I have been playing a campaign for over a year now and I have some players who keep making the same tactical mistakes over and over again. I have a bard who always charges into the front line of combat and a paladin who always runs away from the front line. The bard always get's themselves in trouble, and the paladin is always getting everyone else in trouble. Both do their own thing and often put the party at risk.
After a year of this, and multiple careful conversations, I have come to the conclusion that they are not going to learn or change.
So my question is, do I lower the difficulty of encounters to cater to their random decisions in combat? Or do I continue to use appropriately challenging combat and, well, let them kill themselves? What would you do?
I am leaning towards the second option as I think these players could be happier with characters that fit their preferred play style, tho if their characters die there is a good chance they'll stop playing all together.
Tough love: I would not change how you run your game either the players learn or they don't and suffer the consequences. You should not have to change how you run your game because of their choices in combat-- that is unless you are intentionally trying to kill the party. It sounds like you've taken the time to sit down and discuss tactics with them and if nothing has changed there is not much else you should do. You made suggestions and they made decisions. It's not like you want to hold their hand throughout a combat encounter.
Well: Ok, maybe the Bard and Paladin players are playing the wrong characters. If there is the option sit down and see if they'd feel better-changing characters to fit more with the player's play style. Maybe the players feel hamstrung with their characters and would like the opportunity for a change.
Have you asked the players if they like their characters as-is? Often I find that a build seems fun at character creation, and feels very different after a few combats. If someone has never played a particular class before, or is new to D&D in general, they might discover that they don't really enjoy playing it the way you're "supposed" to.
I would caution you against trying to pressure the players into a certain style of combat. Sure, a frontline bard (assuming it's not a college of blades or something) and ranged pally is sub-optimal and potentially problematic, but if that's fun for the player and the rest of the players don't mind, then let them have their fun. And, sometimes, their consequences.
As for adjustments, you can throw monsters/terrain that grapple in melee rather than deal damage. You can introduce intelligent monsters that will attack strategically, rather than whoever's in front of them. A beholder, for example, will make the clanky pally roll Dex saves all day long no matter where he runs and will make the bard useless up close. You can also have multiple enemies all over the map (pally wants to get away? Too bad the kobolds have the party surrounded), and hazardous terrain to keep everyone on their toes no matter where they stand. That gives everyone something to do and a chance to shine/be challenged.
For what it's worth, I've played in a campaign with a bard who acted like a fighter. Got us into a ton of scrapes and it could be pretty frustrating at times, but it was still fun and the player loved it.
It is important to always remember that you cannot and should not tell the players what their characters should do.
The only reason this would need addressing is if it is impacting on the fun being had at the table.
You do, however, have an interesting option here - as you have one player running forawrd and the the other running away, this could be a good opportunity for some body-swapping magic. make them swap character sheets for one session (or just one combat) so that they can see how their play-style suits the other character!
If the behaviour does need addressing, then the issue needs t obe addressed outside of the game. Killing a character is never going to fix selfish or silly behaviour.
If the only issue is that you have to keep pulling out DM fiats to keep them alive, then just let their actions have consequences. Probably worth telling them so, otherwise they might still think they have the training wheels on!
Have you tried asking them why they do what they do just to see what they say?
If the Paladin player picked the Paladin class for the high HP, AC, and the ability to heal themselves and they run away so they don’t get hurt, that tells you they value survival and survivability the most. If the Bard player picked Bard because it sounded cool and they charge into combat because they think that’s cool, then they obviously value a brave dashing character the most. (Whatever they say, that will tell you how they want to have fun.) Then, use your monsters to challenge them according to how they have fun. Let the Paladin take lots of heat and survive some fights by virtue of their abilities. Let the Bard be dashing and cool without getting in over his head because the monsters rushed past him to get to the Paladin. (Or play into whatever they say their fun is.) Not every table needs to have highly tactical combat to have fun, in fact many don’t and are still fun.
Next campaign, maybe casually drop it on the Bard player that if they think charging in recklessly is fun, then they might want to check out a Barbarian, or a Swashbuckler Rogue, or a Bladesinger Wizard and see if any of those appeal to them. Maybe casually mention to that Paladin player that if they think the Paladin is survivable then they should check out how good Clerics are at not dying, or Rogues with their Cunning Action and ranged capabilities, or perhaps an Armorer Artificer with the Infiltrator model. (Or drop hints related to whatever answers they give you.) Then, if they ignore your casual hints, still let them have fun.
You know how you can tell if you’re a “good” DM or not? If you look around table and everyone is having fun, you’re a good DM. Let them have fun.
If the bard is a Valor Bard then he is not necessarily wrong to be on the front lines, so long as he is smart about it. Medium Armor + shield + heroism, something like that.
Can’t think of a reason the paladin would want to be on the back lines. What exactly are they doing in combat? Be more specific. Is the paladin using a ranged weapon? It wouldn’t be a bad play style to hang back initially, keep as many players in your defensive auras as possible, cast a couple spells, then draw your sword and move for a lay on hands after the tanks are beaten up a bit.
Try working with your players to build (or even rebuild if necessary) their characters in a way that makes the most of their combat play styles. Approach them in a way that is totally non-judgemental about it
First, if the players are playing this way and enjoying the game then it's fine - why worry about it?
However, secondly I think this is most likely caused by you providing encounters that are too easy for the party, because if they have continually made the same mistakes over and over through the course of a year, and the bard (who I'm assuming is not a Swords or Valour bard) hasn't died then their tactics are working. Even if it feels like they're getting in trouble, they aren't. Trouble = characters dying. Getting knocked out and bounced back up? That's just standard combat. What you have taught your players is that completely ignoring expected tactics are working.
If you want them to learn, then the consequence of failing to perform in combat should be character death. Not all encounters should be lethal, but in a boss fight you should be aiming for the PCs to be very close to out of resources (including hit points) at the end of the battle. If they're doing dumb stuff during combat and it has no actual consequences then there's no lesson to learn.
Just keep encounters like they are supposed to be. If it's their way of playing, it'll bite them in the ass. You can't change everything to make it easier for them, then they wil surely never learn. You can give hints here and there, like you've already done, but ultimately it's up to them to start figuring it out.
They are not learning because they are not dying. The question is are they not dying because you are cheating to help them, or because their methodology works?
If you are cheating to help them, stop. If their methodology works, leave them alone.
I would however, send them up against a smarter badguys. Have the bad guys learn, even if the players do not. Then send them up against an ostensibly weak group that is focused against them. For example of bunch of kobolds that plan ahead with traps. Bard charges ahead and gets cut off from the rest of the party (pit trap, wall sliding down, etc.) That kind of thing.
1) Talk to the players. Don't try to change how they play - ask them why they choose to do certain things in combat. Don't imply that they are incorrect things to do but rather just try to find out why their characters do that.
2) You've been playing for over a year. The tactics they are using are the ones that either the player likes or ones they think the character likes. Or they are just misunderstanding something about the game. Are there other players in the group? How do they play? Do any of them model different ways to play?
3) Is one role playing a brave but somewhat foolhardy bard while the other is roleplaying a paladin with a fear of being injured? If it is role playing then something the players have said over the past year should give some indication of it.
4) Is the character behavior breaking the game? Is it making it less fun for some of the other players or for you as DM?
In terms of what I would do, I would make encounters that are appropriate for a less than optimized party. However, I wouldn't pull punches if things go sideways due to the chosen behavior of the characters.
That is a lesson I learned a long time ago, if the DM "intervenes" so that bad things don't typically happen to the characters then some players will sub-consciously or consciously pick up on this and take ever more riskier or flamboyant actions until you reach the point where the DM either has to say "the character dies - swinging over a 100' lava pit on a thread while trying to grapple the flying monstrosity while stabbing it with your dagger is not going to end well" or somehow narrate the character achieving increasingly more improbable or impossible feats - it is far better, in my experience, to let players know the type of world you are running, perhaps a world where your characters are heroic but miracles can't be expected to regularly happen to save you from poor decisions.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is this question: is the paladin acting against his oath? Below are the list of tenets the paladin in your group may be breaking.
[Conquest] Douse the Flame of Hope. It is not enough to merely defeat an enemy in battle. Your victory must be so overwhelming that your enemies’ will to fight is shattered forever. A blade can end a life. Fear can end an empire. Running away from the enemy instead of crushing them goes against this.
[Conquest] Strength Above All. You shall rule until a stronger one arises. Then you must grow mightier and meet the challenge, or fall to your own ruin. How is retreating constantly going to help you overcome a challenge? If you can't even find the strength to defeat a mightier foe, you're basically supposed to die trying.
[Devotion] Courage. Never fear to act, though caution is wise. By running away, you are fearing to act.
[Devotion] Compassion. Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom. You're putting your allies in danger when you're not protecting them by staying on the front line.
[Devotion] Honor. Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm. So you're setting cowardice as an example to others?
[Devotion] Duty. Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you. You're not being responsible when you fail to protect your allies.
[Glory] Challenges Are but Tests. Face hardships with courage, and encourage your allies to face them with you. You're not being courageous by running away, and you're certainly not encouraging your allies by doing this.
[Glory] Discipline the Soul. You must marshal the discipline to overcome failings within yourself that threaten to dim the glory of you and your friends. How about you start finding that discipline by, you know, NOT running away like a coward?
[Redemption] Innocence. All people begin life in an innocent state, and it is their environment or the influence of dark forces that drives them to evil. By setting the proper example, and working to heal the wounds of a deeply flawed world, you can set anyone on a righteous path. Only selfish people run away from danger while leaving their friends behind. You're not setting the proper example by doing this.
[Ancients] Be the Light. Be a glorious beacon for all who live in despair. Let the light of your joy and courage shine forth in all your deeds. You're not being a beacon of courage if you keep cowering behind the people you're meant to protect.
[Crown] Courage. You must be willing to do what needs to be done for the sake of order, even in the face of overwhelming odds. If you don’t act, then who will? Who will indeed?
[Crown] Responsibility. You must deal with the consequences of your actions, and you are responsible for fulfilling your duties and obligations. If anything goes wrong because of your selfishness, it's 100% your fault.
[Watchers] Discipline. You are the shield against the endless terrors that lie beyond the stars. Your blade must be forever sharp and your mind keen to survive what lies beyond. Since when does a shield go behind the very thing it's supposed to protect?
[Vengeance] By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can’t get in the way of exterminating my foes. But by running away out of fear for your life, you're basically letting your qualms get in the way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Age: 33 | Sex: Male | Languages: French and English | Roles: DM and Player
The tactic the players choose to employ are one of many ways they choose to attempt to overcome the challenges set before them. The players’ job is to come up with solutions to challenges. The DM’s job is to drop challenges in front of the party. It is not the DM’s job to solve the challenges they devise, only to set the challenges. As a DM, I often set challenges before the party without the faintest notion how in the heck they’re gonna overcome those challenges. The solutions… that’s not my circus, and those are not my monkeys. My monkeys are with me in the challenges circus.
Thanks everyone. This has been super helpful. Really appreciate it. As a few of you have pointed out - if they have not died yet then their tactics are in fact working and they have no incentive to change. Best for me to step back and let the dice fall as they may.
Thanks everyone. This has been super helpful. Really appreciate it. As a few of you have pointed out - if they have not died yet then their tactics are in fact working and they have no incentive to change. Best for me to step back and let the dice fall as they may.
Gradually up the difficulty, so that their current tactic doesn't work - and maybe the Paladin will finally do what a Paladin should do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi gang, I could use some advice.
I have been playing a campaign for over a year now and I have some players who keep making the same tactical mistakes over and over again. I have a bard who always charges into the front line of combat and a paladin who always runs away from the front line. The bard always get's themselves in trouble, and the paladin is always getting everyone else in trouble. Both do their own thing and often put the party at risk.
After a year of this, and multiple careful conversations, I have come to the conclusion that they are not going to learn or change.
So my question is, do I lower the difficulty of encounters to cater to their random decisions in combat? Or do I continue to use appropriately challenging combat and, well, let them kill themselves? What would you do?
I am leaning towards the second option as I think these players could be happier with characters that fit their preferred play style, tho if their characters die there is a good chance they'll stop playing all together.
Tough love:
I would not change how you run your game either the players learn or they don't and suffer the consequences. You should not have to change how you run your game because of their choices in combat-- that is unless you are intentionally trying to kill the party. It sounds like you've taken the time to sit down and discuss tactics with them and if nothing has changed there is not much else you should do. You made suggestions and they made decisions. It's not like you want to hold their hand throughout a combat encounter.
Well:
Ok, maybe the Bard and Paladin players are playing the wrong characters. If there is the option sit down and see if they'd feel better-changing characters to fit more with the player's play style. Maybe the players feel hamstrung with their characters and would like the opportunity for a change.
Have you asked the players if they like their characters as-is? Often I find that a build seems fun at character creation, and feels very different after a few combats. If someone has never played a particular class before, or is new to D&D in general, they might discover that they don't really enjoy playing it the way you're "supposed" to.
I would caution you against trying to pressure the players into a certain style of combat. Sure, a frontline bard (assuming it's not a college of blades or something) and ranged pally is sub-optimal and potentially problematic, but if that's fun for the player and the rest of the players don't mind, then let them have their fun. And, sometimes, their consequences.
As for adjustments, you can throw monsters/terrain that grapple in melee rather than deal damage. You can introduce intelligent monsters that will attack strategically, rather than whoever's in front of them. A beholder, for example, will make the clanky pally roll Dex saves all day long no matter where he runs and will make the bard useless up close. You can also have multiple enemies all over the map (pally wants to get away? Too bad the kobolds have the party surrounded), and hazardous terrain to keep everyone on their toes no matter where they stand. That gives everyone something to do and a chance to shine/be challenged.
For what it's worth, I've played in a campaign with a bard who acted like a fighter. Got us into a ton of scrapes and it could be pretty frustrating at times, but it was still fun and the player loved it.
It is important to always remember that you cannot and should not tell the players what their characters should do.
The only reason this would need addressing is if it is impacting on the fun being had at the table.
You do, however, have an interesting option here - as you have one player running forawrd and the the other running away, this could be a good opportunity for some body-swapping magic. make them swap character sheets for one session (or just one combat) so that they can see how their play-style suits the other character!
If the behaviour does need addressing, then the issue needs t obe addressed outside of the game. Killing a character is never going to fix selfish or silly behaviour.
If the only issue is that you have to keep pulling out DM fiats to keep them alive, then just let their actions have consequences. Probably worth telling them so, otherwise they might still think they have the training wheels on!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Have you tried asking them why they do what they do just to see what they say?
If the Paladin player picked the Paladin class for the high HP, AC, and the ability to heal themselves and they run away so they don’t get hurt, that tells you they value survival and survivability the most. If the Bard player picked Bard because it sounded cool and they charge into combat because they think that’s cool, then they obviously value a brave dashing character the most. (Whatever they say, that will tell you how they want to have fun.) Then, use your monsters to challenge them according to how they have fun. Let the Paladin take lots of heat and survive some fights by virtue of their abilities. Let the Bard be dashing and cool without getting in over his head because the monsters rushed past him to get to the Paladin. (Or play into whatever they say their fun is.) Not every table needs to have highly tactical combat to have fun, in fact many don’t and are still fun.
Next campaign, maybe casually drop it on the Bard player that if they think charging in recklessly is fun, then they might want to check out a Barbarian, or a Swashbuckler Rogue, or a Bladesinger Wizard and see if any of those appeal to them. Maybe casually mention to that Paladin player that if they think the Paladin is survivable then they should check out how good Clerics are at not dying, or Rogues with their Cunning Action and ranged capabilities, or perhaps an Armorer Artificer with the Infiltrator model. (Or drop hints related to whatever answers they give you.) Then, if they ignore your casual hints, still let them have fun.
You know how you can tell if you’re a “good” DM or not? If you look around table and everyone is having fun, you’re a good DM. Let them have fun.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If the bard is a Valor Bard then he is not necessarily wrong to be on the front lines, so long as he is smart about it. Medium Armor + shield + heroism, something like that.
Can’t think of a reason the paladin would want to be on the back lines. What exactly are they doing in combat? Be more specific. Is the paladin using a ranged weapon? It wouldn’t be a bad play style to hang back initially, keep as many players in your defensive auras as possible, cast a couple spells, then draw your sword and move for a lay on hands after the tanks are beaten up a bit.
Try working with your players to build (or even rebuild if necessary) their characters in a way that makes the most of their combat play styles. Approach them in a way that is totally non-judgemental about it
Two things:
First, if the players are playing this way and enjoying the game then it's fine - why worry about it?
However, secondly I think this is most likely caused by you providing encounters that are too easy for the party, because if they have continually made the same mistakes over and over through the course of a year, and the bard (who I'm assuming is not a Swords or Valour bard) hasn't died then their tactics are working. Even if it feels like they're getting in trouble, they aren't. Trouble = characters dying. Getting knocked out and bounced back up? That's just standard combat. What you have taught your players is that completely ignoring expected tactics are working.
If you want them to learn, then the consequence of failing to perform in combat should be character death. Not all encounters should be lethal, but in a boss fight you should be aiming for the PCs to be very close to out of resources (including hit points) at the end of the battle. If they're doing dumb stuff during combat and it has no actual consequences then there's no lesson to learn.
Just keep encounters like they are supposed to be. If it's their way of playing, it'll bite them in the ass. You can't change everything to make it easier for them, then they wil surely never learn. You can give hints here and there, like you've already done, but ultimately it's up to them to start figuring it out.
They are not learning because they are not dying. The question is are they not dying because you are cheating to help them, or because their methodology works?
If you are cheating to help them, stop. If their methodology works, leave them alone.
I would however, send them up against a smarter badguys. Have the bad guys learn, even if the players do not. Then send them up against an ostensibly weak group that is focused against them. For example of bunch of kobolds that plan ahead with traps. Bard charges ahead and gets cut off from the rest of the party (pit trap, wall sliding down, etc.) That kind of thing.
Some good advice here :)
1) Talk to the players. Don't try to change how they play - ask them why they choose to do certain things in combat. Don't imply that they are incorrect things to do but rather just try to find out why their characters do that.
2) You've been playing for over a year. The tactics they are using are the ones that either the player likes or ones they think the character likes. Or they are just misunderstanding something about the game. Are there other players in the group? How do they play? Do any of them model different ways to play?
3) Is one role playing a brave but somewhat foolhardy bard while the other is roleplaying a paladin with a fear of being injured? If it is role playing then something the players have said over the past year should give some indication of it.
4) Is the character behavior breaking the game? Is it making it less fun for some of the other players or for you as DM?
In terms of what I would do, I would make encounters that are appropriate for a less than optimized party. However, I wouldn't pull punches if things go sideways due to the chosen behavior of the characters.
That is a lesson I learned a long time ago, if the DM "intervenes" so that bad things don't typically happen to the characters then some players will sub-consciously or consciously pick up on this and take ever more riskier or flamboyant actions until you reach the point where the DM either has to say "the character dies - swinging over a 100' lava pit on a thread while trying to grapple the flying monstrosity while stabbing it with your dagger is not going to end well" or somehow narrate the character achieving increasingly more improbable or impossible feats - it is far better, in my experience, to let players know the type of world you are running, perhaps a world where your characters are heroic but miracles can't be expected to regularly happen to save you from poor decisions.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is this question: is the paladin acting against his oath? Below are the list of tenets the paladin in your group may be breaking.
[Conquest] Douse the Flame of Hope. It is not enough to merely defeat an enemy in battle. Your victory must be so overwhelming that your enemies’ will to fight is shattered forever. A blade can end a life. Fear can end an empire. Running away from the enemy instead of crushing them goes against this.
[Conquest] Strength Above All. You shall rule until a stronger one arises. Then you must grow mightier and meet the challenge, or fall to your own ruin. How is retreating constantly going to help you overcome a challenge? If you can't even find the strength to defeat a mightier foe, you're basically supposed to die trying.
[Devotion] Courage. Never fear to act, though caution is wise. By running away, you are fearing to act.
[Devotion] Compassion. Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom. You're putting your allies in danger when you're not protecting them by staying on the front line.
[Devotion] Honor. Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm. So you're setting cowardice as an example to others?
[Devotion] Duty. Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you. You're not being responsible when you fail to protect your allies.
[Glory] Challenges Are but Tests. Face hardships with courage, and encourage your allies to face them with you. You're not being courageous by running away, and you're certainly not encouraging your allies by doing this.
[Glory] Discipline the Soul. You must marshal the discipline to overcome failings within yourself that threaten to dim the glory of you and your friends. How about you start finding that discipline by, you know, NOT running away like a coward?
[Redemption] Innocence. All people begin life in an innocent state, and it is their environment or the influence of dark forces that drives them to evil. By setting the proper example, and working to heal the wounds of a deeply flawed world, you can set anyone on a righteous path. Only selfish people run away from danger while leaving their friends behind. You're not setting the proper example by doing this.
[Ancients] Be the Light. Be a glorious beacon for all who live in despair. Let the light of your joy and courage shine forth in all your deeds. You're not being a beacon of courage if you keep cowering behind the people you're meant to protect.
[Crown] Courage. You must be willing to do what needs to be done for the sake of order, even in the face of overwhelming odds. If you don’t act, then who will? Who will indeed?
[Crown] Responsibility. You must deal with the consequences of your actions, and you are responsible for fulfilling your duties and obligations. If anything goes wrong because of your selfishness, it's 100% your fault.
[Watchers] Discipline. You are the shield against the endless terrors that lie beyond the stars. Your blade must be forever sharp and your mind keen to survive what lies beyond. Since when does a shield go behind the very thing it's supposed to protect?
[Vengeance] By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can’t get in the way of exterminating my foes. But by running away out of fear for your life, you're basically letting your qualms get in the way.
Age: 33 | Sex: Male | Languages: French and English | Roles: DM and Player
The tactic the players choose to employ are one of many ways they choose to attempt to overcome the challenges set before them. The players’ job is to come up with solutions to challenges. The DM’s job is to drop challenges in front of the party. It is not the DM’s job to solve the challenges they devise, only to set the challenges. As a DM, I often set challenges before the party without the faintest notion how in the heck they’re gonna overcome those challenges. The solutions… that’s not my circus, and those are not my monkeys. My monkeys are with me in the challenges circus.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Thanks everyone. This has been super helpful. Really appreciate it. As a few of you have pointed out - if they have not died yet then their tactics are in fact working and they have no incentive to change. Best for me to step back and let the dice fall as they may.
Gradually up the difficulty, so that their current tactic doesn't work - and maybe the Paladin will finally do what a Paladin should do.