You do make a good point, but I've played with them for a while. Up until like a month ago they were a great player, who while optimized never broke the game intentionally, listened/worked with the DM (me in most cases), and never caused arguments for no reason. But, in the past month or so they've been a lot to handle. They've started pointless arguments and then when told to cut it out continued for a while and then took the argument to DM's (direct messages not other DMs) (we play over discord and I'm going to be trying out Roll20 for maps), were completely rude and noncommittal when confronted about their behavior and how it had to stop, and now this. I figure something has to be going on but I'm not sure what and don't want to kick them if they're going through a rough time and that's why they're acting out. Plus, we've just joined a new campaign together and I don't want to make that awkward by kicking them from my games because if I kick them from one I'll have to kick them from the other so they doesn't cause problems in that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
call me Anna or Kerns, (she/her), usually a DM, lgbtq+ friendly
This sounds like you need an OOC conversation. I know you said they were rude and noncommittal when confronted but try again.
If it's me... well, I am telling them that I will not be able to keep DMing under these conditions so either they help me sort it out or they find another DM. But you have to be willing to pull the trigger on it for real, if they won't straighten up. Making it as an empty threat will not work and will only make things worse.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I'm very sorry to hear that OP. Last year, my entire group had to completely cut ties with a player (who was also a very old and dear friend of ours) because of things that were happening outside of the game. It was one of the hardest things I've had to do, but it was necessary.
Have a talk with your player, and I mean *really* talk. It won't be fun, and you'll probably end up digging up things behind the scenes that are really unpleasant, but the situation won't change if you don't. Be honest, and lay out the stakes with the player, and hopefully they'll be willing to work with you, but if they don't then you have to be ready for the worst and tell them they need to find another table.
To give a good answer, we would need to know what the other players in the group like. There is nothing wrong with the min-maxer's play style on its own. He or she wants to build the best character he or she can within the rules provided and then use their strengths to defeat the enemies. Do not try to take that away from that player; that will just cause more strife. The issue here is that this player seems to be overshadowing the other players. I would suggest seeing what the other players like and giving them their time to shine as well. If you need to make combat more balanced since that is the what everyone else likes as well, I would suggest giving the other players some more magic items. However, it is also possible that this group of players does not gel very well and needs to have some serious out of game conversations about what everyone likes and doesn't to get the game to a point where everyone is able to enjoy.
Your dilemma aside, this player is Violating Wheaton’s Law. This player has threatened to become unpleasant if you try to balance the game for the other players … I’d ask them to sit out a few games. The other thing you can do is have your NPCs treat the party the way they party treats NPCs: target the big-bad first! Have NPCs target the guardian and it’s master first, if they are more of a threat. Lastly, find reasonable ways to buff the other party members, to get them up to snuff, so to speak.
There is nothing you can do besides playing "fair" and sucking your discomfort up. The player likes his char and his amulet. If you start targeting it, they will rage quit. You need to find out what motivates his change of heart and see if with that information a solution can be found. If they are just bored or anti social and this is now showing, you have to cut your losses. If they are in a stressful situation leading to be an *******, maybe they understand that you should not be thevalve for their frustration. This is not a problem of a minmaxer. Minmaxer are behaving well when they have their toys and they are usually good sports about them.
Agreed. Aim to keep the game fair. One good strategy when the party is asymmetrical is to develop persistent antagonists. If a villain or a party of villains is following or challenging the adventuring party, they will take the time to identify the heavy hitter and develop a reason-based strategy that toes this character into account. conversely, and especially if the other players are feeling unfairly treated, just aim to bolster the other characters in similar fashions, to create equality.
One other thing which people haven't touched on is the initiative order - are you having the shield guardian act at the same time as the rogue? Bear in mind that a Shield Guardian is a DM creature, not one in direct control of the rogue. It acts on its own initiative, and follows verbal orders that the rogue gives it. The Rogue instructs you, the DM, on what they want the shield guardian to do, and then you make the guardian do it until they give other instructions.
So if the Rogue tells the guardian to attack something, then the guardian will move to attack it. If the rogue is then subject to some spell or effect which mutes them, then they cannot issue further orders. The guardian will pursue the target indefinitely. A cunning opponent will use this tactic to lure the guardian away, possibly even to such an extent that finding it again will be a quest in itself.
Shield guardians are Large creatures. Add some restricted space into the mix to prevent them from accompanying them. A narrow crack that leads into the cave, a small doorway which leads into the fortress.
Charm the rogue and ask them to give the amulet to you. That'll change the mechanics of the battle real quick.
Have a stranger approach them with a challenge - he has been admiring your shield guardian and offers you a contest, his construct vs yours, pokemon style, playing for keeps. He is wearing a similar amulet. When they arrive at the arena, his construct is an iron golem. Make sure he wins!
Have them encounter a charming and incredibly skilled highwayman. Have him successfully steal the amulet with his sword (think Zorro) and flee into the woods. Have them return at a later level as a boss, and they can get their amulet back!
As for them refusing to give up their item when asked, I agree that it's something you need to discuss with them. Explain to them that if they don't every dungeon will have a narrow doorway, every boss will have their own shield guardian, just to balance them out, and explain that you really don't want to have to account for the shield guardian in every fight!
Once you give a player something, you can't really go back on it or start targeting it with Plot Based Kill Moves. Never, ever, give a player a magic item and then destroy it because balance-wise it has become an issue - destroy it only if that's something that the monsters would do (and note you can't target it whilst it's worn or carried). None of this "during the night thieves have snuck in and stolen that thing I don't like." But you also don't have to "refund" items that get destroyed. You made a mistake giving them free rein to choose whatever they wanted, and the player was turd for arguing that they have to be allowed to have it, but you need to just leave it be.
The rogue is hard to kill and deals a lot of damage? That's not a problem. They're overpowered, but they built their character that way, and that's their choice. Part of the 'build' was allowing them to have those Rare items. Now you have to live with it, I'm afraid. But to be honest, I don't really see that there is that much of a problem. All you need to do is take the shield guardian into account in the CR of the challenges that you set. Treat it as if an additional level 12 character had joined the party. The Guardian is in fact a buff to the entire party, not to the rogue directly. It's an NPC that helps them out. This is a bit of a pain as basically the rogue player has 2 PCs, but that's literally what the item is supposed to do.
The party are way over their challenge rating, but you also said you had the rogue down to 30hp and basically everyone else unconscious or tapped out. That sounds like it was an exciting, brutal and close-call fight. It doesn't matter how much damage reduction the rogue has if he's the only one left standing and there are still a bunch of enemies against him. You should not try to fix this with things that specifically target the Shield Guardian Amulet, the Shield Guardian, or the rogue. Just amend the campaign so that it's of appropriate power level. If the other PCs are lagging behind outside the rogue's other abilities (and he just sounds like a standard rogue?), give them homebrew magical items that only they can attune to that equal things out. You could give everyone a Shield Guardian if you want to.
I once played an EK who had AC21 at level 6, with Shield and Prot Good and Evil in a Curse of Strahd campaign (basically it was like having AC31). I was practically unhittable, and I managed to craft an Adamantine Shield so I was crit immune even if he did hit me. The DM just stopped throwing attacks at my character unless the monsters couldn't do anything else, even though he also put out consistent damage, because he knew he was unlikely to hit me. That was crappy DM'ing, running things around me to get to any other character. It took an aspect of my character I liked and diminished it.
In terms of Revivify, they need diamonds to cast that - are you just tossing those out willy nilly? Try to ensure that the party never has enough for more than 1-2 Revivify at most. That will mean that they can't afford to burn them on an allied construct. Just because the PCs have money, it doesn't mean that there are hundreds of gp of diamonds available all the time.
Honestly this does not sound like a player I would want in my group, The arguing about the magic items and the threatening of other players are both red flags. I would keep an eye on this player.
I'm pretty sure the problem in this thread has been resolved one way or another in the fourteen months since it was first posted. This forum doesn't forbid thread necromancy but best to limit it to threads that actually have lasting value.
Dude, you are the DM, you ask them to take a different magic item and they refuse? You either get another player or power up encounters match the power level of the party, or you take the item away somehow.
1 Have a big ass creature eat the guardian, then escape a fight
2 A rival rogue steals the amulet
3 its a large creature that weigh a lot, there are plenty of places where it wouldn't be able to follow
4 Disintegrate, nothing to revivify
5 The wizard that made the amulet comes looking for it along with more shield guardians and other minions -Casts suggestion on the rogue until it hits, tells him to return the amulet -Teleports out
Do what ever you want because right now you have one guy ruining the game for everyone else, that is why the other players said they didn't want to revive the guardian if it dies. Do what you need to do and explain that he refused to pick another item, and that item was breaking the game, if he leaves, then you are all going to be better off not playing with him anyhow.
This thread is old. The campaign already ended (due to scheduling issues). I dealt with the problem before the campaign ended, though; I had a powerful spellcaster hire some mercenaries and they of course identified the shield guardian as a serious threat and stole the amulet. The character got it back but the player decided to give up the Master's Amulet as they understood it was my way of trying to get rid of the disruptive item. I play with the same player now, in a slightly different group (a lot of the same people but with a few additions and a player lost to scheduling issues). The player has really shaped up their behavior and was probably acting out due to personal issues.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
call me Anna or Kerns, (she/her), usually a DM, lgbtq+ friendly
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You do make a good point, but I've played with them for a while. Up until like a month ago they were a great player, who while optimized never broke the game intentionally, listened/worked with the DM (me in most cases), and never caused arguments for no reason. But, in the past month or so they've been a lot to handle. They've started pointless arguments and then when told to cut it out continued for a while and then took the argument to DM's (direct messages not other DMs) (we play over discord and I'm going to be trying out Roll20 for maps), were completely rude and noncommittal when confronted about their behavior and how it had to stop, and now this. I figure something has to be going on but I'm not sure what and don't want to kick them if they're going through a rough time and that's why they're acting out. Plus, we've just joined a new campaign together and I don't want to make that awkward by kicking them from my games because if I kick them from one I'll have to kick them from the other so they doesn't cause problems in that.
call me Anna or Kerns, (she/her), usually a DM, lgbtq+ friendly
This sounds like you need an OOC conversation. I know you said they were rude and noncommittal when confronted but try again.
If it's me... well, I am telling them that I will not be able to keep DMing under these conditions so either they help me sort it out or they find another DM. But you have to be willing to pull the trigger on it for real, if they won't straighten up. Making it as an empty threat will not work and will only make things worse.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I'm very sorry to hear that OP. Last year, my entire group had to completely cut ties with a player (who was also a very old and dear friend of ours) because of things that were happening outside of the game. It was one of the hardest things I've had to do, but it was necessary.
Have a talk with your player, and I mean *really* talk. It won't be fun, and you'll probably end up digging up things behind the scenes that are really unpleasant, but the situation won't change if you don't. Be honest, and lay out the stakes with the player, and hopefully they'll be willing to work with you, but if they don't then you have to be ready for the worst and tell them they need to find another table.
To give a good answer, we would need to know what the other players in the group like. There is nothing wrong with the min-maxer's play style on its own. He or she wants to build the best character he or she can within the rules provided and then use their strengths to defeat the enemies. Do not try to take that away from that player; that will just cause more strife. The issue here is that this player seems to be overshadowing the other players. I would suggest seeing what the other players like and giving them their time to shine as well. If you need to make combat more balanced since that is the what everyone else likes as well, I would suggest giving the other players some more magic items. However, it is also possible that this group of players does not gel very well and needs to have some serious out of game conversations about what everyone likes and doesn't to get the game to a point where everyone is able to enjoy.
I highly recommend this video from Matt Colville about how to engage different types of players: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQsJSqn71Fw&list=PLlUk42GiU2guNzWBzxn7hs8MaV7ELLCP_&index=13&t=0s
Your dilemma aside, this player is Violating Wheaton’s Law. This player has threatened to become unpleasant if you try to balance the game for the other players … I’d ask them to sit out a few games. The other thing you can do is have your NPCs treat the party the way they party treats NPCs: target the big-bad first! Have NPCs target the guardian and it’s master first, if they are more of a threat. Lastly, find reasonable ways to buff the other party members, to get them up to snuff, so to speak.
There is nothing you can do besides playing "fair" and sucking your discomfort up. The player likes his char and his amulet. If you start targeting it, they will rage quit. You need to find out what motivates his change of heart and see if with that information a solution can be found. If they are just bored or anti social and this is now showing, you have to cut your losses. If they are in a stressful situation leading to be an *******, maybe they understand that you should not be thevalve for their frustration. This is not a problem of a minmaxer. Minmaxer are behaving well when they have their toys and they are usually good sports about them.
Agreed. Aim to keep the game fair. One good strategy when the party is asymmetrical is to develop persistent antagonists. If a villain or a party of villains is following or challenging the adventuring party, they will take the time to identify the heavy hitter and develop a reason-based strategy that toes this character into account. conversely, and especially if the other players are feeling unfairly treated, just aim to bolster the other characters in similar fashions, to create equality.
One other thing which people haven't touched on is the initiative order - are you having the shield guardian act at the same time as the rogue? Bear in mind that a Shield Guardian is a DM creature, not one in direct control of the rogue. It acts on its own initiative, and follows verbal orders that the rogue gives it. The Rogue instructs you, the DM, on what they want the shield guardian to do, and then you make the guardian do it until they give other instructions.
So if the Rogue tells the guardian to attack something, then the guardian will move to attack it. If the rogue is then subject to some spell or effect which mutes them, then they cannot issue further orders. The guardian will pursue the target indefinitely. A cunning opponent will use this tactic to lure the guardian away, possibly even to such an extent that finding it again will be a quest in itself.
Shield guardians are Large creatures. Add some restricted space into the mix to prevent them from accompanying them. A narrow crack that leads into the cave, a small doorway which leads into the fortress.
Charm the rogue and ask them to give the amulet to you. That'll change the mechanics of the battle real quick.
Have a stranger approach them with a challenge - he has been admiring your shield guardian and offers you a contest, his construct vs yours, pokemon style, playing for keeps. He is wearing a similar amulet. When they arrive at the arena, his construct is an iron golem. Make sure he wins!
Have them encounter a charming and incredibly skilled highwayman. Have him successfully steal the amulet with his sword (think Zorro) and flee into the woods. Have them return at a later level as a boss, and they can get their amulet back!
As for them refusing to give up their item when asked, I agree that it's something you need to discuss with them. Explain to them that if they don't every dungeon will have a narrow doorway, every boss will have their own shield guardian, just to balance them out, and explain that you really don't want to have to account for the shield guardian in every fight!
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!
Once you give a player something, you can't really go back on it or start targeting it with Plot Based Kill Moves. Never, ever, give a player a magic item and then destroy it because balance-wise it has become an issue - destroy it only if that's something that the monsters would do (and note you can't target it whilst it's worn or carried). None of this "during the night thieves have snuck in and stolen that thing I don't like." But you also don't have to "refund" items that get destroyed. You made a mistake giving them free rein to choose whatever they wanted, and the player was turd for arguing that they have to be allowed to have it, but you need to just leave it be.
The rogue is hard to kill and deals a lot of damage? That's not a problem. They're overpowered, but they built their character that way, and that's their choice. Part of the 'build' was allowing them to have those Rare items. Now you have to live with it, I'm afraid. But to be honest, I don't really see that there is that much of a problem. All you need to do is take the shield guardian into account in the CR of the challenges that you set. Treat it as if an additional level 12 character had joined the party. The Guardian is in fact a buff to the entire party, not to the rogue directly. It's an NPC that helps them out. This is a bit of a pain as basically the rogue player has 2 PCs, but that's literally what the item is supposed to do.
The party are way over their challenge rating, but you also said you had the rogue down to 30hp and basically everyone else unconscious or tapped out. That sounds like it was an exciting, brutal and close-call fight. It doesn't matter how much damage reduction the rogue has if he's the only one left standing and there are still a bunch of enemies against him. You should not try to fix this with things that specifically target the Shield Guardian Amulet, the Shield Guardian, or the rogue. Just amend the campaign so that it's of appropriate power level. If the other PCs are lagging behind outside the rogue's other abilities (and he just sounds like a standard rogue?), give them homebrew magical items that only they can attune to that equal things out. You could give everyone a Shield Guardian if you want to.
I once played an EK who had AC21 at level 6, with Shield and Prot Good and Evil in a Curse of Strahd campaign (basically it was like having AC31). I was practically unhittable, and I managed to craft an Adamantine Shield so I was crit immune even if he did hit me. The DM just stopped throwing attacks at my character unless the monsters couldn't do anything else, even though he also put out consistent damage, because he knew he was unlikely to hit me. That was crappy DM'ing, running things around me to get to any other character. It took an aspect of my character I liked and diminished it.
In terms of Revivify, they need diamonds to cast that - are you just tossing those out willy nilly? Try to ensure that the party never has enough for more than 1-2 Revivify at most. That will mean that they can't afford to burn them on an allied construct. Just because the PCs have money, it doesn't mean that there are hundreds of gp of diamonds available all the time.
Honestly this does not sound like a player I would want in my group, The arguing about the magic items and the threatening of other players are both red flags. I would keep an eye on this player.
I'm pretty sure the problem in this thread has been resolved one way or another in the fourteen months since it was first posted. This forum doesn't forbid thread necromancy but best to limit it to threads that actually have lasting value.
Now they don’t have any magic. Good for them.
You’re the DM. Be the DM.
Well, that was a mistake. Tell them you made a mistake, snd you need them to select different items, with your final approval.
If/when they say no you simply delete all their magic and drive on.
How do you challenge a min-maxer? Have them figure out how to help the other members of the party instead of just themselves.
<Insert clever signature here>
Dude, you are the DM, you ask them to take a different magic item and they refuse? You either get another player or power up encounters match the power level of the party, or you take the item away somehow.
1 Have a big ass creature eat the guardian, then escape a fight
2 A rival rogue steals the amulet
3 its a large creature that weigh a lot, there are plenty of places where it wouldn't be able to follow
4 Disintegrate, nothing to revivify
5 The wizard that made the amulet comes looking for it along with more shield guardians and other minions
-Casts suggestion on the rogue until it hits, tells him to return the amulet
-Teleports out
Do what ever you want because right now you have one guy ruining the game for everyone else, that is why the other players said they didn't want to revive the guardian if it dies. Do what you need to do and explain that he refused to pick another item, and that item was breaking the game, if he leaves, then you are all going to be better off not playing with him anyhow.
This thread is old. The campaign already ended (due to scheduling issues). I dealt with the problem before the campaign ended, though; I had a powerful spellcaster hire some mercenaries and they of course identified the shield guardian as a serious threat and stole the amulet. The character got it back but the player decided to give up the Master's Amulet as they understood it was my way of trying to get rid of the disruptive item. I play with the same player now, in a slightly different group (a lot of the same people but with a few additions and a player lost to scheduling issues). The player has really shaped up their behavior and was probably acting out due to personal issues.
call me Anna or Kerns, (she/her), usually a DM, lgbtq+ friendly