Hello fellow dungeon masters 👋, I'm a fairly new dm and one of my players won't be able to come to the game tonight and was unsure what to do. We're playing Lost Mine Of Phandelver, the end of the redbrand hideout which I already prepped and only have a small amount of time later to do any prep.
Do any of you have any ideas that I can do? If so thanks very much
BTW my players are a kobold mystic, dwarven warlock and air gemasi druid (he can't make it)
My campaign rule is i run the session if at least 3/4 players can play. For the missing player character can be either left out, played by DM or another player, which is usually settled in during session 0.
The ideas above are great, and I echo the sentiment, but I think the most straightforward solution - especially for a group of that size - is to simply put the session off. It saves you having to balance encounters, think of a way to justify the character not being there and having to juggle a class you might not be familiar with as a DMPC. It has the additional benefit of allowing you to get some well-earned prep time and you'll be another step ahead of the players.
No doubt your players will be eager to play and will be disappointed to hear about the cancellation, but you can sell it as a good thing if it means they all get to play together and you'll have more content planned in case they go over. They should be able to appreciate that, especially if they don't have to wait long to play again in future.
I wish you luck. There are no wrong answers to this one as such, and each one answer is rarely fully satisfying.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
If agree with putting it off. A 2-person party, even with rebalanced encounters, is really pretty fragile. A couple bad rolls and they’re all dead.
Another suggestion for more long term solution, would be to make a sidekick character (in Tasha’s) for the party as a whole, and have one of the players run it. It can give you a fourth when everyone is there (most published adventures assume an 4-person party, anyway) and it provides some extra cushion when someone is absent.
I might just postpone myself. I have tried both having the DM control the PC and having the player entrust their PC to another player. Both have had mixed success. Even if the PC doesn’t die, if the PC does something suboptimal (and of course they will under someone else’s control because they cannot perfectly replicate an understanding of the PC or the decisions they would make), the player might respond with frustration with the outcome when they can play again. That has been my experience anyway.
I made a companion mod for 5e. It's meant for these kind of situations or simply if a party has less than 4 players to begin with.
A complete guidebook for making a player companion with a class and levels. Controlled much like a ranger companion but with a natural levels progress so the DM doesn't need to manually balance them.
The basic reasoning is that status effects, reviving etc play such an important part it combat, that a lack of players changes combat drastically simply because of fewer targets and fewer actions. In a two person party it sucks to use any status effects against players, because it quickly messes up the balance if 1/2 players is out.
So the companions can keep nuking enemies, revive players etc.
The classes are slimmed down versions of PC classes. Tried to make them so dynamic to use that it doesn't hinder gameplay too much.
If anyone wants to take a look at the material or playtest, let me know. 😄
I made a companion mod for 5e. It's meant for these kind of situations or simply if a party has less than 4 players to begin with.
A complete guidebook for making a player companion with a class and levels. Controlled much like a ranger companion but with a natural levels progress so the DM doesn't need to manually balance them.
The basic reasoning is that status effects, reviving etc play such an important part it combat, that a lack of players changes combat drastically simply because of fewer targets and fewer actions. In a two person party it sucks to use any status effects against players, because it quickly messes up the balance if 1/2 players is out.
So the companions can keep nuking enemies, revive players etc.
The classes are slimmed down versions of PC classes. Tried to make them so dynamic to use that it doesn't hinder gameplay too much.
If anyone wants to take a look at the material or playtest, let me know. 😄
Sounds an awful lot like the official sidekick rules....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
I made a companion mod for 5e. It's meant for these kind of situations or simply if a party has less than 4 players to begin with.
A complete guidebook for making a player companion with a class and levels. Controlled much like a ranger companion but with a natural levels progress so the DM doesn't need to manually balance them.
The basic reasoning is that status effects, reviving etc play such an important part it combat, that a lack of players changes combat drastically simply because of fewer targets and fewer actions. In a two person party it sucks to use any status effects against players, because it quickly messes up the balance if 1/2 players is out.
So the companions can keep nuking enemies, revive players etc.
The classes are slimmed down versions of PC classes. Tried to make them so dynamic to use that it doesn't hinder gameplay too much.
If anyone wants to take a look at the material or playtest, let me know. 😄
Sounds an awful lot like the official sidekick rules....
I'll be damned... It sure does. Didn't know this exists.
I made a companion mod for 5e. It's meant for these kind of situations or simply if a party has less than 4 players to begin with.
A complete guidebook for making a player companion with a class and levels. Controlled much like a ranger companion but with a natural levels progress so the DM doesn't need to manually balance them.
The basic reasoning is that status effects, reviving etc play such an important part it combat, that a lack of players changes combat drastically simply because of fewer targets and fewer actions. In a two person party it sucks to use any status effects against players, because it quickly messes up the balance if 1/2 players is out.
So the companions can keep nuking enemies, revive players etc.
The classes are slimmed down versions of PC classes. Tried to make them so dynamic to use that it doesn't hinder gameplay too much.
If anyone wants to take a look at the material or playtest, let me know. 😄
Sounds an awful lot like the official sidekick rules....
I'll be damned... It sure does. Didn't know this exists.
Well it's quite a bit different still. 😄
I figured there would be mechanical differences. Very similar concept, though. I guess that means you're on the right track. Or maybe the game designers were?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
If you do go ahead with the session, I can’t stress enough that you should not play the character in the absence of the player unless you are willing to have whatever happens to the character during the session not count at all when they return. It is an awful experience to return to a dead character. It is an awful experience to be the player or DM that gets the character killed in a player’s absence. It creates nothing but strife when players have to explain the chains of events and the decisions they made that resulted in the character’s death. I’ve had players leave the game over it.
At my table, if a player misses a session, their character is magically not there. Just poof. It can’t be threatened or killed but it also can’t contribute in any way. No access to any of their spells, skills, gear or anything. Next session when the player is there, poof, so is the character. Admittedly challenging for verisimilitude but I’ve never had a player leave the game over it.
If you do go ahead with the session, I can’t stress enough that you should not play the character in the absence of the player unless you are willing to have whatever happens to the character during the session not count at all when they return. It is an awful experience to return to a dead character. It is an awful experience to be the player or DM that gets the character killed in a player’s absence. It creates nothing but strife when players have to explain the chains of events and the decisions they made that resulted in the character’s death. I’ve had players leave the game over it.
At my table, if a player misses a session, their character is magically not there. Just poof. It can’t be threatened or killed but it also can’t contribute in any way. No access to any of their spells, skills, gear or anything. Next session when the player is there, poof, so is the character. Admittedly challenging for verisimilitude but I’ve never had a player leave the game over it.
I like this. It might matter to people who agonize over canon, but it’s D&D; I have never seen a seamless campaign without any holes whatsoever. Even the pros have some things that just don’t make sense in terms of story. I think I will use this going forward.
Yeah this actually makes me happy that there is a similar official rule about this. Like you said, probably on the right track.
I quickly browsed through the rule before going to bed. From what I gather, aside from mechanical differences, there is also a big gameplay difference in the design.
My companions are by default golems, AI robots, summoned servants etc. with a telepathic link. The biggest difference being that their ability to speak is very limited. Basically if it has for example a knowledge profi, it can tell the players what it knows about the subject at hand.
But it doesn't form opinions about a course of action or casually converse. So the player only has to RP one character.
I made a companion mod for 5e. It's meant for these kind of situations or simply if a party has less than 4 players to begin with.
A complete guidebook for making a player companion with a class and levels. Controlled much like a ranger companion but with a natural levels progress so the DM doesn't need to manually balance them.
The basic reasoning is that status effects, reviving etc play such an important part it combat, that a lack of players changes combat drastically simply because of fewer targets and fewer actions. In a two person party it sucks to use any status effects against players, because it quickly messes up the balance if 1/2 players is out.
So the companions can keep nuking enemies, revive players etc.
The classes are slimmed down versions of PC classes. Tried to make them so dynamic to use that it doesn't hinder gameplay too much.
If anyone wants to take a look at the material or playtest, let me know. 😄
Yeah, I'd really like to try out the rule you were saying if you wouldn't mind sending it on
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
Sure I'll send you the pdf. Are they allowed on the forum or do I send it privately?
Thanks. I'm not sure but I'd say it's fine to send it into the forum I think it just comes up on the screen as you are about to leave dnd beyond and you just press ok.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello fellow dungeon masters 👋, I'm a fairly new dm and one of my players won't be able to come to the game tonight and was unsure what to do. We're playing Lost Mine Of Phandelver, the end of the redbrand hideout which I already prepped and only have a small amount of time later to do any prep.
Do any of you have any ideas that I can do? If so thanks very much
BTW my players are a kobold mystic, dwarven warlock and air gemasi druid (he can't make it)
My campaign rule is i run the session if at least 3/4 players can play. For the missing player character can be either left out, played by DM or another player, which is usually settled in during session 0.
Thanks
The ideas above are great, and I echo the sentiment, but I think the most straightforward solution - especially for a group of that size - is to simply put the session off. It saves you having to balance encounters, think of a way to justify the character not being there and having to juggle a class you might not be familiar with as a DMPC. It has the additional benefit of allowing you to get some well-earned prep time and you'll be another step ahead of the players.
No doubt your players will be eager to play and will be disappointed to hear about the cancellation, but you can sell it as a good thing if it means they all get to play together and you'll have more content planned in case they go over. They should be able to appreciate that, especially if they don't have to wait long to play again in future.
I wish you luck. There are no wrong answers to this one as such, and each one answer is rarely fully satisfying.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
If agree with putting it off. A 2-person party, even with rebalanced encounters, is really pretty fragile. A couple bad rolls and they’re all dead.
Another suggestion for more long term solution, would be to make a sidekick character (in Tasha’s) for the party as a whole, and have one of the players run it. It can give you a fourth when everyone is there (most published adventures assume an 4-person party, anyway) and it provides some extra cushion when someone is absent.
I might just postpone myself. I have tried both having the DM control the PC and having the player entrust their PC to another player. Both have had mixed success. Even if the PC doesn’t die, if the PC does something suboptimal (and of course they will under someone else’s control because they cannot perfectly replicate an understanding of the PC or the decisions they would make), the player might respond with frustration with the outcome when they can play again. That has been my experience anyway.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I made a companion mod for 5e. It's meant for these kind of situations or simply if a party has less than 4 players to begin with.
A complete guidebook for making a player companion with a class and levels. Controlled much like a ranger companion but with a natural levels progress so the DM doesn't need to manually balance them.
The basic reasoning is that status effects, reviving etc play such an important part it combat, that a lack of players changes combat drastically simply because of fewer targets and fewer actions. In a two person party it sucks to use any status effects against players, because it quickly messes up the balance if 1/2 players is out.
So the companions can keep nuking enemies, revive players etc.
The classes are slimmed down versions of PC classes. Tried to make them so dynamic to use that it doesn't hinder gameplay too much.
If anyone wants to take a look at the material or playtest, let me know. 😄
Finland GMT/UTC +2
Sounds an awful lot like the official sidekick rules....
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
I'll be damned... It sure does. Didn't know this exists.
Well it's quite a bit different still. 😄
Finland GMT/UTC +2
I figured there would be mechanical differences. Very similar concept, though. I guess that means you're on the right track. Or maybe the game designers were?
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
If you do go ahead with the session, I can’t stress enough that you should not play the character in the absence of the player unless you are willing to have whatever happens to the character during the session not count at all when they return. It is an awful experience to return to a dead character. It is an awful experience to be the player or DM that gets the character killed in a player’s absence. It creates nothing but strife when players have to explain the chains of events and the decisions they made that resulted in the character’s death. I’ve had players leave the game over it.
At my table, if a player misses a session, their character is magically not there. Just poof. It can’t be threatened or killed but it also can’t contribute in any way. No access to any of their spells, skills, gear or anything. Next session when the player is there, poof, so is the character. Admittedly challenging for verisimilitude but I’ve never had a player leave the game over it.
I like this. It might matter to people who agonize over canon, but it’s D&D; I have never seen a seamless campaign without any holes whatsoever. Even the pros have some things that just don’t make sense in terms of story. I think I will use this going forward.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Yeah this actually makes me happy that there is a similar official rule about this. Like you said, probably on the right track.
I quickly browsed through the rule before going to bed. From what I gather, aside from mechanical differences, there is also a big gameplay difference in the design.
My companions are by default golems, AI robots, summoned servants etc. with a telepathic link. The biggest difference being that their ability to speak is very limited. Basically if it has for example a knowledge profi, it can tell the players what it knows about the subject at hand.
But it doesn't form opinions about a course of action or casually converse. So the player only has to RP one character.
Finland GMT/UTC +2
Yeah, I'd really like to try out the rule you were saying if you wouldn't mind sending it on
What’s a mystic?
Likely the Unearthed Arcana class, unless it's a homebrew class of the same name.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
Sure I'll send you the pdf. Are they allowed on the forum or do I send it privately?
Finland GMT/UTC +2
It's an unearthed arcana class, came out with the artificer i think, it's fairly unusual
Thanks. I'm not sure but I'd say it's fine to send it into the forum I think it just comes up on the screen as you are about to leave dnd beyond and you just press ok.