I am the GM for our PF games and until recently I've had a pretty unified group of gamers. However I now have had in my last campaign 2 very specific builds; one around stealth and fear but the other around destroying undead.
The undead slaying paladin/ranger was upset that only a couple of fights were undead based and that I should do more with his build in mind.
How much time as a GM should I devote to a single player's build? I'm not a new GM; I've been running games for almost 30 years now. But since HS my players have been very roleplaying focused and group oriented so if one guy picked a gothic style undead hunter the others would make similarly-flavored PC's and we'd go from there. Due to a move and change of players I'm now faced with the unique challenge of individualism.
Should I penalize the rest of the party who are focused on other things so the undead hunter shines or just risk the ranger/pally being useless in a melee against, say goblin rogues so that the rest of the party has some fun?
And before I begin getting the response: yes, I DID have a conversation w/the paladin's PC about this subject. Despite my best efforts this campaign has imploded because of other internal issues. This thread is planning for future campaigns.
Since you did talk with him about the subject but still the player went ahead and made this character then there is nothing you can do.
That's a tough one. We usually bounce ideas off the dm before a campaign starts, just in case. When I have been dm I have steered players away from a class or build a few times, as I would have with your undead slayer. I am happy to tweak a game as I go, but there's a limit.
I would have warned the player his character wouldn't fit.
Well when it comes to rangers you probably ought to give them some good ideas of the best possible monsters to take for FE. Tell them that there is no specific focus on undead content, that you're not adding any, and they're free to change away from undead specialization at any time between adventures.
Give the ranger a list of monster types he'll be facing in rough order of volume.
|
Honestly, the players should all either build towards the style of game you're looking to run or they should build with each other in mind and then you cater to all of them at once.
But the only time to cater to a specific player's build is when he's the only one who listened when you told the group what sort of game it was going to be. :)
How much would throwing in a few extra undead really "penalize the rest of the group who are focused on other things"? If like, the rest of the party has chosen to focus exclusively on mind-affecting attacks or something for some reason then yeah, that's a problem, but unless the rest of the party is also very narrowly specialized on something that's mutually exclusive with "throw a few more undead in there", I'd just throw a few more undead in there.
Personally I look at it this way. You're the DM, You're the one doing 95% of the work crafting the adventure, the story, the world, the encounters.
All the players have to do is show up with their character. They really should be the ones to bend their character concepts to match the adventure you are running and not the other way around.
Minor encounters here and there to appeal to their specialties are fine but major story arcs, I avoid.
Simply because characters come and go.
Nothing is as annoying as wrapping a story around a specific pc and having it completely derailed when they drop dead, miss a bunch of sessions or the player suddenly can't make it for the next X months. I've just seen it happen to many times that I just avoid doing that now.
Personally I always try to give my players some information on the KIND of game they are going to play, and some of the things they ought to expect. After that they are free to make whatever they want. But if I say I am running a mega dungeon with very little in the way of social situations, and someone makes a diplomancer, that is their choice. I am not going to change the game to suit their character. I would explain to the undead hunter (or anyone else so highly specialized) that the enemies will be based on the story of the campaign and not their specialities. They are welcome to rebuild or replace their character if they arent satisfied, but I wont re-write it for their lone benefit.
|
Personally I look at it this way. You're the DM, You're the one doing 95% of the work crafting the adventure, the story, the world, the encounters.
All the players have to do is show up with their character. They really should be the ones to bend their character concepts to match the adventure you are running and not the other way around.
That's the players's story too. They don't have to adapt to "your" games : everyone has to adapt and be honest straight from the beginning about the efficiency a build may have in the long term. If the DM isn't going to make undead common except in the typical, occasional cemetery/crypt/old castle that will show up once per 4 levels, then the player should know that his undead slayer will be less efficient than usual. If the DM loves oozes, ghosts and huge creatures, the maneuver guys will feel gimped. On the other hand, if your players have some kind of schtick, it is good taste to provide the occasional, perfect target to let them shine.
Obviously, this advice applies more to homebrewed games than published adventure paths.
@ Joyd; you're right, so the last adventure I had was a cross country side trek to get them to a vilain's lair. This involved Skill Challenges (the rogue liked them) while following some undead minions (gave the ranger/pally someone to track) whereupon they were ambushed by some kobolds (barbarian and cleric of the group liked the combat).
They eventually made it out of the swamps at which point they came upon an open ancestral tomb setup as a deathtrap by the villain; a hill giant and pair of dire wolves as a massive outer guard, then inside traps and a necromantic wight spellcaster with some enslaved goblin minions and unique zombies whose heads ripped off and turned into belching skulls.
My sin here is vanity. I patted myself on the back; job well done incorporating everyone's builds. The ranger/paladin was upset that his ARCHERY style build wasn't respected with all the melee fights; the uber-stealth rogue was frustrated by STARK hillsides w/out cover and then trying to hide from undead with life-sensing. The barbarian character didn't care since he just got to destroy a lot but the cleric was frustrated by the fact that he wasn't allowed to control any of the undead based on his own build as an EVIL cleric.
I know...paladin + evil cleric = oil and water. That one's on me. At the beginning of the game I said be anything you want and the players took it as a challenge I think.
But the paladin and rogue anyway SPECIFICALLY complained that I was ignoring parts of their builds. Yes, I knew that the ranger/paladin focused on using a bow in most combats. I also knew that terrain would be a challenge for the rogue. But I wasn't about to say "ok, here's a bunch of lurching zombies starting at 90' paladin; go nuts w/your shooting gallery" or "here you go rogue: a pitch black environment filled with only low-light vision dwellers who are inattentive guards and widely dispersed" For one these are both unreasonable situations and for another - in the case of the rogue 3 of the party members need light to see and in the case of the ranger/paladin he STILL would've been frustrated by the barbarian's speed.
I am playing a friend's 4e campaign while I work on my own PF reboot. We'll be starting over at 1st level and YES; I will have a character gen session with some ground rules like party unity and team goals. But I still feel like I'm going to struggle w/creating ENOUGH scenes to meet everyone's builds.
In the case of the undead slayer for example: +2 for undead, +3 because of a unique bow he had made, +4 from dex, and ridiculous smite damage against the necromancer wight. Now take one of the kobold rogues: +5 on top of bab and meager damage. The player felt "hamstrung" when not fighting undead per our conversation.
@ kolok.
In the case of my reboot I'm going to present the players with a couple of options since some have expressed a desire for more linear play and the others liked my original sandbox type approach. The options will be 2 different story lines and my intention was to present them with handouts like the cover of an old 1e module: a general synopsis of fluff.
In that synopsis how much detail would you provide to give them this heads up? In other words; do I TELL them that they'll be dealing with aberrations in the ruins of the sandbox exploration style arc or goblins and Asmodeus worshippers in the linear one?
But the paladin and rogue anyway SPECIFICALLY complained that I was ignoring parts of their builds. Yes, I knew that the ranger/paladin focused on using a bow in most combats. I also knew that terrain would be a challenge for the rogue. But I wasn't about to say "ok, here's a bunch of lurching zombies starting at 90' paladin; go nuts w/your shooting gallery" or "here you go rogue: a pitch black environment filled with only low-light vision dwellers who are inattentive guards and widely dispersed" For one these are both unreasonable situations and for another - in the case of the rogue 3 of the party members need light to see...
Sounds like your players have been bit by the vanity bug as well. They're so taken with their characters' specialties that they feel they all need to be catered to. While I do believe a good DM should include moments for characters to shine in reasonably equal proportion, I don't believe the DM needs to incorporate special encounters for everybody's special builds all the time.
Sometimes the PCs have to adapt or engineer their own chances to make use of their specialties. Could the PCs have drawn the giant and dire wolves out into the open to make use of the paladin/ranger's ranged attacks? Probably. My guess is they're taking the encounters a bit too passively, reactively and aren't doing enough to look for ways to set themselves up for encounters on their terms.
As others have said.
I will bend a little, but I won't disrupt the whole campaign for 1 guy picking something wierd.
Getting ready for our next campaign I told the players:
1) Campaign involves a major overland trip so sailors and anyone tied to the starting city or terrain may be at a disadvantage.
2) I haven't purchased the whole AP yet, but it doesn't seem like there is a tremendous concentration on any one type of enemy. Although there do seem to be a slightly higher occurance of outsiders.
3) Social skills (including linguistics) are important for everyone, not just the party face.
etc...
Now having said that.
If someone makes an archer, I will try to make sure there some fights with enough distance for him to shine. But not all the time.
If someone made an undead killer, I would probably switch out a few secondary encounters for undead of similar CR. But I wouldn't switchout all the bosses just for him.
If someone makes a pirate, he's screwed himself. He was warned and I'm not going to rewrite the campaign to go by boat just so he take center stage.
Players deserve a bit of back story about the current problems and diplomatic affairs of the world. If you are a cleric that has devoted his life to the killing of undead, the monestary is not going to send you with a group of explores to fight goblins, they would have sent a more abled body to assist. If spellcasting is rare in your world, then most people would have no reason to build a high wisdom score.
@ kolok.
In the case of my reboot I'm going to present the players with a couple of options since some have expressed a desire for more linear play and the others liked my original sandbox type approach. The options will be 2 different story lines and my intention was to present them with handouts like the cover of an old 1e module: a general synopsis of fluff.
In that synopsis how much detail would you provide to give them this heads up? In other words; do I TELL them that they'll be dealing with aberrations in the ruins of the sandbox exploration style arc or goblins and Asmodeus worshippers in the linear one?
Take a look at the paizo Adventure path players guides. They are available for free to download. Tell them ATLEAST that much. And yes, you should tell them the kind of things they are going to deal with and the kinds of situations involved. Not for their approval, but so they will create characters that will have reason to get involved in your story, and fit within it. Dont give away major secrets, but for instance, if you were to run something like kingmaker, tell them they are going to be exploring a wilderness, and founding a kingdom. Because if someone makes a city lover who hates responsibility, it wont work within the context of the adventure, but it might work just fine in an urban investigative adventure.
And something like the ranger HAS to have some kind of preview otherwise they could end up not being able to use primary class features.
I tend to agree with Kydeem and ralantar. It sounds to me like the PCs who complained were being fairly unreasonable. While I agree that it doesn't hurt to switch out some minor details in an adventure to better appeal to someone who makes a specialty build, making encounters specifically so that the characters will excel at defeating them is ludicrous. Certainly a heads up in regards to what the campaign will likely entail is in order, including suggestions for a Ranger's starting favored enemies, but the situation you describe sounds way out of hand. If someone builds a character that is only good at attacking from hiding, or only good at shooting undead with a bow, then on their own heads be it - what kind of campaign is going to specifically and consistently cater to these builds? Rather than complaining that there isn't always cover to hide behind, or isn't always room to shoot at the undead enemies, they should instead find ways to make their specialty applicable as often as possible - like taking ranks in Use Magic Device and purchasing scrolls of greater invisibility, or acquiring an item that allows them to fly.
|
|
I think the problem here is some people aren't fully aware of what playing a "specialist" character means. The Paladin/Ranger is not going to be useless against other creatures. Paladins can Smite anything that is evil, Rangers get more than one favored enemy. When you play a specialist you do run into the problem of being a little less at one thing while being really good in something specific. If you threw undead at the Pally/Ranger all the time then his "special" build doesn't become special any more because undead have now become a common thing. Being able to use your advantage all the time doesn't make it special any more.
The problem that I have seen with some players is the fact that they feel their character is useless if it can't gain their maximum effect all the time. I had a player, who was playing a wizard, get upset because the encounters didn't match his spell-list. I didn't sit down with him and discuss his spell-list along with my encounter list. That is the risk you take when you play a Wizard and the same goes with a specialist class. All the character to pick a new favored enemy, seems to me that is the only thing that makes him an undead hunter unless there is an archtype or feats I am forgetting about.