I understand that's vague but not sure how to title this properly. Short story is been DMing Icespire Peak for a group and everyone is enjoying themselves, which is great. But one player is brand new. Not a problem, he asks some questions and we try to guide him through stuff at times but all in all everyone can do whatever they wish. The problem is his choice of class and playstyle. I'm all for playing a class in a way that is unique to you and making interesting choices, but his choices are annoying other players and making things unnecessarily difficult. He's playing an Artificer and exclusively using two-weapon fighting. No spells to speak of and at level 4 only has 3/4 spells prepared. I've offered to help walk him through his spells and tried to work with him, but so far he just refuses. We've asked him why he ignores his spells and he said that "in combat his brain goes unga bunga hit things." I feel he'd much more enjoy a straight combat role like Barb or Fighter, but feel it'd be weird to have him change class mid campaign and I really don't want to kill his character and force him to roll a new one. I'm not really sure how to approach this. And help would be great.
Has the player done an "Artificing" at all in game? If not, in this unusual circumstance I'd have no problem saying "Ok, since you're not using any of the artificer's features in game to date and have only performed mechanically as a fighter, you're a fighter."
I once had a new player who opted to be a Barbarian, turns out they really wanted to be feral thief, basically, since Rage was never really used and combat was largely avoided, we changed that sheet.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Has the player done an "Artificing" at all in game? If not, in this unusual circumstance I'd have no problem saying "Ok, since you're not using any of the artificer's features in game to date and have only performed mechanically as a fighter, you're a fighter."
They went Alchemist so they have used the elixer they can make each day, but I can't help but feel they do it for the "random" factor. And they have used spells in combat, but 9 times out of 10, they rush headlong into battle and sing away with a light hammer and sickle.
You've approached it fairly well from your description. I don't think I could suggest a different approach in going to the player and asking why they aren't utilizing the class abilities they chose. Offering help to understand and better grasp areas of shortcoming can be a great way to help people learn new concepts. If your player has any learning difficulties or underlying complications, a heavy-handed approach may not be very well received. Also, analysis paralysis is a significant thing. My own group tends to get sucked into that storm drain occasionally.
I would point out that while you caveat that "everyone can do whatever they wish", this player's playstyle choice seems to be annoying to your group. If your player's expectation is that they are the top DPR/Tank of the group, and your group's expectation is that this character fulfill a specific role, I can only suggest that the entire group have an opportunity to manage those expectations together. Without knowing why they chose Artificer and have only exercised one of the class abilities, as of yet, it's challenging to offer a solution that might be better accepted by the player and your group. It's almost as if the player is not fully vested in the character and has no reason to learn or rely on the other abilites of the character besides "poke it till it dies".
Do you highlight any of the melee characters around the table during combat? Does the character in question have any spotlight moments in or out of combat? In my experience, positive reinforcement could provide the motivation to learn more about, and use, the spellcasting and class abilities of the character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Talk to them about changing yo a fighter or ranger maybe. First off, I’m in the camp that there is nothing wrong with changing class mid-campaign. It’s a game and it’s supposed to be fun, if someone isn’t having fun, but changing classes will make it fun, they should do that. Fun is more important than the story and more important than momentary blip of odd-ness that will come from changing a class.
With him being a brand new player, this goes double. He probably didn’t understand what he was signing up for, and should be allowed to explore options. If he’s realized he mostly just likes to hit things in a fight, let him switch to a class that lets him be good at that.
To be frank, I think you and your party are in the wrong in this. You all are focused on “he should be playing the ‘correct’ way” and not on “he is playing the way he wants, and that’s great!”
Sure, he is playing a very suboptimal build, but you have already explained it is suboptimal, so you have met your burden for making sure the new player understands they are making a bad choice. Since he is willingly choosing to continue to play the suboptimal build - and since he seems to be enjoying it - there is really no need to interfere.
I would talk with the rest of your party and explain that he is a new player, he seems to be enjoying himself, it isn’t really a detriment to the party, and you want the new player to have fun in the way he wants to have fun.
Then I would make it a bit of a joke - he clearly is playing it for fun, and if you have fun with it as the DM also, the rest of your party will follow suit. Maybe you run into other artificers who poke fun at your party member (in good fun, you don’t want to be cruel). Maybe you work in something about his backstory explaining why he is this way (started learning about artifice from his parents, but accidentally went left rather than right, and ended up in a ludus—a gladiator school—instead of the artificer school his parents paid for). Making the suboptimal build a feature, not a problem, will go a long way toward ensuring they can play who they want, and everyone else can live with it.
I agree with Caerwyn - there seems to be a consensus expectation of how this player's character should be run. Nobody should be pressured into playing their character a certain way, even if it is suboptimal, and if it bothers the whole group that much, there should be open communication to manage those expectations.
A few things I noticed that I'm not sure have been mentioned yet:
1. Skewed combat perspective. I've both played and DMed for alchemists, and most of the time...they didn't use spells in combat. Why? Because they only get like 3 slots per day. It's not a full casting class at all, and the spells they can prepare are by and large utility/support. The damage-dealing magic they do have just isn't as exciting to some players as whacking a baddie twice, and whacking a baddie twice gives you more of a likelihood that you'll hit or be productive. More bang for your buck, especially in campaigns with a lot of fighting. It's not too much of a headscratcher why your unga-loving player mains his artificer as a martial.
2. Combat emphasis. Based on what you've written, the primary frustration at the table is that this player does not use magic in combat. It does make me wonder how many non-combat opportunities are presented. Perhaps the player would take fuller advantage of his magic, and maybe get more comfortable with that side of the class, outside of combat. Social encounters, skill challenges, exploration...there are a lot of ways alchemical magic could be utilized. A new player might not know to think like that. I personally was leery about magic when I was new to D&D because it was intimidating. Without an NPC or other player to provide in-game examples, it could come down to lack of confidence or understanding of the potential.
3. "...making things unnecessarily difficult." I'm curious what you meant by this. If it's just personality/playstyle clashes causing friction, I can see that. However if this is something more mechanical, such as unbalancing combat encounters because magic isn't being cast, that is another matter entirely.
For the record, I've been there. I've played in campaigns where people with squishy bards acted like melee fighters and imperiled themselves constantly. I've been in games with sorcerers who never cast spells. If you are familiar with D&D and see stuff like this, it's only natural to facepalm and get frustrated over what could be. I get it. There is, however, a degree of metagamey entitlement in that indignation. The characters don't know how many spells the alchemist "should" prepare. To them, he's a fighter with a smidge of occasional magic. Demanding he be more than that is the definition of breaking immersion, and creates an environment that tells a new player he's Doing It Wrong. Not a particularly fair shake for someone who's still learning, in my opinion.
Tl;dr - with some expectations management, patient encouragement, and communication, this can go from problem to learning opportunity.
Has the player done an "Artificing" at all in game? If not, in this unusual circumstance I'd have no problem saying "Ok, since you're not using any of the artificer's features in game to date and have only performed mechanically as a fighter, you're a fighter."
They went Alchemist so they have used the elixer they can make each day, but I can't help but feel they do it for the "random" factor. And they have used spells in combat, but 9 times out of 10, they rush headlong into battle and sing away with a light hammer and sickle.
So they are using the class features, just not optimally. In that case I'm with Caerwyn's general assessment. There's nothing wrong with playing a class idiosyncraticaly outside the expectations of the party and DM. If the party finds the character and player dead weight for the progress of the game, that's something to talk about when divying up loot or getting recognized with rewards. But I don't really see anything to intervene in, a DM thinking the player isn't playing "right" isn't a cause for intervention if "incorrect" is simply suboptimal or not in the spirit of the design.
I also agree that class can be changed around, at least through levels 1-4. However that should be predicated on the player not having a good experience with their character, not the DM and rest of table not liking how the character is being played, which seems to be what we have there.
Now if you run a game where characters are going to suffer if they're not playing to the max, that's on the player to to get with, and take your offered help, but that's more tutoring than intervening and you seem to be saying the player isn't interested.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Agree with just about everyone. Was never my intent to force him to change, more bring up how to best help him understand his spells and abilities and encourage him to research his stuff. We worked through it though so we're all good. Thank you all for the help and comments. <3
To be frank, I think you and your party are in the wrong in this. You all are focused on “he should be playing the ‘correct’ way” and not on “he is playing the way he wants, and that’s great!”
Sure, he is playing a very suboptimal build, but you have already explained it is suboptimal, so you have met your burden for making sure the new player understands they are making a bad choice. Since he is willingly choosing to continue to play the suboptimal build - and since he seems to be enjoying it - there is really no need to interfere.
I would talk with the rest of your party and explain that he is a new player, he seems to be enjoying himself, it isn’t really a detriment to the party, and you want the new player to have fun in the way he wants to have fun.
Then I would make it a bit of a joke - he clearly is playing it for fun, and if you have fun with it as the DM also, the rest of your party will follow suit. Maybe you run into other artificers who poke fun at your party member (in good fun, you don’t want to be cruel). Maybe you work in something about his backstory explaining why he is this way (started learning about artifice from his parents, but accidentally went left rather than right, and ended up in a ludus—a gladiator school—instead of the artificer school his parents paid for). Making the suboptimal build a feature, not a problem, will go a long way toward ensuring they can play who they want, and everyone else can live with it.
The problem with your reasoning is the DM has to have fun as does the rest of the players who are working as a team. The DM can always set the encounter to 5 players and ignore the players damage, which might make it a lot easier to balance. I've seen some players do some things I never considered including a potential TPK scenario and the last player up could have easily kill a very easy mob to kill not use an ability they have, they hardly ever use it but its killer. I had to remind him as a DM so he didn't TPK everyone. I don't like doing that as a DM, but having players that completely ignore their character and go running off chasing butterflies is not fair to the team let alone the DM. Every player is a hero in D&D and there is going to be a time when everything relies on them and when they are derping it, it is NOT a good game for anyone. The game is more than making one special snowflake feel special and loved, its about playing fair for everyone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I understand that's vague but not sure how to title this properly. Short story is been DMing Icespire Peak for a group and everyone is enjoying themselves, which is great. But one player is brand new. Not a problem, he asks some questions and we try to guide him through stuff at times but all in all everyone can do whatever they wish. The problem is his choice of class and playstyle. I'm all for playing a class in a way that is unique to you and making interesting choices, but his choices are annoying other players and making things unnecessarily difficult. He's playing an Artificer and exclusively using two-weapon fighting. No spells to speak of and at level 4 only has 3/4 spells prepared. I've offered to help walk him through his spells and tried to work with him, but so far he just refuses. We've asked him why he ignores his spells and he said that "in combat his brain goes unga bunga hit things." I feel he'd much more enjoy a straight combat role like Barb or Fighter, but feel it'd be weird to have him change class mid campaign and I really don't want to kill his character and force him to roll a new one. I'm not really sure how to approach this. And help would be great.
Has the player done an "Artificing" at all in game? If not, in this unusual circumstance I'd have no problem saying "Ok, since you're not using any of the artificer's features in game to date and have only performed mechanically as a fighter, you're a fighter."
I once had a new player who opted to be a Barbarian, turns out they really wanted to be feral thief, basically, since Rage was never really used and combat was largely avoided, we changed that sheet.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
They went Alchemist so they have used the elixer they can make each day, but I can't help but feel they do it for the "random" factor. And they have used spells in combat, but 9 times out of 10, they rush headlong into battle and sing away with a light hammer and sickle.
You've approached it fairly well from your description. I don't think I could suggest a different approach in going to the player and asking why they aren't utilizing the class abilities they chose. Offering help to understand and better grasp areas of shortcoming can be a great way to help people learn new concepts. If your player has any learning difficulties or underlying complications, a heavy-handed approach may not be very well received. Also, analysis paralysis is a significant thing. My own group tends to get sucked into that storm drain occasionally.
I would point out that while you caveat that "everyone can do whatever they wish", this player's playstyle choice seems to be annoying to your group. If your player's expectation is that they are the top DPR/Tank of the group, and your group's expectation is that this character fulfill a specific role, I can only suggest that the entire group have an opportunity to manage those expectations together. Without knowing why they chose Artificer and have only exercised one of the class abilities, as of yet, it's challenging to offer a solution that might be better accepted by the player and your group. It's almost as if the player is not fully vested in the character and has no reason to learn or rely on the other abilites of the character besides "poke it till it dies".
Do you highlight any of the melee characters around the table during combat? Does the character in question have any spotlight moments in or out of combat? In my experience, positive reinforcement could provide the motivation to learn more about, and use, the spellcasting and class abilities of the character.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Talk to them about changing yo a fighter or ranger maybe. First off, I’m in the camp that there is nothing wrong with changing class mid-campaign. It’s a game and it’s supposed to be fun, if someone isn’t having fun, but changing classes will make it fun, they should do that. Fun is more important than the story and more important than momentary blip of odd-ness that will come from changing a class.
With him being a brand new player, this goes double. He probably didn’t understand what he was signing up for, and should be allowed to explore options. If he’s realized he mostly just likes to hit things in a fight, let him switch to a class that lets him be good at that.
To be frank, I think you and your party are in the wrong in this. You all are focused on “he should be playing the ‘correct’ way” and not on “he is playing the way he wants, and that’s great!”
Sure, he is playing a very suboptimal build, but you have already explained it is suboptimal, so you have met your burden for making sure the new player understands they are making a bad choice. Since he is willingly choosing to continue to play the suboptimal build - and since he seems to be enjoying it - there is really no need to interfere.
I would talk with the rest of your party and explain that he is a new player, he seems to be enjoying himself, it isn’t really a detriment to the party, and you want the new player to have fun in the way he wants to have fun.
Then I would make it a bit of a joke - he clearly is playing it for fun, and if you have fun with it as the DM also, the rest of your party will follow suit. Maybe you run into other artificers who poke fun at your party member (in good fun, you don’t want to be cruel). Maybe you work in something about his backstory explaining why he is this way (started learning about artifice from his parents, but accidentally went left rather than right, and ended up in a ludus—a gladiator school—instead of the artificer school his parents paid for). Making the suboptimal build a feature, not a problem, will go a long way toward ensuring they can play who they want, and everyone else can live with it.
I agree with Caerwyn - there seems to be a consensus expectation of how this player's character should be run. Nobody should be pressured into playing their character a certain way, even if it is suboptimal, and if it bothers the whole group that much, there should be open communication to manage those expectations.
A few things I noticed that I'm not sure have been mentioned yet:
1. Skewed combat perspective. I've both played and DMed for alchemists, and most of the time...they didn't use spells in combat. Why? Because they only get like 3 slots per day. It's not a full casting class at all, and the spells they can prepare are by and large utility/support. The damage-dealing magic they do have just isn't as exciting to some players as whacking a baddie twice, and whacking a baddie twice gives you more of a likelihood that you'll hit or be productive. More bang for your buck, especially in campaigns with a lot of fighting. It's not too much of a headscratcher why your unga-loving player mains his artificer as a martial.
2. Combat emphasis. Based on what you've written, the primary frustration at the table is that this player does not use magic in combat. It does make me wonder how many non-combat opportunities are presented. Perhaps the player would take fuller advantage of his magic, and maybe get more comfortable with that side of the class, outside of combat. Social encounters, skill challenges, exploration...there are a lot of ways alchemical magic could be utilized. A new player might not know to think like that. I personally was leery about magic when I was new to D&D because it was intimidating. Without an NPC or other player to provide in-game examples, it could come down to lack of confidence or understanding of the potential.
3. "...making things unnecessarily difficult." I'm curious what you meant by this. If it's just personality/playstyle clashes causing friction, I can see that. However if this is something more mechanical, such as unbalancing combat encounters because magic isn't being cast, that is another matter entirely.
For the record, I've been there. I've played in campaigns where people with squishy bards acted like melee fighters and imperiled themselves constantly. I've been in games with sorcerers who never cast spells. If you are familiar with D&D and see stuff like this, it's only natural to facepalm and get frustrated over what could be. I get it. There is, however, a degree of metagamey entitlement in that indignation. The characters don't know how many spells the alchemist "should" prepare. To them, he's a fighter with a smidge of occasional magic. Demanding he be more than that is the definition of breaking immersion, and creates an environment that tells a new player he's Doing It Wrong. Not a particularly fair shake for someone who's still learning, in my opinion.
Tl;dr - with some expectations management, patient encouragement, and communication, this can go from problem to learning opportunity.
So they are using the class features, just not optimally. In that case I'm with Caerwyn's general assessment. There's nothing wrong with playing a class idiosyncraticaly outside the expectations of the party and DM. If the party finds the character and player dead weight for the progress of the game, that's something to talk about when divying up loot or getting recognized with rewards. But I don't really see anything to intervene in, a DM thinking the player isn't playing "right" isn't a cause for intervention if "incorrect" is simply suboptimal or not in the spirit of the design.
I also agree that class can be changed around, at least through levels 1-4. However that should be predicated on the player not having a good experience with their character, not the DM and rest of table not liking how the character is being played, which seems to be what we have there.
Now if you run a game where characters are going to suffer if they're not playing to the max, that's on the player to to get with, and take your offered help, but that's more tutoring than intervening and you seem to be saying the player isn't interested.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Agree with just about everyone. Was never my intent to force him to change, more bring up how to best help him understand his spells and abilities and encourage him to research his stuff. We worked through it though so we're all good. Thank you all for the help and comments. <3
Giving him some out-of-combat opportunity to use his spell slots might let him realise that spells can be useful :)
The problem with your reasoning is the DM has to have fun as does the rest of the players who are working as a team. The DM can always set the encounter to 5 players and ignore the players damage, which might make it a lot easier to balance. I've seen some players do some things I never considered including a potential TPK scenario and the last player up could have easily kill a very easy mob to kill not use an ability they have, they hardly ever use it but its killer. I had to remind him as a DM so he didn't TPK everyone. I don't like doing that as a DM, but having players that completely ignore their character and go running off chasing butterflies is not fair to the team let alone the DM. Every player is a hero in D&D and there is going to be a time when everything relies on them and when they are derping it, it is NOT a good game for anyone. The game is more than making one special snowflake feel special and loved, its about playing fair for everyone.