or at least combine the two.
And possibly you are being a bit nice - let a character freeze to death, in the example you give, and they will respect the environment. Use non-blasting spells from enemy PCs, so they can see how they work and can harm and might think about their use. My biggest power-gamer doesn't actually have a broad grasp of the rules - he has a good understanding of combat movement, an OK understanding of the different character classes, and a poor understanding of the basic spell book in the PHB. Your warmage may only know about evocations - an effective NPC illusionist might show him something he didn't know about.
But, as above - don't expect miracles. Players don't really change their style that much, so unless you want to look for new players you will need to accommodate them. However, as in life in general, a chat about you in-game aspirations and what you want (they may not really realise your position on this) will at least get it out in the open. Probably you can meet them half way - just don't expect them to get completely in line with you.
|
If your group decides to adopt a more roleplaying heavy style, you could encourage it by weighting XP and treasure awards more heavily on the RP encounters than on combat. This would encourage your players to build their characters with those non-combat encounters in mind.
I don't recommend doing that, however, if that's not how your group wants to play. But it's worth considering if, after discussing it with them, they are interested in a more role-heavy playing style.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I would also agree with what everyone else on the thread has said - particularly because on the rare occassions when I play, I enjoy artillery casters. Nothing makes me angrier than having to put up with a DM's random hacks to make a magic system more "realistic" (whatever the hell that means with regards to magic). Now, that's not the issue here, but it somewhat illustrates the type of player with which you may be dealing.
Now, that being said, given your attempts in-game to show him that not all problems can be solved by blasting, the best way to deal with the player at this point is to discuss the issue with him and ask that he consider playing a non-caster next time. Depending on your group, one possible idea would be to have everyone make a character for the next campaign and then have them each pass their character sheet to the person to their right. If you've got a group willing to try new things, this can be a lot of fun. Of course, this does take the right group, but if you've got enough people supporting the idea and getting into it, that may help ease this player into a new character type.
I also have to say that thus far it sounds like you've done a good job of handling the situation by trying to show him the ineffectiveness of his character in certain situations rather than tinkering the rules to make him less effective in general. As Aubrey suggested, making more of these situations with more dire consequences may finally drive the point home. Just be aware that the player wants tactical combat and make sure to provide those encounter types as well. Hopefully you can push him into a happy middle.
Consider a combat encounter with an enemy spellcaster who does the exact same thing as him, and then another who does some other magical tactic that turns out to be superior. Like perhaps:
An evoker sorc / a mind control bard
A warmage / a necromancer.
Heck, just show how certain spells can put him off his game without proper protection. Melf Acid arrow makes casting incredibly hard, due to damage over time concentration DCs. Grease is hilarious, because most wizards have bad reflex and balance. Better yet, hemisphere wall of ice him, will he be willing to drop a fireball on himself to get out?
Smarter enemies, especially those above intel 18 and those with divination abilities, should almost never be surprised by PC tactics. An intel 18 critter can look at most PCs, and determine their abilities by their appearance and gear.
I'm not advocating picking on him, or otherwise singling him out, via rules lawyering or any other method. But keep encounters varied in type, frequency, and intent. Sometimes the chuul just wants to talk. Sometimes the lone goblin is the scout for a warband. Sometimes the silver dragon is a red with alter self.
Wisdom is also a good stat to use for baddies to figure out the party at a glance.
However, I find most of the advice thus far... depressing. Not unsound in any way, just not that exciting to hear.
Also, I'm not completely sure it's to the heart of the matter.
I've DMed for a group that had radically different expectations of the game from me before, as I'm sure many readers and posters here have, and as such, I know how important it is to make sure the DM is having fun with the game as much as the players. If the DM is upset or bored with the game he's running and can't find a way to suffer, there are numerous ways that it can intentionally or unintentionally devolve into a waste of time for everyone.
Frats, allow me to try and help as I understand the situation. Please, if I'm going about this wrong, tell me and I'll shut up after apologizing, and were a costume of a jackass at the next council of the Lords of the Boards (Haha, fools, there are no such meetings!).
Ahem.
"I'm a DM who has a player who only plays blaster arcanists, and it's getting to be a problem. I know that it's not my place to force him to change the way he plays, but I think there is so much of the game he is missing, and I want to help show it to him. Please help me come up with ideas to do this."
I always play wizards or sorcerers. I've played a cleric once or twice, and a barbarian two times, but one was so dumb he thought he was a wizard. It's just my thing. I love "casters." I know the spells fairly well, I know the mechanics for the classes, I like the mental imagery and the roleplaying aspects. I just dig mages. Nothing wrong with that.
I am also far from useless outside of combat, and realize that, in some ways, a wizard can be far stronger in subtle, role-playing areas than they can be on the field of battle with fireballs and cones of cold.
So the objective seems to be to help teach this player the other uses of magic.
Let's look at the illusionist. You say he was discarded as being useless in combat.
....
What?!
Illusions are actually some of the most powerful spells out there. You can deal 20d6 damage simply by hiding a bridge over a chasm and making an illusory one ten feet away. You can draw off the deadliest attacks of your foes by making him think you're to the left when you're really to the right. You can set up brilliant ambushes. You can keep your foes completely off guard by mixing real summoning spells with illusory back-up creatures.
Illusions are great, because in order to get a save, the subject has to interact with them first. By the time they spend actions enough to do this in combat, the illusion has already served its purpose, whether the foe sees through it or not. If they don't, that's even better! Illusionists are great at making enemies burn one of the most valuable resources they have- actions in combat.
Oh, and don't forget the ability to deal real damage with shadow evocation and shadow conjuration, the former often having a higher save DC than the spell it mimics! There's also phantasmal killer and weird. (Did I spell that right? The word weird is... well, weird)
That's all just ways that illusions can be used in combat, no abandoning of power-gaming required. The possibilities outside of combat, the sheer versatility of the illusion spells, is vast, placing them firmly as one of the most powerful schools of magic, in my mind.
I second the above. And add my encouragement for you to try and show your player the virtues of spells outside of mortar magic. Mirror image, Displacement, Ottolukes resillient sphere, acid fog, reverse gravity, ray of enfeeblement, color spray (in particular). Have had far more impact and added far more fun (and often laughs) to a game than any fireball or lightning bolt.
This is not a hard fact to prove. Any combat with a spellcaster should have a hoard of annoying abjurations, illusions, and battlefield control effects to show that a proper spell selection can nullify most stratagies as well as open up a wealth of others.
However, it seems like chances are good that effectiveness is not what your player wants. That he just really likes to blow stuff up. If this is the case he is happy and you are not and I'm not sure that your problem has a win-win solution.
Good luck though.
|
|
I find most of the advice thus far... depressing. Not unsound in any way, just not that exciting to hear.
Saern, no disrespect, and I agree with you to some extent - my advice (and others) is a sort of counsel of despair, as I don't reckon people do change much.
And I think you are missing the point slightly - you present an extremely good logical argument as to the puissance of illusion spells which is perfectly correct. But people's preferences are not based on logic but emotion - it is what the WANT, which is not really derived logically but from basic drives.
Look at it from another angle - from your various excellent posts I have read, I get the impression you are pretty keen on roleplaying over rollplaying. (You are at least certainly less of a power-gamer than me.) :-) Imagine you landed in a game where the DM and/or players discouraged that, were only interested in the tactical violence aspect of the game, and complained everytime you chose a "sub-optimal" choice for your character for roleplaying reasons. ("Dude, why didn't you torture that peasant to get the info we needed? You can always get an Attonement to get your paladin powers back.") That would probably irritate and depress you. The player Frats describes isn't doing anything wrong, as such, he just has different aspirations. Forcing him down a route he, thus far, hasn't shown much interest in would be equally cramping to his style. And hey, you say it yourself - you always play wizards or sorcerers.
And I'm not saying that what you suggest above would not work. I just reckon that the impact would be marginal and possibly short-lived.
True, Aubrey, true. I suppose I lead with the assumption that once people study a situation logically, they will conform to the logical approach. However, you are correct, reality tends not to uphold this theory. :)
Very well, let us get a bit more clarification on the issue.
Is the group in question power gamers on the whole (as was hinted but never directly stated), or is it more of just one player?
Also, simply because the character takes nothing but evocation spells doesn't mean that he cannot roleplay. Fighters have nothing in their range of class abilities to help roleplaying, but that doesn't stop players of fighters from roleplaying well.
In review of my thoughts after a good night's sleep, I must say that, while demonstrating the roleplaying uses of spells is one valid way to teach the style to a player, there are perhaps others that are more suited to the job.
How much experience does your group have with the game? Have they ever rollplayed before? If not, then you've just got to teach it from sratch. If so and they just didn't like it, then... well, there's really nothing to be done.
If you end up needing to teach it, one possible strategy is to just sit down with the group and say, "I want to try a totally different kind of game." Explain to them that this one is more about acting and interacting with NPCs and each other, and what you'd like to see. Then start the game up, and keep it simple and basic, and see if they like it. Make sure you tell them that the group can always go back and play their old campaign if they don't like this new one.
There's always the chance they might say they just really don't want to, in which case, not even "rule zero" can help you.
Just give that, or something similar, as the situation calls for it, a try and see what happens.
I continue down this path of advice simply because I know the danger a bored DM can pose to the gaming experience of everyone at the table.
I always tell my players that they are selling themselves short by choosing the x die x damage spells instead of delving deeper into the tomes and picking some of the more useful and diverse spells. Granted some of them are devastating, but as Saern said, and I strongly agree with him for the most part, they are not the be all end all. Two examples come to mind:
In a recent combat, a single illusionist with spell focus (illusion) and two kobolds with levels nearly TPK'd a party of seasoned adventurers. Phantasmal Killer, despite its two saves, is one of the few Save or Die spells not protected from by Death Ward.
and
In my most recent session, the party handled a difficult and potentially lethal encounter (two bearded devils and a 12th level favored soul/divine champion) with Bands of Steel, Glitterdust and other non conventional spells that allowed the Rogue and Fighter to truly shine. In the subsequent encounter it was Summon Nature's Ally that really helped save the day.
I encourage, but not demand player creativity in spell selection. I allow them to use all the books I own to pick spells, so they have a great deal of flexibility, and more often than not, a cleverly used spell causes me more angst and even in many cases, damage, than a pure damage dealing spell. Those that want to play spellslingers quickly realize that their chosen repertoire does not put them in the spotlight as immunities, resistances and protections handily deal with those common threats. Those that take more time often find that they are having much more impact on the battle.
That being said, there is always a time and a place for a maximized Fireball. It's just not always and everywhere.
Perhaps some more direct interaction with other mages might do the trick, and continue the role-playing aspect in an interesting way.
Here's a few things I thought of.
I think the trick may be two simply get your player to want other spells and then perhaps he'll find uses for them later.
1. Perhaps your group can come upon some old spell book of some sort that outlines how to create some sort of golem and useful weapon with special abilities. However, the item requires some non-evocation spells to create it (perhaps some small ones like spider-climb or featherfall). Since the book is so rare, you wouldn't want to show it to someone else. Or maybe it belonged to another wizard who is intently looking for it so you wouldn't want to advertise that you have it.
This is probably better suited to a wizard, but might work for a sorcerer if the spells required are low level.
2. Perhaps you can offer to your sorcerer a low level swap out of some battle spells that aren't really useful anymore. After a while, something like burning hands doesn't pack as much punch at higher levels, and it might be possible to convince him to take some non-battle spells to replace ones he barely uses anymore. I think this is a valid thing to do, without bending the rules. Once hes got this new spell, say it spider-climb, uses will come up, and if its between expending a limited use magical item or a single spell from the party sorcerer, the party in general will say cast it!
3. Another possibility would be to give him in one adventure a magical item that mimics one of these different spell types. He might find himself using it quite often in certain situations and maybe next adventure will consider taking it.
4. Golems. :)
Hope this helps, I love playing spellcasters specifically for their versatility, so I see no shame in GENTLY curbing someone to see another aspect. If you saw a barbarian player never use rage, you would certainly suggest to him that it might be worth a try!
Thanks for all the great advice so far!
The entire group isn't high on roleplaying; and I can live with that. Roleplaying is fun when everyone does it; but the players prefer other aspects of the game. Our games are generaly light-hearted instead of serious.
Most games revolve around mystery, or at least around figuring out what the hell is going on, before killing everything that moves. And that is where the Arcaner could have his potential; even a simple Fly spell could provide some insight as players can get a view from the air or obtain things out of their reach.
I think that indeed said player just likes to blow stuff up. I gave him the Gust of Wind spell once and then made the party go up against a warcamp filled with Gremlins (smaller variant of Goblin)
He had a lot of fun slinging them around the camp, but later reverted back to picking Scorching Ray.
Also, I don't want to spoil his fun; he likes the artillery-position, and I can imagine why (even though it's not my fav. position)
So I think I might have found a solution, with all the advice given here.
I'm going to run a Heroes of Battle one-shot. That'll give everyone some heavy combat experience, and I'm going to show my Arcaner the real power of a Mage on the battlefield.
Maybe he'll start apreciating the other side of spells, and maybe he won't. If he just wants to blow things up and not do the other things Wiz/Sor are good for...
Hmm. I should get another one in the group, I guess.
Thanks again! If there is anymore advice out there, please, do tell ^^
you could make a module in an "anti-magic" zone. where the magic-users can only cast at the end of the module for some reason, or twist it into the plot so that magic-users need to mask their nature (like, magic is outlawed by this kingdom)
(you could also force players to choose preset characters)
It's been hinted at, but I'll come out and say it: if worse comes to worst, you might consider running 2 camapigns: one for dungeon crawl battlemat tactical warmages, and one for people who maybe want a little intrigue in their mix.
As an example of something at that other end of the spectrum, I ran an all-espionage camapign once; rogues and wizards specializing in Divination were the key classes. Now, I agree that a happy medium would be great, but it's just not always possible; you gotta keep the players happy, or they'll find another game elsewhere.
It's been hinted at, but I'll come out and say it: if worse comes to worst, you might consider running 2 camapigns: one for dungeon crawl battlemat tactical warmages, and one for people who maybe want a little intrigue in their mix.
As an example of something at that other end of the spectrum, I ran an all-espionage camapign once; rogues and wizards specializing in Divination were the key classes. Now, I agree that a happy medium would be great, but it's just not always possible; you gotta keep the players happy, or they'll find another game elsewhere.
It's funny you should say that, Erik Goldman, as that is how my current campaign (which sounds very similar to the above) got started. We were playing a campaign that had become all number crunching and die rolling by 18th level (and was driven by one player's desire to do the most possible damage in the shortest amount of time) and I suggested this one (full of mystery, intrigue, and loosely adapted Nick Logue modules) as a side campaign. The players loved the new style of play so much it became the "main" campaign, and the other one ended in obscurity, becoming part of the history of the Merchants of Astephel campaign. Part of the fun is finding out what actually happened to their old characters.
It was originally designed to cater to the 4 out of 5 players who didn't prefer hack-n-slash, fireball-n-forget combats. It is still very combat intensive and tactical, but I make the players work for their combats and even the less combat oriented players enjoy it more, now that each combat more or less has a story attached to it. I have not really had such a spellslinging player in this campaign and all the casters tend to use de-buffs, battlefield control and immobilization spells far more than damage dealers. It has also forced me to be smarter as a DM. Now if only I could work on the Charisma thing.